On 2/17/2013 11:53 AM, WM wrote: > On 16 Feb., 23:01, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> it occurs to me that his issue with the reversal >> of quantifiers in relation to directed set structure >> is the key. > > You are in error. The argument is much more complicated than primitive > quaantifyer reversal. > > The argument is, unfamiliar as it is: d is nothing but every FIS > d_1, ..., d_n. And it is obvious that every FIS is a line. This > statement can only be checked up to every finite n. Therefore d is not > ouside of every line.
Shut up.
Did you see the part where I wrote:
"And, as I consider how WM never tires of the same meager statements rather than substantive discussion,..."
One "checks" a given counting argument with a different counting argument.
One "checks" a given solution by plugging it back into the statement of a problem.
One does not "check" induction.
One does not "check" iteration.
Real mathematicians work to understand how one might faithfully represent common uses of mathematical reasoning so that those techniques might be more easily understood by others. They employ mathematical reasoning to solve problems which they find interesting or which have merit based on various measures of utility to themselves or others.
They may disagree on various specifics, but most do not engage in the simple harassment that you do.
As I said to you before. You are too stupid to understand "my basics". If you are so certain that I have oversimplified matters, then engage and explain yourself in full detail and with full rigor.
