fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: ZFC is inconsistent
Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 8:09 AM


On 3/17/2013 5:37 AM, WM wrote: > On 17 Mrz., 10:54, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 3/16/2013 4:57 PM, WM wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 16 Mrz., 16:13, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> >>>> Where we come to the question of >>>> how you refer to points without >>>> an implicit use of infinity. >> >>> All points that you can define geometrically, belong to a finite >>> collection. >> >>>> This, of course, comes back to >>>> how you refer singularly without >>>> an implicit use of infinity. >> >>> A unit can be defined without referring to infinity. I think it is one >>> of the silliest arguments of matheology that infinity is required to >>> define finity. It is simply insane. >> >> No. It is merely respectful  something of >> which you seem incapable. >> > Respect requires a respectable object. > Insanities do not deserve respect.
Exactly.
Playing with crayons does nothing to account for the apparent successes of mathematics with respect to its applications.
That is all that your theory of marks comes to.

