On 18 Mrz., 20:00, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 3/18/2013 1:34 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > On 18 Mrz., 18:32, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> On 3/18/2013 6:43 AM, WM wrote: > > >>> On 18 Mrz., 07:26, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > >>>> You turn to an outdated strategy directed to > >>>> a situation that no longer exists rather > >>>> than do the hard work of grounding your > >>>> claims. You do this to say that just > >>>> because you do not believe a particular > >>>> axiom, > > >>> Wrong. I prove that the axiom is nonsense like the axiom that a > >>> triangle with four edges exists. > > >> That would be more forceful if you used the > >> term 'trilateral'. > > > Then it would be trivial. My example requires a little bit deeper > > thought. > > >> Once again. You have *proven* nothing. > > > As your foregoing hint shows, you seem to welcome trivialities, but > > you seem to be not able to understand more difficult ideas. > > > What I do not understand is how you consider > your refusal to provide a similar framework > to have merit.-
There is no framework necessary to show in ZFC that every word belongs to a countable set.
There is no framework necessary to see that choosing a number is tantamount to naming it. Only fools can object. But fools will not be convinced by what they don't believe. This is shown by all the matheologians who know of these simple ifacts but nevertheless refuse to understand that their "science" is humbug.