On 3/19/2013 7:28 AM, WM wrote: > On 17 Mrz., 07:11, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> >> The point of this question is >> that you claim such rules but >> ignore the work of others who >> have steadfastly worked at clarifying >> the nature of such rules as a >> matter of scientific principle >> (in the wider epistemological >> sense). > > I do not ignore these rules, but in some instances I can show that > they are contradictory.
You are unable to *show* anything by means of proof.
You use no form of commonly accepted logic.
You offer no alternative form of logic to be considered by others and agreed upon.
The extent that your statements have any coherence arises from the fact that the natural numbers satisfy a general mathematical structure called a directed set and that a mathematician named Euclid *proved* that there is no greatest prime number.
What you actually *show* is that if someone gives you a box of crayons, you know how to make marks.