The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 224
Replies: 1   Last Post: Mar 21, 2013 6:08 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Alan Smaill

Posts: 1,103
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted: Mar 21, 2013 6:08 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

fom <> writes:

> On 3/20/2013 11:42 AM, YBM wrote:
>> Le 20/03/2013 17:35, WM a écrit :
>>> On 20 Mrz., 17:18, YBM <> wrote:
>>>> Proof, in the Mückenheim way, that an dog with no legs has two legs.
>>> It is a pity that you have no idea of what set-inclusion means. But I
>>> am not surprised.

>> The pity is that you do not recognize you OWN way of "prooving"
>> statement when you are in face of it.

> He cannot.
> "Proof by reality" is not based upon
> even his own methods.


WM claims to give proofs, but refuses to give axioms or definitions.
WM claims "proof by reality", yet tells us that proof by induction
yields conclusions about non-existent entities that are true
"without doubt".

WM is inconsistent.

Alan Smaill

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.