|
|
Re: A finite set of all naturals
Posted:
Aug 24, 2013 10:29 AM
|
|
Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 24/08/2013 1:00 AM, Peter Percival wrote:
>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>> On 24/08/2013 12:12 AM, Peter Percival wrote:
>>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>>> On 23/08/2013 11:25 PM, Peter Percival wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you keep on changing your definitions and none of them are
>>>>>> coherent in the first place, how can anyone understand you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you speak for everyone (some of whom might be at professor level)
>>>>> who might read the conversations here?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> So you might be speaking for Chris Menzel, Aatu Koskensilta, Herman
>>> Rubin, Mike Oliver, Rupert, David Libert, ..., to name a few?
>>
>> Don't forget Torkel, I'm also a spirit medium.
>
> May as well speak for Godel!
>
>>
>> Tell me something, who among Chris Menzel, Aatu Koskensilta, Herman
>> Rubin, Mike Oliver, Rupert and David Libert can understand your
>> definition of positive formula? If you can tell me that, I won't need
>> to trouble you, I'll go straight to them.
>
> I won't tell you anything here, since I don't claim to speak for them.
>
> They may or may not "see" what I'm up to. Who knows.
>
Trolling?
--
Sorrow in all lands, and grievous omens.
Great anger in the dragon of the hills,
And silent now the earth's green oracles
That will not speak again of innocence.
David Sutton -- Geomancies
|
|
