On 3/8/2014 2:30 PM, Virgil wrote: > But such carefulness with the truth is well beyond WM's capabilities.
Virgil, over the years a carefulness with the truth is part of conscientiousness with the truth. Here at least with mathematical truth and logical truth, for example in definition with at least given terms to establish constants, predicates, relations, then it is not enough to have a definition of the integers, rather the framework about it defines the sophistication of the conscientious acknowledgment of the facts about the numbers, here as from an inductive set and each finite n-set or initial segment of ordinals or ordinal.
What is required is the carefulness of the truth that it is beyond the standard consequences of the definitions.
Here then it is for the least amount that is infinite and the least amount that is continuous. Where there isn't that, the numbers aspire to it. For, the greatest amount is infinite and continuous.
Carefulness with the truth requires having a quite direct grasp of it.
This, compared to carefulness about "truths".
Then, for me, luckily I wrote it as I saw fit here with the grasp in foundations and the usual chance in mathematics at finding something new in foundations (zero). Then it was simply to expound upon foundations that course would bear out. This then simply made enough sense to me that I could go on as I saw fit about it. Here for example the general comment then is of the lift, to make sense. The point in that would be the estimation on the high energy lines, then as those are usually interpolated or carried out, then general idea of the usual features and effects of systems large and small in the large, the usual effects are stochastic and measurable there must be some mathematical explanation for them.