On Saturday, May 3, 2014 1:06:30 PM UTC-4, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> > Not at all. The great thing about formal proofs is that every one of a formal proof's assumptions and rules of inference have been made explicit. > > > > Wrong. Where is it made explicit, for instance, that everything has to be made explicit? Nowhere! So, why do you think that everything should be made explicit? >
Spoken like a true charlatan!
> > There are no references to what "every 6-year-old knows, > > > > Where is it made explicit that everything has to be made explicit? >
> > If, as in your example, you object to the well-ordering theorem, your should probably go back the axioms of set theory that are cited and explain why one of them might be invalid. So, which one is it, WM? > > > > I know it. But if you want to make a formal search then it's enough to know that the result is wrong and look for remedy by excluding an axiom after the other until the results are no longer wrong. >
If you cannot point out any faulty assumptions or inferences, and cannot formally disprove the result then, you must accept it.