In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 May 2014 20:46:13 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > 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?
Does WM then claim that one can be ruled by rules that have not been and cannot be stated explicitly? That is like having a legal system built on unwritten and unwritable laws.
> You are trapped within your own silly claims.
Having to have a system built on unwritten and apparently unwritable rules, like WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, seems a far sillier claim. --