Date: Jan 23, 2013 12:09 PM
Author: David Bernier
Subject: Re: ZFC and God

On 01/23/2013 11:40 AM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> WM<> writes:

>> On 23 Jan., 14:39, "Jesse F. Hughes"<> wrote:

>>> If he wants to do math without the axiom of infinity, let him!
>> No, I show that it is not possible to do math with that axiom in a
>> consistent way.

>>> But
>>> his bloviating about inconsistency in ZF should occasionally be
>>> challenged, since it is so easy to show that he's full of bluster,
>>> jumping from topic to topic because he honestly knows that none of his
>>> arguments survive any real examination.

>> Try to find the difference between the Binary Trees. That should open
>> your eyes.

> Why not finish our discussion of N first? Why must you change the
> subject?

As an aside on debates and such, it's sometimes said that
controlling the "terms of reference" is important, as in:
"What is the issue? What is the query? What is the question
to be debated?"

This raises the question: What is relevant? (to the question of
the debate).

Naturally, I'll grant that here, "Binary Trees" is irrelevant !
to the question of ZF consistency ...

David Bernier

dracut:/# lvm vgcfgrestore
File descriptor 9 (/.console_lock) leaked on lvm invocation. Parent PID
993: sh
Please specify a *single* volume group to restore.