Date: Mar 24, 2013 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3/24/2013 4:19 PM, WM wrote:
> On 24 Mrz., 20:39, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> But if David had left out the world "all", and said merely
>> "In fact, Aleph_0 lines are required
>> (necessary sufficient) to contain all of the naturals."
>> then David would have been correct, since EVERY set of aleph_0 lines is
>> sufficient but no set of less than aleph_0 lines is sufficient.
> We know your statements of faith. But where do you get aleph_0 lines
> without using lines of the infinite set of aleph_0 lines that, as
> provable in mathematics, are not sufficient?
What is provable in mathematics is provable with respect to
defined terms related to one another through defined logics.
You confuse the theory of monotonic inclusive crayon marks
You should stop doing that.
If you do not like established mathematical methods, then
define your own and present them for consideration and
for a consensus with regard to adequacy.
> And why would you apply
> lines of a provably insufficient set in an asserted sufficient set -
> other than for cheating, I mean?
Are you making accusations of "lies" and "cheating" again?
You would not find yourself resorting to such unfortunate
decisions if you would simply explain yourself.
You have been asked to defend your philosophy of
mathematics. No one here other than you has made
claims concerning the ground of mathematics in relation
to empirical science or the theories of time associated
with that science.
You have been asked to define the formation rules and
transformation rules of the logic you claim to be "mathematical"
even though you clearly do not abide by what is commonly
referred to as mathematical logic. No one here other
than you has a theory of quantification which treates "every"
and "all" as significantly different. But, you refuse
to explain your meaning with precision.
You have been asked to define the mathematical terms
you use. When others in this forum are asked to do
so, they make the effort to do so. If you do not
appreciate comments with regard to "the theory of
monotonic inclusive crayon marks" then define your
mathematics and demonstrate its relevancy.
The fact of the matter is this: you do not know
enough mathematics to do these things.
So you resort to insult and slander.