Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 06/05/04
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- In reply to: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:23:46 -0500
On 5 Jun 2004 04:43:47 -0700, chvol@aol.com (Charlie-Boo) wrote:
>David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote
>> On 4 Jun 2004 10:34:20 -0700, chvol@aol.com (Charlie-Boo) wrote:
>>
>> >David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> I've never studied ZF. And yes, claiming that _one_ axiom is
>> >> the reason something is not finitely axiomatizable is stupid.
>> >> This has nothing to do with expertise in ZF - you just have
>> >> to know that a finite number plus one is a finite number.
>>
>> >> ************************
>> >>
>> >> David C. Ullrich
>> >
>> >To accuse someone of not knowing that a finite number plus one equals
>> >a finite number only shows you to be the pompous fool that you are,
>> >willing to use any form of twisted logic to try to make a point.
>>
>> Uh, I didn't accuse you of not knowing that.
>
>Modus Tolens
Nope. You're being sloppy here.
>> Why aren't you answering any of the questions I asked in
>> the post that you're replying to?
You seem to have missed this one too...
>> ************************
>>
>> David C. Ullrich
>
>I made a casual comment about how the Axiom of Foundation is the only
>ZF axiom (schema) that specifies what cannot be a set, and that maybe
>that's why they can't be finitely axiomized. Then I went on to my
>other thoughts.
>
>You pointed out that it's a single axiom and so it can't change what
>can be finitely axiomized. I agreed, saying that it's obvious when
>you consider that fact, that it represents only a single axiom.
No, you never said that. (Go ahead, show that I'm lying: give a
quote of you saying that - make certain to include the Message-ID.)
>I later added that I have not studied ZF, and in fact only first read
>about it here fairly recently. My background is a computer programmer
>who has studied the Theory of Computation and some Proof Theory, where
>I just hadn't come across ZF before.
>
>That was a polite, professional exchange. Then you started using the
>word "stupid" - repeatedly. I was stupid to claim the above. All you
>have to know is that 1 + a finite number is a finite number. Stupid
>stupid stupid you kept saying.
Poor baby.
>You have read my posts, including a number of times where I
>successfully solved problems (including proofs) that people had
>posted. Is it reasonable to ignore that and conclude from a casual
>remark – actually just speculation - that I am "stupid"?
Did I say you were stupid? I'm not going to actually state that
I never did, but I don't recall saying so.
On the other hand, speculating that foundation is the reason
that ZF is not finitely axiomatizable _is_ stupid, because
it's so awesomely obvious that if ZF minus foundation were
finitely axiomatizable then ZF would be as well.
>That is a public insult, totally unfair, and not at all accurate.
The fact that you don't realize how funny everyone is going to
find this sort of whining, coming from _you_, is, um, can't
think of the word...
>(Stupid people don't score 800 on their Math SAT.)
Giggle. Sorry, I mean of wow, you actually got an 800 on
your Math SAT? Wow.
> It also shows a
>very abusive streak in your personality. It's as if you want to jump
>on the first chance you see to put someone down, even based on a
>casual comment that, as I said, I hadn't thought any further about.
>Then you said that it was stupid to make a comment without thinking it
>through.
>
>David Ullrich, you are a jerk. You seem to know a lot of theorems,
You forgot to include the second half of that - I know a lot of
theorems but I'm incapable of correct reasoning.
>and I thought that you would contribute to this forum and my learning
>from what people post here (just as I learned about ZF here.) But the
>abusive way you relate to people is personally offensive to me,
Guffaw.
>to the
>point of having no interest in this interaction,
Then why do you continue the "interaction"?
And why don't you answer the other questions I asked a few
posts up?
>no matter what amount
>of background knowledge you might be able to contribute.
>
>Charlie Volkstorf
>Cambridge, MA
>
>PS When I go on and on about being the only person to ever axiomatize
>Program Synthesis or the Theory of Computation, I am half joking -
>really just trying to get people to prove me wrong. Honestly, I have
>never read where anyone else has ever accomplished this, and do want
>to know if anyone else has.
>
>PPS You do occasionally add a nice touch of humility. Maybe you're
>Manic Depressant? :)
Yeah, that's probably it.
It really _is_ axiomatic on usenet that when you see someone
whining about personal insults you know without looking it up
who's really been engaging in such. Find a post in this thread
where I've said something about _you_ (as opposed to something
about something you said.) Let me know which post that was.
************************
David C. Ullrich
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- In reply to: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
