Re: Contradiction or paradox

On May 19, 3:27 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 19, 4:55 am, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What was that word? Right, "irresponsible". Yes, his claims
about Megill's thingie have certainly been irresponsible,
_since_ he's _repeating_ false claims, in particular that
there's no difference between + and - above, in spite of
the fact that the difference _was_ very clearly explained
to him _last_ time.

You provide nothing. You prove nothing. You substantiate nothing.

Such sweeping generalizations about Ullrich who has indeed proven
things in various posts and who has indeed provided help in that
manner, and whose quote above is of course not a proof but is
neverthless a fine summation of what has been substantiated, which is:

You have not substantiated your claim that Megill's system is
inconsistent and have failed to responsibly address that your argument
about Megill's system is utterly specious since you keep arguing as
if the theorem in Megill's system in question does not have
hypotheses.

MoeBlee


.

Loading