Re: Highlight reel from the George and Phil show, Re: I am really getting tired of people stepping all over my conversations

On May 23, 5:53 pm, James Burns <burns...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
PS -- In case George reads this far, here is something
for him to snip again:

Now THAT was a constructive comment.
Indeed, I would NOT normally read this far.
Very good use of "In case".

1 Phil
Message-ID: <46226F07.2090305@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Alright George, you have me ... would you please give me a MODERN proof

This is #1 of the 4 relevant messages I was talking about.
This is the founding message of this side-thread.

2 George -> 1 Phil
Message-ID: <1176665703.220029.105560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A proof won't convince you unless you accept the axioms.

This message is not relevant. It should've been, but Phil's ADD took
over.
See, JQB DIDN'T READ this message. IF HE HAD, he would know that
all that OTHER crap he spewed about MY being "too technical" because
I dared to say something COMPLICATED like "second order logic" was
just
a bunch of [his, JB's] crap. The purpose of THIS message was to
revel
in the complexity OF THE ZFC PROOF THAT MOEBLEE was presenting
and to INVITE Phil to consider a DIFFERENT approach with some SIMPLER
axioms. Phil never understood the invitation, unfortunately.

3 Phil -> 2 George
Message-ID: <4622B662.3010408@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I NEVER said you could have a set with infinitely many finite naturals!

This was what JB intended as the smoking gun. This is Phil
replying to ME in the context of a thread started from his invitation.
Unfortunately, since JB didn't READ this message, he doesn't
know that what Phil does in this message is start lying about
how he did or didn't get misquoted about infinite subsets of naturals,
and THEN start talking about marks in an accumulator. Any possibility
of his actually receiving the new proof he asked for has been
completely
thrown away, BY HIM, on THIS subthread.

4 George -> 3 Phil
Message-ID: <1176748659.904576.262740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Well, obviously, you can, since THERE ARE infinitely many finite

This is me continuing on what Phil, in the previous messge, turned
into the "marks in accumulators" subthread. The "modern proof"
subthread
is one on which he has not yet AND NEVER did engage. THAT was all
*I* was saying. JB was saying that I was a liar and an *** for
saying it,
because JB is a liar and an ***.

5 Jim (me) -> 4 George
Message-ID: <4623FFAA.8020905@xxxxxxx>
Uh, George? There are plenty of contradictions to pick from

This was JB's aforementioned pinprick.

None of the above was relevant except insofar as it misled JB
into thinking Phil had replied to me regarding my acceptance of
his invitation to give him a proof, WHEN HE HADN'T.

6 George -> 3 Phil
Message-ID: <1176751196.786737.55990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You DID SO, TOO. YOU SAID:

This is to 3 Phil and not to 1 Phil, so it is obviously not about the
proof.


7 George -> 1 Phil
Message-ID: <1176667530.149388.184720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You don't want to use set theory for this.

This is the needle that JB never picked out of the haystack.
This is the message he wanted me to highlight for him and
to acknowledge that he had "found". This is message #2 of the
4 relevant messages I was talking about. My point was that
if JB wasn't smart enough to figure THAT out by himself then
he wasn't smart enough to be commenting.

When JB finally DID get around to commenting, he had the effrontery
to whine that this message talks about 2nd-order logic and was
therefore too complicated (idiot -- JB, that is) for Phil (a lower
order
of idiot). THE POINT was that ZFC has 10 axioms including 2
infinitary
schemata. It has a lot of complicated ideas. THIS treatment only has
THREE axioms, with only ONE infinitary schema (induction) that Phil
already claimed to be comfortable with. So do I WIN, 10-3 ? Not
quite;
I am going up from 1st-order ZFC to 2nd-order PA, so the question is,
how much harder is the higher order? The answer turns out to be
NOT MUCH HARDER
AT ALL; the ONLY thing you have to add to get to 2nd-order is that
you can work with SETS OF natnums in addition to individual ones, and
the SIMPLER part is that you get these sests WITHOUT THE OTHER 7
AXIOMS from set theory.
Or, rather, without 6 of them. Alleging that all the subsets of the
naturals
are available in your universe (to be quantified over) is very much
like
ZFC's powerset axiom, or at least like 1 iteration of it (the powerset
axiom actually takes you up through ALL the orders). So the point is,
I was dealing with 3 axioms plus a weakened version of the powerset
axiom. I was SIMPLER than 1st-order ZFC, despite being at 2nd-order
(it was the 2nd-order version of a MUCH simpler, or at least more
simply-
presented, theory).

8 George -> 1 Phil
Message-ID: <1176767556.873786.120330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I originally thought that was promising.

This is a reply to the original invitation but it is, like 2, just
motivation.
The actual response was 7.

9 George -> 1 Phil
Message-ID: <1176770179.631495.165690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A "modern" proof means "using standard classical

This was with a completely different subject-title which I was hoping
would isolate it from the cacophony. This was also supportive of 7.
This was the basic introduction to notation in 2nd-order logic.
This was basically my proof that this treatment was, despite being
higher-order, lower in complexity than the other treatment.
JB either wasn't convinced, in which case he is an idiot, or
didn't read it, in which case he is a bigger idiot for claiming to
know
that it was relevant to the question of whether Phil did or didn't
reply.
Phil in fact NEVER DID reply.
Phil in fact NEVER DID reply to 7 EITHER.
I repeat, everything JB is going to cite here (and a lot of
things he was too stupid to figure out to cite as relevant)
WILL ALL confirm my point that Phil did NOT reply to any of
my messages attempting to grant his request for a proof.

10 Phil -> 8 George
Message-ID: <462890D3.6040301@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
George, 200 years earlier -- I believe in his "Two New Sciences" book --

This is Phil's idiotic non sequitur about whether "what Galileo said"
was vs. wasn't a "proof". I had no way of knowing he was going to
harp on that little issue while ignoring all the important stuff.
This is another example of JB ignorantly thinking he has found
a smoking gun, when 8 itself doesn't even begin to present a proof,
and this reply to 8 intentionally veers away from the proof and toward
a silly dispute in the history of science. 8 had only been intended
as
a heads-up about the title of the subthread where my response to
Phil's request would appear. But instead of going to the subthread
and engaging, Phil reacts to the ANNOUNCEMENT message with
nit-picking about whether Galileo knew better than Phil Almighty
what a proof was.


11 George -> 10 Phil
Message-ID: <1177078780.820220.306900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
There was a proof that there was a 1-1 correspondence

This is me smacking Phil around for veering off the subject in the
hope
that he will choose to discuss something more reasonable (like the
aforementioned proof). But Phil never replied to any of the messages
that were responding to his request for a proof.

This 11-citation attempt to prove otherwise is not only vain,
it's utterly assholic. For JB to be worrying about whether
the way *I* try to own my conversations and arguments in
real life is making ME unpopular is quite backwards.




.

Quantcast