Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof

On Jun 5, 5:02 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2007-06-05, in sci.logic, MoeBlee wrote:

I would have thought that he would have taken that in the reasonable
sense of learning how to perform proofs in a formal theory as that
would contribute to an appreciation of the difference between a bunch
of undefined mathematical sounding prose and an argument informally
given but in principle formalizable (especially since his agenda is to
show a contradiction in ZFC). But he took what I said as material for
a strawman as if I could avoid hypocrisy only by myself giving
arguments strictly in a formal language. Such responses as that are
indicative of someone who does not wish to actually understand the
subject at hand (even if with the ultimate goal of making an attempt
to prove inconsistency).

Yes, quite evil of him.

Oh come now [that's one I'm borrowing from you know who], I didn't say
it's evil.

Perhaps -- not that it is any business of mine --
that might suggest it's entirely pointless to explain, explicate, show
stuff to the idiotic individuals?

In the case of the most entrenched cranks, such posts to them are
pointless if the expectation is that of getting through to them. But
one may have one's own reasons for such seemingly unrewarding posting
to cranks, which - as with any such endeavor, habit, or vice - are not
necessarily so very rational in terms of expectations of particular
outcomes.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages