Re: Countable models of ZFC

On Sep 28, 4:32 pm, abo <dkfjd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AK asked,
What is this "outer model" you're babbling about?

OK, maybe he didn't really mean "babbling" as an insult.
Maybe it was a legitimate request for clarification.
But the person who needs to provide that clarification is
Rupert. If Rupert had half the sense he is pretending to have,
HE WOULD KNOW that the fact that AK had a QUESTION
about this and I DIDN'T implies that I UNDERSTOOD what he
(Rupert) was talking about AND AK DIDN'T. Of course, that
would first require Rupert to understand what he HIMSELF was
talking about. Rupert's later claims that he wasn't using any
model theory, Even after he claimed that <A,e> was a model and
A was a set (OK, it was later <M,e>, and M was a set), somewhat
advertise HIS own cluelessness as well.

NO points for STUPID questions.


Are there points then for STUPID comments then,
or just comments
containing the word STUPID?

This is a stupid question.
If you think I made a stupid comment then you need to
EXPLAIN WHY the comment is stupid. You need to address
THE MATH in the comment and not just the fact that your delicate
sensibilities have been offended.

MY attitude, I am forced to suspect that you actually
WANT to see me emoting because it's more entertaining
than my lame attempts at math.

No, it's not more entertaining; it's simply disgusting.

People are legitimately presumed to intend the foreseeable
consequences of their actions. If you don't want to see this
then it is very simple for you to refrain from provoking it.
I AM NOT the one who STARTED with the intemperate language
in this thread. I said that Rupert's characterization was a glib
gloss,
and got TWO replie:. A perfectly rational one from AK and a
completely
insulting one from Rupert alleging that I was too stupid to understand
a membership relation. When I pointed out that there were TWO models
and TWO membership relations involved, all I got from Rupert was more
abuse.

If you are going to claim to feel disgusted then all I can say
is that you lack relevant skills in computing WHOM you need
to be disgusted WITH.


I suspect you
actually do think it entertains us, which is why you continue.

No, it is NOT to entertain.
It is to VENT. I (obviously) choose my language for
ME, not you.

And calling people who are more knowledgeable than you

People who are more knowledgeable in general can
(OBVIOUSLY) be mistaken about individual particular
issues; that is ESPECIALLY the case when YOU are going
to bring in NON-mathematical issues like why I use capital
letters.

and who are trying to help you,

Oh, Shut Up.
I can judge that quite competently BY myself,
THANK you, and Rupert's choice of replies here
not only has not BEEN helpful, it has not been INTENDED
to be, either. If you are going to presume to disagree then
that kind of arrogant presumption is going to call YOUR motives
equally into question.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Countable models of ZFC
    ... Maybe it was a legitimate request for clarification. ... If Rupert had half the sense he is pretending to have, ... Are there points then for STUPID comments then, ... It was not insulting. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Countable models of ZFC
    ... Are there points then for STUPID comments then, ... There is no math in the comment, "NO points for STUPID questions." ... Rupert said, "I'm sorry you had so much trouble ... because you are clearly NOT competent to judge. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A Creepy Feeling
    ... I completely believe what Rupert has written, ... But that's an awfully deep well to draw on. ... likely to run out of years before he runs out of stupid. ... Neil, dood, yer ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Mariane: The Delacroix one and all the others. Photos. Where?? TIA
    ... > Utter cunt. ... Too scared to post again under the name Rupert are you? ... Twat. ... Too stupid to use Google are you? ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Quantcast