Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?
From: Charlie-Boo (chvol_at_aol.com)
Date: 06/05/04
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Reality"
- Previous message: Nobuo Saito: "Re: Where did the Koszul complex come from?"
- In reply to: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?"
- Next in thread: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?"
- Reply: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Jun 2004 04:43:47 -0700
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
> Why aren't you answering any of the questions I asked in
> the post that you're replying to?
>
> ************************
>
> 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.
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.
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"?
That is a public insult, totally unfair, and not at all accurate.
(Stupid people don't score 800 on their Math SAT.) 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,
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, to the
point of having no interest in this interaction, 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? :)
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Reality"
- Previous message: Nobuo Saito: "Re: Where did the Koszul complex come from?"
- In reply to: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?"
- Next in thread: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?"
- Reply: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can the deduction theorem be used recursively?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
