Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:13:28 GMT

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:13:39 -0000, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
>"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:41fd0ac0.26573344@netnews.att.net...
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:58:03 -0000, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> in
>> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> >news:362t25F4slcvbU2@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> > Oh, I expect the square root of two is both real, finite, and
>requires
>> >> > infinitessimals for cardinal enurmeration.
>> >>
>> >> Actually irrational reals are defined by a Dedikind cut in which
>neither
>> >> of the cut sets have a bounding element.
>> >>
>> >> Bob Kolker
>> >
>> >Bloody hell, reading your post I just had a flash back from my days of
>> >undergrad calculus back in the 70s. I hardly remember any of that at all.
>>
>> Do tell.
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>
>I do tell, because I know the limitations of my knowledge. Some people seem
>to think they can babble mindlessly about anything without any knowledge.

Yes, yes, everyone complains about my babbling but no one complains
about their own babbling. The difference is that my babbling contains
reasons spelled out and yours contains references to sophomoric hempen
flashbacks.

>I do remember Peano's induction axioms, by the way.

Well good for you, sport. Now if we could just get you to remember a
little logic. No rush.Don't let it interfere with your posting idiotic
comments on posts you can't be bothered to analyze. Just whenever you
get a moment's respite from all the flashbacks to think for yourself.

Regards - Lester

Quantcast