Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Milan (mtklima_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: ken quirici: "Re: How far can you move the bar?"
- Previous message: hawkmoon269: "Re: closed form for generating function"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:42:27 -0000
"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:41fe5620.37146455@netnews.att.net...
> 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
Hoo-aah, kid, take it easy, now. I understand you may be somewhat miffed
about the flak you get about your imbecilic, pretentious and ignorant posts,
but dont take it out on me. It's something you bring upon yourself.
Now go and play with your friends.
regards
Milan
- Next message: ken quirici: "Re: How far can you move the bar?"
- Previous message: hawkmoon269: "Re: closed form for generating function"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]