Re: Help in answering news story on refutation of fermat's last theorem

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> anzaurres1@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> > > I don't give a *** about what you suspect. You used a phrase and
> > > Torkel objected. You expressed surprise and disdain.
> > > I explained his objection.

> > Only very presumptious people can claim to know what other people mean.

> I suppose that communication is possible only in a community of very
> "presumptious" people.

I am glad you are certain that you know what he meant. I too now know
what the two of you mean. Torkel has finally explained it to me very
succinctly:

Torkel Franzen wrote:

> anzaurres1@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> > You have an explicit definition?

> Yes, a false axiom is an axiom that is false.

Finally! Now I understand what the two of you have been trying to say
to me all along! Why coundn't you put it in such clear terms earlier?
Had you put it to me that way, I would have immediately understood whom
I was dealing with and wouldn't have gotten upset at your insults and
have wasted my time.

>>>That is very non-standard terminology. Indeed, it is so non-
>>>standard that many logicians would call it either confused or
>>> needlessly confusing.

Of course it is. Everything is confused and confusing compared to the
"objections" that Torkel and you raise. Like:

"A false axiom is an axiom that is false."

That's purfectly concise, clear and not confused!

> You are the [..] self-proclaimed mathematician [ ...]

You are being too kind and polite to me.

> Maybe that is common terminology among mathematicians.
> I guess it's been a long time since I've been around
> many mathematicians.

Noh! You are being modest. If you hadn't been around mathematicians,
where else would you have learned to insult us and call us
"self-proclaimed"?

Moreover, you yourself admit that you have been around your fellow
mathematician Torkel. So much so that you can even read his mind:

> "A false axiom is an axiom that is false." (Torkel)

That's what you have read in his mind and were trying to explain to
the "self-proclaimed" me, isn't it? Sorry I didn't understand
earlier what the two of you were all about.

.

Quantcast