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

anzaurres1@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> 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.

You are putting words into my mouth. Again. I never tried to tell
you anything about when axioms are false. I also never said I was
certain that I knew what Torkel meant, but I reckon that if I
misstated his comment regarding "true in an axiom system", he would
have called me on it by now.

Finally, saying that your terminology is "non-standard" and "either
confused or needlessly confusing" is not an insult.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Radicals are interesting because they were considered 'radical' by
the people who played with them who wrote a lot of math work that
modern mathematics depends on." --Another JSH history lesson
.

Relevant Pages