Re: Why Archimedes Plutonium will never proof the 4CT


Proginoskes wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium [AP] has posted two alleged proofs of the 4CT
which are short but not correct. There are two basic facts that he is
repeatedly ignoring, and since the threads containing those proofs have
turned into many-headed hydrae, and since AP doesn't like reading long
posts, my points are lost. So I decided to start a new thread.

Archie just shot himself in the foot! He disavows the method in his own
proof! Elsewhere in this thread, he refers to one of my rebuttals and
says:

And I can summarize that [flaw] by this question: Suppose there is
"no smallest " Natural Number, then, does there exist any Natural
Number? Suppose there is "no smallest Integer", then does there exist
any Integer?

So AP is basically saying that assuming that there is an object which
is "minimal" is not valid. But this is part of his new proof, where he
assumes there's a minimal counterexample to the 4CT.

Elsewhere, he said (in another post):

Well I need to get back to physics and biology and will soon leave
mathematics.

which means he's running away! Bye, Archie! Don't let the door hit you
in the Plutonium atom!

--- Christopher Heckman

.

Quantcast