Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))

On Dec 17, 12:41 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:15 pm, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Dec 17, 10:51 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 17, 10:16 am, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

moeblee has
   amusingly
illustrated this bloodlust of the hardcore crank boxers
in a way that is directly relevant to david

moeblee calls x in x pathetic

No I didn't. Please do not put words in my mouth. What I said is that
x={x} is inconsistent with the REST OF tommy1729's axioms. I never
said that one can't have a consistent theory with x={x} or xex.

okay
  you called tommy pathetic for his theory
  where x in x and x = [x]

NO that is NOT what I said.

i love it how you deny what is linked

here's the direct quote:

"You're pathetic. Grow up. Get some good books."

I said his theory is INCONSISTENT. I don't
object to a theory just for having a theoerem x={x}. But in
tommy1729's theory at that tiem, x={x} is inconsistent with his
axioms, which are inconsistent anyway. And I don't say he's pathetic
for just having an inconsistent theory, but rather for not having the
maturity to listen to the explanations as to two points: his theory is
inconsistent and that also it has undefined but not primitive
termninology.

and you were quite wrong about all of that

and all of your whining about needing to read
well...
way to go there...

      unbeknownst to him
    everything he says is actually incorrect)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/006a5cd896f8909e?hl=en

What exactly do you claim incorrect there?

pretty much everything you spouted

jesse had not proven anything about the theory

you were too impotent to see why
  and
    in your impotence
  decided to resort to names

Please state EXACTLY what you think is incorrect in Jesse's
demonstration and also with my own demonstration that tommy1729's (or
whatever his name was then) theory at that time is inconsistent.

it started with his first step
that [x] might be defined as

forAll(x) forAll(y) (y in [x] <-> y = x)

which is already basically assuming what he wanted to show
(that his derivation would arrive at contradiction)

it was a way to slip into a theory without collection of elements

(which
to truly acknowledge sources
tommy also pointed out in a direct response)

i doubt any serious researcher would interpret [x] that way

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.

Relevant Pages
Loading