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

On Dec 24, 5:11 am, lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 23, 10:27 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:43 pm, lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
To me, MoeBlee using "Ex Ay y not-in x" to prove TST
inconsistent is exactly analogous to someone using
"Ex Ay y not-subset x" to prove ZFC inconsistent. Just
as MoeBlee would reject the latter, I (and galathaea)
reject the former.
Why can't you understand such a simple thing? tommy1729 stated the
empty set axiom as an axiom of his system. We know what the empty set
axiom is. And from it, with other things he says about his system, we
derive a contradiction. It's not a matter of what would happen if
tommy1729 adopted SOME OTHER axiom instead of the empty set; of course
that's a whole other ballgame, but it's not the ballgame we're in when
tommy1729 says he adopts the EMPTY SET AXIOM.

Yes, tommy1729 says he adopts an _empty set axiom_, but
as it turns out, it's not _the_ same empty set axiom as
the one in ZFC.

So, for all we know, his empty set axiom might be
the assumption that the generalized Riemann hypothesis
holds, then.

-- m
.