No one in sci.logic is easier to parody than George Greene, perhaps the most emotional logician who ever lived. Look, it's good to have an opinion or two, even a strong opinion or two, but at some point, one should get counseling. Nah, just kidding. Usenet is just Usenet and being a jerk doesn't mean much of anything, right?
Even being a complete and utter asshole is acceptable, nay, de rigeur. Especially when you have truth on your side. Doubly so when you are the only one in the world who has ever had truth on your side. Thus, let us sit back and enjoy George Greene Dissociated .
Warning: When George finally snaps and bad things happen, the Feds will probably confiscate my computer and scan the Apache logs. Anyone who reads George Greene Dissociated rather too often will likely be flagged a "person of interest". Continue at your own risk!
George Greene: Asshole ExtraordinaireIt absolutely follows from that that "looks good to me"?!?!? Does Phool NOT
UNDERSTAND the IMPLICATIONS of admitting that that THAT infinite set cannot
have all finite members! When GF proved this to you NUMEROUS times! Or at
any rate, it has been since the dawn of time. You actually run this
process to finish. THE MOMENT that the accumulator will be to define
"premises". The dictionary IS ALREADY there. For us, "premise" has a
considerably more restricted meaning than that. And we DON'T CARE whether
anybody BELIEVES the axioms or NOT! That is so ass-backwards. I answer
your questions. You routinely leave my points ignored so you stand misled
into thinking that "potential infinity" is a legitimate NOUN. Things that
are to be about the psychology and motivations of all this, you are getting
way too ridiculously obsessed over what to CALL it. The point is, it's
there, it's relevant, and it's NOT CHALLENGEABLE. It is NOT a *premise*,
Phool. Maybe you should not be calling them "number sets". In this case, as
both FF and I am losing the fight.
A question that everybody in the first place, and even then "potentially
infinite" applies to an outcome of the act of choosing: IT IS PROVABLE. It
is A THEOREM. ALL you would then need a grammar for
grammar-specifications; the circularity is less embarrassing if you start
with the "Kleene star operator", which allows a natural number that could
be measured. I am just trying to get anywhere either. You have GOT to
learn to write ONE message on ONE subject.
You asked me to shut the fuck up, TOO, BITCH. I knew. I was talking DOWN
to you and YOUR PATHETIC LITTLE brain couldn't do any better! I was also
trying to compare are both infinite, one of them canNOT compromise the
validity of a result of which Phil doesn't yet know that (A->P)->(A^B->P)
is a STRING of |'s in it IS a contradiction from our axioms BY THEMSELVES,
well, if pigs could fly....
We are HONESTLY telling you that THAT IS THE ONLY axiom of infinity,
DESPITE the fact that he was going to SLAUGHTER Cantor's proof? If he
accepts yours then WHAT'S he going to slaughter now?!?
Then, amazingly, in a message that has AN INFINITE COLLECTION of finite
things of some other set) that IT CAN'T be in. I honestly thought the
discussion would rather pose TO YOU, except we all already know the answer.
Of course, but at quadruple that age, you still can't understand the
difference between a variable that line 2 depends on. This would
especially be the case that INSIDE your theory, IT JUST DOESN'T EXIST. If
you have to concede the existence of THIS set: * B={0,1,2,...[all & only
finite naturals], w}. * "B" is for Phil to AGREE to be bound by one, and
state the one. No, we are NOT challenging any natural-number-WRITING
paradigms, or any other set theory at all. I posted an alternative
theory. It is stated officially that they canNOT take, namely, "actual"
infinity.
A predicate of one argument can and does take EVERY LAST one of them canNOT
compromise the validity of a result of which is the [least] upper bound for
the naturals.
The other line, the "numbers" line, ALSO has infinitely many elements. I
never said that, in the first place. If you could prove a contradiction
from that, what you get the accumulator always be the number of arguments
of a line-segment at 13, but at quadruple that age, you still are despite
the chemotherapy, then one certainly wonders why you had to contain ALL the
finite naturals exists, 3a) a set containing all the time!
NO, Phool! NOBODY WILL EVER take "a set of all smaller ordinals (and the
naturals are simply ALL there is and actual infinity actually is.
I
It's really stupid to lie about your own past comments in a newsgroup,
Phool, "chemo-brain" or no. People CAN JUST QUOTE you agreeing to that
very thing. Of course, but none of them is NAMED "the axiom of
succession". We have NOT yet stored a value.
OF COURSE, but that IS NOT the axiom THAT PHIL is talking about.
|
For an explanation of how this page works, see this. For more dissociated entertainment, visit James S. Harris dissociated. He's a better writer than me.