Re: The horse race

Mark Johnson wrote:
> "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >But you *are* being unresponsive. You ask the same question
> >over and over
>
> That means that someone who answered likely just skipped the question.
> So I answer what seems to be their objection, but then necessarily
> raise the original questions.

You have yet to answer even one objection raised to your persistent misunderstanding of basic set theory and order. You have yet to demonstrate that you've absorbed even one bit of the many pieces of well-established theory that has been provided.

> >Furthermore, the things you are talking about are all elementary
> >set theory
>
> That's a good reason to discuss it. Problems might reside in what had
> been deemed settled and axiomatic.

Well that confirms the Neo hypothesis! You think you're going to find some flaw in elementary set theory that's somehow been missed up to now, and furthermore you're going to do it without actually taking the trouble to learn what it is that set theory actually says, eh? I've heard that line of thinking before.

Marshall Received on Thu Feb 23 2006 - 04:43:57 CET