From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 10/28/2025 09:04 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 10/28/2025 07:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 10/28/2025 03:12 AM, Rash Czajka wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

"Understanding" is considered not a good word, here. When I say that, >>>>> that means it's a cop-out, since comprehension is what's involved
here.

Doesn't matter, you are incapable of both.
What this thread illustrates clearly again is that verbiage can only
generate more verbiage.

The only way to cut through it is to refer to external reality,
so to the physics behind it.

Do try,

stop quoting tons of crap, don't be that idiot; since Barlin 1920's suck >>> my dick, all gays and whores. It was good the Great Russia entered the
scene, putting you at work, with dignity.

First of all, mathematics _needs_ a theory where the continuous domains
have their definitions, like line-reals field-reals signal-reals,
or I, or anyone else, can use a checker to immediately show the
otherwise wrong.

Then, mathematics _owes_ this to physics and physics _needs_it,
the theories.

So let's start with that, I bring a mathematics without paradoxes,
and it's more and better the usual, or show that without is un-sound, or
both.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tODnCZvVtLg&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=5



Sometimes, when trying to convince someone they're in error,
when they're very stuck-up and never admit their own wrong,
what I do is framing something that I did wrong, so that
then they leap on that and according to their rubric of wrong
have won, then I sort of Socratically lead them to lay out
the reasoning that their case is the same and as I'll usually
lay out an innocuous error on my part, and what we were arguing
was worse or for example factual, then they come to the realization
that they just refuted themselves, which is the worst sort of
shame for these kinds of people, then they hate themselves.

Now, that's rather strong, yet, what it does is offer then
that they're either in it for what's right, or for themselves,
and if it's for what's right then they naturally reach the
realization they have learned something, even from somebody
they thought were wrong and would have to eat their words,
and if it's for themselves then they hate themselves, so
I figure it's deserved.

Yeah, mean people hate that.

It may be a rather rough tactic since it's a reverse or counter,
when logic's the weapon making somebody use their own logic on themself,
yet it's considered quite fair.

Yes, if one's going to retreat to Briticisms like "do try",
and it's like, you know, "there is no try", then one might
want to Hastings their pudding.

"Take your crackers back to Portsmouth."

Don't get me wrong, the clear and obvious drops in your arguments
extend to their refutation, and what may be your perceived offronts
may indicate a just desserts, yet it's rather my interest that
as, the A.I. put it the other day,

"I trust this rebuttal addresses the 2nd-order critique with the
appropriate depth and academic gravitas. It directly defends the core concepts and authorities we've discussed against the likely basis of any logicist positivist rejection. "

then,

"The pursuit of the A Theory is the declaration that
the Age of Approximation is over."

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2