TonesInDeepFreeze

Emoticons are as eloquent as you ever get.

You deploy that "aw shucks" shtick repeatedly. It's so transparent.

That is blatant strawman. Especially after I have over and over stated and explained that I don't object to informal rumination in and of itself. What...

Nope. Over many months (a year or even more?) I have offered the poster the copious explanations. My purpose is not to merely rhetorically bludgeon, b...

I agree with that. But I don't agree with the utilitarian framework you apply here*. First, I don't think utilitarian result is the only consideration...

The very first time I post to a crank, I don't impart attitude*. I simply post the correction and sometimes added explanation. But after a while, the ...

I suggested the sense I have in mind. I don't make excuses. My posting doesn't require excuses. In this thread, I might have made a certain major erro...

I should have made clear that I'm not opining about RussellA's posts, but rather I meant my own post as a rendering of my own explanation, not necessa...

You're not. Instead of thinking for even a moment about the corrections and explanations given you, you keep popping back to prorogate your misunderst...

I don't set any site-wide or general standards. Rather, I comment based on my own standards. Moderators don't censor cranks. And I don't advocate that...

No, with utmost clarity. You can go back to the posts. One does not do that. Again, statements are true or false (and not both) per a given model. If ...

I've said much of this before: I do not object to broad and speculative philosophy, even regarding mathematics. And, of course, I appreciate that ther...

You keep writing the leminscate but without saying what you mean by it. I have explained over and over that in rigorous mathematics: There are points ...

How about, if I don't know what degree of precision my friend needs to complete his task, I just tell him that the value he need is pi, then he can us...

I proved that I read what you posted, as I quoted it more than once and gave exact and detailed comments about it. And though my comments were clear a...

I don't know what that means. So, if you posted it to make us even, you succeeded.

No, that is not the case. I explained in detail why. Now Banno's misconception has been inherited by you. What argument are you referring to? The proo...

Yes, as I had gone already many posts ago:

I have already granted that if Agent Smith does agree that there is no greatest number (despite his persistent anti-infinitstic lobbying in other thre...

I'm just saying that, in principle, I don't know whether consciousness, even if no longer human or was never human, will end. The question of what thi...

You're mixed up again and lost your place in the exchange. The question is not how I define 'object'. And it's not even how you define it. Rather, no ...

We could stick to humans. But there may be a time when humanity becomes some other kind of being. Also, for philosophical purposes, it seems arbitrary...

Of course that is a plausible idea. But I don't know that there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings.

I don't know whether there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings.

Good point. But I still would be interested to know whether he does recognize that there is no greatest number. If he does, then I would need to retra...

I am going by these: Probably those are not exact enough to say whether he means "there is a greatest number" or "there is a greatest number that will...

Yes, your obfuscation seems to be inexhaustible.

I don't know what kind of person he is away from posting, but I find him to be flippantly dismissive in my interactions with him as a poster.

No, you're not. But you hold to your position even though it can't withstand easy objections.

I changed my reply. I didn't notice that it was you who posted and not the other poster. Then I realized that you were making the same point as I was.

automatic is to dogmatic as karma is to dogma. Cute.

Yes, the game is a funny way of making this point. / Yes, chess is determined. Either there is a winning strategy for white, or winning strategy for b...

You're claiming that there is a greatest number. It's not 186000. And there's no law of thought that says I can't use different units of measurement. ...

I am most definitely not an expert on mathematics.

So what? We agree that 186000 is not the greatest number. Nor is 186000 x 1000, which is the speed of light in milliseconds. Etc.

No, I don't agree. The the number of states my lamp can be in is 2 - on or off. There is no counting past the number 2 when counting the number of sta...

Choose the highest number you will allow You would admit that someone else might choose a higher number. And whenever someone chooses their highest nu...

De nada.

I hadn't already recommended this?: First: Logic: Techniques Of Formal Reasoning - Kalish, Montague and Mar That is to get a solid understanding of th...

Oh really? What book?

And the way for you to do that is to read a book on the subject.

I will not impose upon myself a restriction from commenting on your posts.

Yes. That has never been in question here. Indeed I reiterated just what you said in my post that you are replying to now! What is in question here is...

I take it that you don't take it that the only objects are abstractions, because you went on to say why you don't take it that the only objects are ab...

Makes sense. That differs from how I find 'classical' is used. I find that 'classical' mathematics means all and only those results that can be formal...

Clarification: When you said "I have never used infinity as anything more than unboundedness", perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you meant 'infin...

Your defensive sarcasm is misplaced.

I reiterated the point that I was correct to support the additional point, which you did not mention, that I was also not arrogant about it.

You said, "I have never used infinity as anything more than unboundedness." I don't opine as what 'used' means there. I only pointed out that the calc...

What I quoted and my reply: I made clear that I was responding regarding set theory. Granted, I didn't include in his quote the part - that makes even...