Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sealight]

And what is the poet's proof,

you have not even read the poets paper for if you did you would have seen the proof and to play your game if you want read poets paper then I will not continue with you.

I don't understand why did I have to read that proof. My questions are self-sufficient and not about the proof. You don't want to answer them, it is fine.

[gimal]

I don't understand why did I have to read that proof. My questions are self-sufficient and not about the proof.

this thread is about "Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics"
not about some thread derailing point you want to make.
If you you want to ask a question about not relevant to the thread then start your own thread.

[Sealight]

If you knew the answers then you would simply write them here.

[gimal]

If you knew the answers then you would simply write them here.

go start your own thread and stop trying to derail this thread.BYE.

[Sealight]

If you you want to ask a question about not relevant to the thread then start your own thread.

My questions are about your previous posts. Why do you call your posts non relevant to the topic? I don't understand. If they are not relevant then why are they here?

[gimal]

yoiu said

I don't understand why did I have to read that proof. My questions are self-sufficient and not about the proof.

admitting you are asking about the poets proofs but you own derailing points-If you continue I will report you to the moderator And I will not reply to any more of your derailing posts. Bye.

[Sealight]

admitting you are asking about the poets proofs but you own derailing points-If you continue I will report you to the moderator And I will not reply to any more of your derailing posts. Bye.

You are more than welcome to do that.
Your posts are full of mistakes. It is not smart for you to behave this way and insult everyone who point your mistakes out. Please report my posts to the moderator.

[gimal]

Also it is shown language is inconsistent thus With language being inconsistent logic shows then all philosophies nihilism absurdism existentialism etc and their negation/opposite are equally valid Also logic shows All opinions ie feminism and anti-feminism etc are equally valid Each view contains within it its negation as all views end in meaninglessness

[Steve3007]

gimal:

Saying that language contains inconsistencies is not the same as saying that there is no consistency whatsoever in language and that it is therefore just meaningless noise. Your post seems to suggest that you believe the latter. Of course, the fact that you have just successfully used language to convey this message demonstrates that it is not true.

Your post essentially boils down to the self contradictory:

"This statement is meaningless and contains no information.".

[gimal]

So 1= 0.999... and 1+1=1 so maths ends in contradiction.
And as the paper shows if a system is inconsistent then you can prove anything in that system.
THUS
maths can prove anything it wants.

[Steve3007]

1= 0.999... and 1+1=1

Incorrect.