And, let's take this one point again:
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Like the girls in junior high school used to say: Let's not and say we did. — fishfry

Of course not with you. You don't wish to respond to the point that you made a false claim about me: So clearly false that all one has to do is look at the two posts.

When someone makes a false claim about someone, then waves off even responding to being shown that it is false, then that is included in the rubric of 'lying'.

I recall the discussion I mentioned. It wasn't about the supposed absence of 'not' (I think perhaps that was another incident) but the bizarrely incorrect claimed absence of 'onto itself' and other baffling reading errors by fishfry.

I mention it because fishfry was so bizarre; it's an object lesson.

Starting here, looking at the my posts (I'm GrandMinnow) and fishfry's posts::



and ending with the third party here:

Starting here, looking at the my posts (I'm GrandMinnow) and fishfry's posts:: — TonesInDeepFreeze

At the risk of further encouraging your fixation by replying to you: For the record, I reread the thread in question and I agree with myself. I stand by every word I wrote. Moreover, your use of onto was regarding a "claim," and not a mapping. You write imprecisely then complain when you're misunderstood. I will let you have the last word after this.

Here is your direct quote:

One doesn't have to provide much argument that the following claim onto itself is not self-contradictory: — GrandMinnow

How would anyone take from that, that you are referring to an onto mapping rather than meaning a "claim unto itself" and simply misusing the locution? That's how I took it then, that's how I took it tonight, and that's how any native speaker of English would read it. That you meant to write "unto" but wrote "onto" by mistake; because unto makes sense in context, and onto does not. Re-reading your sentence over and over with "onto," i can't figure out what you are trying to say. "The following claim onto itself is not contradictory?" I mentally swapped in "unto" and thought nothing of it. No other interpretation is possible. What is a "claim onto itself?"

It's your own muddled writing that leads people to have no idea what you're talking about.

And now you can have the last word. I will not be replying to you anymore even if you post easily-refuted examples as you just did. You don't express yourself well and you blame other people for misunderstanding you. You should have the self-awareness to remedy your own imprecise writing.

I reread the thread in question and I agree with myself. I stand by every word I wrote. — fishfry

You continued to claim that I didn't write 'onto itself'. You even quoted the post where I wrote 'onto itself' and said you do not see it, and yet it was there right in the quote. And you went on. Then another poster referred to one of your posts about it and quoted me yet again showing that indeed I did write 'onto itself'. Then nothing from you.

And you say you stand by your part in the discussion! But, even more crazy, now you are talking about my having written 'onto itself'! You are contradicting yourself right here!

your use of onto was regarding a "claim," and not a mapping. — fishfry

No, it was about a formula.

How would anyone take from that, that you are referring to an onto mapping rather than meaning a "claim unto itself" — fishfry

I wasn't referring to a mapping. The statement I made about the consistency of the formula had nothing to do with a mapping.

The FORMULA onto itself is not inconsistent. I meant that the formula taken alone is not inconsistent. And I even followed up to you to explain exactly that the formula alone is not inconsistent but is inconsistent with one of the axioms. And you even argued about THAT with me.

Note: Reflecting on this, I think it is possible that 'onto itself' in the way I used it is not standard English, and if that is the case, then my use could be unclear. But, there are two prongs here (1) That I did write it and you continued to say that I didn't write it, even though you quoted it yourself, yet now you do recognize that I wrote it, which makes it bizarre to say you still stand by what you wrote in the thread. (2) Even if my use is not standard, I still did illustrate my point in the thread: The formula is not inconsistent but rather it is inconsistent with the other axiom. Moreover even if I had not qualified with 'onto itself' or that 'onto itself' is not clear or standard, then my original statement is still correct. The formula is not inconsistent, though, of course, it is inconsistent with the other axiom.

/

Meanwhile, still you can't even recognize that you asked me about 'particle' and I immediately replied that it is primitive, though you falsely claim that you had to ask me twice.

/

I'm wondering whether what is going on with you is that you are so determined to think that you are right that you are willing to make the most preposterously false statements to do it.

You are not a crank in the sense of cranks who argue ignorantly and illogically about Cantor, Godel, et. al, but you share some traits: (1) terrible confusions,(2) blatant illogic, (3) skipping rebuttals to you, (4) persistently misconstruing posts and then posting as if something was claimed that was not claimed - so effectively ongoing strawman. Of all the people I've met on on the Internet, you're among the worst.

But pi is not a particular real number? How can I have a conversation with you? — fishfry

You must know by now, that I do not accept "real number" as a valid concept. Your insistence that I must accept real numbers as a premise for discussion with you, is simply an act of begging the question.

Quantum entanglement. Instantaneous causation over vast distances: $speed = \frac{distance}{time} = \frac{distance}{0} = \infty$. Actual $\infty$. Assuming no hidden variables.