an attempt to whack the stubborn pupil over the head with the textbook. — apokrisis

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, but rather it's as I described in previous posts. But, as I mentioned, after a certain point, it emerges that the poster is unwilling to desist from posting disinformation. At that point, I am not obligated to just give up posting the corrections and also to point out that the source of that disinformation is crankery.

I mean it is not as though "actual mathematics" doesn't have textbooks by Norman J Wilderberger as well. — apokrisis

Wilderbeger in a particular aside, you skipped that I already said that I am enthused that there are alternative mathematics. I have never, in any way, advocated that the only reasonable context is ordinary classical mathematics. Indeed, I very much appreciate that there are reasonable intuitive and philosophical quandaries about classical mathematics. On the other hand, self-malinformed cranks dogmatically claim, with terrible ill-reasoned arguments, that ordinary classical mathematics is not acceptable by any means or has certain problems (that it actually does not have).

So, rather than me be burdened by a strawman, I'll reiterate:

(1) I do not urge that all philosophical and mathematical discussions be anchored with respect to classical mathematics.

(2) I have never said anything that can even remotely be fairly construed as a claim that mathematics trumps philosophy.

(3) I am enthused that there are alternative philosophies and mathematics.

(4) I'll add that I admit my own personal framework for understanding mathematics is not itself a developed philosophy of mathematics and that there are quandaries that I don't claim to explain.

(5) So I am quite the opposite of dogmatic concerning mathematics and philosophy of mathematics.

(6) The crank, though, dogmatically, and from a position of ignorance on the subject, claims that classical mathematics is wrong.

(7) When the crank proposes a philosophical discussion in which classical mathematics is to undergo examination, then when the crank (as invariably he does) misstates what that classical mathematics is or how it works, then it is not improper to correct the crank about that, no matter how long he persists. And it is not mere formal nitpicking to do that.

Over many months (a year or even more?) I have offered the poster the copious explanations — TonesInDeepFreeze

:lol: I can vouch for that!

Formalization, it's a big deal! TonesInDeepFreeze seems well-versed in that department. Hence, I suppose, his annoyance against my rather informal approach to math. — Agent Smith

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 I object to is making false claims about the actual mathematics you presume to criticize without understanding even its basics..

Please do not persist to so egregiously mischaracterize my point of view, as your mischaracterization is blatantly refuted by the actual posting record.

A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet

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

:smile:

Emoticons are as eloquent as you ever get.

If memory serves, [Widlerberger is] a finitist. — Agent Smith

That is quite missing the point. Wilderberger, as I glean, is an ultrafinitist.

Finitism has a broad range. Hilbert was a finitist, yet Hilbert famously celebrated infinitistic mathematics. And that is not a contradiction, as one would see upon learning the specific sense of Hilbert's finitism.

So what is salient about Wilderberger is not just that he's a finitist but that he's an ultrafinitist.

ultrafinitist — TonesInDeepFreeze

What's that?

Emoticons are as eloquent as you ever get. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm emotional.

So am I. That's why I usually find emoticons inadequate and ugly.

Sometimes they're useful, but yours directed to me strike me as mere insouciance.

:ok:

ultrafinitist
— TonesInDeepFreeze

What's that? — Agent Smith

You're joking, right?

It's pretty much at the basis of this thread you started.

And you ask me without even bothering to type it into a search?

You're trolling.

:smile:

ndeed your confused, ignorant and intellectually dishonest postings are a waste of your time, as you'd do so much better for yourself by reading a book on the subject. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Tones! Your audacity is unbelievable. You took two months to reply to my post. After two months, you called me back to defend what I wrote. After two months! Then, you never once addressed my defense, which I wrote in the last couple days, only referring to it as confused, ignorant, dishonest, rambling, obfuscations. What the fuck is the point? If I'm wrong, show me where!

You practice nothing but bull shit! Please, for the love of all who participate in this forum, shut the fuck up!

Financially speaking, I don't need to deal with amounts greater than $1,000,000! :snicker:

That is quite missing the point. Wilderberger, as I glean, is an ultrafinitist.

Finitism has a broad range. …

So what is salient about Wilderberger is not just that he's a finitist but that he's an ultrafinitist. — TonesInDeepFreeze

A point of logic. How is the statement that Wildberger may be a finitist rendered untrue by him being also some subset of that set?

I’m sure that is a basic error that needs pointing out to stop the internet descending into crackpottery and ignorance.

What was the salient point in the discussion that demanded a need for the further distinction?

You took two months to reply to my post.

There is no expiration on a poster's prerogative to reply.

After two months, you called me back to defend what I wrote. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is false. I did not ask nor suggest that you reply. I stated no preference whether you replied or not. Indeed, it would be just as well if you hadn't replied, since your replies are invariably even more obfuscation and sophistry.

You're putting words in my mouth again.

only referring to it as confused, ignorant, dishonest, rambling, obfuscations. — Metaphysician Undercover

And now you're flat out lying about my posting.

I gave specific analysis, quoting you, and arranging my argument about it in conspicuously clear formatting.

How is the statement that Wildberger may be a finitist rendered untrue by him being also some subset of that set? — apokrisis

I didn't say it was untrue. I said the generality of him being a finitist misses the most salient point about him that he's an ultrafinitist. And I didn't even say the poster is personally remiss in that regard. I merely pointed out that we can address the reference to Wilderberger more specifically than generally.

Please do not continue to misconstrue my plain words to the point of essentially strawmanning me.

I’m sure that is a basic error that needs pointing out to stop the internet descending into crackpottery and ignorance. — apokrisis

Now you have become egregious. I didn't claim that the poster's comment was crankery. I merely added that his comment admits of additional specificity. That I have crossed with the poster in other posts and said that he posts crankery does not entail that every reply to him includes a suggestion that the particular post is crankery.

Please stop essentially putting words in my mouth.

What was the salient point in the discussion that demanded a need for the further distinction? — apokrisis

It wasn't demanded, but it is helpful.

The topic of this thread is whether there is a greatest number for practical purposes. That goes to utrafinitism. So it's quite pertinent to mention that alluding to Wilderberger in this discussion suggests highlighting that he's not just a finitist but an ultrafinitist.

You're putting words in my mouth again. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, i never said you "asked", or "suggested" that I reply. It's actually you putting words in my mouth, just like in your false accusation that I contradicted myself

And now you're flat out lying about my posting. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is what you always end up saying to me. You're a liar! Let me remind you of your own words:

Yes, your obfuscation seems to be inexhaustible. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Indeed your confused, ignorant and intellectually dishonest postings are a waste of your time, as you'd do so much better for yourself by reading a book on the subject. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I predict that now you'll write yet more rambling, obfuscatory paragraphs in which you elide your own posted words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And my words:

confused, ignorant, dishonest, rambling, obfuscations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Looks like I quoted your words correctly, unlike your lame reply.

I gave specific analysis, quoting you, and arranging my argument about it in conspicuously clear formatting. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, all you did was falsely accuse me of contradiction through a stupid strawman. You never even considered what I actually wrote.

i never said you "asked", or "suggested" that I reply — Metaphysician Undercover

You wrote:

you called me back to defend what I wrote — Metaphysician Undercover

But I did not call on you, or call you back, to defend what you wrote not did I call on you, or call you back, to do anything at all.

But maybe what you meant is that merely you felt, upon your own sense, that you should defend what you wrote. Not that, as you literally wrote that I called on you to do that. In that case, fair enough. If I should not have taken you literally, then you may consider my previous comments about that now scratched.

/

for the love of all who participate in this forum, shut the fuck up! — Metaphysician Undercover

Talks about audacity!

You don't speak for all who participate.

You never even considered what I actually wrote. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are just repeating that falsehood, ignoring that there are actual posts in which I discussed your argument in detail, quoting it and analyzing it explicitly.

I merely pointed out that we can address the reference to Wilderberger more specifically than generally. — TonesInDeepFreeze

So you made a pointless point as if you were adding some significant and necessary correction to the discussion.

Of course I do get why you felt it worth saying. This is how you troll @Agent Smith. If he says something true, you have to make it seem untrue by pretending some even more sophisticated textbook distinction - one beyond his ken - was at stake.

He trolls you his way, and you troll him your way. And so it will continue. :ok:

:rofl:

I respect your judgment although I really haven't the foggiest how to troll.

But I did not call on you, or call you back, to defend what you wrote not did I call on you, or call you back, to do anything at all. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Ok, so just out of interest then, If you were not calling me back to defend my statement, then what were you doing with that false accusation (two months later) that I contradicted myself two months earlier?

But maybe what you meant is that you felt, upon your own sense that you should defend what you wrote. Not that, as you literally wrote that I called on you to do that. In that case, fair enough. If I should not have taken you literally, then you may consider my previous comments about now scratched. — TonesInDeepFreeze

When someone publicly accuses me of contradicting myself, I take it that I am being called on to defend myself. If you were not calling on me to defend myself, then what was the purpose in your false accusation, simple defamation?

If I should not have taken you literally, then you may consider my previous comments about now scratched. — TonesInDeepFreeze

There was no contradiction. Go back and reread please. And only reply when you can demonstrate that you have understood what I wrote. No more of your whiny behaviour, please. You poor pathetic baby, my writing is just too confused and "obfuscatory" for you to understand, so you'd better just dismiss it as contradictory. Come on, grow out of the diapers.

And if you cannot understand philosophy don't bother replying please. Go read some books first!

So you made a pointless point — apokrisis

It had a good point. This thread is about a greatest number. Wilderberger is an ultrafinitist. By pointing that out, we see that he's especially relevant to this thread.

as if you were adding some significant and necessary correction to the discussion. — apokrisis

I made no such pretense that it was necessary. You keep essentially putting words in my mouth. It's beneath you.

you troll — apokrisis

I decidedly do not troll. I do not post to provoke reactions, and especially not for gratuitous reasons. I do not post to confuse or gaslight people.

By merely commenting that we gain by a more specific designation, I am not at all trolling.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that I my postings have rankled you to the degree that you've lost your balance so that you read into my posts the worst interpretation even though that interpretation is false, and your imbalance is causing you to now strawman me as a pattern.

you have to make it seem untrue — apokrisis

I did not suggest at all that it was untrue or even that it seems to be untrue. I addressed that in a post a few back. Please stop claiming that I've said or suggested things I have not.

If you were not calling me back to defend my statement, then what were you doing [...] — Metaphysician Undercover

Stating my own argument about it.

Whether you reply to my statement of my argument about your contradiction is entirely your own prerogative.

And, since you seem now to be leaning toward a claim that I called you back to defend your argument, I withdraw my comment that I might have taken you too literally.

Um, you can google ultrafinitism if you don't know what it is. It is clear the OP is an example of ultrafinitism. I suspect the original poster knew that when they started this (and has been laughing all along).

It was apokrisis who first mentioned Wilderberger in this context.

Then Agent Smith replied that Wilderberger is a finitist.

Then I mentioned that, more particularly, he's an ultrafinitist.

And for my doing that, apokrisis is ludicrously reading into my comment.