• Does Lobachevsky's V axiom deny Euclid's V axiom

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 07:20:58 2024
    Well, they're practically negation of each other.
    And you won't find a rule "not p is not necessarily
    denying p" in mathematics - but it is an usual component
    of pseudophilosophies concocted by morons for excusing
    both their inconsistencies and plain lies.

    So - the question is as in the topic. What do you think?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 12:05:50 2024
    Le 08/08/2024 à 07:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    Well, they're practically  negation of each other.
    And you won't find a rule "not p is not necessarily
    denying p" in mathematics - but it is an usual component
    of pseudophilosophies concocted by morons for excusing
    both their inconsistencies and plain lies.

    So - the question is as in the topic. What do you think?

    https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CS198505

    "Just a darn minute — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 13:39:02 2024
    W dniu 08.08.2024 o 12:05, Python pisze:
    Le 08/08/2024 à 07:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    Well, they're practically  negation of each other.
    And you won't find a rule "not p is not necessarily
    denying p" in mathematics - but it is an usual component
    of pseudophilosophies concocted by morons for excusing
    both their inconsistencies and plain lies.

    So - the question is as in the topic. What do you think?

    https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CS198505

    "Just a darn minute — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"


    Keep raving and spitting, poor stinker.
    You won't find a rule "not p is not necessarily
    denying p" in mathematics - but it is an usual component
    of pseudophilosophies concocted by morons for excusing
    both their inconsistencies and plain lies.
    Not only your bunch of idiots denied basic math,
    but it also fabricated the evidence against
    basic math.

    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)