dh@. wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:45:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:32:53 +0900, dh@. wrote:


On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Goo whined on:


On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:54:09 +0900, dh@. wrote:


On Tue, 08 Apr 2008, a bewildered Goober hysterically blabbered:


On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:51:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:


In Mosh� Machover's "Set Theory, Logic and their Limitations" there is
a section titled "Axiomatizability" in which a detailed and precise
definition of "axiomatizable" is given. The word appears in the
statement of a theorem in that section. It also appears in the
statement of an important theorem in Stephen Simpson's highly
acclaimed "Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic".

I typed "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary axiomatizable" into Google
and clicked "I'm feeling lucky". I got a logic paper published by
Oxford University Press. Unfortunately the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary is not available on-line for free.

The number of hits for "axiomatizable" on Google is astronomical. This
article might be of some interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_class

We also have this:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...atizable+class


When we type "axiomatizable dictionary" into Google, the first hit we
get are the entries for "axiomatize" and "axiomatization" in Merriam-
Webster, which was Ball's original source. Similarly, Merriam-Webster
contains "plagiarize" but not "plagiarizable", although the latter
word gets a large number of hits on Google.

So maybe according to Ball's philosophy, "axiomatize" is a real word
but "axiomatizable" is not, "plagiarize" is a real word but
"plagiarizable" is not. I don't know. Would that I could fathom Ball's
subtle mind.

*CHORTLE* words are "real" as soon as they are formulated, thought,
spoken or written down, as to what meaning they have, that is usually
orthographically axonometric
--
JL

So anyway, apparently when I used "axiomatizable" in my paper I was
engaging in "inappropriate use of specialized jargon". (Ball, please
note: this is satire, I am not conceding your point of view here.
Sorry, people, Ball needs to have points like that explained to him).
Presumably Stephen Simpson was also doing so in his highly-acclaimed
"Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic". And so Ball was entitled to
call me a "pompous fat ****". And I'm continuing to debate Ball on the
matter out of a masochistic compulsion rather than a desire for comic
material. And the fact that he "mockingly and derisively snips my
posts" means that he is winning.

And so the fun goes on.

Too funny, rupie - just too ****ing funny!

It's funny that you think so Goo, no doubt about it.

No

Now that
you've had some time to settle down from the horrible confusion
the information overload caused to your tiny crumb of brain, why
not try to address some of the facts that were presented to you,
Goo?

rupie's oh-so-earnest effort, and need to show how smart he
is, are what's funny.

LOL! Your cowardly reaction to them is funny Goober, but
there's nothing funny about the information he provided. It's
funny that you can't comprehend it and are afraid to comment
on it...your confusion is hilarious Goo. If you ever think you
have some clue about any of it, it would no doubt be great
fun to see you try to comment, especially if you can get back
to the reason he introduced you to the term to begin with. Since
you've already made a complete fool of yourself by crying about
the fact that he presented you with information, you don't really
have much to lose by trying to understand it Goo.

He provided no "information"


Try to at least comprehend that the information you're
now lying about, is what you were bitching about not long
ago, Goober. You have outstupided yourself AGAIN Goo,
and this time in several ways. Let's check you out:

1a You bitched because he used a term you couldn't understand.
1b You bitched because he provided you with information about
the term.
1c You lied and said he didn't provide the informatin you were
bitching about in 1b.

That really is an impressive display of stupidity there Goob. You
can probably do even stupider though Goober, by "performing"
another patheticly inept failure. It would be even more fun if you
could try to explain this of course, but we're not likely to see that
happen. If you can though Goo, try to explain how you think he
used that term to begin with. GO: