On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
>
> > Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
>
> >http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
>
> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
>
> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
>
> You pompous fat ****.

Dear oh dear, Ball. I didn't realize it was possible for you to get
any funnier.

"Axiomatizable" is a standard term in mathematical logic, you will
find it in any text. A theory T is said to be axiomatizable if there
exists a decidable set S of postulates such that T is the deductive
closure of S. I doubt you'd find "cohomology" in the dictionary
either.

This is almost as good as when the sci.math crank James Harris tries
to critique Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem. Keep trying
to critique my paper, Ball. Wonderful entertainment.