The set of all sets must be.. Oh what's the fancy word.... A
holomorphism? I don't remember. I'm at my phone now. The set of
all sets must contain both the complete and the incomplete set
making it both complete and incomplete. Having a paradox as rule
1 is required for the system to function. = Axiomic systems
always result in failure because their basis is that of axiom
and proof. There in a constant dance with each other but they
are not self generating. They also ignore the source of the
axiom: us. There's 3 parts: axiom proof and us. The belief that
it exists in its own platonic realm separate from reality is the
main cause of the issue. It doesn't invalidate it by any means.
Just points to limitations of the system, like any system has.
== (Edit: wrote this before your last response) I once worked on
a ternary logic system *. I prototyped it in Excel, my main
scratchpad - and look for solutions for the uncertainties that
were practical and pragmatic in nature, to compensate for the
areas that the system fails. There's a similar issue in computer
engineering * I believe it's called a race condition. I've seen
it happen * especially with video cards. A calculation reaches a
race condition - VERY common on video cards with built in matrix
transforms * because fundamentally, you're attempting to squeeze
three-dimensional calculations into a two-dimensional space.
It's going to run into problems and it does. When it does, the
chips get hot, the Solder melts, and the video card is
destroyed. All from a calculation that couldn't be resolved ==
Thing is, I'm a commoner. Consider it this way: You understood I
was using the terms differently than you did. That means: You
understood me. For me, communication is about being understood
and understanding. If you were grading a paper, you could justly
fail me but, I've been out of school a very very very long time
now tongue emoticon Cheers and I'll be here if you wish to
unpause smile emoticon ==
