The latest smear on JTF : JDL Europe Forum

[Yaakov Mendel]

Have you checked out the following sewer :



You will find the usual rats (Ben M, Weigang, and so on) with the usual rants against JTF; look at the following threads for example :



By the way, I've noticed that JDL France is associated with this garbage (they have a link to this forum on their main page) ! This says a lot about their true colors.

[Yaakov Mendel]

One funny thing you immediately notice is that these rats have tried to copy the way our forum is organized.

[Dr. Dan]

Best to not publicize them.  Their forum is a joke.

[Yaakov Mendel]

Best to not publicize them.  Their forum is a joke.

ok, sorry about that

[mord]

One funny thing you immediately notice is that these rats have tried to copy the way our forum is organized.

Is that a forum for Jewish gays ?

[Confederate Kahanist]

They have Mizrachi on their forum and they call JTF nazis. 

[Zelhar]

So now Wankgang goes by "David Ben Yisrael" ?!

[mord]

So now Wankgang goes by "David Ben Yisrael" ?!

Yes 

[Yaakov Mendel]

So now Wankgang goes by "David Ben Yisrael" ?!

This shmuck has copied the two quotes I had for a long time under my avatar. These idiots must spend a long time watching us.

[Zelhar]

This shmuck has copied the two quotes I had for a long time under my avatar. These idiots must spend a long time watching us.

Do you take the  continuum hypothesis as an axiom ?

[Ulli]

They even copied Chaim's old advertisment from A7 and translated it into German. Unbelievable.

[Yaakov Mendel]

Do you take the  continuum hypothesis as an axiom ?

It has been established that the validity of the continuum hypothesis depends on the version of set theory being used, and is therefore undecidable, that is, neither formally provable nor unprovable within any complete deductive system.
I do not take the CH as an axiom because it's not self-evident. I believe the universe of sets is larger than assumed by the CH. But this is still work in progress in mathematical research.

[Zelhar]

It has been established that the validity of the continuum hypothesis depends on the version of set theory being used, and is therefore undecidable, that is, neither formally provable nor unprovable within any complete deductive system.
I do not take the CH as an axiom because it's not self-evident. I believe the universe of sets is larger than assumed by the CH. But this is still work in progress in mathematical research.

I know that CH and its negation are consistent with ZFC. But why do you put it then on your signature ?

[Yaakov Mendel]

I know that CH and its negation are consistent with ZFC. But why do you put it then on your signature ?

Just because I love maths. Does it upset you ?

[Zelhar]

Just because I love maths. Does it upset you ?

Not in the least upsets me. I love math too. I just want to understand why you put a statement which you don't believe in and in fact is proven not true in some sense, in your signature.
The other statement (Zorn's lemma) is BTW also not entirely true. It is equivalent to the axiom of choice which is independent of ZF just like CH is. But C is a very reasonable and necessary axiom.

It's just that usually people put in the signature statements which they deeply believe in. So for example I would expect to see something like:
"There are exactly five platonic solids in 3d euclidean space".

[Yaakov Mendel]

Not in the least upsets me. I love math too. I just want to understand why you put a statement which you don't believe in and in fact is proven not true in some sense, in your signature.
The other statement (Zorn's lemma) is BTW also not entirely true. It is equivalent to the axiom of choice which is independent of ZF just like CH is. But C is a very reasonable and necessary axiom.

It's just that usually people put in the signature statements which they deeply believe in. So for example I would expect to see something like:
"There are exactly five platonic solids in 3d euclidean space".

I have chosen these two propositions precisely because they are undecidable. That's what makes them interesting : neither proven to be right, nor proven to be wrong, and yet of tremendous importance in many realms of mathematics. This points to a major gap in our current mathematical knowledge that calls for more research. So it's exciting.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Is that a forum for Jewish gays ?

 

[maelgwyn]

Spies!