hours before hmc jumped here yesterday, i explained to him very well that im not interested in any further discussion with him. and i wont drag myself. even though he tries very hard.
and the reason, as i explained to him, is as he admitted, that he doesnt even try to be a little bit of a gentleman.
i then told him i'll back to discussion when being gentleman is part of the rules. specifically his non-gentleman rule "our interaction should have only one form: i speak, i do not provide proofs or sources, and your (mine) role, is to prove that i'm *right*".
i wish it was a joke.
but i repeated it yesterday more than dozen of times in order to make sure he's serious on this.
so im not going into any discussions with an explicit declaration of no intention of basic seriousness, or even animal-level respect.
and i didnt even mentoin the lies, frauds, mistakes, trollings, math&cs stupidity and emptiness (it's all a fraudlent buzzword show!!), i can forget them all, given someone wants to behave at least little bit normally. no matter math/art/fun/biz.
I was never aware of any expectation of being a gentleman. Our agreement was simple, I would explain the design and do my best to answer any questions, and Ohad would implement - prove the concept. I describe, Ohad programs.
This was the explicit agreement we made at the start. I'm a little baffled as to why it was a suitable agreement for years, but is now today suddenly "non-gentleman."
All I really want to know now is if you agree that there are second/third/higher order theories which can not possibly collapse to be consistently proven in monadic second order?
If you say "yes" and agree that there are such statements then we have some common ground to perhaps proceed with.
If you say "no" (as your other comments have implied) then your perspective differs from that of the past ~60 years of philosophy, and I'd surely like to understand how/why.
If you give me both answers and then refuse to say another word in clarification, what am I to make of your behavior? Inconsistent? "Non-Gentleman"ly?
Anyway, all I was doing was answering some questions about mltt and autonomic. I didn't come here to revisit your nonsense yet again.