Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614353

Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate.

Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Date	2023-07-03 06:08 -0700
References	(8 earlier) <50ce7cff-3aad-4065-ac5f-71414305c246n@googlegroups.com> <kgfpe6F4h71U1@mid.individual.net> <u7uf6a$3mtl3$1@dont-email.me> <040f86a4-78b9-4af4-b8d2-5e33d3f3e0b0n@googlegroups.com> <u7ugjl$3n1gj$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID	<fae41ceb-552e-4d89-a00a-cc139ec434a3n@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate.
From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:57:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Ranting senile Polish Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:33:19 UTC+2, Python wrote: 
> >> Le 03/07/2023 à 13:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : 
> >> ... 
> >>> Very helpful. But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters 
> >>> of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose as 
> >>> I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm one 
> >>> of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" but 
> >>> "one of the best". Big difference. 
> >> Maciej still owes me a keyboard. 
> > 
> > Oh, stinker Python is opening his muzzle again, 
> > to pretend that he knows something. Still 
> > insisting that Bourbaki's definition of function 
> > doesn't have "for all elements of the domain" 
> > clause?
> Listen, idiot: I pointed out exactly where it is stated. 

Listen, idiot, no you didn't. Could even find 
a quote where you admit that what you pointed 
is  irrelevant.
Anyway, you still do insist. See, Athel - your 
fellow idiot is an idiot.

Thread

csiph-web