>he argues about whether or not zero is a natural number
>he argues about whether or not one is a prime number
>he does not realize that the REALLY fun autistic definitional thing to argue about, is whether or not a ring includes a multiplicative identity element, or "1" by definition
>he does not consider the lack of consensus on "rngs", "rings", and whether the phrases "ring with unity", "ring with identity" are either substantive or superfluous
>>9115688
shit thread because what should be argued against is the (misnamed) Continuum Hypothesis (it's an axiom - an hypothesis can be tested) that goes against all intuition and reason.
>>9115863
I notice that you are already a partisan in your own chosen affair. It's kind of cute.