S Jayanarayanan sjayana at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 19 23:26:20 CDT 2005

```--- Mahesh Ursekar <mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Pranams:
>  I am sorry to have not kept my word of resting my case but I
> guess a case
> cannot be rested until the final summary is given so I take
> this liberty to
> do that - it will be short to avoid the thread continuing
> further since you
> do not wish to do so.
> to call the
> maha-vakyas axioms. This has two problems:
> 1. As elaborated earlier, they are not "simple" and "intutive"

What makes you think an axiom has to necessarily be "simple" and
"intuitive"? Many branches of Mathematics have axioms that are
not at all "simple" and "intuitive".

Certain kinds of non-Euclidean Geometry consider the axiom:

"Given a line and a point not on the line, there exists more
than one line passing through the given point, that is parallel
to the given line."

Which is equivalent to:

"Parallel lines are not everywhere equidistant."

There is nothing whatsoever that is "simple" and "intuitive"
about the above axiom. In fact, the exact opposite ("parallel
lines are everywhere equidistant") is taught to all high school
students as Euclidean Geometry for the precise reason that it is
"simple" and "intuitive".

-Kartik

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"As they say in Silicon Valley, where I live, if you haven't failed
recently, you're not trying hard enough." -Keith Devlin

____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports