A small collection, yes.

Yeah, sure, that was my working assumption initially. I'm a very reasonable person and I thought, hey, all these mathematicians, surely they must know what they are talking about! I expected some sort of resolution along the line you're suggesting here. But at some point, I realised that what these people are talking about, that is, mathematical logic, isn't logic, i.e. isn't the logic of human reasoning.

No big deal, though, just please leave us alone and don't come and lecture us human beings about what arguments are valid and what aren't.

But no. They have to lecture people. They can't stop themselves. They won't say, Oh, you have a different view on logic? Let's debate on that in a rational and civilised manner! No, instead, wherever I would post something on logic, some intemperate dude would start chiding me as if I was the villainous perpetrator of a hideous crime. Two of them actually completely lost it, going beserk on line! LOL! They sort of don't like ... the contradiction! It makes them explode, I guess.

You're wrong and I won't show anything, but for some of them I found that they were already on Wikipedia, so it's not even a secret and therefore mathematicians know of them, I mean those at least who know their stuff.

Sure, you do, and that's fine with me, as long as you don't pretend toknowthat mathematical logic iscorrect. You just don't know that. Most mathematicians don't even know what it means for a theory of logic or a definition of validity to be correct. They just haven't a clue.

I'm not here to teach logic. I make an empirical investigation, and it's for all to see. The ones without blinkers.

EB