re you seem to be assuming that my previous message here was written after cmummert's recent rewrite nonsense i also wrote my comment before cmummert's recent rewrite as i'm not clairvoyant i can assure you that i did not think the then future preceded the then already past re i think that ruakh is saying that 'the fact that adding an axiom to an inconsistent theory can't make it consistent follows immediately from the definition of an inconsistent theory ' is original research even though it is obviously true you think wrong i'm not saying that at all the original research isn't in that fact but in the conclusion that such and such books are wrong you can't go around wikipedia claiming sources are wrong without citing any sort of reference to support your claims even if you provide a convincing logical argument to support them