Does Lobachevsky's V axiom deny Euclid's V axiom

[Maciej Wozniak]

Well, they're practically negation of each other.
And you won't find a rule "not p is not necessarily
denying p" in mathematics - but it is an usual component
of pseudophilosophies concocted by morons for excusing
both their inconsistencies and plain lies.

So - the question is as in the topic. What do you think?

[Python]

Well, they're practically  negation of each other.
And you won't find a rule "not p is not necessarily
denying p" in mathematics - but it is an usual component
of pseudophilosophies concocted by morons for excusing
both their inconsistencies and plain lies.
So - the question is as in the topic. What do you think?

https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CS198505

"Just a darn minute — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Well, they're practically  negation of each other.
And you won't find a rule "not p is not necessarily
denying p" in mathematics - but it is an usual component
of pseudophilosophies concocted by morons for excusing
both their inconsistencies and plain lies.
So - the question is as in the topic. What do you think?

https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CS198505
"Just a darn minute — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"

Keep raving and spitting, poor stinker.
You won't find a rule "not p is not necessarily
denying p" in mathematics - but it is an usual component
of pseudophilosophies concocted by morons for excusing
both their inconsistencies and plain lies.
Not only your bunch of idiots denied basic math,
but it also fabricated the evidence against
basic math.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).