> Half of the things you claim I said are quite willful misquotes of what I wrote. All of the things I claim you said are verbatim copies of things you wrote,

> Half of the things you claim I said are quite willful misquotes of what I wrote. All of the things I claim you said are verbatim copies of things you wrote, copied and pasted directly from your comments, with one exception: I changed a lower case p to an upper case P, but even there I indicated the edit with [brackets] as is customary. No reasonable person could consider that a "willful misquote". > check the actual rigorous logically coherent textbook references I shared What textbook references? You linked to one paper by Pogliani and Berberan-Santos, and one mathexchange article. All of your other links were to Wikipedia. BTW, I just browsed through the P&B-S paper, and it is also logically incoherent. > ... his famous second axiom, that constitutes the real novelty of his work ... “In the neighborhood of any equilibrium state of a system (of any number of thermodynamic coordinates), there exists states that are inaccessible by reversible adiabatic processes”. ... It can be noticed that in the axioms and definitions of the new method there is no mention of heat, temperature or entropy whatsoever But that is not true. The axiom is framed in terms of "adiabatic processes" and "equilibrium state", both of which depend on the concept of heat. I'm sorry, but if this is the best you have, then the whole field of axiomatic thermodynamics is utterly bankrupt.