Prev: OPERATIONS AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 13-E JACOBS Test Bank and solution manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at alltestbanks11[at]gmail.com to buy it today. All emails will be answered ASAP.
Next: converting "pi base" to "e base" Re: Euclidean geom = Elliptic unioned Hyperbolic #4.33 & #249 Correcting Math & Atom Totality
From: Marshall on 31 Jul 2010 22:14
On Jul 31, 6:54 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
> Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > Notable "Shoenfield" misspeller
>
> Your misspelling was not that notable, I'm afraid, though perhaps an
> iota more so than Menzel's very conservative suggestion (due
> independently to several people, an established part of logical
> "folklore"): "Schoenfield". I've seen references in the literature to a
> text by the title _Mathematical Logic_ penned by one
> "R. J. Shoneld". That's your competition.

I meant it like ((notable) (shoenfield misspeller)) not
like (notable (schoenfield misspeller)). But that's
natural language for you!


Marshall
From: Marshall on 31 Jul 2010 22:31
On Jul 31, 1:11 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
> Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > But, on further reflection, even taking the reference into account,
> > I think your criticism is justified. I withdraw the earlier mockery.
>
> Incidentally, I accidentally[1] stumbled upon something you wrote a few
> years ago, on comp.databases.theory:
>
>   [Claims to the effect this or that poster is an idiot] are not
>   empirical observations about the people, because you can't observe the
>   people. You can only observe their usenet posts. This is not
>   sufficient to judge the individuals, but it is sufficient to judge the
>   posts themselves. Commenting on the posts, the ideas therein, etc. is
>   perfectly fair game, and I am among the harshest critics of the
>   *ideas* of some of the people whom you most revile. In fact, I daresay
>   I am a much more *effective* deterrent to the adoption of those ideas
>   by third parties than you are, because my refutations are substantive
>   and address the ideas themselves, whereas your refutations are
>   dominated by ad hominem insults, which intelligent people do not find
>   persuasive.
>
> I wonder, did you change your mind, or do you consider your recent
> comments about Nam's person and failings to pertain solely to the
> arguments and (often bizarre and baffling) claims he's presented in
> news?

Though it was several years ago, I can still recall writing that
post, and can even recall word for word some of the responses
that it elicited.

I changed my mind. Or rather, I was argued against, most persuasively
and vehemently, until I could not but abandon the above idealism.

I short, I was butt-wrong about that stuff.


> I find insulting people in news, unless done in a particularly
> entertaining or informative manner, to be pointless, ineffective,
> something to be avoided on purely stylistic grounds if for no other
> reason.

We are all free to decide for ourselves ... uh, this and that ...
what is pointless on stylistic grounds, something something
something. Well, I can hum the melody but the lyrics escape me
at the moment. Anyway you know the drill.

Alas, I don't know if I can ever hope to spew the level of
vitriol that cranks receive on comp.databases.theory.
Someone like Nam inspires me to reach for that goal!
But I'm such a nice guy, the best I can do is "talentless
buffoon." Nothing about motherfuckers or any of that
sort of thing; thus verbally hobbled am I.

Insulting them vigorously is the only method I have ever
seen reach a crank.


Marshall
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 1 Aug 2010 12:41
Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes:

> We are all free to decide for ourselves ... uh, this and that ...
> what is pointless on stylistic grounds, something something
> something. Well, I can hum the melody but the lyrics escape me
> at the moment. Anyway you know the drill.

Everyone has to decide for themselves whether they know this and
that. Such decisions are of course not arbitrary or unconstrained. In
some cases we have clear criteria by which we judge whether someone
knows this and that. Someone who knows what the capital of France is,
for instance, is excepted to be able to name the right city when asked
what the capital of France is. In other cases the criteria are not as
clearly defined. What does it mean for someone to know there is an
inaccessible cardinal? What does it mean for someone to know there is no
inaccessible cardinal? And so it goes.

> Insulting them vigorously is the only method I have ever
> seen reach a crank.

Reach how?

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Virgil on 1 Aug 2010 17:12
In article <87aap69tgf.fsf(a)dialatheia.truth.invalid>,
Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote:


>
> Everyone has to decide for themselves whether they know this and
> that. Such decisions are of course not arbitrary or unconstrained. In
> some cases we have clear criteria by which we judge whether someone
> knows this and that. Someone who knows what the capital of France is,
> for instance, is excepted to be able to name the right city when asked
> what the capital of France is. In other cases the criteria are not as
> clearly defined. What does it mean for someone to know there is an
> inaccessible cardinal? What does it mean for someone to know there is no
> inaccessible cardinal? And so it goes.

Presumably, criteria for being inacessable would NOT include being able
point to one.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: OPERATIONS AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 13-E JACOBS Test Bank and solution manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at alltestbanks11[at]gmail.com to buy it today. All emails will be answered ASAP.
Next: converting "pi base" to "e base" Re: Euclidean geom = Elliptic unioned Hyperbolic #4.33 & #249 Correcting Math & Atom Totality