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 30 Jul 2010 20:48
On Jul 30, 5:32 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> MoeBlee wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 6:06 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> MoeBlee wrote:
> >>> I wrote you a LIST of technical definitions and theorems!!!
> >> Where in that list would it contain your explanation why the given
> >> definition of "disprovable" would make sense in the case of an
> >> inconsistent theory?
>
> > This is TOO delicious!
>
> > Why would ANY definition make sense when it doesn't make clauses for
> > ALL KINDS of special circumstances?
>
> Rhetorical, MoeBlee. We're only talking about 2 cases: consistent
> and inconsistent theories.

Your case analysis is entirely unnecessary. Worse than
unnecessary, in fact: it introduces artificial confusion
where none existed before.

It is telling that even when the number of cases is limited
to two, you're still too stupid to be able to generalize.

Maybe that should be your nickname: 2Stupid2Generalize.


Marshall
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 31 Jul 2010 05:12
Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes:

> Maybe that should be your nickname: 2Stupid2Generalize.

This is bafflingly and uncharacteristically lame, unless I'm missing
some subtle allusion, a pop culture reference from before my time,
perhaps. Insults are sometimes just fine, and will always be with us,
but surely we can expect the more sophisticated insulter to put in the
effort and execute the called for derogatory motions with some class and
finesse.

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

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Marshall on 31 Jul 2010 08:04
On Jul 31, 2:12 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
> Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > Maybe that should be your nickname: 2Stupid2Generalize.
>
> This is bafflingly and uncharacteristically lame, unless I'm missing
> some subtle allusion, a pop culture reference from before my time,
> perhaps. Insults are sometimes just fine, and will always be with us,
> but surely we can expect the more sophisticated insulter to put in the
> effort and execute the called for derogatory motions with some class and
> finesse.

Missing pop culture reference:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322259/

But, on further reflection, even taking the reference into account,
I think your criticism is justified. I withdraw the earlier mockery.


Marshall
The More Sophisticated Insulter
Beef-eating Invasion Monkey
Notable "Shoenfield" misspeller
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 31 Jul 2010 09:54
Marshall <marshall.spight(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.

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

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 31 Jul 2010 16:11
Marshall <marshall.spight(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? 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.


Footnotes:
[1] It's standard practice in news debates to obsessively scour the
archives for potentially humiliating posts from years ago. Or so I've
been told by professional news debaters.

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

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
 |  Next  |  Last
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