Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Virgil on 31 Aug 2006 00:02 In article <bn4cf213is70kjhmu35h9e7945hc3bb36i(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:43:02 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <r7kbf2tlc70iqjm2rp4ktprl1o3uui79jf(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > > > >> >Hello Crackpot. > >> > >> Crackpot=disagreer. Quite mathematical. > > > >Crackpots are those who disagree not only without supporting evidence > >but despite contrary evidence. > > > >Like Zick. > > Like exactly what contrary evidence do you mean, sport? Your opinions > and assumptions of what's true and false? Or in your case I guess I > should say your opinion of what's not true and not false? Zick claims that mathematicians claim their axioms to be true. What evidence does he have of this claim? Like most of his claims here, none!
From: Virgil on 31 Aug 2006 00:05 In article <qq4cf21t473v82d2umj055qta3l3ah4gej(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:45:24 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <hakbf2d6souukukddroosgeuabjaghhuea(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On 30 Aug 2006 05:01:52 -0700, schoenfeld.one(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> > > > >> >Falsifiability does not _need_ to apply in mathematics. In math, > >> >statements can be true without their being a proof of it being true. > >> >Likewise, they can be false. > >> > >> Except apparently for definitions. > > > >Definitions are imperatives. One may refuse to obey an imperative, but > >it is nonsense to claim one false. > > And mathematikers make good dictators but poor mathematicians. Zick claims to speak for a group he calls mathematikers, of which he must be a member to speak for them so authoritatively , but I can only speak for mathematicians.
From: Virgil on 31 Aug 2006 00:08 In article <ou4cf25j7smflaj640pd28g2t2stq2r6cd(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:39:19 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <62kbf21u4qbprpujl413gv2j0gaqahlgl3(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:03:17 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > >> <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> > >> >John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > >> > > >> >> Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in > >> >> news:1156865725.8346.5.camel(a)localhost.localdomain: > >> >> > >> >>> Unfortunately mathematics is not an experimental science. > >> >> > >> >> I disagree. > >> > > >> >Fair enough. > >> > > >> >*Fortunately* mathematics is not an experimental science. > >> > >> And yet unfortunately mathematical axioms are empirically established. > > > > > >Let's see Zick empirically establish the axiom of infinity, then. > > See, Virgil, the problem is that you issue a series of edicts and > expect others to take them seriously. When I take issue with another's edict, Zick misreads it as my issuing an edict. Zick cannot even read.
From: Han de Bruijn on 31 Aug 2006 03:19 Lester Zick wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:10:10 +0200, Han de Bruijn > <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > >>Lester Zick wrote: >> >>>Actually an interesting prespective. Certainly mathematical axioms if >>>not theorems are empirically established. >> >>Axioms are implicit definitions. > > Which are empirically established and not demonstrated. Not necessarily. The axioms of group theory _are_ just the definition of what a group _is_. Many other structures are possible, though, and some of these are equally worth to be investigated. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 31 Aug 2006 03:22
Lester Zick wrote: > In physics a hypothesis is either contradictory or not. Likewise, in biology, a piece of fruit is an apple or not. Han de Bruijn |