Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 15:53 In article <6tugf21kgscl3husk4kcaaig2opb95vnq4(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:45:53 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <atoef2tmmumlchqaij7td39j6mcmra7sa3(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> Now weren't you > >> about to show us a rac construction for pi on a straight line, Virgil? > > > >Whyever would I want to do that? > > You claim but cannot demonstrate. So what else is new with Virgil in > the wonderland of neomathematics. Where did I ever claim to be able to do "a rac construction for pi on a straight line" ? I did say that the arc length of a semicircle was pi times the length of its diameter, but nothing in my statement implies pi on a straight line. Zick really should learn to read only what is there and not impose his own misrepresentations on things. > > >It seems to be something that Zick is fascinated by, but it does not > >intrigue me at all. > > The only thing that fascinates you seems to be truthless axioms and > definitions. Axioms are of unknow truth, because they are neither provable not disprovable except from unprovable assumptions. That does not imply that they are neither true nor false, only that we don't know which. > >So if Zick wants it done, he will have to do it himself. > > So now I have to demonstrate your claims for you? A "rac construction for pi on a straight line" is Zick's claim, not mine, so he should do the construction. If he thinks he can.
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 15:54 In article <d4vgf2td87jegnnm6o9askth6m74fpfgll(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:12:21 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <pvfef2du45tb18i8tpuagh4gujc81flqrd(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:20:55 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <1157024892.614341.149030(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > >> > schoenfeld.one(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> > > > > >> >> Definitions can be false too (i.e. "Let x be an even odd"). > >> > > >> >That definition is not false, as it does not say that any such thing > >> >exists. Nor is it true. It is merely impossible to fulfill. > >> > >> Arbiter dicta are often difficult to fulfill but we do the best we can > >> anyway. > > > > Definitions, not being enforceable, are not 'arbiter dicta'. > > So you haven't tried to enforce your definition of definitions on me? Nor have you been able to force your "true or false" on definitions.
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 16:03 In article <1avgf250kbf3ubqua961u2ks2uf9bkljrg(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > So now conclusions of arithmetic are not even not demonstrably > inconsistent with the axioms of arithmetic? Stripping the unnecessary double negative out of that leaves what? "Conclusions of arithmetic are even demonstrably inconsistent with the axioms of arithmetic"? Show me any "conclusion of arithmetic" inconsistent with the axioms of arithmetic, if you can, Zick.
From: david petry on 1 Sep 2006 16:20 Chip Eastham wrote: > Robert Israel wrote: > > In article <1156822962.655075.212160(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > > david petry <david_lawrence_petry(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >Nathan wrote: > > >> david petry wrote: > > >> > > >> > It could be argued that since the mathematics community does expend a > > >> > great deal of energy in the search for formal proofs of conjectures > > >> > having ridiculously high probabilities of being true, and often turns a > > >> > blind eye to the probabilistic arguments, the mathematics community > > >> > itself engages in crank-like behavior. > > >> > > >> I have read many heuristic arguments advanced by mathematicians to > > >> suggest what *might* be true, especially in number theory. I disagree > > >> that the community "often turns a blind eye" to such. It's just that > > >> these still leave the actual question unanswered. > > > > > >It all depends on what the "actual" question is. If mathematics is > > >thought of as a science having the purpose of explaining why we observe > > >the phenomena that we do observe, then the heuristic argument really > > >does answer the "actual" question. There's absolutely no reason to > > >believe that we can do better than a heuristic argument in many cases. > > " Except that > 1) in many cases we _can_ do better. > 2) many perfectly plausible statements, supported by all kinds of > heuristics, turn out to be wrong." > > Ironically this is a good heuristic argument that we can > do better than a heuristic argument in many cases! > Thus we should ordinarily try, which contrary to Petry's > claim that mathematicians turn a blind eye to heuristics, > leads to minutely careful evaluation of them. FWIW, my claim was that mathematicians turn a blind eye to probabilistic arguments. Nathan then changed that to "heuristic" arguments, which may not be the same thing. Probabilistic arguments are part of the scientific method, but they absolutely must be validated by experiment. If Robert Israel thinks there are lots of examples of probabilistic arguments supported by experimental evidence which nevertheless lead to wrong conclusions, I'd like to see him name one such case.
From: Lester Zick on 1 Sep 2006 18:04
On 1 Sep 2006 11:48:43 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> .All that is really demonstrated of theorems >> is the absence of logical inconsistency between them and their axioms >> and not truth. > >No, I told you a long time ago All you do though is talk, Moe. You and Virgil are nothing but a string of opinions one after the other. > that a proof of a theorem is a proof >that the theorem is entailed by the axioms, not just that the theorem >is consistent with the axioms (and entailment entails consistency as >long as the axioms are consistent). That you still don't understand the >difference between entailment and consistency indicates again your lack >of understanding even the most basic matters of logic. My lack of understanding is primarily confined to these looney tune claims you make without however demonstrating their truth. ~v~~ |