Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 14:08 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:22:56 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi> wrote: >MoeBlee wrote: >> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >>> MoeBlee's answer might be considered somewhat more obfuscated than >>> necessary. >> >> My purpose was not to give just an informal explanation, but also to >> explain that, and how, this is formalized. > >Why? Do you think the formalism will help Zick? Formalisms for "true", "false", and "infinity" might help Zick considerably if they were true. But alas we only seem to have a multitude of formalisms for "truth values" and "infinite" which are neither true nor false but indeed represent merely so many arbitrary and capricious claims. ~v~~
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 14:16 In article <t5gjf29pcp3a1ggfh9loe7lf9el3vlrerg(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:07:24 -0500, Manny Feld > <Manny.Feldl(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Virgil wrote: > > > >> > >> Zick seems to care enough to keep him posting. > > > >Zick's positings are like grafitti scrawled over the accomplishments of > >others. Zick is essentially an intellectual vandal. Unable to create > >anything of worth or value, he attempts to deface the work and value of > >his betters. And that is all I have to say about Mr. Zick. > > Well thanks so much for sharing your opinion on the subject. Now > perhaps you'd care to tell us exactly how big infinity is? That is if > you're not too busy casting aspersions on the intellectual talent of > other who can? Since Zick implies above that HE can tell us how big "infinity" is, why doesn't just he do it, or get off the pot.
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 14:25 In article <7ggjf2hs0b696iqnenlsqia7vtl56n1c90(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:57:57 -0500, Manny Feld > <Manny.Feldl(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Lester Zick wrote: > >> Then they aren't true. > > > >Nor are they false. In an axiomatic (or postulational) system you show > >that a subset of the possible formulas or statements of the system > >follow from the basic assumptions by way of agreed upon rules of inference. > > Well thanks so much again for your opinion on the subject, Manny. Not > that it matters very much. Since Manny's opinions above happen to be right, where Zick's on that issue have not been, Manny's opinions matter a good deal more than any of Zick's opinions. > > >For example: Is it true or false that a geodesic between two points of a > >space is a Euclidean straight line connecting the points? > > The only thing defined between points are straight line segments, > sport. That idiocy shows just how limited Zick's knowledge of mathematics is. > >In an axiomatic or formal system the question is NOT what is true, but > >what follows from the assumptions. > > So in modern mathspeak you have no interest in what is true? That may be Zick's deliberate misinterpretation, but does not affect the TRUTH of whether a particular conclusion follows logically from a particular set of assumptions, and this is precisely the sort of TRUE that mathematicians are interested in.
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 14:32 In article <srgjf2tjitdjhmckalhbakdgp913fd37k0(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 1 Sep 2006 16:22:42 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I'm not prepared to deal with predicate combinations which are not > >> true, false, or ambiguous. > > > >You mean there are statements which have no truth value? > > I mean there are statements which are true, false, or ambiguous. Do you mean that there are declarative statements that need not be either true or false? What are they then, chopped liver? > > >And yet when we say a "definition" is a statement which has > >no truth value, you say there's no such thing. > > Can't tell what you imagine that means. Zick has had no previous such blanks in telling people what they imagine and what they mean, so why now? > >One might almost conclude that Zick doesn't have any > >clue what he himself is saying from one post to the next... > > What I'm not saying is that definitions in modern mathspeak are true. > Neither are you. Zick would be a good deal wiser, or atpresent an appearance of being so, by not_saying a lot more.
From: Manny Feld on 2 Sep 2006 16:06
Virgil wrote: > > Since Zick implies above that HE can tell us how big "infinity" is, why > doesn't just he do it, or get off the pot. He IS the pot. Manny Feld |