Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 19:01 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:16:07 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. I already have just done it in reply to Tribble. Don't blame me if you can't keep up with traffic. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 19:01 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:06:00 -0500, Manny Feld <Manny.Feldl(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. And here I thought you were through with me, Manny. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 19:05 On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:55:40 +0000 (UTC), stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >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? > >> ~v~~ > >You have presented no evidence that you can answer the question. I haven't? My mistake. Perhaps you should take it up with Tribble. >Given your "answers" for other mathematical questions, the >likelihood of your answer being at all sensible are rather low. Yes, yes, I know. Just considerably better than your own. >So why don't you just answer the question and see if the OP >recognizes it as an answer to the question? I already have in reply to Tribble. Don't blame me if you can't keep up with traffic. > The OP afterall >should be the one to judge if you can answer the question or not. >Remember, he may has his own ideas about what "big" and >"infinity" mean, and an answer that relies on different ideas >is not likely to satisfy him. OP? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 19:06 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:46:04 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > >>>Well, whatever your point might be, "checked it with the axioms" means >>>actually, you know, checking it. With the axioms. Han didn't do >>>that. >> >> So the conclusions of arithmetic haven't been checked with the axioms >> of arithmetic? Curiouser and curioser. > >Han said that *he* checked a certain equation with the axioms. Since >he does not know what axioms apply, he cannot be telling the truth. So arithmetic is not justified by resort to axioms? >Now, if you ask whether the axioms of arithmetic suffice to prove >10/5 = 2, well that's a different matter. But Han sure as heck did >not check. Some reason he should? ~v~~
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 19:23
In article <l73kf29u2cku5a73g1rpfoe6ktd923vn40(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:16:07 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> 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. > > I already have just done it in reply to Tribble. Don't blame me if you > can't keep up with traffic. Lester Zick wrote: > Mechanically "infinity" just refers to the number of infinitessimals. Lester Zick wrote: > infinity contains finite numbers. As neither of these is a satisfactory definition of infinity, independent of context, Zick has not produced a satisfactory definition of it at all. |