Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 23:58 In article <ul4kf257477jfahbsh8sirpsd2f9gjqk6n(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:32:12 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Zick would be a good deal wiser, or at least present an appearance of being so, > >by not_saying a lot more. > > Thanks again, sport, for your opinion on a subject you know not > whereof you speak. A trick I am learning from Zick's mastery of it.
From: Han.deBruijn on 3 Sep 2006 06:27 John Schutkeker wrote: > [ ... snip ... ] But what > could you possibly find interesting about the mathematics, > if the method is obsolete? The method (LSFEM) indeed has become more or less obsolete, within the Numerical Mathematics community, despite of the fact that it seemed to be quite promising at first sight. The reason being that any attempt to make it even reasonably efficient seemed to fail. I think I'm the only person in the world who has been crazy enough NOT to give up. After ten years of my children saying "dad, why are you always drawing triangles at the backside of an envelope", I finally found a solution. It's not difficult, only quite uncommon, if not to say: controversial. The following is a cut and paste of your poster with ucase(content): > THEIR ATTENTION IS SO BADLY FRAGMENTED THAT > THEY DON'T KNOW A LOT OF IMPORTANT THINGS. > But I believe that they *do* know what you said, and you just didn't > find the right person. At MIT, Princeton and Caltech, that sort of > thing is common knowledge. You're hanging with the wrong crowd. They DON'T KNOW what I've said. I'm hanging with the wrong planet. > How's your control theory? Sorry. Don't get your point here ... > How did you learn CFD? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNR-300 (: 1974 - 1985) Han de Bruijn
From: David R Tribble on 3 Sep 2006 11:08 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. > Lester Zick wrote: > I already have just done it in reply to Tribble. Don't blame me if you > can't keep up with traffic. Ah, yes, that "infinity is equal to the number of infinitesimals". Which must be interesting, except that you haven't defined "infinitesimal". You also seem to have overlooked the fact that infinitesimals don't exist in standard arithmetic, which implies, if your definition is correct, that infinity does not exist in standard arithmetic. Perhaps you could provide us with that crucial definition?
From: Lester Zick on 3 Sep 2006 12:25 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:32:54 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:46:04 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" >> <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> >>>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? > >No reason at all. Aside from the fact that he *said* that he checked >it with the axioms. So either arithmetic theorems are inconsistent with arithmetic axioms or one can't rely on them as representative of axioms in particular contexts? >This was a lie. Oh how you do go on. > A harmless exaggeration, perhaps. A bit like transcendentals are irrationals perhaps? > No great moral >failing, Except in the eyes of those who call it a lie. > but for some reason you seem completely unable to see this >point. Han said he did something he did not do. Then arithmetic theorems are indeed not representative of arithmetic axioms in arithmetic contexts. You lie! >That's all. I'd say it's quite enough. >I have no idea what you're going on and on about. Neither have I any idea what you're going on and on about. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 3 Sep 2006 12:26
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:21:31 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <lh3kf2ddd2ojjumc0gup6dmvvh6bngdr75(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> 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? > >Only that if one says one has done something, it is proper to have >actually done it. And how pray tell do you know that's true? >But that level of moral/ethical obligation is clearly quite foreign to >Zick. Just as the truth is to you. ~v~~ |