Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Han.deBruijn on 3 Sep 2006 13:35 John Schutkeker wrote: > Did the professors that you showed it to have have any specific > complaints, or did they just say "Everybody knows that it can't be > done"? This: "Sorry, mr. de Bruijn, it is _us_ who do the research here". Han de Bruijn
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 13:51 In article <1157304905.224581.305990(a)74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > John Schutkeker wrote: > > > Did the professors that you showed it to have have any specific > > complaints, or did they just say "Everybody knows that it can't be > > done"? > > This: "Sorry, mr. de Bruijn, it is _us_ who do the research here". > > Han de Bruijn Any professor speaking English ought to have said "It is _we_ who do the research here".
From: John Schutkeker on 3 Sep 2006 14:10 Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote in news:1157304905.224581.305990@ 74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com: > John Schutkeker wrote: > >> Did the professors that you showed it to have have any specific >> complaints, or did they just say "Everybody knows that it can't be >> done"? > > This: "Sorry, mr. de Bruijn, it is _us_ who do the research here". If they don't have specific criticisms, ignore them. Do you think you will present it at a conference?
From: Lester Zick on 3 Sep 2006 15:14 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:31:33 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <gk1mf2hbguko7fga1qekpq3vmtc2g2qe2b(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:23:40 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >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, Zick >> >has not defined "infinity" satisfactorily. > >> >> I daresay to a grammarian it wouldn't appear so. > >Nor to anyone else of sense. Nor to anyone senseless. >> >independent of context, Zick has not produced a satisfactory definition >> >of it at all. >> >> Of what exactly? > >Of what Zick attempted. but failed. to define adequately. Which might be what, sport? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 3 Sep 2006 15:15
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:02:04 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <t40mf2dhoi7bvlmbhun3pm69cb9r2j4vpj(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> 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! > >Zick calling someone else a liar is arrogance. But true arrogance. ~v~~ |