Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 3 Sep 2006 15:17 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:04:45 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <ah0mf2lmvhjgl1ne3taco1me41blupm5ee(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> 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: > >> >> >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? > >My parents told me. You know who they are? >To bad you didn't have any, or you might have learnt it too. Clever devil. >> >But that level of moral/ethical obligation is clearly quite foreign to >> >Zick. >> >> Just as the truth is to you. > >Zick says that because he is entirely incapable of recognizing truth. Whereas you're the arbiter of truth. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 3 Sep 2006 15:18 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:06:41 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <qi0mf2h3lr9lb4vu06bp5063d5tduq5f47(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:56:47 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <4t4kf2phpmptgut1bepl91pfbie4eab4nq(a)4ax.com>, >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:54:26 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >Zick seems to object to anyone else having an opinion of what "true" >> >> >means, and to bolster his own Know-Nothing position declines to express >> >> >any opinion of his own on what "true" means. >> >> >> >> Only because I don't know how to issue declarations. >> > >> >You just issued one anyway! >> >> How do you know that's true? >> >The truth of Zick's declarations is his own responsibility. But the truth of yours is not. >But it is one he honours more in the breach than in the observance. Whereas you honor most everything in the breach. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 3 Sep 2006 15:20 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:51:47 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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". Truth as a function of grammar? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 3 Sep 2006 15:22 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:28:03 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <ii1mf2lrcn71q4l3qgfhmbh7f27gb1q9t7(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:34:34 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >My answer is that exclamations, requests, commands, questions, etc, >> >> >even when grammatically sentences, are not declarations, and only >> >> >delarations need be either true or false. >> >> >> >> So is this a declaration, sport? >> > >> >If you can't figure that out for yourself, sport, you are too dim to >> >comment upon mathematics at all. >> >> Whereas you prefer to comment on grammar instead. > >When relevant, and among other things, yes. Truth as a function of grammar? >Wheras Zick's only goal in commenting is one-ups-manship. Kinda futile for me to engage in a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent. ~v~~
From: John Schutkeker on 3 Sep 2006 17:11
Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote in news:vnamf21ivup6odfi0kc91mmp637thv6j8e(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:51:47 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>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". > > Truth as a function of grammar? Good one. |