Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 19:48 In article <1pamf25nr3h4p1bkgugg44v0k3vheih2tr(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > Kinda futile for me to engage in a duel of wits with an unarmed > opponent. Particularly when Zick does not win. As Zick cannot vanquish an allegedly unarmed opponent even though allegedly armed, those allegations are are more fanciful than real.
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 01:21 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 21:11:40 GMT, John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote: >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. Thank you. Much grass. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 01:33 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:27:49 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <qbamf2pm9e5q8bhlk3p5632mj51jo3jqbi(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> 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. > >Zick, of course, only speaks for himself. >> >> >> >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? > >As Zick did not define it adequately, no one knows. Well as you referred to some mysterious "it" but failed to reference it accurately, I guess we can safely conclude that you're "it". ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 01:34 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:28:42 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <gdamf2ti6bgo0k2eedvgbku4r8a93rs76q(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> 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. > >And the only thing true about Zick! Whereas there's nothing true about you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 01:36
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:32:50 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <ieamf2h3u904jqk0ft0t0o9le5k8nh0h72(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:04:45 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >But that level of moral/ethical obligation is clearly quite foreign to >> >> >Zick. >> >> >> >> Just as the truth is to you. > > >As Zick cannot, or at least has not, said unambiguously what he means by >"truth", he is saying nothing. Whereas you're saying something? >> >Zick says that because he is entirely incapable of recognizing truth. >> >> Whereas you're the arbiter of truth. > >Should I believe it because Zick claims it? You should believe whatever neomathematikers tell you to believe. ~v~~ |