Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 01:45 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:44:22 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <vnamf21ivup6odfi0kc91mmp637thv6j8e(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> 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? >> >Proper grammatical usage as a function of the language used. > >Different languages treat "to be" differently. >In English, "it is we who do....." is correct, >in some other languages the subjective case "we" should be the >objective case "us" as object of a verb, even the verb, "to be", and so >would translate word for word to English as"it is us who do...", even >though that is not grammatically correct English. Yes, yes, I daresay we know all that already, numbnuts. Perhaps you could point out which grammatical case in English construes truth"? ~v~~
From: Virgil on 4 Sep 2006 01:51 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 is, of course, speaking for himself, as he can't speak for anyone else.
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 01:51 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:48:03 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Yeah like somebody's really a winner around here. As far as anyone can tell you're all losers. >As Zick cannot vanquish an allegedly unarmed opponent even though >allegedly armed, those allegations are are more fanciful than real. So let me see if I've got this straight. I can't vanquish an allegedly unarmed opponent who's allegedly armed? No question grammar is your long suit though it's a little difficult to tell exactly what your short suit might be if grammar is indeed your long suit. However it's quite clear you're unarmed in either case, grammatical or not. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 02:14 On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 23:51:23 -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 is, of course, speaking for himself, as he can't speak for anyone >else. I can certainly speak for all allegedly unarmed opponents who are allegedly armed. ~v~~
From: Han de Bruijn on 4 Sep 2006 03:27
Jesse F. Hughes 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. Heh, heh! _Others_ have checked that the axioms of arithmetic suffice to prove 10/5 = 2 . So I don't have to repeat it. We conclude that 10/5 = 2 is a check on the axioms of arithmetic. Read my lips: I didn't say it's a full check ... Han de Bruijn |