Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: fernando revilla on 5 Sep 2006 09:06 > On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:13:01 EDT, fernando revilla > <frej0002(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: > > >DontBother wrote: > > > >> Don't patronize me, sport. If you can't answer the > >> question I actually > >> asked instead of some question you wish I'd then > >> don't reply. > >> > >> ~v~~ > > > >TEST. > > > >A master of Zen pointing to a table asked: What is > this ? > > > >A table, answered one student. > > > >No it is not, said the master, table is a sound; is > sound > >a sound ? > > And what did the table answer? > > >Answers > > > >a) Yes, sound is always a sound. b) No, the master > is > >trying to lie us. c) Others. > > A mutiple guess zen quiz? How positively > neomathematical. > > >Hint: Language it is not exactly the same than > feelings. > > Whatever. It just seems to be the same as feelings > when employed by > neomathematikers. > > ~v~~ That is a serious story. In an implicit way there appear two different definitions of "table" and also of "sound" all of them correct. ( I must however recognize that we need the hearing sense for understanding it, perhaps nothing to do with formalism. ) Fernando.
From: Lester Zick on 5 Sep 2006 13:20 On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:50:02 +0200, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> "JSH: At the Anals" might be more like it. > >Look who is talking. Yes a matter of fact look who is talking. I've never run into a more anal bunch of sacred cows than academics whose principal objective in life seems to be brow beating and cowing students into submission. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work quite so well on the unmoderated usenet which is undoubtedly why they lament it so. ~v~~
From: David R Tribble on 5 Sep 2006 14:47 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. > David R Tribble wrote: >> Ah, yes, that "infinity is equal to the number of infinitesimals". >> >> Which must be interesting, except that you haven't defined >> "infinitesimal". > Lester Zick wrote: > Just as neither of us has defined "is". You really have to do a little > thinking on your own, sport. If you can't construe the words in the > definition I'm sure a little remedial math will help. Or maybe not. So I have to do a little thinking about the words you wrote before I can understand them, huh? What if I don't know what some of your words mean? My understanding of "infinitesimal" is obviously different from yours, so what do you mean by "infinitesimal"? David R Tribble wrote: >> You also seem to have overlooked the fact that >> infinitesimals > Lester Zick wrote: > And what are "infinitesimals" pray tell? Funny, I though I was asking that question. David R Tribble wrote: >> don't exist in standard arithmetic, which implies, >> if your definition is correct, that infinity does not exist in standard >> arithmetic. > Lester Zick wrote: > Oh well that's sure as hell the truth. I never suggested infinity > exists in finite arithmetic. I believe the original question was how > big infinity was in general terms and not in finite arithmetic terms. > I've answered that. Finite arithmetic is just a trivial subset of > mathematics and transfinite arithmetic trivializes mathematics and > mechanics by assuming the truth of everything it describes without > proof of its truth. Whatever. I suppose you have an example of this somewhere. And just for grins, what is it that transfinite arithmetic is describing? David R Tribble wrote: >> Perhaps you could provide us with that crucial definition? > Lester Zick wrote: > What crucial definition exactly did you have in mind, sport? Pay attention. What are infinitesimals? You defined infinity as the number of infinitesimals. Fine. So what is an infinitesimal?
From: Lester Zick on 5 Sep 2006 15:35 On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:06:59 EDT, fernando revilla <frej0002(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:13:01 EDT, fernando revilla >> <frej0002(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: >> >> >DontBother wrote: >> > >> >> Don't patronize me, sport. If you can't answer the >> >> question I actually >> >> asked instead of some question you wish I'd then >> >> don't reply. >> >> >> >> ~v~~ >> > >> >TEST. >> > >> >A master of Zen pointing to a table asked: What is >> this ? >> > >> >A table, answered one student. >> > >> >No it is not, said the master, table is a sound; is >> sound >> >a sound ? >> >> And what did the table answer? >> >> >Answers >> > >> >a) Yes, sound is always a sound. b) No, the master >> is >> >trying to lie us. c) Others. >> >> A mutiple guess zen quiz? How positively >> neomathematical. >> >> >Hint: Language it is not exactly the same than >> feelings. >> >> Whatever. It just seems to be the same as feelings >> when employed by >> neomathematikers. >> >> ~v~~ > >That is a serious story. In an implicit way there appear >two different definitions of "table" and also of "sound" >all of them correct. Jesus you really consider this story bears any epistemological significance whatsoever? This is nothing but a completely trivial instance of zen truth. First we had Virgil's truth as a function of grammar and now we have truth as a function of grasshoppers. >( I must however recognize that we need the hearing >sense for understanding it, perhaps nothing to do with >formalism. ) Sure. Why don't you consider submitting the story to The Journal of Comparative Philology where it will probably get exactly the consideration it deserves. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 5 Sep 2006 15:39
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:03:10 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:48:03 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> 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. Virgil was suggesting that you, while allegedly armed - whatever >that means -, are unable to vanguish an allegedly unarmed opponent. At >least that's the sensible reading of the sentence. What he, or you, are >going on about, or why, I have no idea. Just a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent. I have no idea what Virgil was trying to say but that's nothing unusual. Virgil just more or less wanders through a typological forest unprotected saying whatever comes to mind, his mind that is. In the sentence above it is certainly unclear what the referent is of the phrase "even though allegedly armed" so I just chose the more amusing option. ~v~~ |