Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: fernando revilla on 5 Sep 2006 12:59 > 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~~ At least we are enjoying a lot, aren't we ? Fenando.
From: John Schutkeker on 5 Sep 2006 17:16 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in news:87lkoycsux.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org: > John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > >> "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in >> news:87wt8ilgga.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org: >> >>> I am not so dismissive of the importance of peer-reviewed >>> publication as you are. But I also see the value of web >>> publications (and I don't mean Usenet posts!). >> >> How long until a scientific YouTube appears? > > The fact is that web-publishing is a very nice feature of modern > academic life. I don't have to wait for a referee report before > sharing my work, even with people I have never met. Google allows me > also to find preprints available on others' websites. This is a great > advantage. > > But it doesn't replace the peer-reviewed system. Google can point me > to some totally dreadful papers that waste my time. Well, so can a > journal search, but perhaps a bit less often. > > There's nothing at all wrong with using both. I try to post papers to > my website when they're ready for submission and sometimes I post > papers that I don't intend to publish elsewhere. Maybe someone can > find some uses of my ideas -- even the ideas that I've decided not to > pursue further. > > By the way, scientific YouTube predates YouTube. It's called > arXiv.org (though I've never really used that site myself). Isn't Arxiv peer-reviewed?
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 5 Sep 2006 17:35 John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > Isn't Arxiv peer-reviewed? No. -- "Now for once I might actually have an audience that realizes that [my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is correct], because you see, they'll finally know what's in it for them--cold, hard cash." --James Harris embarks on a new mathematical strategy.
From: Virgil on 5 Sep 2006 17:51 In article <14krf21380dfv1tck0dqgvskm37rm8uthq(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > 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. Better than truth because Zick says so"
From: Virgil on 5 Sep 2006 17:54
In article <vckrf21eftu9dec4bndsritu590geljcak(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > I have no idea what > Virgil was trying to say but that's nothing unusual. As Zick usually does not even have any idea what Zick is trying to say, one is hardly surprised at his inability to understand what others say. |