Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Proginoskes on 7 Sep 2006 19:12 G.E. Ivey wrote: > A general rule: If you are capable of considering the possiblility that you are a > crank, then you are NOT! Congratulations! You have added something to the thread that I stated 385 posts ago. --- Christopher Heckman
From: Virgil on 7 Sep 2006 19:35 In article <ij61g2dls6044ds806e87t95r8h4tf1ogv(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:26:12 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <mah0g29jhf7u65h4um3k1jebid22us331o(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:13:32 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> >Zick is the one whose trivia is founded in the trivium. Math is a part > >> >of the quadrivium. > >> > >> And modern math is founded, whatever that means, in the trivium and > >> not in the quadrivium. > > > >And how does someone so self-decaredly ignorant of mathematics know this? > > Because you self declaredly proclaim assumptions of truth in lieu of > demonstrations. Zick frequently does this, but why does he deceive himself that mathematicians emulate his idiocies?
From: Proginoskes on 7 Sep 2006 19:49 Virgil wrote: > In article <45005258(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > > x=0; > > while(finite(x)) > > { add_to_list(x); > > x++; > > } > > > > That's a loop generating the naturals. > > Not without a machine on which to run it. > > I know of no machine on which that program will produce the indicated > list. "The only machine that is worth [anything] is a honest to god Turing machine. I am in the process of building one. I am almost done. All I need is to find an infinite roll of paper and I'll be there. -- Eric Hegstrom"
From: Dik T. Winter on 7 Sep 2006 21:00 In article <4500552f(a)news2.lightlink.com> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> writes: > Dik T. Winter wrote: .... > > It is quite similar to the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry. .... > I really have a hard time imagining anything fruitful coming out of > mathematics without some form of inductively defined sets or inductive > proof. So have I. But I do not want to exclude the possibility. > Your point is well taken in general though, that the theory one > creates depends entirely on the statements assumed true (axioms). The > parallel postulate is a wonderful example, and LEM is another. Each rule > included in the theory tends to restrict it in terms of the conclusions > it can reach, which is necessary to some extent to ensure consistency. This is wrong. Adding axioms gives the possibility to prove stronger (and more) theorems. And if you add too many, you may find that you have the possibility to prove contradictionary theorems (and that way show that there is no consistency). Consider the parallel axiom. With it you can prove that the angles of a triangle when added fill half of a circle. Without it you can not prove that. > As long as no two axioms contradict each other, directly or indirectly, > the theory is consistent. Yes, but the problem is that it is in general impossible to prove (within the theory) that it is consistent. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
From: Han de Bruijn on 8 Sep 2006 03:17
Lester Zick wrote: > I believe peer reviewed articles are also more likely to reflect > established orthodoxy whether good, bad, or indifferent. That's indeed one of the reasons I'm so shy of peer reviewed articles. Han de Bruijn |