Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 9 Sep 2006 16:07 On 9 Sep 2006 10:26:45 -0700, "Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> wrote: >georgie wrote: > >> Many (possibly most) great >> mathematical discoveries were made by amateurs and >> beginners. > > "Inventions rarely come from people within an industry, but, instead >come from people on the outside who aren't under the same limiting >beliefs & habitual thinking that forms within any organization or >industry. - Dr. James Asher, San Jose State University, "On Advanced >Learning" Intellectual habituation and ossification. Good point. ~v~~
From: Virgil on 9 Sep 2006 17:12 In article <1fu5g29ghc90ank48g43bn2dkcef28r3jm(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:55:53 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <d2g3g2d0s2l1u3spbjf6t3p1mg93mubc1v(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 01:00:39 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> > >> wrote: > > > >> >the problem is that it is in general impossible to prove (within > >> >the theory) that it is consistent. > >> > >> Is it also impossible to prove that it is not inconsistent? > > > >How does Zick allege that being "not inconsistent" is any different > >from being consistent? > > The cases may be problematic and ambiguous. > Does that ever allow "not inconsistent" and "consistent" both to be the case, or both not to be? Unless there are situations which can be both, or neither, wherein does any difference exist?
From: Virgil on 9 Sep 2006 17:16 In article <pc76g255abmbm69k1f9pf2rmpn02halfbu(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:38:47 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <ctt5g2pbjoi4uhv21oe6tck97v018920pn(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > [. . .] > > >> >> >> >Zick frequently does this, but why does he deceive himself that > >> >> >> >mathematicians emulate his idiocies? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Because they don't and probably can't demonstrate their trivial > >> >> >> assumptions of truth. > >> >> >> > >> >> >But, unlike Zick, they are careful to point out just what unproven > >> >> >assumptions they are making. > >> >> > >> >> Hell that's easy enough: all of them. > >> > > >> >Just like Zick, who can't demonstrate any of his trivial assumptions of > >> >truth, but carefully hides all his trivial assumptions instead of > >> >honestly revealing them. > >> > >> But that's only because you have nothing but trivial assumptions of > >> truth to share. Why should I highlight my trivial assumptions of truth > >> when I have so much more important quadrivially demonstrable > >> assumptions of truth to share such as universally true definitions of > >> true, false, and infinity. > > > >Zick claims to have all this important stuff to share but manages not to > >share anything but trivial nonsense. > > Yeah look, Virgil, you appeal to truth so shamelessly while claiming > it's undefinable that it's pointless to continue this ad hoc stream of > special pleading. That Zick misreads me is apparent from the above misrepesentation. If he finds it so pointless to respond to me he should stop doing it. Unless he is like the boy hitting himself repeatedly on the head with a hammer.
From: Virgil on 9 Sep 2006 17:23 In article <kj76g2lv2l440f2kr3cga7e868rclt288e(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:41:54 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <u3u5g2t0d6mhg681bp8uadeu46esteeen2(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:51:37 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <03a3g2p6s0o7jc14jt3b2pcp5remsieb8n(a)4ax.com>, > >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:35:36 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >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? > >> >> > >> >> Because they don't and probably can't demonstrate their trivial > >> >> assumptions of truth. > >> > > >> >So Zick asserts that in this respect mathematicians are emulating Zick's > >> >idiocies? > >> > >> Only for their trivial assumptions of truth. Problem is there is > >> nothing else in the case of modern math. Even you acknowledge that. > > > >On the contrary, even medieval math was quadrivial, so modern math is at > >least pentivial. It is only Zick who is stuck among trivialities. > > And you're a pissant in the oracular trivium of truth. So what's your > point The influence on the world of the modern mathematics Zick affects to despise is massively greater that Zick's own influence, and will remain so. And not all of Zick's carping here will decrease the influence of modern mathematics, nor increase his own. And that seems to be what is keeping Zick so pissed off.
From: David R Tribble on 9 Sep 2006 22:22
Lester Zick wrote: >> Because you self declaredly proclaim assumptions of truth in lieu of >> demonstrations. > Virgil wrote: >> Zick frequently does this, but why does he deceive himself that >> mathematicians emulate his idiocies? > Lester Zick wrote: > Because they don't and probably can't demonstrate their trivial > assumptions of truth. Here's the first Peano axiom: 1. 0 is a natural number. Is it (trivially) true or false? |