An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Han.deBruijn on 17 Sep 2006 06:42 stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl> wrote: > > Mike Kelly wrote: > > >> Han de Bruijn wrote: > >> > >> Plagiarism? I don't get it. Who is plagiarising what? > > > "Your" would-be arguments against mine are not really yours. They are > > just a _plagiary_ of well-known "arguments" employed by the mainstream > > mathematics community. > > That is pretty pathetic Han. So any mainstream argument is > plagiarism? That is a convenient way to dismiss anyone who > disagrees with you. No. It's a convenient way to avoid hearing again the arguments that I have already heard. > What is wrong with you? What is the source of > your hostility towards mathematics? What's wrong with mathematics ?! Han de Bruijn
From: Han.deBruijn on 17 Sep 2006 06:56 Mike Kelly wrote: > astounded that you are claiming that employing a mathematical argument > that is not your own invention is plagiarism. Perhaps you are simply > unaware of the meaning and connotations of the word. Plagiarism is > dishonest and in many cases criminal. A fairly hefty accusation. I've been looking for a good English equivalent of the Dutch word "meeloperij" and found "plagiarism" as my best match. I think that you are right and that it's actuallty a mismatch. I apologize for this fact but I don't know what shorthand expression to substitute instead. What I meant to express is that you are about to be parrotting mainstream arguments, without adding to it much thoughts of yourself. And that is quite senseless because we have gone through all this already. Han de Bruijn
From: Han.deBruijn on 17 Sep 2006 07:07 Mike Kelly wrote: > Given that any second-year student of probability theory knows that > there are no uniform distributions over countable sample spaces, [ ... ] This "given" is most disturbing. Mainstream mathematics is so certain about its own right that no sensible debate is possible. > Finally, please stop with the scare quotes. They make you look like a > "tool". Sorry. I don't know what "scare quotes" are and I don't know what I'm doing wrong here. Han de Bruijn
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 17 Sep 2006 07:21 Virgil wrote: > In article <Yz2Pg.13567$VX1.6175(a)reader1.news.jippii.net>, > Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi> wrote: > >> This is not to say that other notions of "size" as applied to sets are ignored; >> the idea that there are twice as many naturals as there are odd naturals >> can be captured mathematically, although this notion is less general and >> applies only in case the sets in question are equipped with additional >> structure. > > Exactly the point that Tony Orlow rejects. Quite possibly. Since he's an obvious crank there's really very little point in caring about what he thinks or rejects, and even less point in engaging him in endless "debates". Of course, this is USENET and there's very little point to anything in any case; hence my few observations on the rhetorical tactics in these debates. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Han.deBruijn on 17 Sep 2006 07:23
Mike Kelly wrote: > I think Han demonstrated some gross ignorance of basic probability > theory (along with limits, infinity, the difference between the > physical sciences and math etc. etc.) and drew a very stupid analogy > with calculus. The left hand of mainstream mathematics (Probability Theory) does not know what the right hand (Calculus) is doing. It's impossible to have a sensible debate with someone who is as brainwashed as you are, Mike. And it's everywhere. You are seeing "differences" where there are none. About my supposed "ignorance". Read this: http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/QED/singular.pdf And tell me what the flaws are in the mathematics of this paper. I have dozens of the kind. Han de Bruijn |