Are natural numbers isomorphic to complex numbers?
in [Math]
|
Prev: 3 dimensions and their 4 directions
Next: Redshift and Microwave radiation favor Atom Totality and disfavor Big Bang #9; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
From: Marshall on 8 Jun 2010 21:01 On Jun 8, 1:59 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I couldn't imagine what it would be like to hang out with Transfer > Principle. > > You'd see someone hold a door open for someone ten steps away but fail > to hold it open for someone twenty steps away. Transfer Principle > would be all over it, about the unfairness of it, about how the > difference between ten and twenty steps is not enough to explain why > one person had the door held open for him or her but not the other > person. > > You couldn't buy a pack of gum without Transfer Principle scolding you > for enabling an industry that contributes to the misfortune of people > getting stuff stuck on the bottom of their shoes. This post was awesome. Marshall
From: Tim Little on 9 Jun 2010 00:15 On 2010-06-09, Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 1:59 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> I couldn't imagine what it would be like to hang out with Transfer >> Principle. >> >> You'd see someone hold a door open for someone ten steps away but fail >> to hold it open for someone twenty steps away. Transfer Principle >> would be all over it, about the unfairness of it, about how the >> difference between ten and twenty steps is not enough to explain why >> one person had the door held open for him or her but not the other >> person. [...] > This post was awesome. So full of truth, too. The only quibble is that rather than the difference between ten steps and twenty steps, a better analogy would be the difference between someone 5 steps away smiling nicely as they walk toward the door and someone 200 metres away ranting and screaming at you while they stumble in a totally different direction. The difference between most crank's behaviour and other posters is at least that extreme, and TP appears unable to distinguish between them. - Tim
From: Transfer Principle on 9 Jun 2010 14:11 On Jun 8, 1:59 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I couldn't imagine what it would be like to hang out with Transfer > Principle. > You'd see someone hold a door open for someone ten steps away but fail > to hold it open for someone twenty steps away. Transfer Principle > would be all over it, about the unfairness of it, about how the > difference between ten and twenty steps is not enough to explain why > one person had the door held open for him or her but not the other > person. Criticism accepted. Indeed, this post by MoeBlee and others in this thread have convinced me to change my posting habits, as follows: I resolve not to criticize another poster anymore for telling someone to buy or read a textbook. If someone asks _me_ to buy or read a book, then I can still give the reasons that _I_ can't buy or read a book, but if it's _another_person_ being asked to buy or read the book, then I should just not post anything at all. Also, while I'm at it, I also resolve to avoid criticizing those who make one-liners against those who post via Google, Mathforum, or other free-web based news access. Once again, if someone asks _me_ why _I_ post using Google, then I can answer, but if it's _another_person_ being criticized, then I should just not post anything at all. This way, I will focus only on mathematical arguments for or against standard theory and not harp on these other, less relevant issues. I hope that this act will be seen as letting that person 20 steps or 200 m away go and mind his own business.
From: MoeBlee on 9 Jun 2010 15:35 On Jun 9, 1:11 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Jun 8, 1:59 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I resolve not to criticize another poster anymore for > telling someone to buy or read a textbook. With all your resolutions, I find it amazing you have time even to think what to have for dinner. And now that I've said that, you're not going to post that you've resolved not to post your resolutions, are you?! Oh no! That would be Schransfer Schminicple's paradox, a resolution not to set resolutions! MoeBlee
From: Gerry Myerson on 10 Jun 2010 00:00
In article <f3822796-ae20-4934-8375-cc19115bf6e4(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, MoeBlee <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 1:11�pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > On Jun 8, 1:59�pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I resolve not to criticize another poster anymore for > > telling someone to buy or read a textbook. > > With all your resolutions, I find it amazing you have time even to > think what to have for dinner. > > And now that I've said that, you're not going to post that you've > resolved not to post your resolutions, are you?! > > Oh no! That would be Schransfer Schminicple's paradox, a resolution > not to set resolutions! Very hard to resolve that paradox, or even to solve it the first time. From whence cometh our solvation? -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) |