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: Arturo Magidin on 2 Jun 2010 21:48 On Jun 2, 5:19 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Pack mentality in action. Ignorance and stubbornness in action. > Insult one of them and all come barking. > They seem to need drama in their little lives. You seem to need to justify your silliness by claiming others are being dumb. > All I did was to ask a question. Which indicated you did not know some basic things. As you further "explained" yourself, you demonstrated that this was not a simple lapse, but actually deep-seated ignorance on the subject and the meaning of the words you were using. When this was explained to you, you took this as a "suggestion" (as opposed to a statement of facts), which you proceded to proclaim you had not "accepted". Thus demonstrating willful ignorance. > They remind me some of my university > teachers. They used to say; "Do not ask meaning questions, just work > the formalism. Intuition means nothing without formalism." They are > like the preachers of the fundamentalist religions. You remind me of every single willful ignoramus out there, claiming that others are trying to stifle his "creativity", all the while spouting utter nonsense and blaming other people's supposed "closed- mindedness" for not understanding his true genius. Bad news, Mr Bergman: you're just ignorant and stubborn. Your question and continued defense of it shows you simply had and continue to have no clue whatosever what "isomorphic" means, and you were talking well above your pay grade. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Ostap Bender on 2 Jun 2010 22:06 On Jun 2, 6:48 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > On Jun 2, 5:19 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Pack mentality in action. > > Ignorance and stubbornness in action. > > > Insult one of them and all come barking. > > They seem to need drama in their little lives. > > You seem to need to justify your silliness by claiming others are > being dumb. > > > All I did was to ask a question. > > Which indicated you did not know some basic things. As you further > "explained" yourself, you demonstrated that this was not a simple > lapse, but actually deep-seated ignorance on the subject and the > meaning of the words you were using. When this was explained to you, > you took this as a "suggestion" (as opposed to a statement of facts), > which you proceded to proclaim you had not "accepted". Thus > demonstrating willful ignorance. > > > They remind me some of my university > > teachers. They used to say; "Do not ask meaning questions, just work > > the formalism. Intuition means nothing without formalism." They are > > like the preachers of the fundamentalist religions. > > You remind me of every single willful ignoramus out there, claiming > that others are trying to stifle his "creativity", all the while > spouting utter nonsense and blaming other people's supposed "closed- > mindedness" for not understanding his true genius. > > Bad news, Mr Bergman: I wonder if his real name is "Akira Bergman" or "Ingmar Kurosawa".... :-) > you're just ignorant and stubborn. Your question > and continued defense of it shows you simply had and continue to have > no clue whatosever what "isomorphic" means, and you were talking well > above your pay grade. > > -- > Arturo Magidin
From: porky_pig_jr on 2 Jun 2010 22:08 On Jun 2, 6:19 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 6:11 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Jun 1, 7:56 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> > > > wrote: > > > > or the meaning of N, or the meaning of C, or the meaning of "is". > > > > I wouldn't put any of those past OP. > > > ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" /President > > > Clinton/ > > > Like many sci.math posters, Myerson only questions the meaning > > of "is" if someone with whom he disagrees, in this case the OP, > > uses the word. Myerson never asks those with whom he agrees to > > define every single word they use, even two-letter words. Thus > > reveals the hypocrisy of those who ask for definitions of words. > > > And kudos to Bender to drawing attention to Myerson and his > > Clintonian hairsplitting. > > Pack mentality in action. Insult one of them and all come barking. > They seem to need drama in their little lives. > > All I did was to ask a question. They remind me some of my university > teachers. They used to say; "Do not ask meaning questions, just work > the formalism. Intuition means nothing without formalism." They are > like the preachers of the fundamentalist religions. This is *you* who keep barking incomprehensible gibberish, Sir. Why don't you change your name to "Akita Doberman"?
From: Akira Bergman on 3 Jun 2010 17:39 "...you were talking well above your pay grade." Do you also measure success by the number of mob reviewed articles? Do you wear a suit and tie when you suck up to your employer? In universities, people like you teach by copying the notes in their hands onto the board and encouraging students to copy the same thing down. They distribute a set of probable questions with solutions before the exams to increase the marks, so that they can report high success rates to their superiors. Incestuous and conformist mobs like you have destroyed the university education all around the world by transforming them into mere extensions of the corrupt society. Every now and then, total outsiders like Grigory Perelman and Garrett Lisi emerge and show you clowns how true science is done. But do you learn? No. Because the the small time comforts provided by your masters prevent you from seeing the ugly truth about yourselves. "...for not understanding his true genius." I don't claim to be a genius. I am merely trying to learn some math more by intuition, when I can get through the raving formalists like yourself.
From: porky_pig_jr on 3 Jun 2010 18:57
On Jun 1, 11:29 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On Jun 2, 12:30 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > >> And since this is trivial point for anyone who uses the word > >> "isomorphism" knowing what it means, and knows some of the basic facts > >> about real numbers (e.g., that they are *uncountable*), the comment > >> about "credentials" was a pointed remark indicating that you were > >> either talking about things you did not understand (e.g., the meaning > >> "isomorphism"), or you were a crank (thinking that complex numbers are > >> countable), or both. > > >> Perhaps you can put that "knowledge" and intuition of yours behind > >> some actual learning? > > >> -- > >> Arturo Magidin > > > Now you are jumping. Porky's "credentials" comment was motivated (at > > least in part) by my reply to his previous frivolous "my head > > spinning" comment. He could not come back to that reply, so he jumped > > on another more suitable one. His "thanks" was for giving him a chance > > for a come back. > > Yes, that must be it. > > After all, a brilliant riposte like "Which part is spinning? The pork > or the pig?" is simply devastating. Porky must have really been > seething over the way you bested him like that. > > -- Yeah. I threw away my Brown & Churchill and Ahlfors textbooks and wept through the whole night. Even rolling in the mud didn't make me feel better. |