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: porky_pig_jr on 3 Jun 2010 20:16 On Jun 3, 7:30 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 8:57 am, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com" <porky_pig...(a)my- > > > > deja.com> wrote: > > 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. > > You are in the mud of conformism, formalism and mob mentality. Is that > why you call yourself a pig? Oh, now I see. Systematic learning the language and concepts of mathematics is, as you just said, "conformism, formalism and mob mentality". Posting incomprehensible gibberish, misusing common mathematical terms and, last but not least, complete inability to listen is, as you believe, is non-conformism and creativity. I have to disappoint you. Mathematicians have the common language they speak and understand. When you post something like this: > C has all the structures of N, Z and R, and on top of that, R is > rotated by pi/2 to make the polarized complex plane. It is a union of > the square with the circle. it sounds like you pulled this stuff out of one of your unmentionable bodily orifice. When you say "isomorphic", you have no slightest clue what are you talking about. Apparently you believe using this word will make you appear smarter than you are. What you (and your likes) do not get is that any math forum is wrong for you.
From: Akira Bergman on 3 Jun 2010 20:38 On Jun 4, 10:16 am, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com" <porky_pig...(a)my- deja.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 7:30 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 8:57 am, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com" <porky_pig...(a)my- > > > deja.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > You are in the mud of conformism, formalism and mob mentality. Is that > > why you call yourself a pig? > > Oh, now I see. Systematic learning the language and concepts of > mathematics is, as you just said, "conformism, formalism and mob > mentality". Posting incomprehensible gibberish, misusing common > mathematical terms and, last but not least, complete inability to > listen is, as you believe, is non-conformism and creativity. > > I have to disappoint you. Mathematicians have the common language they > speak and understand. When you post something like this: > > > C has all the structures of N, Z and R, and on top of that, R is > > rotated by pi/2 to make the polarized complex plane. It is a union of > > the square with the circle. > > it sounds like you pulled this stuff out of one of your unmentionable > bodily orifice. When you say "isomorphic", you have no slightest clue > what are you talking about. Apparently you believe using this word > will make you appear smarter than you are. What you (and your likes) > do not get is that any math forum is wrong for you. You sound like a pig in pain.
From: Arturo Magidin on 3 Jun 2010 22:30 On Jun 3, 4:39 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "...you were talking well above your pay grade." > > Do you also measure success by the number of mob reviewed articles? Non sequitur > Do you wear a suit and tie when you suck up to your employer? Have you stopped beating your wife? > 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. I guess your personal experience with universities is about the same as your personal experience with me and your personal knowledge of mathematical terminology: non-existent. > 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. And I do that, according to you. Are you basing this on the same "knowledge" that you based your use of "isomorphic"? (I.e., utter ignorance and guesswork) Or on something else? > 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. And all of this personal diatribe of yours still does not erase the simple fact: you had, and apparently continue to have, no clue whatsoever what "isomorphism" meant, and you used the word without knowing what it meant. Having been informed of the utter silliness of your *statement* (note that I never once addressed what may or may not be behind it, just your utter misuse of the word and the complete and utter ridiculousness of you describing this information as a "suggestion" that you were "considering"), you would rather pretend that there is a deep personal flaw on anyone who tells you that you used the word incorrectly, rather than simply acknowledge your misuse and move on, and proceed then to personally abuse them based on nothing but your ill-informed prejudices. > Every now and then, total outsiders like Grigory Perelman and Garrett > Lisi emerge and show you clowns how true science is done. Perelman studied in a specialized school for mathematics, and in Leningrad State University. He then worked at the Leningrad State University, the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Courant Institute, NYU, SUNY Stony Brook, two years at Berkeley, and finally the Skelov Institute in St Petersburg. He only abandoned mathematics then, well after finishing the work for which he has been justly awarded prizes and received accolades. In what sense is he a "total outsider"? Garrett Lisi was also educated in those incestous and conformist mob schools you decry: UCLA and UCSD. Was he also a "complete outsider"? In what world? >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. Your intuition would be better served if you were able to recongize simple misstatements and mistakes you make, instead of getting your knickers twisted all in a bunch because you play the fool and get called on it. See above as well, regarding all these "complete outsiders" of yours. Here's a hint: learning "some math" might be easier if you rely on actual things and not merely on what you imagine things are. You don't have to be a formalist, raving or otherwise, but you *do* have to be correct. And so far, it seems you are incapable of getting anywhere near a neighborhood of correct. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Arturo Magidin on 3 Jun 2010 22:31 On Jun 3, 7:06 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 9:07 am, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> > wrote: > > > In article > > <5e0b35d0-c395-4bc2-b3c8-842365439...(a)a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Every now and then, total outsiders like Grigory Perelman and Garrett > > > Lisi emerge and show you clowns how true science is done. > > > I don't recall Perelman ever suggesting an isomorphism > > between the natural and the complex numbers. > > > -- > > Gerry Myerson (ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) > > As I said, I never compared myself to him. Do not jump. > > Did I hurt your feelings so much with my comments about the academic > conformism that they made you jump so high? Did I hurt your feelings so much when I pointed out how utterly ridiculous and stupid your use of "isomorphism" and your later claim that the correct meaning was merely a "suggestion" you were "considering" that you had to go on such a falsehood laced raving rant? -- Arturo Magidin
From: Gerry Myerson on 4 Jun 2010 01:33
In article <91e67736-17ec-4992-ad78-f4954907c0b4(a)x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Akira Bergman <akirabergman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Did I hurt your feelings so much with my comments about the academic > conformism that they made you jump so high? I'm happy to say that I didn't read your comments. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) |