Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: Virgil on 4 Feb 2007 16:29 In article <MPG.20300e9b9f941d83989c3e(a)news.rcn.com>, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > On 4 Feb., 17:33, Carsten Schultz <cars...(a)codimi.de> wrote: > > > > > Who would have guessed this! And in it you prove that 1=4? > > > > Usually I do no longer read your writings. > > I wonder how we can get WM to do this for everyone. It is not his reading that I object to but his writing.
From: G. Frege on 4 Feb 2007 16:33 On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:22:31 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum(a)pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> "Man soll den Tag nicht vor dem Abend loben." >> > I looked this up and found the meaning. > How does mid-sentence capitalization work? > The substantives in German are usually written this way. > > Is this verse? > A saying. F. -- E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
From: Lester Zick on 4 Feb 2007 16:44 On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:21:17 -0500, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: >Andy Smith wrote: >> Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes >> >On 2 Feb 2007 13:31:10 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>No Zen-like perspective is required. Knowing the axioms and >> >>defintions, though, does help. >> > >> >As does knowing Zen. >> >> I read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" once, which I recall >> was mildly interesting & entertaining. >> >> In Western society I think that it is common parlance to describe >> something as "Zen-like" to imply either, that there exists a deep >> resolution of some apparently irreconcilable statements, or that >> consideration of some suitably impossible conundrum may allow some >> enlightenment on a related problem. >> >> I meant no disrespect to any religious beliefs that you may hold ... > >An apt way of describing Lester's knowledge of math. Also sprach the Anita Bryant of faith based mathematics. ~v~~
From: Fuckwit on 4 Feb 2007 16:45 On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:39:43 -0500, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: >>> >>> And in [your book] you prove that 1=4? [CS] >>> >> Usually I do no longer read your writings. [WM] >> > I wonder how we can get WM to do this for everyone. > You have to be interested in mathematics as such if replying to the nonsense WM produces, and n o t in _arguing_ with WM (like Virgil and/or F. Neugebauer). (The reason is simple: He likes to argue, but he "hates" _real_ math; or at least he's not interested in it.) F.
From: David Marcus on 4 Feb 2007 17:47
Fuckwit wrote: > On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:39:43 -0500, David Marcus > <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > >>> And in [your book] you prove that 1=4? [CS] > >>> > >> Usually I do no longer read your writings. [WM] > > > > I wonder how we can get WM to do this for everyone. > > You have to be interested in mathematics as such if replying to the > nonsense WM produces, and n o t in _arguing_ with WM (like Virgil > and/or F. Neugebauer). (The reason is simple: He likes to argue, but > he "hates" _real_ math; or at least he's not interested in it.) That makes sense. In my later replies to WM, I would translate what he wrote into math, then comment on it. I guess he couldn't understand the math, so he won't reply to me anymore. If you just argue with him using words, he can interpret the words any way he wishes (instead of the way you intend). -- David Marcus |