Cantor's Diagonal?
in [Math]
|
From: FF on 13 Feb 2010 15:50 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:40:00 -0800 (PST), Tonico wrote: >>> Transfer Principle wrote: >>>> >>>> So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" that >>>> MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. How about "classical mathematician"? Then there are intuitionists, finitists, etc. But NONE of the latter may be considered a _crank_ (just for not being a _classical_ mathematician). The other was round, NONE of the well know Usenet cranks is a representative of non-classical math. FF
From: zuhair on 13 Feb 2010 23:30 On Feb 12, 9:51 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Feb 12, 5:42 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > Transfer Principle wrote: > > > So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" that > > > MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. > > AK seemed to have used the term "conformist", "orthodox" > > Interesting idea. I might consider using either of Aatu's terms. > > > [You] seem to have applied different definitions of same same word to > > different people at different times. > > My definition of "crank" is always evolving. Whenever several posters > criticize my definition of "crank," I try to re-analyze my definition > of > "crank" in order to come up with a more satisfactory definition. > > Case in point: Originally I called Y-V a "crank." After several > posters > complained, they convinced me that Y-V isn't a "crank." So now I > don't consider Y-V to be a "crank" anymore. Hi lawl I think it is better to classify the writings rather than the persons. You can say that this topic is written in a cranky style, or according to the standard way, or contain erroneous material, or misleading, or not clear, etc.. Just an idea Regards Zuhair
From: OP on 13 Feb 2010 23:51
zuhair wrote: > > Hi lawl > > I think it is better to classify the writings rather than the > persons. You can say > that this topic is written in a cranky style, or according to the > standard way, or > contain erroneous material, or misleading, or not clear, etc.. > > Just an idea That is a great idea, and would defuse a lot of the ill-will associated with the personalization of many discussions. If it's possible to restrict one's input to the merits or demerits of an argument, rather than imagining that one is responding to the character of a disembodied usenet interlocutor, think how easy it would be to ignore "attacks" - there would be literally nothing to respond to. |