I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 16 Mar 2010 09:57 On Mar 16, 4:18 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > As stated elsewhere, Conjectural Modelling is a system of > > > "conjectures" which are consistent with respect to each other. It is > > > not mathematics and never will be, it is not supposed to be. But if I > > > have a cube or a sphere and I say there is a 50:50 potential that this > > > cube exists, then you cane safely say that %50 of the time you are > > > indeed doing mathematics and %50 of the time you are doing nonsense. > > > > These are not philosophical banalities. > > > Indeed not. They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical > > interest or relevance. > > > -- > > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi) > > > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus > > Inane or not, I see no proof that modelling based on "that which > exists" is any better or worse than modelling based on "that which > might exist". That's true. In fact, almost all of mathematics deals with ""that which might exist" and not with "that which exists". Every scientist knows that. So, what's new in your repeating this obvious fact? > Inane or not, it is consistent. I'd like to see where that consistency > fails to hold. Then I will believe that I have wasted someone's time. Not everything that's consistent is of use. A lot of trivial statements are consistent but bring nothing new to the table.
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 16 Mar 2010 10:12 Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you > > so far is trivial, very typical of any little child. > > I'm a bit perplexed by this remark, as well as your earlier claim, that > Huang's assertions are philosophical banalities. I don't see anything > trivial, trite or commonplace to e.g. his "primary assertion" > > They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical > interest or relevance. Why wouldn't "inanities of no apparent mathematical interest or relevance" qualify as "trivialities" in common speech? You seem to be making a rather subtle philosophical distinction between the two. > Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear > to be, rather, an expression of some impenetrable and > abstruse philosophical doctrine. Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent mathematical interest or relevance"? You are way too philosophical for me. To me, your expressed views seem rather inconsistent.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 16 Mar 2010 10:47 "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> writes: > Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > >> Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear to be, rather, an >> expression of some impenetrable and abstruse philosophical doctrine. > > Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent > mathematical interest or relevance"? Yes. > You are way too philosophical for me. To me, your expressed views seem > rather inconsistent. I haven't expressed any philosophical view in this discussion. That aside, what inconsistency do you find in my expressed views? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 16 Mar 2010 19:51 On Mar 16, 7:47 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > >> Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear to be, rather, an > >> expression of some impenetrable and abstruse philosophical doctrine. > > > Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent > > mathematical interest or relevance"? > > Yes. > > > You are way too philosophical for me. To me, your expressed views seem > > rather inconsistent. > > I haven't expressed any philosophical view in this discussion. That > aside, what inconsistency do you find in my expressed views? > To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to being synonyms. What major difference do you ascribe to them?
From: Huang on 16 Mar 2010 21:36
> > > >> Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear to be, rather, an > > >> expression of some impenetrable and abstruse philosophical doctrine. > > > > Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent > > > mathematical interest or relevance"? > > > Yes. > > > > You are way too philosophical for me. To me, your expressed views seem > > > rather inconsistent. > > > I haven't expressed any philosophical view in this discussion. That > > aside, what inconsistency do you find in my expressed views? > > To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to > being synonyms. > > What major difference do you ascribe to them?- Hide quoted text - Your rebuttals have been reviewed and although I simply dont have time to reply to each and every comment, I would thank you for the time that you have taken to write these things. I would however comment that I find them highly unsatisfactory, I suppose I would probably give you guys a C or maybe a C- . A little wit would be a nice touch, but I'm a huge fan of the sarcasm. So, to be completely truthful about it I could give you both an A+ for effort, because I know that you have no valid argument against any of the things I have said. This is because none exists. It is wrong of me to send you looking for something which is not there, so I will give you the solution to this riddle --> Im right and there is no way to destroy my argument. I should apologize for sending you on a wild- goose chase. I remain open to any technical rebuttals, the name calling is always welcome as well but it does distract from the ultimate objective, which is of course advancing man's ability to model things using tools other than mathematics which are equally consistent and accurate as math itself. That is my stated objective, and I am winning this debate. |