I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Huang on 16 Mar 2010 23:01 > To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to > being synonyms. > > What major difference do you ascribe to them? Definition, definition, definitions. From http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Trivial.html "Related to or being the mathematically most simple case. More generally, the word "trivial" is used to describe any result which requires little or no effort to derive or prove. The word originates from the Latin trivium, which was the lower division of the seven liberal arts in medieval universities (cf. quadrivium). " From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inane inane adj. in·an·er, in·an·est One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments; angry with my inane roommate. from http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/inane 1 inane (adjective) 2 inane (noun) 1 : empty, insubstantial 2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly <inane comments> synonyms : see insipid ----------------------------------------------------------- Reviewing these definitions, I dont really see the connection between the trivial and the inane. I disagree that they are nearly synonymous. And I dont really see the connection between all of this and Descartes.
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 17 Mar 2010 01:33 On Mar 16, 8:01 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to > > being synonyms. > > > What major difference do you ascribe to them? > > Definition, definition, definitions. > > Fromhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/Trivial.html > > "Related to or being the mathematically most simple case. More > generally, the word "trivial" is used to describe any result which > requires little or no effort to derive or prove. The word originates > from the Latin trivium, which was the lower division of the seven > liberal arts in medieval universities (cf. quadrivium). " > > Fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/inane > > inane > adj. in·an·er, in·an·est > One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments; > angry with my inane roommate. > > fromhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/inane > > 1 inane (adjective) > 2 inane (noun) > > 1 : empty, insubstantial > 2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly <inane comments> > > synonyms : see insipid > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Reviewing these definitions, I dont really see the connection between > the trivial and the inane. I disagree that they are nearly synonymous. > And I dont really see the connection between all of this and > Descartes. > OK Let's assume that you are right: "trivial" and inane" are totally different. Then please adjudicate between Aatu Koskensilta and myself. Who is right? Aaatu, who calls your posts "philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical interest or relevance"? Or I, who thinks that your posts are "trivial" and "infantile"? > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you > > so far is trivial, very typical of any little child. Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical > interest or relevance. Please decide which of us is more correct.
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 17 Mar 2010 01:39 On Mar 16, 6:36 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> 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?- 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, You know, these are the rare moments I live for: getting approval and high grades for my efforts from sublime geniuses like yourself, Huang. > 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. You are a great winner through and through, Huang. From your very first post in which you established your intellectual superiority over Rene Descartes and, by transitivity, over most other immortal mathematicians.
From: Huang on 17 Mar 2010 23:13 > I don't think you do provide any useful tool for "solving problems" in > mathematics. Trivial problems for 5 year old children? Maybe, but > unlikely. Serious problems? No way. > > Have you used your methodology of triviliasation to solve any open > problems in math? I don't think so. Nice reply and very witty, gave me some good laughs. But all joking aside - there is a usefullness to all of this. There is a point to it. There are ways of modelling things which are perfectly valid alternatives to what is customary. That is my belief. And some of these approaches shed light on thigns in ways which can be understood in new ways, such as conservation. I do believe that I have approached a deeper understanding of conservation than the average physicist, including Noether. I may or may not be right, but I have seen things from a completely different angle. And I'll be honest with you, I dont care at all if I am right or not. I just like to spar, and dig around, and if Im an idiot then so be it. But my understanding of conservation - my vision of it - seems fairly intriguing.
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 18 Mar 2010 01:19
On Mar 17, 8:13 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I don't think you do provide any useful tool for "solving problems" in > > mathematics. Trivial problems for 5 year old children? Maybe, but > > unlikely. Serious problems? No way. > > > Have you used your methodology of triviliasation to solve any open > > problems in math? I don't think so. > > Nice reply and very witty, gave me some good laughs. But all joking > aside I wasn't joking. If somebody's thoughts are useless, why should I read them? > - there is a usefullness to all of this. There is a point to > it. Really? Give me an example of how your thoughts on triviality contribute to math research. > There are ways of modelling things which are perfectly valid > alternatives to what is customary. That is my belief. Yes. There are infinitely many different ways to see things. But most of them are useless. > And some of > these approaches shed light on thigns in ways which can be understood > in new ways, such as conservation. Some - do. Your posts - haven't so far. At least not to math. > I do believe that I have approached a deeper understanding of > conservation than the average physicist, including Noether. If you want to talk to physicists - why do you post to sci.math? What use do your posts give to mathematicians? > I may or > may not be right, I am sure you are right: everything you say are trite banalities that every adult knows by heart. > but I have seen things from a completely different > angle. They may seem to be "from a completely different angle" to you. But to adults, they are inane, trite and obvious. > And I'll be honest with you, I dont care at all if I am right > or not. I just like to spar, and dig around, and if Im an idiot then > so be it. You ar enot an idiot. But when you grow up, you will see that your thoughts are obvious. > But my understanding of conservation - my vision of it - seems fairly > intriguing. "Conservation" of what? I thought your posts here were about Descarte's one-liner "I think therefore I am". |