Is _Brave New World_ really science fiction?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Trigonometry Tutorial
Next: Books on the zeta function?
From: Transfer Principle on 8 Apr 2010 19:23 On Apr 8, 4:09 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...(a)sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > David DeLaney wrote: > > Not wanting to open any cans of ever-shrinking worms here or anything .... but > > ... what would the name of that smallest real number be? > From the sentence, AP and MR. I'm sorry -- AP and MR are actually the _namers_, not the _names_, of the smallest positive real. Obviously, I made it sounds as if AP and MR refer to the smallest positive real itself, but actually those are two regular sci.math posters, Archimedes Plutonium and Mitch Raemsch. AP sometimes uses an ellipsis in his smallest AP-real, written as 0.000...0001. Lately, he has asserted that the smallest positive real is actually 10^-500. MR, on the other hand, uses the letter "r" rather than an ellipsis, so he'd write 0.0r1. He also uses the notation "1/infinity" to refer to his non-Archimedean real.
From: Transfer Principle on 8 Apr 2010 19:38 On Apr 7, 8:38 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > I like the name "discrete mathematicians" -- it certainly > > sounds much better than "cranks." Some "cranks" who might be > > described as "discrete mathematicians" include HdB and RE, > > both of whom have criticized Infinity. Those posters who > > believe in a smallest real number, such as AP and MR, may be > > included with the "discrete mathematicians" as well. > AP and Mitch are clearly not mathematicians in any sense at all, discrete > or otherwise. > I don't recall Han or Russell Easterly speaking on any topics in > discrete mathematics, either. OK then -- AP is a discrete _physicist_, while HdB is a discrete _computer_scientist_. Actually, most computer scientists actually work with discrete subsets of R, not the continuous set R, due to the finite nature of how numbers are stored in a computer's memory. > The term "discrete mathematician" means something already, you know. ....as in a "discrete" set like Z, as compared to a "continuous" set such as R. Now some posters don't accept the Axiom of Infinity, or for some other reason prefer to work with discrete objects rather than continuous objects. Some of the posters wouldn't mind working with a discrete calculus, either for themselves or in order to answer the standard theorist naysayers who insist that one can't do calculus or math for the sciences in their theories. > I can't see why you think it's reasonable to abuse it so. Standard theorists abuse the word "crank" all the time. There must be a name other than "crank" to call these posters who would prefer discete mathematics to classical mathematics.
From: Robert Carnegie on 8 Apr 2010 19:44 Transfer Principle wrote: > On Apr 8, 4:09 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" > <seaw...(a)sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > David DeLaney wrote: > > > Not wanting to open any cans of ever-shrinking worms here or anything ... but > > > ... what would the name of that smallest real number be? > > From the sentence, AP and MR. > > I'm sorry -- AP and MR are actually the _namers_, not the > _names_, of the smallest positive real. Obviously, I made > it sounds as if AP and MR refer to the smallest positive > real itself, but actually those are two regular sci.math > posters, Archimedes Plutonium and Mitch Raemsch. > > AP sometimes uses an ellipsis in his smallest AP-real, > written as 0.000...0001. Lately, he has asserted that the > smallest positive real is actually 10^-500. > > MR, on the other hand, uses the letter "r" rather than an > ellipsis, so he'd write 0.0r1. He also uses the notation > "1/infinity" to refer to his non-Archimedean real. The smallest real number of rec.arts.sf.written posters ought to be Ed "Man As Old As Coal" Conrad, but at least some of the time there seem to be two of him. Like Inspector Clouseau he has a crazy sidekick who is Chinese or something, and possibly imaginary.
From: Transfer Principle on 8 Apr 2010 19:45 On Apr 8, 7:43 am, "marty.musa...(a)gmail.com" <me...(a)vzw.blackberry.net> wrote: > And which category do the ones who assign the categories fall under? This reminds me yet again of that old adage -- "there are two types of people in this world -- those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don't." I, obviously, divide the world of sci.math into two types of posters, "standard theorists" and so-called "cranks." But I am not the one who came up with these categories. The posters who first decided to call certain posters "cranks" -- whether we call such posters anti-"cranks," "crank"-busters, standard theorists, or whatever -- are the ones to blame for all of this divisiveness. If one wants to be a member of the other category -- those who _don't_ divide or categorize posters -- then they can begin by attempting to convince the standard theorists to stop calling certain posters "cranks."
From: Christopher Adams on 8 Apr 2010 19:56
Brian M. Scott wrote: > Christopher Adams wrote: >> Butch Malahide wrote: > >>> 2. While generatingfunctionology > >> What are you, German? > > 'Generatingfunctionology' is the title of a first-rate book > on generating functions and combinatorics by Herbert S. > Wilf, who so far as I know is American; at any rate he was > an undergraduate at MIT and did his graduate work at > Columbia. Given that I've received this response about a half-dozen times, in various forms, will someone at least admit to understanding why I made the joke? -- Christopher "Panzerkampfwagen" Adams Sydney, Australia Beadie Russell: Why me? Jimmy McNulty: I don't know. I guess you don't live right. - The Wire |