New Anti-Cantor Attack
in [Math]
|
Prev: symmetry of superclusters Chapt 11, Space is EM; magnet & iron filings Experiment #116; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Methods of Proving all of Incompleteness in Logic in Trivially Short Proofs & a Challenge
From: Don Stockbauer on 3 Jun 2010 00:39 On Jun 2, 9:58 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 7:13 pm, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > > The more stupider it is, the easier it is to refute > > > -- > > hz > > > Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. > > > -- Schiller -- > > See also Date's Incoherence Principle: > > "It is difficult to treat coherently that which is incoherent." "Fantastic insight into the true nature of Reality is isomorphic to insanity."
From: Marshall on 3 Jun 2010 00:52 On Jun 2, 9:37 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 9:54 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 2, 1:41 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > > I indeed asserted that if two > > > people posted identical arguments, one under the > > > name of a well-known "crank" and one under that of > > > a newbie, the "crank" would have a harder time > > > getting people to agree with them. > > > This is exactly as it should be. > > Of course you'd believe in a fallacy, the "Argument Against the Man." Stupid people are less likely to produce useful results than smart people, and therefor less worthy of attention. This may appear to be a logical fallacy to those who aren't looking carefully. Marshall
From: |-|ercules on 3 Jun 2010 02:33 "Marshall" <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote .. > On Jun 2, 9:37 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 2, 9:54 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Jun 2, 1:41 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: >> >> > > I indeed asserted that if two >> > > people posted identical arguments, one under the >> > > name of a well-known "crank" and one under that of >> > > a newbie, the "crank" would have a harder time >> > > getting people to agree with them. >> >> > This is exactly as it should be. >> >> Of course you'd believe in a fallacy, the "Argument Against the Man." > > Stupid people are less likely to produce useful > results than smart people, and therefor less worthy > of attention. This may appear to be a logical fallacy > to those who aren't looking carefully. > > > Marshall smart = normal = nothing new Herc
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 3 Jun 2010 07:48 Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com> writes: > On Jun 2, 9:54 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 2, 1:41 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I indeed asserted that if two >> > people posted identical arguments, one under the >> > name of a well-known "crank" and one under that of >> > a newbie, the "crank" would have a harder time >> > getting people to agree with them. >> >> This is exactly as it should be. > > Of course you'd believe in a fallacy, the "Argument Against the > Man." "His argument is invalid because he is an idiot," is a fallacy. "I do not want to spend time on his argument, because he is an idiot and hence his argument is likely invalid," is not really a fallacy. One's time is limited and he has to make choices based on expectations. I'm not sure this is quite what Marshall and Walker were saying, but it's how I see things. -- "If your community has been lying about my research hoping I'd never find a way to prove that with some super dramatic discovery that's almost yanked out of the clear blue because I am a great discoverer then yeah, maybe you should worry."--James S. Harris: great discoverer
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 4 Jun 2010 10:47
Jim Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> writes: > Perhaps you can imagine my surprise that someone > as insightful as you would apparently miss my point. I didn't miss your point. I was hoping to prod you into presenting your thoughts on an issue I find interesting. As you note, when people say that probably P is not NP, probably the Riemann hypothesis is true, and so on, usually they're thinking of degrees of belief, or, at least, it is difficult to come up with any other coherent way of making sense of such assertions; that is, they mean just that most experts would be willing to bet a not insignificant sum that no refutation of these conjectures is forthcoming, and indeed we find people are happy to use algorithms, in the real world, in production systems, the correctness of which depend on the truth of such conjectures. This interpretation makes less sense in case of baffling claims such as "we have good evidence that PA is probably consistent" and so on sometimes put forth by logically innocent mathematicians. > Uhmm? Is there something about the philosophy of mathematics that > requires it to be applied only to mathematics? Is there something about the philosophy of horology that requires that it be applied only to horology? I'm unsure what sort of philosophy we're talking about here. I was baffled because there seemed to be nothing specifically about mathematics in the in-itself perfectly reasonable attitude or philosophy you described, and I didn't, and still don't, quite understand in what sense it is a philosophy of mathematics. Perhaps you meant it only in the sense people speak of their "philosophy of chess" or "philosophy of cooking", i.e. a general attitude or approach they apply when going about some activity or pastime? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |