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: Bart Goddard on 2 Jun 2010 17:08 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> wrote in news:e0e4acfa-fea4-4a1b- 9dec-b490a52b6256(a)e6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com: > Apparently to Myerson, only those who contradict > Cantor have to define their two-letter words, not > those who agree with Cantor. > You're way out of context. Adults don't engage in pissing contests, so the very issue about whether this or that person "has to" define two-letter words is irrelevant. If Gerry Myerson asked someone to define "is", then his motivation was to guide that person to understanding, not to beat him over the head with hair-splittings. >Then again, I know that Goddard is one of the foremost >advocates of a moderated sci.math group. So if a >person like Bergman were to post, Goddard wouldn't >need to ask him to define "is" -- all he'd have to do >is block the poster. As has been stated multiple times, the proposal for sci.math.moderated is to filter content only. So your commit is specious. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Transfer Principle on 2 Jun 2010 17:40 On Jun 2, 2:08 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote in news:e0e4acfa-fea4-4a1b- > 9dec-b490a52b6...(a)e6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com: > > Apparently to Myerson, only those who contradict > > Cantor have to define their two-letter words, not > > those who agree with Cantor. > If Gerry Myerson asked someone to define "is", then > his motivation was to guide that person to understanding I disagree. How does asking someone to define "is" lead to understanding at all? When Clinton asked for the definition of "is," did that lead to any understanding? I can see how Myerson's asking for the definitions of "isomorphic," N, and C can lead to understanding. Indeed, if it turns out that Bergman is in Case 1 of my four-case list and he attempts to start a new theory, _I_'d like to understand more about it, and Bergman's definitions of "isomorphic," N, and C can help. But to me, asking for a definition of the non-mathematical two-letter linking verb "is" goes too far. Now we're no longer discussing mathematical definitions. Indeed, I wonder what sort of response Myerson even _expects_ when he asks Bergman for the definition of "is." It amazes me how Clinton was ridiculed a decade ago for asking for the definition of "is," yet posters who ask for the definition of the same are defended, especially -- the key point that I'm trying to make -- the one who asks for the definition has a higher reputation on sci.math than the person being asked to provide a definition.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 2 Jun 2010 17:48 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > Yesterday, a poster named Bergman tried to argue > that N is isomorphic to C. Then the poster Gerry > Myerson questioned the OP's defintion of "is." No, he didn't, aside from as a (very little) joke. You really have horrible reading comprehension. -- Jesse F. Hughes "Casting [Demi] Moore as a woman who has come to the New World so that she can 'worship without fear or persecution' in _The_Scarlet_Letter_ is like casting Bruce Willis as Young Rene Descartes." -Joe Queenan
From: George Greene on 2 Jun 2010 18:30 On Jun 2, 2:01 am, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > The stupidity of presenting it as a "New Anti-Cantor Attack" is > immediately evident to any reasonable and competent person who has > even a passing familiarity with what constitutes mathematical proof. Well, that is obviously not who we are dealing with, so that is almost irrelevant. But even more IRrelevant is the "immediately" part: Herc has been doing this FOR A DECADE. A lot of us here have been seeing these arguments for TWO decades. So anything that is immediate is not relevant: what IS relevant is the kinds of reactions that will be had by people with LONG experience in reacting to these errors. > So those to whom it is not immediately evident are either > unreasonable, incompetent, or totally unfamiliar with the subject. Everybody's competence varies. That is not really an admissible insult in this context. > In none of these cases will it be easy to refute to that person's > satisfaction. That's just unduly pessimistic. Lots of people understand that simple contradictions are contradictions. It's sort of the deep dark relevant secret that that is ACTUALLY ALL ANYbody NEEDS to understand to do this. The rest of it is very purely grammar and string-matching, two things that people have to be able to do ALREADY just to write coherently. > And so this thread will probably run for months and > accrue hundreds or thousands of posts. Hundreds is trivial. Thousands, I doubt it. I just don't have the stamina any more. And as is being discussed in another thread, a lot of the good people have left.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 2 Jun 2010 18:19
Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > On Jun 2, 2:08 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...(a)netscape.net> wrote: >> Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote in news:e0e4acfa-fea4-4a1b- >> 9dec-b490a52b6...(a)e6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com: >> > Apparently to Myerson, only those who contradict >> > Cantor have to define their two-letter words, not >> > those who agree with Cantor. >> If Gerry Myerson asked someone to define "is", then >> his motivation was to guide that person to understanding > > I disagree. How does asking someone to define "is" lead > to understanding at all? When Clinton asked for the > definition of "is," did that lead to any understanding? Leaving Clinton aside, Gerry did not ask anyone to define "is". You *can* read, yes? > I can see how Myerson's asking for the definitions of > "isomorphic," N, and C can lead to understanding. Indeed, > if it turns out that Bergman is in Case 1 of my four-case > list and he attempts to start a new theory, _I_'d like to > understand more about it, and Bergman's definitions of > "isomorphic," N, and C can help. > > But to me, asking for a definition of the non-mathematical > two-letter linking verb "is" goes too far. Now we're no > longer discussing mathematical definitions. Indeed, I > wonder what sort of response Myerson even _expects_ when > he asks Bergman for the definition of "is." > > It amazes me how Clinton was ridiculed a decade ago for > asking for the definition of "is," yet posters who ask for > the definition of the same are defended, especially -- the > key point that I'm trying to make -- the one who asks for > the definition has a higher reputation on sci.math than > the person being asked to provide a definition. It amazes me how you fail to realize his reference to the meaning of the word "is" was a little joke alluding to the Clinton thing. -- "I suggest to those who listen that they enjoy the world, whatever their piece of it may be, as much as they can over the next few days, as soon enough, it will pass away, thanks to people who call themselves 'mathematicians'." -- JSH envisions geek Ragnarok |