Set Theory, Anyone?
in [Math]
|
Prev: The Blank Algorithm
Next: No Putnam spoilers please!
From: Jack Wellington on 5 Dec 2009 16:49 On Dec 5, 4:40 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > It's funny that you would say that, given your complaints that I don't > pay attention to your words... > > If the answer to "Can you truly not tell the difference between > "someone helped with it" and "someone did it for me"?" is "yes", that > means that you are in fact not able to tell the difference. > Haha, looks like I messed up. I was typing to fast I guess. =P I meant no, obviously. > > How so? Presenting other people's work as your own is plagiarism; does > your university have an honor code? > Not explicitly that I know of. I mean sure, plagiarism can result in some sort of punishment, but if the work is not *presented* in the first place, then it fails to meet your definition of plagiarism. > > > >In this situation, it is unimportant, for reasons > > > > already explained. > > > > Being factored into the grade is not the only thing that is important.. > > > If you misrepresent the work of others as your own, it *is* important, > > > whether you are being graded or not. It is a sad commentary on your > > > utter lack of ethics and character that you do not realize this. > > > The point I was trying to establish with the whole "not being asked" > > thing was that if I was not asked about the work (which is a > > possibility), I would not even have to present it to him in the first > > place. Regardless, I would still give credit where credit's due, > > meaning not to myself. > > Pull the other one; it's got bells on. > You choose to believe what you want. My stance remains unaltered.
From: Jack Wellington on 5 Dec 2009 16:55 On Dec 5, 4:42 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:49 pm, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 5, 2:51 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > > > On Dec 5, 1:45 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Great, now I have to counter all your non-math points... =P > > > > > On Dec 5, 12:15 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Let me ask you this: What the hell school deadline do I have to meet > > > > > at 12:00 AM? > > > > > Have you never heard of on-line submissions? > > > > > --- Yes, and most universities don't use them. Especially for this > > > > stuff. > > > > And you know this from vast personal experience? The same personal > > > experience that tells you that when it is midnight where you are, it > > > is also midnight *everywhere in the world*? > > > /I know this based on common class structures. > > On "common class structures" *where*? Among the universities I've been to. Online submissions are quite rare in all of them. > > > I wasn't implying that > > it was midnight everywhere in the world (obviously it wasn't). > > No, you were just implying that anyone who thought you had a deadline > near midnight was clearly not thinking all that much about it; how > would they know it was midnight? I was not implying anything about another person. I was presenting information in the form of a rhetorical question, yet, again, you demonstrate your inability to interpret arguments as well as math. They would know it was midnight because I presented the information there. I did not expect anyone to know for sure beforehand. Why would I? > > > That's why I was telling you. > > You weren't "telling". > Ok... > > > > > > As to being rude, your entire attitude is an insult, dear. That is why > > > > you are getting told off, and not merely ignored. > > > > > --- Your attitude is one of snobby discontent. > > > > Your lazy, uninformed, and worthless opinion is duly noted. > > > It's actually quite worthwhile and informed. > > Obviously, *you* think so. If you ever find someone else who shares > that evaluation with you, hang on to them. Meanwhile, you saying so > doesn't make it so. > There are plenty of people who think so. Of course it's all relative to the context. Obviously I am not very well-informed in the field of math. Yet I am still entitled to my opinion just as much as you are yours. Besides, there are other walks of life in which I am informed (and which you are probably not). This is not to say either of us is inferior as a person, just that we are different. Math is not my entire life. It may be yours, but there are other things out there.
From: Arturo Magidin on 5 Dec 2009 16:56 On Dec 5, 3:49 pm, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 5, 4:40 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > > > Being factored into the grade is not the only thing that is important. > > > > If you misrepresent the work of others as your own, it *is* important, > > > > whether you are being graded or not. It is a sad commentary on your > > > > utter lack of ethics and character that you do not realize this. > > > > The point I was trying to establish with the whole "not being asked" > > > thing was that if I was not asked about the work (which is a > > > possibility), I would not even have to present it to him in the first > > > place. Regardless, I would still give credit where credit's due, > > > meaning not to myself. > > > Pull the other one; it's got bells on. > > You choose to believe what you want. You mean, truth? Yup. > My stance remains unaltered. Quite obviously. You've done nothing wrong, and everything is everyone else's fault. Any criticism of your attitude is snobbery or hypocrisy, or lack of understanding, while you are quite able to pass that judgement on others. And you are shocked, *shocked* at someone doubting your word, when you quite openly acknowledged to lying. I'm sure there was no gambling going on in Rick's Cafe Americaine, either. Now, if the course is, as you claim, required, and you get the grade that your knowledge of the subject matter clearly deserves, you will be taking the course again in the future. Try paying attention next time, and try to stop blaming others for your deficiencies. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Jack Wellington on 5 Dec 2009 17:08 On Dec 5, 4:56 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > You mean, truth? Yup. Not always, apparently. > > > My stance remains unaltered. > > Quite obviously. You've done nothing wrong, and everything is everyone > else's fault. No, not everyone. >Any criticism of your attitude is snobbery or hypocrisy, > or lack of understanding, while you are quite able to pass that > judgement on others. Any *unjustified* criticism surely is. >And you are shocked, *shocked* at someone > doubting your word, when you quite openly acknowledged to lying. I'm > sure there was no gambling going on in Rick's Cafe Americaine, either. Lying once does not mean lying constantly. Sometimes, it's necessary to lie. And no, I'm not shocked, just irritated. On the contrary, I've come to expect your unwillingness to accept anything I say. *shrugs* > > Now, if the course is, as you claim, required, and you get the grade > that your knowledge of the subject matter clearly deserves, you will > be taking the course again in the future. Try paying attention next > time, and try to stop blaming others for your deficiencies. > Apparently you refuse to read what I type, so I'll just copy and paste it so it takes up a lot of space. Surely, You'll read it at least once if I type it 1000 times: What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? I pay attention, but it's all gibberish to anyone who doesn't share his Slavic origins I'm sure. It's broken English; impossible to decipher. Also read: I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due I... give credit where credit's due Finally: Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be. Don't presume to know others when you clearly do not, especially if you are going to judge them on the basis of your selective "holier than thou" hypocrisies. It just reveals how narrow-minded and spiteful you can be.
From: Arturo Magidin on 5 Dec 2009 18:47
On Dec 5, 2:53 pm, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 5, 3:02 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote:> On Dec 5, 2:35 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Because you do not have enough information to answer the questions > > > either. This tells me I shouldn't be able to answer it anyway, > > > That's nonsense. You present incomplete information, and Gerhard does > > not have access to your book nor your notes, nor did he attend your > > class. What you wrote is not the entirety of the information at your > > disposal. > > Yes, it is, minus the internet or possibly the library. Yet I > shouldn't need these sources - all information required to answer the > questions was allegedly in the (poorly written and terribly ambiguous) > handout. Oh, I must apologize. I missed the post where you provided the contents of this allegedly poorly written and terribly ambiguous handout. Where was it? Because if what you wrote is the "entirety of the information at your disposal", minus the internet or possibly the library, then you must have written the contents of that handout somewhere. You must also have written the title and author of your textbook, so that we would also have that. > > > > so I > > > will turn it in using my best guesses. > > > > It's sad that mathematicians have no imaginations these days. > > > It's sad that someone who is, by his own admission, lazy, dishonest, > > and at least amoral (if not unethical), and who just a month ago was > > asking about BC integration, would think he is in a position to pass > > judgement on "mathematicians", when he clearly knows nothing of > > mathematics, and has said quite clearly that he is not interested in > > knowing nothing about mathematics. > > I am passing judgment on your personality, not your math skills. You were passing judgement on "mathematicians". > > I also find it rather interesting that every time we have a dishonest, > > lazy, unethical student come by and ask for solutions to assignments, > > it always turns out to be the fault of a professor with a thick > > accent. Of course, it is terribly hard to understand what someone is > > saying when you aren't paying attention, even if they speak in perfect > > mid-Atlantic-accented English, isn't it? > > What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you > understand? So, let me see if I can summarize this, then, "holistically"... You were given an assignment. You say the assignment is immaterial to your grade and thus not really relevant. You posted requesting the answers, and only the answers, to four questions. You claim to have done this as a service to others, who would not have been inclined to discuss hints or concepts. So, *ideally*, you would just like the answers. If that were not possible, however, you are "willing" to condescend to do some work yourself if it is needed. Even though there was no deadline, and you were not required to have the answers, you posted saying that "needed" the solutions to two of the questions within 30 minutes. This was, by your own later claims... inaccurate as to the truth: you merely were hoping to have them before going out with your friends. You later presented yourself inaccurately in order to elicit sympathy and the answers you wanted. This admitted dishonesty, however, should not be factored into and everything *else* you say should be accepted at face value. There is also indication that you did not spend much time (if any) thinking about any of these problems before posting requesting the answer that you "needed" so urgently; we can see this because you later point out that you were able to answer two of the four questions on your own after failing to get the answers handed to you. The time or effort of others is of course not worth all that much, so it is okay to ask them to give it when you are unwilling to expend your own. As an example of the high quality of your ethics, you proffer assurances that, should you cheat in an exam, you would feel bad it. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is your fault. It's the accent, the confusing text, and the confusing handbooks. Any criticism of your attitude is snobbery, obnoxiousness, prudery, or self-righteousness. You have nothing to apologize for, and anyone who finds your attitude lacking in any way is unjustified. While any and all criticisms of you are unwarranted and unfounded, you are of course able to hurl a few of your own with utter confidence. Fair enough. -- Arturo Magidin |