Set Theory, Anyone?
in [Math]
|
Prev: The Blank Algorithm
Next: No Putnam spoilers please!
From: William Elliot on 5 Dec 2009 05:06 On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Jack Wellington wrote: > It's sad that mathematicians have no imaginations these days. May I introduce you to imaginary numbers. Now if you take a real number that's not zero and square it, the result is positive. That however leaves the problem of solving equations like x^2 + x + 1 = 0 to which the answer (-1 +- sqr(-3))/2. Since the square of sqr(-3) is -3 and square of real numbers are positive, sqr(-3) is not real. It's imaginary. In fact it's purely imaginary. Imagine that. > Or social skills for that matter. Today in topology class: Some spaces are regular and others normal. Normal spaces are regular. Now let's consider a regular abnormal space ... Exercise. Pot + Kettle = ??
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 5 Dec 2009 05:10 On Dec 5, 2:06 am, William Elliot <ma...(a)rdrop.remove.com> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Jack Wellington wrote: > > It's sad that mathematicians have no imaginations these days. > > May I introduce you to imaginary numbers. > Now if you take a real number that's not zero > and square it, the result is positive. > > That however leaves the problem of solving equations like > x^2 + x + 1 = 0 to which the answer (-1 +- sqr(-3))/2. > > Since the square of sqr(-3) is -3 and square of > real numbers are positive, sqr(-3) is not real. > > It's imaginary. In fact it's purely imaginary. > Imagine that. > > > Or social skills for that matter. > > Today in topology class: > > Some spaces are regular and others normal. > Normal spaces are regular. Now let's > consider a regular abnormal space ... > > Exercise. Pot + Kettle = ?? > Sadly, I think you are illustrating the validity of his last point...
From: David C. Ullrich on 5 Dec 2009 10:00 On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 23:57:47 -0800 (PST), Jack Wellington <jack.wellington8(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 5, 2:01�am, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: >> On Dec 4, 11:34�pm, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Well that sort of phrasing was directed only to gain your sympathies. >> >> In short, you were lying and trying to take advantage of others to >> your benefit... >> >That's going to be my job some day, in short and utter crudeness. But >more accurately, I was trying to get your attention and assistance. > >> > I also would like to point out that an obnoxious, self-righteous prude >> > like you bears nothing in the lines of personality or anything else >> > that matters in the real world in common with me. >> >> Probably not; I happen to value work, knowledge, and honesty. Clearly, >> you value none of those. > >Clearly, nobody can judge a person in his or her entirety based upon >one internet post. Very true. On the basis of your first post all one could tell was that you were lazy and dishonest. It took several more posts from you to determine all the other things we've found out. > Sure, they're not at the top of my list, especially >given several aforementioned predispositions in this subject area. But >then again, a snob like you wouldn't know any better. > >> >> > I never claimed to be anything more than lazy. And ethics are both >> > trivial and relative. >> >> I can see why you have none. > >Come to my ethics class some day and you'll realize that I have >ethics. They're just different than yours. > >> >> > So instead of being an elitist, self-exalted >> > geek, you could have simply refused to help me, kept your rude >> > comments to yourself and move on with your pathetic life. Or, if it is >> > so clear to you that I do not understand the material, perhaps you >> > could help enlighten me instead of criticizing me from waaaaaaaaay up >> > high on your precious pedestal of perfection. I am willing to learn. >> >> Actually, it is quite apparent that you are *not* willing to learn. >> You are far more comfortable getting others to do your work for you >> instead, and then complain when they don't. >> >See a few prior posts. By the way, not all claims are rooted in >explicitly enclosed evidence. I have given my reasons for my behavior >and you simply refuse to acknowledge them because that's just too >inconvenient. Stay up on your pedestal where you're comfortable. > >> By the by, dear: expecting people to do their own work is hardly >> "elitist" or "self-exalted". >> >But being an arrogant judgmental snob who sees only their own >arguments and justifies them on false premises is completely so. > >> > The most laughable part of the situation is that this assignment is >> > not even being factored into my actual grade - I was hoping that >> > someone would explain this stuff to me in a way that I can actually >> > understand it. >> >> Ehr, no, you said you wanted someone to give you the answers so you >> could go out with your friends. Which story is it, then? >> >Again, you lack attention to details. I wanted the answers BEFORE I >went out with my friends. Independent of this assignment, my plans >were spoiled. Hence, I am sitting here talking to you right now. To >clarify my situation (for the fourth or fifth time, I believe) I asked >for the answers because I assumed it would be much more convenient for >the other posters. But if someone is willing to teach (without that >goddamn accent), I am willing to learn. > >> > Reserve your false judgments to that which you actually understand, >> > and hopefully in such cases (if they even exist), they will hold some >> > truth for a change. >> >> Dear, you just spoke some things you really need to listen to. > >I can hear myself talk and see what I type. I just need to clarify for >those unaccustomed to reading words with the thoroughness they >deserve. >> >> -- >> Arturo Magidin David C. Ullrich "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to." (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." in sci.logic.)
From: Arturo Magidin on 5 Dec 2009 14:51 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*? > 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. -- Artur0 Magidin
From: Arturo Magidin on 5 Dec 2009 15:02
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. > 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. > Or social skills for that matter. You mean, social skills like yours? My, you really are a brat, aren't you? 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? -- Arturo Magidin |