Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?
From: huge on 6 Apr 2010 08:19
John Jones :

> huge wrote:
>> John Jones :
>>
>>> huge wrote:
>>>> johnbee :
>>>>
>>>>> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hpce3u$lfs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no literal meaning to the phrase "discrete function".
>>>>> Just for your information, a discrete function is a function that is
>>>>> defined only for a set of numbers that can be listed, such as the
>>>>> set of whole numbers or the set of integers.
>>>> Now he'll claim that there is no literal meaning to the phrase
>>>> "function," "set," "numbers," or "integers." If you sat across from
>>>> him at dinner and asked him to pass the salt, he would perform a
>>>> lengthy linguistic analysis on the meaning of "salt," while the rest
>>>> of the people at table finish their dinner. He's one of those sad
>>>> sacs who are under the influence of Continental philosophers such as
>>>> Hegel and Derrida -- obscurantists all.
>>
>>> The grammatical disaster is on you. If anyone asked you to pass the
>>> salt you could do no more than say that salt is a technical term in
>>> another language.
>>
>> Hey, if you think 7th or 8th grade algebra, where the concept of a
>> function is introduced, is another language -- you are even more
>> ignorant than I thought.
>
> There you go again. Salt isn't "really" salt, function isn't "really"
> function, its a technical term in another language. There's no
> connection between the two uses whatsoever.

Salt really is salt. A function is a function.




--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: John Jones on 6 Apr 2010 09:28
huge wrote:
> John Jones :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>> John Jones :
>>>
>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>> johnbee :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hpce3u$lfs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no literal meaning to the phrase "discrete function".
>>>>>> Just for your information, a discrete function is a function that is
>>>>>> defined only for a set of numbers that can be listed, such as the
>>>>>> set of whole numbers or the set of integers.
>>>>> Now he'll claim that there is no literal meaning to the phrase
>>>>> "function," "set," "numbers," or "integers." If you sat across from
>>>>> him at dinner and asked him to pass the salt, he would perform a
>>>>> lengthy linguistic analysis on the meaning of "salt," while the rest
>>>>> of the people at table finish their dinner. He's one of those sad
>>>>> sacs who are under the influence of Continental philosophers such as
>>>>> Hegel and Derrida -- obscurantists all.
>>>> The grammatical disaster is on you. If anyone asked you to pass the
>>>> salt you could do no more than say that salt is a technical term in
>>>> another language.
>>> Hey, if you think 7th or 8th grade algebra, where the concept of a
>>> function is introduced, is another language -- you are even more
>>> ignorant than I thought.
>> There you go again. Salt isn't "really" salt, function isn't "really"
>> function, its a technical term in another language. There's no
>> connection between the two uses whatsoever.
>
> Salt really is salt. A function is a function.
>
>
>
>

No, if you want to know what salt is you should understand it
chemically, is your argument.
From: huge on 6 Apr 2010 12:30
John Jones :

> huge wrote:
>> John Jones :
>>
>>> huge wrote:
>>>> John Jones :
>>>>
>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>> johnbee :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hpce3u$lfs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no literal meaning to the phrase "discrete function".
>>>>>>> Just for your information, a discrete function is a function that
>>>>>>> is defined only for a set of numbers that can be listed, such as
>>>>>>> the set of whole numbers or the set of integers.
>>>>>> Now he'll claim that there is no literal meaning to the phrase
>>>>>> "function," "set," "numbers," or "integers." If you sat across
>>>>>> from him at dinner and asked him to pass the salt, he would perform
>>>>>> a lengthy linguistic analysis on the meaning of "salt," while the
>>>>>> rest of the people at table finish their dinner. He's one of those
>>>>>> sad sacs who are under the influence of Continental philosophers
>>>>>> such as Hegel and Derrida -- obscurantists all.
>>>>> The grammatical disaster is on you. If anyone asked you to pass the
>>>>> salt you could do no more than say that salt is a technical term in
>>>>> another language.
>>>> Hey, if you think 7th or 8th grade algebra, where the concept of a
>>>> function is introduced, is another language -- you are even more
>>>> ignorant than I thought.
>>> There you go again. Salt isn't "really" salt, function isn't "really"
>>> function, its a technical term in another language. There's no
>>> connection between the two uses whatsoever.
>>
>> Salt really is salt. A function is a function.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> No, if you want to know what salt is you should understand it
> chemically, is your argument.

It is one of the ways of understanding it, and superior to Derrida-daism.
You can also understand it in several other ways that
are superior to Derrida-daist obscurantism.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: John Jones on 6 Apr 2010 19:04
huge wrote:
> John Jones :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>> John Jones :
>>>
>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>> John Jones :
>>>>>
>>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>>> johnbee :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:hpce3u$lfs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no literal meaning to the phrase "discrete function".
>>>>>>>> Just for your information, a discrete function is a function that
>>>>>>>> is defined only for a set of numbers that can be listed, such as
>>>>>>>> the set of whole numbers or the set of integers.
>>>>>>> Now he'll claim that there is no literal meaning to the phrase
>>>>>>> "function," "set," "numbers," or "integers." If you sat across
>>>>>>> from him at dinner and asked him to pass the salt, he would perform
>>>>>>> a lengthy linguistic analysis on the meaning of "salt," while the
>>>>>>> rest of the people at table finish their dinner. He's one of those
>>>>>>> sad sacs who are under the influence of Continental philosophers
>>>>>>> such as Hegel and Derrida -- obscurantists all.
>>>>>> The grammatical disaster is on you. If anyone asked you to pass the
>>>>>> salt you could do no more than say that salt is a technical term in
>>>>>> another language.
>>>>> Hey, if you think 7th or 8th grade algebra, where the concept of a
>>>>> function is introduced, is another language -- you are even more
>>>>> ignorant than I thought.
>>>> There you go again. Salt isn't "really" salt, function isn't "really"
>>>> function, its a technical term in another language. There's no
>>>> connection between the two uses whatsoever.
>>> Salt really is salt. A function is a function.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> No, if you want to know what salt is you should understand it
>> chemically, is your argument.
>
> It is one of the ways of understanding it, and superior to Derrida-daism.
> You can also understand it in several other ways that
> are superior to Derrida-daist obscurantism.

I'm talking about sequence and time. You are talking about maths and
dadiasm. Why?
From: huge on 6 Apr 2010 19:48
John Jones :

> huge wrote:
>> John Jones :
>>
>>> huge wrote:
>>>> John Jones :
>>>>
>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>> John Jones :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>>>> johnbee :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:hpce3u$lfs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no literal meaning to the phrase "discrete function".
>>>>>>>>> Just for your information, a discrete function is a function
>>>>>>>>> that is defined only for a set of numbers that can be listed,
>>>>>>>>> such as the set of whole numbers or the set of integers.
>>>>>>>> Now he'll claim that there is no literal meaning to the phrase
>>>>>>>> "function," "set," "numbers," or "integers." If you sat across
>>>>>>>> from him at dinner and asked him to pass the salt, he would
>>>>>>>> perform a lengthy linguistic analysis on the meaning of "salt,"
>>>>>>>> while the rest of the people at table finish their dinner. He's
>>>>>>>> one of those sad sacs who are under the influence of Continental
>>>>>>>> philosophers such as Hegel and Derrida -- obscurantists all.
>>>>>>> The grammatical disaster is on you. If anyone asked you to pass
>>>>>>> the salt you could do no more than say that salt is a technical
>>>>>>> term in another language.
>>>>>> Hey, if you think 7th or 8th grade algebra, where the concept of a
>>>>>> function is introduced, is another language -- you are even more
>>>>>> ignorant than I thought.
>>>>> There you go again. Salt isn't "really" salt, function isn't
>>>>> "really" function, its a technical term in another language. There's
>>>>> no connection between the two uses whatsoever.
>>>> Salt really is salt. A function is a function.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, if you want to know what salt is you should understand it
>>> chemically, is your argument.
>>
>> It is one of the ways of understanding it, and superior to
>> Derrida-daism. You can also understand it in several other ways that
>> are superior to Derrida-daist obscurantism.
>
> I'm talking about sequence and time. You are talking about maths and
> dadiasm. Why?

Already explained twice.
For the third time:
______________________
You were claiming (as if it were a great discovery) that
you need not refer to time in reference to sequence.

I said that, indeed you do not, since anyone who knows the
least bit about math knows that most definitions (specifications)
of sequence in math do not require it. So, your discovery is, in fact,
trivial.
_______________________________

Now, I've saved that to note pad so I can copy and past it if
you ask the same question again.

There's another thing you keep ignoring that I keep posting:
Your way of thinking (Hegelian through Derrida on the Continent)
has never led to anything but a bit of discussion in universities
in things like literature classes and, less commonly, Continental
philosophy departments.

Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope
and heart transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some
kind of response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?

--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?