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: John Jones on 7 Apr 2010 17:47
huge wrote:
> John Jones :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> You are saying that your idea of sequence in time is not the idea of
>> sequence in mathematics. It also isn't the idea of sequence in music.
>> Stick to the original temporal definition.
>
> What original temporal definition??? Reproduce it
> Here:
> ______________________
>
>
> _______________________________
>> 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?
>>>
>
>
>
>
>

The definition you were working to.
From: John Jones on 7 Apr 2010 17:48
huge wrote:
> John Jones :
>
>>> 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?
>>>
>
> You are still avoiding answering the above two paragraphs.
> What is your answer?
>
Are you having trouble with grammar?
From: huge on 7 Apr 2010 22:13
John Jones :

> huge wrote:
>> John Jones :
>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>> You are still avoiding answering the above two paragraphs. What is your
>> answer?
>>
> Are you having trouble with grammar?

Non-response noted. Why do you persist in obscurantism?




--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: huge on 7 Apr 2010 22:14
John Jones :

> huge wrote:
>> John Jones :
>>
>>> huge wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You are saying that your idea of sequence in time is not the idea of
>>> sequence in mathematics. It also isn't the idea of sequence in music.
>>> Stick to the original temporal definition.
>>
>> What original temporal definition??? Reproduce it Here:
>> ______________________
>>
>>
>> _______________________________
>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> The definition you were working to.

Non-response again noted.




--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: John Jones on 8 Apr 2010 16:53
huge wrote:

>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The definition you were working to.
>
> Non-response again noted.
>


The definition you were obviously working to and rejecting.
HERE IT IS AGAIN:
"I don't know of any mathematical definitions of a sequence that
**DO** use time."
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?