'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: MoeBlee on 16 Mar 2010 10:51 On Mar 16, 12:09 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > > A model is a mathematical object. > > Provided that that object _actually conforms_ to the mathematical > definition of the word "model", of course. For KUREYEZsake you too much! OF COURSE an object is a model (per some given definition of 'model') if and only if it conforms to the definition of 'model'! > > How would one ridicule a mathematical object? > > _If it actually is_ a mathematical object. Of course a model (in the sense of the word 'model' that has been in this context) is a mathematical object. MoeBlee
From: Daryl McCullough on 16 Mar 2010 10:53 Nam Nguyen says... > >MoeBlee wrote: >> What you did is to give an example of an uninteresting theorem in Q. > >Apparently you didn't understand the short conversation. First, Daryl >asked me to give an example of a _nontrivial_ theorem. I gave him >just that. The theorem was: ExAy[~(Sy=x)]. It doesn't seem nontrivial to me. It's a one-step proof from Ay ~(S(y) = 0) >Secondly, _he said even I wouldn't interested_ in it and that is wrong, >because _to me_ non-trivial theorems should reflect something new that >axioms have not reflected and in this case the theorem does remind me >certain uni-directional flow in provability. It's not the sort of fact about numbers that would lead anybody to care about number theory. You say you find it interesting, and I certainly can't know that you don't, but I don't find it interesting. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: MoeBlee on 16 Mar 2010 10:53 On Mar 16, 12:15 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > What is crank is not the particular > > mathematical claims, but rather the WAY in which they argued along > > with certain other behaviours reflecting irrationality, ignorance, and > > intellectual dishonesty. > > Exactly! "The WAY in which they argued ... and intellectual dishonesty", > are hallmark of cranks or *crank-like* ones. Wonderful that you agree! Now let's eat cookies to celebrate! MoeBlee
From: Transfer Principle on 16 Mar 2010 15:50 On Mar 15, 2:11 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 11, 12:00 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > So I gave the generalization (which might be viewed as a "lie") that > > standard anti-"cranks" only mention counterexamples like Z/3Z and Z/4Z > > when an opponent is making claims like 2+2=4. > (1) That was not original claim. You didn't just claim that > crankbusters only cite alternative readings of mathematical terms, but > rather the more general claim (via a particular example) at the top of > this post. Top of the post, eh? Well, let's go back to the top of the post, then. > > On Mar 9, 8:37 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 9, 12:21 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > > if a known so-called "crank," let's say > > > > JSH, were to state that the sky is blue, the _standard theorists_ > > > > would be the ones to start coming up with obscure counterexamples > > > > such as the Doppler effect at velocities approaching c, alien > > > > languages in which "blue" means "red," and so forth. As it turns out, Rotwang already successfully rebutted that claim days before MoeBlee posted. In particular, Rotwang pointed out that such references to hypothetical aliens and planets are much more likely to be uttered by "cranks" than "crank"-busters. The best thing for me to do at this point is to drop my claim until I actually see a standard theorist make this type of argument, then pounce on the poster as soon as it happens. That way, I can make my claim about standard theorists' behavior _as_it_happens_, rather than refer to posts made months ago and rely on my imperfect memory or the imperfect Google archive to remember what was in those posts. Right now, the closest that I see to an example of this in a currently active thread appears in the sci.math thread entitled, "Equilateral Triangle Tiler Conjecture," but that discussion had moved somewhat from mathematics to politics. In that thread, AP stated that the Second Amendment to the USA Constitution protected the citizens' right to own a gun, and the poster "deadrat" replied by writing: "That's eight [mistakes so far in your post]. As of right now, there's no such right except in DC, although this is likely to change soon." My claim is that had a non-"crank," rather than AP, made the claim that the Second Amendment protected the citizens' right to own a gun, deadrat wouldn't have rebutted him, since that's what that Amendment means to most laypeople who haven't studied law extensively. But I won't focus on that example, since it focuses on politics rather than mathematics or science -- and besides, I'd be hardpressed to call "deadrat" a "standard theorist," since it appears that he doesn't post too often about math or science anyway (though it's hard to tell, since he's a frequent nym-shifter). It may be still appropriate to call "deadrat" an anti-"crank" or "crank"-buster, though. (AP crossposted his claim to both sci.math and a non-scientific newsgroup.) And so I'll wait for a mathematical or scientific example of a standard theorist contradicting the correct statement of a "crank" before pursuing my claim any further.
From: MoeBlee on 16 Mar 2010 16:38
On Mar 16, 2:50 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > The best thing for me to do at this point is to drop my claim until I > actually see a standard theorist make this type of argument Then likely what you'll do, as you do so often, is to conclude as to "standard theorists" in general (of which you include me as one). MoeBlee |