details re Z-R |- PA consistent
in [Math]
|
From: Transfer Principle on 8 Jul 2010 20:59 On Jul 8, 2:06 am, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-07-06, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > And so rather than continue the discussion in the existing threads, > > he started this thread in the hopes that that other type of poster > > wouldn't notice this thread at all. > [...] > > In this "secret" thread which he tried in vain to keep hidden > This is the sort of comment that leads me to suspect that Transfer > Principle really might be a very good troll after all. Here we go again with a five-letter insult! But, as I've said many times before, all the five-letter insults in the world aren't going to convince me to abandon my raison d'etre for posting to sci.math. > [H]is/her posts appear to be filled with clueless stupidity and > misreading of a particularly consistent kind, but inferring something > like this from MoeBlee's posts surely takes more than mere idiocy can > adequately explain. As we approach the third anniversary of my first post here at sci.math, now is as good a time as any to remind myself and others, why am I posting to sci.math in the first place? It's because I had noticed many threads discussing ideas that contradict standard theory, and most of the arguments in such threads are one-sided in favor of standard theory. And so I started posting in the hopes that the threads would no longer be one-sided in favor of the standard theory. I knew that many people use five-letter insults against their opponents, and I came in fully prepared to be called such a word myself. If I'd thought myself unable to handle five-letter criticism, then I wouldn't have posted to sci.math in the first place. Have I learned anything in these three years of posting? I've learned that there really are theories other than ZF and ZFC, PA, and classical analysis. I would never have even _heard_ of NFU, IST, finitism, hyperreals, surreals, and all kinds of alternate theories had it not been for the sci.math debate threads. I've also learned about the many justifications that posters give to defend their use of five-letter insults. Those who use such words often believe that they are rational, while their opponents are irrational. They believe that they are informed, while their opponents are uninformed. They believe that their posts are coherent, while their opponents' are incoherent. They believe that their arguments are based on logic and reason while their opponents' are based on emotion. They believe that they are open-minded while their opponents are closed-minded. > > Am I [Aatu] vindicated if someone proves the Riemann hypothesis? > Well, obivously. You said it was true and it is true. Insignificant > side-claims such as the reason you offer for it being true make no > difference. Here, Little implies that it's not his opponents' beliefs, but their reasons and arguments for holding said beliefs that leads him to criticize them. One might be led to believe that if someone were to give an argument for, say, the inconsistency of PA, or in favor of a theory other than ZFC, that was coherent and based on logic and reason, then Little, even if he doesn't accept that idea, would at least respect it without the use of five-letter insults. If only that were true! But it's only human nature to base one's arguments on emotion as much as reason. It's only human nature to judge an argument by the person making the argument as much as the merit of the argument itself. I freely admit having such human flaws. Yet over the years, posters like to claim that mathematicians and logicians aren't subject to such flaws. They claim that here on sci.math and sci.logic, arguments are based solely on logic and reason, and those who don't adhere to this deserve the five-letter insults. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. And this remains true if we replace "mortal" with "emotional" and "Socrates" with any mathematician or sci.math poster. It's only human nature to resort to emotional arguments. I freely admit that I sometimes use emotional arguments, but I also want to point this out to those who don't admit that they do so. Some posters have said that one characteristic of a "crank" is that it's difficult to convince them to admit an error. But it's difficult to convince most people that their believes are erroneous, so by this definition, most posters would merit the "crank" label. Some posters have said that "cranks" focus on what they believe while they themselves focus on what they can prove. But they often point out that most set theorists _believe_ ~CH despite its unprovability in ZFC (assuming consistency), and of course the they believe axioms themselves to be true. So most posters focus on their beliefs, and so most posters would merit the "crank" label again. Posters continually claim that they call their opponents by five-letter insults not because they oppose ZFC per se, but because their arguments for doing so are faulty, and that they oppose ZFC only because they don't understand it. But here Herc's religion analogy is apt. A Muslim, or an atheist, can read and reread the Bible, and fully understand every single word, verse, and chapter, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will convert to Christianity. Understanding the Bible doesn't equate to believing that it is true. Similarly, one can fully understand ZFC and still oppose it. And similarly, I read and understand the reasons that posters give for calling people five-letter insults, but that doesn't mean that I _believe_ their claims. I understand their _claim_ that they don't call people "cranks" just for opposing ZFC, but I don't _believe_ them. Recently, I was asked whether I believe that posters are lying, or do I believe them to be confused about their own beliefs when I doubt their denial that they equate "crank"-dom with opposition to ZFC. I would say that most people are strongly biased in favor of their own beliefs (so am I -- it's only human nature again), and so they find justifications for the "crank" label by saying that it applies to their arguments and not their beliefs per se. And so I will continue to call out those who deny that they adhere to their own human nature. But likewise I should look for those who overcome their human nature and judge others' mathematics solely logically and commend them, and I should strive to overcome my own human nature and avoid judging arguments by their arguers myself, if I can.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 9 Jul 2010 00:00 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: [...] > And so I will continue to call out those who deny that they > adhere to their own human nature. But likewise I should look for > those who overcome their human nature and judge others' > mathematics solely logically and commend them, and I should > strive to overcome my own human nature and avoid judging > arguments by their arguers myself, if I can. It would have been nice if you could embed stirring music in the background of this post, which swells to a crescendo during this moving paragraph. -- Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten. -- Terry Pratchett on Intelligent Design. Or something.
From: Transfer Principle on 11 Jul 2010 01:36 On Jul 9, 8:18 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 7:59 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > Here we go again with a five-letter insult! But, as I've said many > > times before, all the five-letter insults in the world aren't going to > > convince me to abandon my raison d'etre for posting to sci.math. > But you don't say now, > "Okay, I see that I really went past what is reasonable and instead > claimed something about MoeBlee that I had no basis to claim," as > instead you slather on yet more of your self-justifications. My claim about MoeBlee's reason for posting has faced so much hostility that I feel compelled to take it back. And so let me do so right now: I unequivocally take back what I wrote about MoeBlee's reason for starting a new thread. So how can I correct what I wrote? Let's take a look back at the post from MoeBlee which inspired what I wrote. (What follows isn't a "lie," but a direct verbatim quote from MoeBlee, the OP.) > Note: I hope to afford time to discuss this post with anyone who has > informed, coherent, and rational comments. But I might not defend this > post from uninformed, incoherent, and irrational criticisms, > especially from posters who have shown themselves over a good period > of time to be uneducable and hopeless cranks. Now I could try to guess from these two sentences the actual reason that MoeBlee started a new thread, but chances are great that my guess would be labeled a "lie." And so I won't make any corrected guess as to why MoeBlee started this new thread. Instead, all I have to say in correction is: It's funny that two posters as described in the second sentence of the paragraph of MoeBlee's, which I quoted, have posted in this thread, and I am now the third such poster. and leave it at that. (After all, who really even cares why MoeBlee started the thread? Not I, at least not anymore.) > > It's because I had noticed many threads discussing ideas that > > contradict standard theory, and most of the arguments in > > such threads are one-sided in favor of standard theory. And so > > I started posting in the hopes that the threads would no longer > > be one-sided in favor of the standard theory. > Such arguments are not really about standard theory vs. some other > theory, but rather are propelled by the irrational, ignorant, > dogmatic, and insulting argumentation itself of the cranks. MoeBlee calls the other posters "dogmatic," and they call MoeBlee "dogmatic" in return. Also, both sides regularly insult each other all the time. Once again, that would make those on both sides "cranks." > > I came in fully prepared to be called such a word myself. If I'd > > thought myself unable to handle five-letter criticism, then I > > wouldn't have posted to sci.math in the first place. > Oh really? You sussed that all out before you even posted? I admit that I actually lurked for several months before making my first post. During that time, I observed several discussions, including Herc's shuffling diagonals, some of zuhair's theories from back before he was "reformed," and Tim Golden's polysigned numbers being decried by Robin Chapman as isomorphic to known algebraic objects. (Note that by the time I started posting, Chapman was no longer an active poster.) And five-letter words appeared regularly in such threads. > > Have I learned anything in these three years of posting? I've > > learned that there really are theories other than ZF and ZFC, PA, > > and classical analysis. I would never have even _heard_ of NFU, > > IST, finitism, hyperreals, surreals, and all kinds of alternate > > theories had it not been for the sci.math debate threads. > Wonderful. I heard of all of those before I even heard of sci.logic > and sci.math. Lucky you. > There are VASTLY more efficient ways of getting an > introduction to such subjects than slogging through threads overgrown > with confusion. Too late now. The first place that I've heard of these theories will always be sci.math. > > Here, Little implies that it's not his opponents' beliefs, but their > > reasons and arguments for holding said beliefs that leads him > > to criticize them. One might be led to believe that if someone > > were to give an argument for, say, the inconsistency of PA, > > or in favor of a theory other than ZFC, that was coherent and > > based on logic and reason, then Little, even if he doesn't > > accept that idea, would at least respect it without the use of > > five-letter insults. > > If only that were true! > What basis do you have to say it's not true? Even historically, for > just one example, Frege didn't say Russell was a crank. Rather, Frege, > the one human being who had the most to lose, admitted the problem > promptly. Need I mention what Kronecker said about a certain "scientific charlatan," or what Poincare said about a certain "disease," for the umpteenth time? > > Recently, I was asked whether I believe that posters are lying, > > or do I believe them to be confused about their own beliefs when > > I doubt their denial that they equate "crank"-dom with opposition > > to ZFC. I would say that most people are strongly biased in favor > > of their own beliefs (so am I -- it's only human nature again), and > > so they find justifications for the "crank" label by saying that it > > applies to their arguments and not their beliefs per se. > Right, you are so biased in favor of YOUR belief that crankbusters are > motivated by intolerance that rather than allow that they might not be > intellectually intolerant you prefer to posit that they are. I don't deny that I'm biased. I'm just criticizing those who do deny that _they_ are biased. On the other hand, I do need to give credit where credit's due, and praise those who do overcome their biases to become more open-minded about alternate set theories. And so, in the most recent Herc thread (where he discusses his newly found finitism), I must commend the posters Fred Jeffries and David Libert. In response to Dan Christensen's question about how finitists deal with sqrt(2), Libert provided some links to relevant discussions, while Jeffries a nearly 30-year old article. Although there's no guarantee that Herc has access to the article, I find this far preferable to doling out five-letter insults. But I don't find that the most posters are like Jeffries or Libert. And so I weaken my claim to state that only a _majority_ of sci.math posters succumb to human nature, equating "crank"-dom with opposition to one's theory and finding justification for doing so. Meanwhile, in that same thread, I notice that Wolf K. is one such poster in that majority. He calls Herc a "crank" and then lists five reasons for calling him so. Right now, I'm going to head over to that thread and respond to the five reasons that he lists.
From: FredJeffries on 11 Jul 2010 12:55 On Jul 10, 10:36 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > I don't deny that I'm biased. I'm just criticizing those who do > deny that _they_ are biased. > > On the other hand, I do need to give credit where credit's due, and > praise those who do overcome their biases to become more > open-minded about alternate set theories. And so, in the most > recent Herc thread (where he discusses his newly found finitism), > I must commend the posters Fred Jeffries I am curious. Exactly what biases have I overcome? (This is an honest question: Since they are my own biases it is difficult for me to see them on my own.) > and David Libert. In > response to Dan Christensen's question about how finitists deal > with sqrt(2), Libert provided some links to relevant discussions, > while Jeffries a nearly 30-year old article. Although there's no > guarantee that Herc has access to the article, I find this far > preferable to doling out five-letter insults. Seems to me that if there is a certain kind of poet that you prefer to another kind that you might encourage more of the former by intelligently responding to THEM rather than wasting your life posting more of the kind you claim to not prefer (thus encouraging more responses of the type you claim not to prefer).
From: MoeBlee on 11 Jul 2010 15:28
On Jul 10, 10:36 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Jul 9, 8:18 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 8, 7:59 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > Here we go again with a five-letter insult! But, as I've said many > > > times before, all the five-letter insults in the world aren't going to > > > convince me to abandon my raison d'etre for posting to sci.math. > > But you don't say now, > > "Okay, I see that I really went past what is reasonable and instead > > claimed something about MoeBlee that I had no basis to claim," as > > instead you slather on yet more of your self-justifications. > > My claim about MoeBlee's reason for posting has faced so much > hostility that I feel compelled to take it back. A better reason would be that you realize that your claim was not justified. >And so let me do so > right now: > > I unequivocally take back what I wrote about MoeBlee's reason > for starting a new thread. > > So how can I correct what I wrote? Let's take a look back at > the post from MoeBlee which inspired what I wrote. (What follows > isn't a "lie," but a direct verbatim quote from MoeBlee, the OP.) > > > Note: I hope to afford time to discuss this post with anyone who has > > informed, coherent, and rational comments. But I might not defend this > > post from uninformed, incoherent, and irrational criticisms, > > especially from posters who have shown themselves over a good period > > of time to be uneducable and hopeless cranks. > > Now I could try to guess from these two sentences the actual > reason that MoeBlee started a new thread, but chances are > great that my guess would be labeled a "lie." I'd call it a lie if it were a lie. You didn't state your previous claim as a "guess". > And so I won't > make any corrected guess as to why MoeBlee started this > new thread. > > Instead, all I have to say in correction is: > > It's funny that two posters as described in the second > sentence of the paragraph of MoeBlee's, which I quoted, have > posted in this thread, and I am now the third such poster. I never said you are a crank as to mathematical matters themselves. > and leave it at that. (After all, who really even cares why > MoeBlee started the thread? Not I, at least not anymore.) > > > > It's because I had noticed many threads discussing ideas that > > > contradict standard theory, and most of the arguments in > > > such threads are one-sided in favor of standard theory. And so > > > I started posting in the hopes that the threads would no longer > > > be one-sided in favor of the standard theory. > > Such arguments are not really about standard theory vs. some other > > theory, but rather are propelled by the irrational, ignorant, > > dogmatic, and insulting argumentation itself of the cranks. > > MoeBlee calls the other posters "dogmatic," and they call > MoeBlee "dogmatic" in return. Also, both sides regularly > insult each other all the time. Once again, that would make > those on both sides "cranks." Not by me. If Joe says Bob is dogmatic, that doesn't in itself make Joe a crank. > > > I came in fully prepared to be called such a word myself. If I'd > > > thought myself unable to handle five-letter criticism, then I > > > wouldn't have posted to sci.math in the first place. > > Oh really? You sussed that all out before you even posted? > > I admit that I actually lurked for several months before making > my first post. During that time, I observed several discussions, > including Herc's shuffling diagonals, some of zuhair's theories > from back before he was "reformed," and Tim Golden's > polysigned numbers being decried by Robin Chapman as > isomorphic to known algebraic objects. (Note that by the time I > started posting, Chapman was no longer an active poster.) And > five-letter words appeared regularly in such threads. > > > > Have I learned anything in these three years of posting? I've > > > learned that there really are theories other than ZF and ZFC, PA, > > > and classical analysis. I would never have even _heard_ of NFU, > > > IST, finitism, hyperreals, surreals, and all kinds of alternate > > > theories had it not been for the sci.math debate threads. > > Wonderful. I heard of all of those before I even heard of sci.logic > > and sci.math. > > Lucky you. The point being that one doesn't have to slog through a swamp of crank postings just to find out about alternative mathematics. Just the ordinary outlets along - journals and books - have all kinds of stuff about alternative mathematics. Try to glean what alternative mathematics is from the uninformed and confused postings of cranks and the noisy discussions thereupon is a very inefficient way of learning about alternative mathematics. > > There are VASTLY more efficient ways of getting an > > introduction to such subjects than slogging through threads overgrown > > with confusion. > > Too late now. The first place that I've heard of these theories will > always be sci.math. Too late to be your first exposure. What is nutty is that you think there is some special deliverance though from the postings of cranks. > > > Here, Little implies that it's not his opponents' beliefs, but their > > > reasons and arguments for holding said beliefs that leads him > > > to criticize them. One might be led to believe that if someone > > > were to give an argument for, say, the inconsistency of PA, > > > or in favor of a theory other than ZFC, that was coherent and > > > based on logic and reason, then Little, even if he doesn't > > > accept that idea, would at least respect it without the use of > > > five-letter insults. > > > If only that were true! > > What basis do you have to say it's not true? Even historically, for > > just one example, Frege didn't say Russell was a crank. Rather, Frege, > > the one human being who had the most to lose, admitted the problem > > promptly. > > Need I mention what Kronecker said about a certain "scientific > charlatan," or what Poincare said about a certain "disease," > for the umpteenth time? I don't see how those vitiate anything I've said. Moreover, as to certain famous quotes, I suggest you read more about their specific context. > > > Recently, I was asked whether I believe that posters are lying, > > > or do I believe them to be confused about their own beliefs when > > > I doubt their denial that they equate "crank"-dom with opposition > > > to ZFC. I would say that most people are strongly biased in favor > > > of their own beliefs (so am I -- it's only human nature again), and > > > so they find justifications for the "crank" label by saying that it > > > applies to their arguments and not their beliefs per se. > > Right, you are so biased in favor of YOUR belief that crankbusters are > > motivated by intolerance that rather than allow that they might not be > > intellectually intolerant you prefer to posit that they are. > > I don't deny that I'm biased. I'm just criticizing those who do > deny that _they_ are biased. It would help then that you would be specific to say just who you have in mind. > On the other hand, I do need to give credit where credit's due, and > praise those who do overcome their biases to become more > open-minded about alternate set theories. And so, in the most > recent Herc thread (where he discusses his newly found finitism), Herc has an alternative set theory? Pray tell its language, axioms, and definitions. > I must commend the posters Fred Jeffries and David Libert. In > response to Dan Christensen's question about how finitists deal > with sqrt(2), Libert provided some links to relevant discussions, > while Jeffries a nearly 30-year old article. Although there's no > guarantee that Herc has access to the article, I find this far > preferable to doling out five-letter insults. It's not a strict dichotomy between referring people to articles and also saying that certain people are cranks. > But I don't find that the most posters are like Jeffries or Libert. > And > so I weaken my claim to state that only a _majority_ of sci.math > posters succumb to human nature, equating "crank"-dom with > opposition to one's theory and finding justification for doing so. Majority? You'd do better to say who specifically you have in mind. > Meanwhile, in that same thread, I notice that Wolf K. is one > such poster in that majority. He calls Herc a "crank" and then lists > five reasons for calling him so. Right now, I'm going to head over to > that thread and respond to the five reasons that he lists. Whoever Wolf K is, are you sure you're not assuming what you need to show about him? If he gives reasons he thinks Herc is a crank, that is not in itself evidence that he gives those reasons merely as rationalization for some intolerance to alternative mathematics you claim him to have. MoeBlee |