for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: Jim Burns on 16 May 2010 21:18 master1729 wrote: > burns : >> master1729 wrote: >>> jim burns wrote : >>>> What have you got here? A third poster "pointed >>>> out" that what you believed was true? Is this >>>> supposed to be evidence of some kind? I see >>>> someone agreeing with you, nothing more. >>>> (I'm curious: who is this mysterious poster?) >>> who is ? >>> who 'are' ! >>> >>> this has been pointed out a few times by people >> such >>> as newbies , nonregular posters , students and >> others ; >>> to call some names of ' others ' : >>> quasi, galathaea and of course myself. >> You say you point things out. You are not pointing >> things out. You (and these other posters) are >> expressing >> their opinions about what would happen in some >> hypothetical situation -- JSH shows up, presumably >> says something dumb, and "doesn't get the time of >> day". >> >> You are welcome to your opinion, even though >> what has happened in the past has been JSH receiving >> detailed reasons why he is wrong, explicit counter- >> examples, his vague descriptions turned into >> algorithms, >> and much more. In spite of all that, though, your >> opinion is that he would not get the time of day. >> >> Have you got any examples of JSH not getting the >> time of day? That might be worth something. >> >> What you really need, though, is JSH being told >> he is wrong when he is right -- and presumably >> because he is JSH. I won't ask you for explicit >> motives. That sets the bar too high, I think. > no jsh. Your sentence no verb. Do you mean JSH doesn't come around here lately? I don't see why that matters. Are there records of JSH not getting the time of day /in the past/? Did you mean something else? Would you mind sharing it with the rest of us? > and you dont seem to know these posters either , > despite pretending so. Wow! You have some really prime weirdness working for you there, Tommy. For that /one sentence/, I think I have to point out: -- It is irrelevant whether I know these posters (or you, or Lwalker) in order to make my point here, which is that what you imagine might happen to JSH in a hypothetical situation /is not evidence/. -- Where did I pretend to know these posters? -- Despite not needing to know them and despite not saying I know them, I do recognize their names. I know them about as well as I know you, Tommy, (which is to say, not well at all, but, c'mon! This is USEnet. What do you expect?) Jim Burns
From: James Burns on 18 May 2010 11:31 Jim Burns wrote: > Transfer Principle wrote: >> Now assume Burns is correct, and let's say that from >> MR's subsequent posts, we can determine that case (3) >> is most likely, thereby justifying calling MR "wrong" >> and other five-letter words. Does this mean that anyone >> who posts in response to MR (including myself) _must_ >> call MR "wrong"? Does this mean that I deserve ridicule >> if I respond to MR in any other way than to tell him >> that he is wrong? > > Consider what a poster like MR sees: "wrong", "wrong", > "wrong", "maybe he's right", "wrong", "wrong", ... > If I am right, and MR imagines he is correcting standard > usage, then he is wrong and he needs to get past his > error, if he wants to do anything more than make crank posts. > Holding out the possibility that he is right, when > he is not right, is more than not helpful. I think > you actively harm posters like MR when you do that. This last sentence may come across harsher than I intended it. I think your attempts to be kind to posters like MR add obstacles to their path to becoming competent reasoners in mathematics and logic. However, this is a rather abstract kind of damage. Personally, I would feel severely damaged if I lost the little ability I have in this area (through neurological disease or injury, I imagine). However, not everyone needs to be a mathematician. Not everyone wants to be a mathematician. Perhaps MR would be happier (etc) thinking that he holds a secret that has escaped so many brilliant people. Is that, then, "damage"? There are layers and layers of possible consequences for anything I write or don't write -- so many that I could easily get lost in their contemplation and never actually finish any post. That would be acceptable if I found such contemplation more interesting than mathematics or logic, but I don't. In place of contemplation, I try to respond to what a poster really means, and I assume that my correspondent is able to bear feeling unpleasant emotions, such as may be caused by being told they are wrong. You asked whether you deserve ridicule if you "respond to MR in any other way than to tell him that he is wrong". You have, of course, lumped together all possible responses other than "You are wrong" and asked whether you deserve ridicule for "them". -- If you think MR is wrong (as we seem to be assuming here), but you encourage him to think that he is right, then, in my opinion, you deserve contempt, not just ridicule. -- If you honestly disagree with the vast majority of the posters, as you tend to do, then I think you deserve praise for your resistance to peer pressure, though maybe not for your reasoning ability. (I can't say more than "maybe" about a generic disagreement.) -- If you come up with a non-standard system wherein 1 > 0.999..., and MR says "Yes! That is what I meant!", and he goes on to express himself clearly in complete mathematical ideas, then the skies will open and angels will sing, for you, Transfer Principle, will have accomplished what you set out to do, retrieve a fellow poster from the wastelands of crankdom. I don't imagine you would receive ridicule for that. I imagine it even less likely that you would care about ridicule, if you ever succeeded. Jim Burns
From: Transfer Principle on 18 May 2010 14:07 On May 18, 8:31 am, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > Jim Burns wrote: > > Consider what a poster like MR sees: "wrong", "wrong", > > "wrong", "maybe he's right", "wrong", "wrong", ... > > If I am right, and MR imagines he is correcting standard > > usage, then he is wrong and he needs to get past his > > error, if he wants to do anything more than make crank posts. > > Holding out the possibility that he is right, when > > he is not right, is more than not helpful. I think > > you actively harm posters like MR when you do that. > This last sentence may come across harsher than I > intended it. > There are layers and layers of possible consequences > for anything I write or don't write -- so many that > I could easily get lost in their contemplation and > never actually finish any post. That would be acceptable > if I found such contemplation more interesting than > mathematics or logic, but I don't. I am guilty of writing overly long posts in which I try to anticipate interpretations of them -- and often still fail to anticipate the response. So I agree that I must avoid such contemplation. > In place of > contemplation, I try to respond to what a poster > really means, and I assume that my correspondent is > able to bear feeling unpleasant emotions, such as > may be caused by being told they are wrong. At this point, I've decided to post the three main possibilities for what a poster most likely means: Case 1. The poster intends to start a new theory. Case 2. The poster acknowledges, but doesn't necessarily like standard theory. Case 3. The poster thinks that standard theory actually proves something that it refutes (or vice versa). Only in this case should the poster be called "wrong." Then as the thread progresses, one can see in which direction the thread turns, in order to gather evidence for the most likely case. Evidence for Case 1. The poster gives the proposed theory a name (AP-reals, TST, etc.). But notice that just because a poster doesn't name a theory, we shouldn't therefore assume that the poster is working in ZFC or classical analysis (absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence) -- it means that we should continue looking for evidence that supports one of the three cases. Evidence for Case 3. The poster writes several proofs which appear to be in standard theory, but with circularity (Enterprize) or other invalid steps. Case 2 is a dicey one. Believe it or not, there was once a thread in which a poster (might have been LV) was in Case 2, but I was ridiculed for assuming that he was in _Case_3_! So this case might be the most difficult one to find evidence other than a direct statement of being in this case. Notice that earlier today, there was a thread in which the OP attempted to prove that R is countable. So I posted in the thread to acknowledge the possibility of all three cases (rather than just one, my usual habit), and am now waiting to see how the thread progresses before finding out which of the three cases is the most likely. > You asked whether you deserve ridicule if you "respond > to MR in any other way than to tell him that he is wrong". > You have, of course, lumped together all possible responses > other than "You are wrong" and asked whether you deserve > ridicule for "them". So now I'm grouping yet again -- but rather than grouping posters, I'm grouping responses?!? > -- If you think MR is wrong (as we seem to be assuming here), > but you encourage him to think that he is right, then, > in my opinion, you deserve contempt, not just ridicule. Since MR won't post evidence to support otherwise, I now believe that MR is most likely wrong (Case 3). With many other posters available to tell him that he's wrong, my preferred action is simply not to post in MR threads at all. > -- If you honestly disagree with the vast majority of the > posters, as you tend to do, then I think you deserve > praise for your resistance to peer pressure, though > maybe not for your reasoning ability. (I can't say > more than "maybe" about a generic disagreement.) > -- If you come up with a non-standard system wherein > 1 > 0.999..., and MR says "Yes! That is what I meant!", > and he goes on to express himself clearly in complete > mathematical ideas, then the skies will open and angels > will sing, for you, Transfer Principle, will have > accomplished what you set out to do, retrieve a fellow > poster from the wastelands of crankdom. I don't imagine > you would receive ridicule for that. I imagine it even > less likely that you would care about ridicule, if you > ever succeeded. As we've seen so far, I've been unsuccessful in coming up with a theory so described, but if it's established that a poster is in Case 1, I'll continue to try.
From: master1729 on 18 May 2010 13:31 Jim Burns wrote : > master1729 wrote: > > burns : > >> master1729 wrote: > >>> jim burns wrote : > >>>> What have you got here? A third poster "pointed > >>>> out" that what you believed was true? Is this > >>>> supposed to be evidence of some kind? I see > >>>> someone agreeing with you, nothing more. > >>>> (I'm curious: who is this mysterious poster?) > >>> who is ? > >>> who 'are' ! > >>> > >>> this has been pointed out a few times by people > >> such > >>> as newbies , nonregular posters , students and > >> others ; > >>> to call some names of ' others ' : > >>> quasi, galathaea and of course myself. > >> You say you point things out. You are not pointing > >> things out. You (and these other posters) are > >> expressing > >> their opinions about what would happen in some > >> hypothetical situation -- JSH shows up, presumably > >> says something dumb, and "doesn't get the time of > >> day". > >> > >> You are welcome to your opinion, even though > >> what has happened in the past has been JSH > receiving > >> detailed reasons why he is wrong, explicit > counter- > >> examples, his vague descriptions turned into > >> algorithms, > >> and much more. In spite of all that, though, your > >> opinion is that he would not get the time of day. > >> > >> Have you got any examples of JSH not getting the > >> time of day? That might be worth something. > >> > >> What you really need, though, is JSH being told > >> he is wrong when he is right -- and presumably > >> because he is JSH. I won't ask you for explicit > >> motives. That sets the bar too high, I think. > > > no jsh. > > Your sentence no verb. > > Do you mean JSH doesn't come around here lately? > I don't see why that matters. Are there records > of JSH not getting the time of day /in the past/? > > Did you mean something else? Would you mind sharing > it with the rest of us? with no jsh i meant that you suddenly started talking about JSH as if the subject is JSH or as if i mentioned or talked about JSH. i didnt. in fact its not about JSH at all. > > > and you dont seem to know these posters either , > > despite pretending so. > > Wow! You have some really prime weirdness working > for you there, Tommy. > > For that /one sentence/, I think I have to > point out: > -- It is irrelevant whether I know these posters it is not irrelevant at all !! i know how those posters think ! i know them , you dont , so dont judge or claim things about them. especially wrong things. > (or you, or Lwalker) in order to make my point > here, which is that what you imagine might happen to > JSH in a hypothetical situation /is not evidence/. > -- Where did I pretend to know these posters? > -- Despite not needing to know them and despite > not saying I know them, I do recognize their names. > I know them about as well as I know you, Tommy, > (which is to say, not well at all, but, c'mon! > This is USEnet. What do you expect?) those people have been on usenet for years ! i know them better than you know me. and they are my friends. and they know stuff ! > > Jim Burns tommy1729
From: master1729 on 18 May 2010 13:36
gnasher729 wrote : > On May 15, 11:40 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > whatever ! > > I see. The only thing that was mathematics, and your > answer is > "whatever". > Look, if you don't get mathematics, and you don't, > why don't you try > to learn some instead of making a fool of yourself? > cmon !! you guys attack lwalke for trying to turn a cranky 0.999... post into 'meaning'. and when i agree on that , you say i need to learn more instead of making a fool of myself ?? besides it WASNT MATH yet. it were just some ideas. just like lwalke has made when he tries to make a foundation for a vague OP. i think that 0.999.. doesnt deserve such big attention and SO DO YOU. you told lwalke so. so dont be hypocrytical about it. regards tommy1729 |