for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: James Burns on 18 May 2010 18:55 master1729 wrote: > 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. Go back and read the thread, Tommy. Transfer Principle (and you, elsewhere) were saying that people who get labeled "crank" get disagreed with /because they're labeled that way/. TP used as a supporting example an instance where a newbie got treated well, but /someone said/ that JSH, in the same situation, would not have gotten the time of day. This is where JSH came into the thread. [1] What TP presented was NOT JSH not getting the time of day, whether because he's a crank or for any other reason. What he presented was /what somebody thought would happen/ -- and that was JSH not getting the time of day. The way TP phrased it was that this third poster "pointed out that had the OP been JSH instead of a newbie, writing an identical thread, then he wouldn't have been given the time of day, ..."[1] I /pointed out/ that the third poster wasn't pointing /anything/ out, but expressing an opinion about something that had not happened. I also asked who this third poster was (just out of curiosity), and you jumped back in the thread at that point -- and gave me these names.[2] I went back and read this subthread again, and it still looks to me as though you were giving names for who this third poster could be. Here's the thing, Tommy: No matter who the third poster is -- let him be Walter Cronkite --, all the third poster did was give an opinion about something that did not happen. > i didnt. > in fact its not about JSH at all. I can believe you did not know it was about JSH, because you are so sloppy, Tommy. But it was, nevertherless. >>>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. Read the rest of the sentence you jumped into, Tommy. Are you saying that, if you imagine something /would/ happen, then that is some kind of evidence that that kind of thing happens? So, if I /imagine/ that you /would/ kill someone, that means you are a violent person or even should go to prison for murder? >>(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 ! None of that is relevant to the... Bloody hell. Look up the definition of "relevant", Tommy.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 18 May 2010 20:14 James Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> writes: > Here's the thing, Tommy: No matter who the third poster > is -- let him be Walter Cronkite --, all the third > poster did was give an opinion about something that > did not happen. You go too far, sir! What Walter Cronkite speaks, it is the truth. (That's just the way it is.) -- Jesse F. Hughes "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." -- Yogi Berra
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 18 May 2010 20:19 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> writes: > James Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> writes: > >> Here's the thing, Tommy: No matter who the third poster >> is -- let him be Walter Cronkite --, all the third >> poster did was give an opinion about something that >> did not happen. > > You go too far, sir! > > What Walter Cronkite speaks, it is the truth. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I sound, how you say, sophisticated when I fake a foreign accent, no? > (That's just the way it is.) -- Jesse F. Hughes "Browning, nobody with $3 million ever jokes." -- Calling All Detectives (radio serial, 1948)
From: christian.bau on 18 May 2010 20:27 On May 18, 10:36 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. See, you don't recognise maths when it kicks you in the behind. "Transfer Principle" actually did. This is like me watching a chess party played by competent players or by grandmasters and having not the slightest clue what is a good move or not. And then I try commenting on their moves without even understanding the chess rules, after reading what someone with true understanding of the subject has written and trying to imitate them. Even when I understand the rules, I can still not talk about a game intelligently without understanding the game. And that is unfortunately the situation you find yourself in as far as maths is concerned. You see, I stated a rather open-ended mathematical question with enough information to find the simplest solution, with evidence that it is indeed the simplest solution. I don't know myself what the next more complex solution would look like. I could probably find out something about it if I tried hard enough; Transfer Principle probably could (or the step from my simple to a more complex solution is too big for either of us to handle, or my simple solution was actually the only one, which I doubt). But I'm sorry to say you didn't even understand the question.
From: master1729 on 19 May 2010 04:49
nonsense , you cannot have checked the threads , because you were not told which threads. and you certainly cant have looked at all threads of these posters. and thus you cannot say ' it didnt happen '. it is simply impossible to be wrong for me , since i know what i meant and what happened , and you didnt because you didnt read those threads. sure you can find a JSH thread were it didnt happen. but have you read all JSH threads ? have you read all threads were a ' crank ' posted ? have you read all threads were quasi posted ? i guess , no i know , you didnt. |