for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: James Burns on 19 May 2010 10:49 master1729 wrote: > nonsense , you cannot have checked the threads , > because you were not told which threads. /I/ told /you/ to re-read *THE* thread, the one we are in. You will continue to sound like an idiot until you do. Specifically, <d0f23259-fe13-4bef-a2fa-4729dd533683(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <4BED7B84.4070209(a)osu.edu> <275144754.141325.1273951273515.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org> <hspdup$qkt$1(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1745620983.145348.1274037802814.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org> <hsq5i2$r67$1(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <2069986438.183120.1274218292147.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org> <4BF31AEF.803(a)osu.edu> <271119635.186401.1274273385888.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org> > and you certainly cant have looked at all threads of these posters. /You/ say (paraphrasing) "These posters have this opinion". /I/ say (paraphrasing) "Give me facts, not opinions." Why would I need to look at /any/ threads to do that? > and thus you cannot say ' it didnt happen '. What I say did not happen is that you (and Transfer Principle) have not given me any /facts/ to support your /opinion/. The only place you need to look to see this absence of /facts/ is THIS THREAD. > 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. I asked (and asked, and asked) for threads where JSH got treated in that manner that *IN YOUR OPINION* he would get treated. I got nothing from you. I know that I could easily list dozens of threads where JSH got HUGE ammounts of help. However, for some reason, I don't feel like helping you out any more, Tommy. However, I will leave this offer on the table: For every thread that you find where JSH does NOT get his mathematical ideas examined, I will find THREE where he DOES. Jim Burns
From: master1729 on 19 May 2010 08:30 but im not talking about JSH !! no JSH ! how many time do i need to say that again ? no JSH ! tommy1729
From: James Burns on 19 May 2010 14:38 master1729 wrote: > but im not talking about JSH !! > no JSH ! > how many time do i need to say that again ? > no JSH ! Fine, then. I tried to understand you /here/, by reading you in context, in order to fill in the blanks you left. [Lwalker:] >>>> > Then another poster (not >>>> > the OP, and not myself) 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, and there would have been >>>> > more ad hominem than actual considerations of >>>> > the proof. [Jim Burns;] >>> (I'm curious: who is this mysterious >>> poster?) [Tommy:] > 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. Please finish telling me what you are NOT saying and let me know what you ARE saying. Do NOT assume that I will be able to understand you, read in context. That apparently doesn't work for you. Jim Burns
From: Transfer Principle on 19 May 2010 22:18 On May 19, 11:38 am, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > master1729 wrote: > > but im not talking about JSH !! > > no JSH ! > > how many time do i need to say that again ? > > no JSH ! > [Jim Burns;] > >>> (I'm curious: who is this mysterious > >>> poster?) OK, I decided to perform another Google search, and I finally found the old thread that I was looking for. So now we can settle this debate once and for all. So who is this mysterious poster. As it turns out, tommy1729 has already named him: > [Tommy:] > > 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 Bingo! As it turns out, the poster that I had in mind was quasi. Indeed, once I realized that quasi was the poster, the post was much easier to find. That thread is over two years old. And so let me give some excerpts from this old thread, giving the dates and Greenwich times of the posts. The thread title is "Abolish Fractions?" The OP is amzoti, last day of January 2008, 1:38 AM GMT: Thoughts? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm (The link is an article describing Dennis DeTurck, the mathematician proposing this controversial idea.) And here's quasi (the poster mentioned by tommy1729), last day of January 2008, 4:49 AM GMT: He's a kook. Without a solid understanding of ordinary fractions, a student has little chance of understanding algebraic fractions. Thus, "down with fractions" has, as a corollary, "down with algebra". Of course, many students would cheer for that, as would many parents. Sadly, many elementary school teachers would also cheer. But that gets to the real problem -- the teachers can't teach it. Why not? Because they don't really understand it themselves. (So quasi attacks the mathematician DeTurck for coming up with such a strage idea.) Gerry Myerson, last day of January 2008, 5:36 AM GMT: When you've accomplished one-tenth of what he has, maybe you can call him a kook. In the meantime, I suggest you 1. don't believe everything you read in usatoday, 2. keep a civil finger on your keyboard, and 3. wait until you see a detailed exposition by the man himself. Rich Burge, last day of January 2008, 6:16 AM GMT: Good mathematics is always beautiful. Fractions can be vulgar. David Bernier, last day of January 2008, 10:17 AM GMT: The video & transcript of the mini-lecture are under DeTurk [sic] here: < http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D > I just think being good with fractions can help with high school algebra. quasi, last day of January 2008, 12:07 PM GMT: [To Burge:] Which of these is more beautiful? (1/8) / (2/3) .125 / .667 If you choose the second one, all I can say is "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". [To Bernier:] It can help? It's critical! Geez. If that same proposal had come from one of the known sci.math cranks, people would not have been so tentative in shooting it down. And here quasi makes the point. Sure, I was wrong that he didn't actually mention JSH, but surely JSH is included among the "known sci.math cranks." The key point here is that had JSH (or someone similar) proposed the idea to abolish fractions rather than the mathematician DeTurck, Myerson wouldn't have criticized quasi for calling him a "kook" -- he would have called the proponent a "kook" along with him. And quasi even criticizes Bernier, who agrees with him, for being "tentative" to shoot DeTurck's idea down, yet had the idea been JSH's (or of someone similar), he would have considered the idea to be dead wrong. Furthermore, if instead of replacing DeTurck with JSH, we replace _amzoti_ with JSH (so that DeTurck is still the originator of the idea, but merely the poster providing the _link_ to DeTurck), I doubt that Myerson would have even _clicked_ on the link in the first place, much less support the idea given in the link. I believe that Myerson would have judged the validity of the link solely on the poster giving the link. As the thread progresses, I see an ironic twist: Gerry Myerson, 6th of February 2008, 3:12 AM GMT I support not calling people names. I support refuting ideas, rather than smearing the people who hold them, at least until such time as you know enough to be on firm ground when you get personal. Calling DeTurck a kook does nothing to advance the argument. And yet Myerson, who claims to support "not calling people names," has used five-letter insults himself, including this post from the 20th of October, 2004, at around 7AM GMT: "With all due respect, there's a little whiff of the crank about your post. Solutions to old problems generally don't come in 5-page papers - if there was a solution that short, someone else would have found it long ago." (Several other Myerson posts from around 2004-5 also use the c-word. Of course, perhaps Myerson had stopped using five-letter insults by 2008.) quasi, 6th of February 2008, 3:41 AM GMT: Wow -- the apologists for DeTurck's lunacy don't give up. I almost 100% sure, had the idea been suggested by an unknown person, you would have just as adamantly ridiculed the idea. Which shows that JSH is right on a few observations, as much as I hate to acknowledge it. Gerry Myerson, 6th of February 2008, 6:28 AM GMT: Newton had some very bizarre ideas about alchemy. Kepler had some very bizarre ideas about fitting the planetary orbits with the Platonic solids, and working out the exact notes of "the music of the spheres," the notes each planet makes somehow as it executes its orbit. Newton & Kepler were not kooks, and calling them kooks doesn't advance the argument against their stranger beliefs. Speak to the ideas, not the person - there is an enormous difference. So Myerson has the gall to accuse quasi of speaking to the person and not the ideas, yet Myerson is doing exactly that in his posts. He supports DeTurck's idea because he considers DeTurck to be a good person (mathematician), yet DeTurck's idea is little better than the ideas of the posters Myerson called "cranks" back in 2004-5. Furthermore Myerson, by comparing unorthodox ideas to those of famous scientists such as Newton and Kepler, has surely earned himself some points on either the Baez/Dudley scale. Of course, I need to avoid grouping posters, and so I shouldn't group Myerson with Burns. If Burns avoids making the mistakes that Myerson makes, then more power to him. I admit that I have succumbed to human nature and judged posts based on the poster. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm far from being the only such poster.
From: spudnik on 19 May 2010 22:32
I don't even post to His replies, secondarily oops more often then naught. thusNso: on the wayside, please, attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's God-am corpuscular "theory," by not using them in equations with "momentum (equals mass times directed velocity)." thank *you* and nice a have day. thusNso: actually, receding glaciers are probably better for rafting, compared to advancing ones, iff there's more water. thusNso: can one tell a priori that a black surface will absorb more infrared, since it is invisible in the first place, invoking, perhaps, blackbody curves (and, there are "line spectra" for both absorption & emmission) ?? I wish folks like Y'know and y'Know would at least *try* to write their syllogistical theories in terms of, "There Are No Photons?" just this afternoon, a lecturer showed a slide with a graph of "phonons from 0 to over 1 teracycles;" is that the sound of light? http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/General/LightMill/light-mill.html thusNso: I like all three of those; note that there is a raw infinity of trigona, two of whose edges are perpendicular to the other edge, as far as spherical trig goes, and I really like those "half lunes." --y'know dot the surfer's value of pi dot com period semicolon & I mean it! http://\\:btty |