for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 20 May 2010 15:38 Jim Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> writes: > The only example I can think of, where common usage needed correcting, > is set theory, pre-Russel's paradox. What common usage was that? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: master1729 on 20 May 2010 12:37 lwalke 3 wrote : > 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_a > rchive.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. i knew it. and once again , tommy1729 wins. ironicly the title of this OP might be a wrong idea of myself. but i win very often. people will never learn. i dont need to lie. i dont need to cheat. i am much much stronger than assumed. the example lwalke found is very strong , almost unfairly strong. like hitting a small insect on the table with a big hammer. on the other hand , that thread and its content deserved being mentioned again !! supporting abolishing fractions and on the other hand calling 0.99999... cranky is really .... btw id like to point out that i dont hate or dislike burns or anyone in this thread. well apart from implying that i " should study more and stop making a fool of myself " or suggesting that i " made things up or lied " , where clearly a single good google search can find that i was correct. but apart from that burns and co are quite 'civilized'. beware of the master tommy1729
From: Turing's Worst Nightmare on 20 May 2010 21:34 On May 15, 2:03 pm, "christian.bau" <christian....(a)cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > Let x be an element of S that is not real. Either x is greater than > every real number, done. Or x is less than every real number, take -x, > done. Or x is between two real numbers a and b. Take the set X of all > reals < x. X is non-empty (it has element a) and has an upper bound b, > therefore it has a least upper bound y. > > If x > y then 1 / (x - y) is greater than every real number. If x < y > then 1 / (y - x) is greater than every real number. x = y is not > possible because x is not real. > > The simplest model for the set S is the set of rational functions > (quotient of two polynomials) with real coefficients. Identify the > constant polynomials with the ordinary reals. Identify f (x) = x with > inf. +, -, *, / are the operations on rational functions. And one > rational function is less than another if its values for arbitrary > large arguments are less. > > For example, inf / (inf + 1) would be represented by the rational > function f (x) = x / (x + 1). for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y) - sci.math | Google ...May 15, 2010 ... dont tell musatov and inverse 19 about Santa. - Hide quoted text - .... And Hughes's "random" .sig strikes again! Right in ...
From: Jim Burns on 20 May 2010 21:57 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Jim Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> writes: > >> The only example I can think of, >> where common usage needed correcting, >> is set theory, pre-Russel's paradox. > > What common usage was that? The common way that sets were used. I remember that I referred once to "naive set theory", and you replied that there was no such thing. You may remember the sentiment, even if you do not remember the exchange. I assumed that you were serious, that it was not some clever word-play that I did not catch. Do you have some other way that I could refer to that to which I refer above? I truly believe that you are too well-educated and clever not to have a good idea of what I am referring to, Aatu. Even if you are not sure, please, go ahead and tell me how to refer to whatever your best guess is that that is. I feel sure that, with your clarity of expression, I will know what you are referring to, and I will let you know if you got it right. Jim Burns
From: Jim Burns on 20 May 2010 23:18
Transfer Principle wrote: > 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. Bravo for your optimism. I doubt having the thread will settle anything, although it is very helpful to have. It makes it considerably easier for one to tell what the other is trying to say, when we have a concrete example between us. I did not mean to dispute what you and Tommy said you have read in sci.math and sci.logic, though. I was disputing what your examples /meant/. Even if everything turns out exactly as described by you, I still dispute what it /means/. From what I have read so far, this thread makes my case for me. Dennis DeTurck (below) gets his ideas seriously considered, even though he is also called a kook. > 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. I may have to continue this over some days. I find a better candidate for the poster you described is tommy1729. Message-ID: <1981102.1202340937479.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathforum.org> <> suppose JSH said : we should abolish fractions. <> then you would not have needed evidence <> to conclude he is an idiot. <> similar if some newbie said it , <> ( who might or might not be good at math , <> YOU DONT KNOW THAT ) <> then he's an idiot too. > > 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. > Message-ID: <1feef522-ba56-41cd-9294-ebf4837e33f5(a)j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> > 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.) > Message-ID: <gig2q3d6ll02jc6ge044n7paum35gjn19v(a)4ax.com> > 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.) > Message-ID: <gerry-588542.15360931012008(a)sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au> > 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. > Message-ID: <79de7030-ce0d-46f9-9b6e-9ab59a5008be(a)q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> > Rich Burge, last day of January 2008, 6:16 AM GMT: > Good mathematics is always beautiful. Fractions can be vulgar. > Message-ID: <hmgoj.1094$sa3.27(a)wagner.videotron.net> > 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. > Message-ID: <ma53q3l3mtlrecu74bfhv66gppddbbucrr(a)4ax.com> > 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. > > I'm falling to sleep at the keyboard. More later. > 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. |