for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 22 May 2010 08:45 Jim Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> writes: > I truly believe that you are too well-educated and clever not to > have a good idea of what I am referring to, Aatu. Sure. I was just rather obliquely pointing out that there was, in fact, nothing essential to correct in the mathematical work of Cantor, Dedekind, and other early set theorists, as we can easily ascertain by simple inspection of their results and proofs -- Russell's paradox was a problem for Frege, who isn't known for a single result in set theory, and whose system wasn't a theory of sets; something also, to be sure, to take into account in the general theory of sets. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Jim Burns on 22 May 2010 13:52 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?) I think it has been long enough that we need reminding what this subthread was about. <d0f23259-fe13-4bef-a2fa-4729dd533683(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> [Transfer Principle:] :> On May 12, 7:36 pm, Jim Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: :>> master1729 wrote: :>> > :>> > but then something strange happens , :>> > since he didnt talk about infinitesimals from :>> > the beginning , he became " crank " :>> > and whatever he says is wrong !! :>> > people will then disagree more often :>> > and respond by things like : :>> > idiot (in caps) :>> > or :>> > there are only reals on my real number line , :>> > no infinitesimals !! stupid ! :>> > which is not fair. :>> :>> You say that "people will then disagree more often" :>> once someone is considered a crank. This, :>> people disagreeing with a poster :>> /because he is a crank/ is unfamiliar to me. :> :> It's only human nature to disagree with someone more :> often once they've received a five-letter insult. :> :> I've once seen a newbie poster make some claim about :> something -- it might have been something about a :> factoring method faster than the known methods. Some :> of the posters thought that the method was promising :> though unlikely to work. 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. The thread you are referring to apparently starts at <1feef522-ba56-41cd-9294-ebf4837e33f5(a)j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> It seems to me that we were talking about two threads, a real one and an imagined one. You approved of the real thread, but the imagined thread (the one with JSH) was, for you, a supporting example of it being human nature to disagree with cranks. I don't care about the imagined thread. Imagine whatever you like. My only point in that regard is that *I* imagine such a thread very differently -- /because/ the JSH threads that I have seen (real threads, not imagined) had JSH receiving a great deal of help, more, much more than your every-day non-crank poster would. I think JSH is close to a worst-case scenario for someone like me who argues that things works pretty well, actually, on sci.math and sci.logic. JSH has received insults. He has also passed out quite a few insults, often starting the exchange. And more. In spite of years of crank v. crankbuster, every time JSH posts anything close to mathematics, most readers ignore him, most of whoever doesn't ignore him insults him, but there are always a few who analyze his stuff. I think you will have to provide more than you /imagining/ JSH to be ignored, or Tommy imagining it, or some other posters imagining it, if you want me take it seriously. > 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. The "Abolish Fractions" thread is a good example of even far-out ideas being met with reasoned arguments. I don't know what more one could hope for. Far-out arguments being met with unquestioning agreement? We have wandered far away from the point that interested me, whether labeled as cranks get worse treatment because of that label. Jim Burns > > 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: master1729 on 22 May 2010 13:28 apparantly , Burns cant admit his loss. the thread was found. there were defenders of the stupid idea just because the person who came up with it was a famous academic. points of lwalke and tommy1729 proven. comments of burns quite irrelevant : quote : I don't know what more one could hope for. Far-out arguments being met with unquestioning agreement? (end quote) Burns keeps on mentioning that JSH did receive serious replies and help in the past. but at the same time , i never disputed that , even agree , but even Burns has to admit that is exceptional. but i already said : no JSH , not in the thread , not as an example. JSH is a special case , an exception and was not in the thread mentioned by me. and people replying to this discussion between lwalke , me and Burns with " you should study more and stop making a fool of yourself " are even more irrelevent ; the comment doesnt even make sense in any possible relevant way. Burns attitude that the post found by lwalke doesnt ' change anything ' is sad and hilarious at the same time. it proves my point. Q.E.D. regards tommy1729
From: Jim Burns on 22 May 2010 21:06 master1729 wrote: > apparantly , Burns cant admit his loss. > > the thread was found. > > there were defenders of the stupid idea > just because the person who came up with it > was a famous academic. [Jim Burns to Tommy:] :>> You say that "people will then disagree more often" :>> once someone is considered a crank. This, :>> people disagreeing with a poster :>> /because he is a crank/ is unfamiliar to me. Go ahead and explain the connection between your latest point and my point, Tommy. BTW, Message-ID: <d0f23259-fe13-4bef-a2fa-4729dd533683(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> > points of lwalke and tommy1729 proven. > > comments of burns quite irrelevant : I'm glad you finally looked up "irrelevant", Tommy. At least this thread wasn't a /complete/ waste of time. > quote : > I don't know what more one could hope for. Far-out > arguments being met with unquestioning agreement? > (end quote) > > Burns keeps on mentioning that JSH did receive > serious replies and help in the past. > > but at the same time , i never disputed that , > even agree , but even Burns has to admit > that is exceptional. Fine, you don't want to use JSH as an example now. I wasn't the one to mention him, though. You were first in the thread Lwalker just found, <1981102.1202340937479.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathforum.org> and then Lwalker recalled that in his description of the old thread. JSH is exceptional -- exceptional in the degree of obnoxiousness he is able to attain. But you don't want to find any significance in his getting help /anyway/. I think the attention JSH receives is more the rule than the exception. I am not the only person to comment on how much attention cranks get. I don't have a theory on why that is so, but I have a feeling that there is a good explanation. Reading one of these crank-explanations is like watching Wile E. Coyote (Suuper-Genius) run off the cliff top and pause in mid-air. You know that any second now he will realize where he is. I think it is nearly irresistible to tap Wile E. Crank (Suuper-Genius) on the shoulder and point down. Perhaps that is why, in spite of all the evidence that it does no good, mathematicians and logicians stand in line (metaphorically) in order to explain carefully to cranks why they are wrong. > but i already said : no JSH , not in the thread , > not as an example. JSH is a special case , > an exception and was not in the thread mentioned by me. HEY TOMMY! LOOK HERE! <1981102.1202340937479.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathforum.org> > and people replying to this discussion between > lwalke , me and Burns with " you should study more > and stop making a fool of yourself " are even more > irrelevent ; the comment doesnt evenmake sense > in any possible relevant way. > > Burns attitude that the post found by lwalke > doesnt ' change anything ' is sad and hilarious > at the same time. > > it proves my point. Q.E.D. Good for you. Did you want to say anything about /my/ point? Jim Burns
From: master1729 on 23 May 2010 14:25
Jim Burns wrote : > master1729 wrote: > > apparantly , Burns cant admit his loss. > > > > the thread was found. > > > > there were defenders of the stupid idea > > just because the person who came up with it > > was a famous academic. > > [Jim Burns to Tommy:] > :>> You say that "people will then disagree more > often" > :>> once someone is considered a crank. This, > :>> people disagreeing with a poster > :>> /because he is a crank/ is unfamiliar to me. > > Go ahead and explain the connection between > your latest point and my point, Tommy. what point of you is that ? is there a point of you that isnt disproved by my proven point ? clarify. clearly if people agree more with 'academics' its equivalent to not agreeing with 'cranks'. or are you talking about yet another thing ? > > BTW, Message-ID: > <d0f23259-fe13-4bef-a2fa-4729dd533683(a)q30g2000yqd.goog > legroups.com> > > > points of lwalke and tommy1729 proven. > > > > comments of burns quite irrelevant : > > I'm glad you finally looked up "irrelevant", Tommy. > At least this thread wasn't a /complete/ waste of > time. whats that suppose to mean ? you speak in riddles. did i use to spell irrelevant wrong ? possible , but so what. since lwalke found the thread proving my point , it wasnt a waste of time for you. > > > quote : > > I don't know what more one could hope for. Far-out > > arguments being met with unquestioning agreement? > > (end quote) > > > > Burns keeps on mentioning that JSH did receive > > serious replies and help in the past. > > > > but at the same time , i never disputed that , > > even agree , but even Burns has to admit > > that is exceptional. > > Fine, you don't want to use JSH as an example now. > I wasn't the one to mention him, though. You were > first in the thread Lwalker just found, > <1981102.1202340937479.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathf > orum.org> > and then Lwalker recalled that in his description > of the old thread. > > JSH is exceptional -- exceptional in the degree of > obnoxiousness he is able to attain. But you don't > want to find any significance in his getting help > /anyway/. > > I think the attention JSH receives is more the > rule than the exception. I am not the only person > to comment on how much attention cranks get. > I don't have a theory on why that is so, but > I have a feeling that there is a good explanation. i already told you , i agree on JSH. maybe that makes you feel better. > > Reading one of these crank-explanations is like > watching Wile E. Coyote (Suuper-Genius) run off > the cliff top and pause in mid-air. You know that > any second now he will realize where he is. I > think it is nearly irresistible to tap Wile E. Crank > (Suuper-Genius) on the shoulder and point down. more talking in riddles ! what do you mean by " reading crank-explanations " ? cranks 'defense' of 0.999... = 1 ? defending what ? btw Wile E. Coyote is more of a 'physicist' with magnets and stuff. as for ' genius delusions ' , some academics have them too. and the gravity working against Wile E. Coyote is not really comparible to the axiom of choice id say. gravity is more like infinite descent :) > > Perhaps that is why, in spite of all the evidence > that it does no good, mathematicians and logicians > stand in line (metaphorically) in order to > explain carefully to cranks why they are wrong. but gravity is not the axiom of choice. > > > but i already said : no JSH , not in the thread , > > not as an example. JSH is a special case , > > an exception and was not in the thread mentioned by > me. > > HEY TOMMY! LOOK HERE! > <1981102.1202340937479.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathf > orum.org> > > > and people replying to this discussion between > > lwalke , me and Burns with " you should study more > > and stop making a fool of yourself " are even more > > irrelevent ; the comment doesnt evenmake sense > > in any possible relevant way. > > > > Burns attitude that the post found by lwalke > > doesnt ' change anything ' is sad and hilarious > > at the same time. > > > > it proves my point. Q.E.D. > > Good for you. > > Did you want to say anything about /my/ point? > > Jim Burns > regards tommy1729 |