for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: Jim Burns on 23 May 2010 21:27 master1729 wrote: > 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 ? The same as it ever was. > 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'. You seem to be using what might be called "Tommy's Law of Conservation of Agreement". I am not aware of anyone else who has put forward anything like it. I suggest you publish a more developed argument for it. One interesting thing about words like "clearly" or "obviously" is that they have a tendency to collect in the least convenient part of an argument, in much the same way hair collects in a drain. I don't have any theories about why drains get plugged where they do, but I think that errors of logic can more often be found near words like "clearly" than elsewhere because things that are "clear" and "obvious" do not need to be done carefully and checked afterward (obviously). I mention this because it often can be very useful for a writer, after they have finished a draft, to go back over any place a word like "clearly" appears, perhaps to find an overlooked error. If Lwalker is monitoring this part of the thread, I would be interested to hear his opinion of Tommy's Law of Conservation of Agreement. It clearly seems relevant to Lwalker's over-all project. In order to promote agreement with "five-letter insults", it may be necessary (and sufficient!) to promote disagreement with academics. > or are you talking about yet another thing ? No, the same thing. I'm snipping the rest of this. I hope you don't mind, but I don't feel like discussing the set theoretical aspects of Wile E. Coyote with you. Jim Burns
From: Transfer Principle on 24 May 2010 12:17 On May 22, 10:52 am, Jim Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > Transfer Principle wrote: > > 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. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Let's look at the thread again, paying close attention to the posts of Gerry Myerson there. In that thread, quasi was quick to call DeTurck a "kook," but Myerson criticizes quasi for passing such judgment on him. Yet quasi pointed out that had the OP been JSH or some similar poster, Myerson wouldn't have been as quick to defend him as he was to defend DeTurck. Question: Why does Myerson defend DeTurck and not JSH, despite their having similar ideas? Answer: It's because DeTurck is a well-respected mathematician, and JSH isn't. So the point quasi was making is that Myerson judges posters based on their reputation more than the mathematical content of their posts. And let's not single Myerson out here -- several posters were giving DeTurck the courtesy of considering his argument, the courtesy that they would _not_ give to JSH. > I don't know what more one could hope for. Far-out > arguments being met with unquestioning agreement? What I hope for is for far-out arguments being met the same way, regardless of whether the poster is more like DeTurck or more like JSH. > I don't care about the imagined thread. Imagine whatever > you like. I wish that there were a way to test this out using real, not imaginary threads. So there could be two posts, one with the name JSH at the top, and the other with the name of, say, someone who doesn't regularly post to sci.math. The bodies of the two posts would be identical. Then we could see how posters react to the two threads. Unfortunately, in practice this is impossible, since posters in the second thread would be influenced form having seen the first thread. What we would need is to make the posts in parallel universes, which is not feasible, to say the least. Once again, my point is that it's only human nature to judge posters by their reputation and not just their mathematical content. I am guilty of this as much as the next poster. If Burns is able to resist human nature, then more power to him. But there are posters who do succumb to human nature, and Gerry Myerson is one of them. I notice that Myerson himself has posted in this current thread. Since we are discussing him, let me enlighten him on what we're talking about: Back in 2008, the mathematician Dennis DeTurck proposed that fractions be abolished. Now quasi attacked DeTurck for making such a controversial idea, then Myerson criticized quasi for the same. The point that quasi was making back then (and I am now) is that Myerson judges proponents of mathematical ideas on their reputation and not just the mathematical content of their ideas. Of course, this was back in 2008. It's possible that the Myerson of 2010 would not judge posters the same way that he did back in 2008. If so, then more power to him.
From: James Burns on 25 May 2010 19:39 Transfer Principle wrote: > On May 22, 10:52 am, Jim Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: >>Transfer Principle wrote: >> >>>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. > > That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Neither you nor Tommy seem to be interested in disputing my point. Certainly, neither of you has presented any counter-examples, only other people who may agree with you. If counter-examples are as difficult as all that to find, then I think that also demonstrates my point, even if there is the rare example waiting to be found out there, somewhere. Are you (and/or Tommy) willing to concede that those who receive "five-letter insults" usually receive enough mathematical attention to make their argument? That does not guarantee that their argument gets accepted as correct, but I assume you aren't proposing that anyone should have a guarantee that their argument will be accepted as correct, no matter what the argument is. I am willing to concede a number of things which I think you have been trying to make a case for. However, my mental image of these newsgroups seems to be very different from yours and Tommy's. One result of this is that some things that seem to you to follow so easily from my concessions seem to me not to follow at all. You seem determined to interpret the sci.math and sci.logic posters as though they were composed of crank-busters and cranks and that these "crank-busters" are concerned about keeping the outsider "cranks" out, and the "cranks" are concerned about getting "in", losing their outsider status. (I think it is possible that you have confused the way things work on USEnet with the much more restricted access most people have to academic publishing.) I see no effort expended to /exclude/ "people who get called five-letter insults." It is as though everyone else is playing chess, patiently marching pawns across the board, and then the FLI people come along and try to play Chutes and Ladders. No one wants to play Chutes and Ladders with them -- is this such a horrible situation? And, any time they want to, they can switch from Chutes and Ladders to chess. Don't forget the efforts of the crank-busters to get the FLI people to switch. Also, you don't seem to distinguish between the beginning and the end of an argument. that is to say, whether I get interested enough in a post of yours that I read or respond to it is the beginning of the argument (for me). Likewise, whether I /initially/ agree, disagree, or have some other attitude toward your argument. Everyone is free (and should be free) to choose what topics interest them, for any reason, you recognize the poster as a respected academic, you read something else of theirs that you liked, you recognize the poster as a crank and you want to watch them fall on their face, or for no reason at all. There is enough variety in the reasons people have for reading these posts, that, if a poster is patient, someone will come along who will agree with you, /if/ you really do have a good argument. I think this is so, because, in contrast to the beginnings of arguments, the ends of arguments, of /mathematical/ arguments are really superbly consistent, independent of who the arguer is. "Human nature" is your explanation for FLI people being told they're wrong more often than other people -- even though you haven't shown it happening, you just know it should -- because of human nature. "Human nature" is a flexible thing. I tell you that human nature for mathematicians and logicians is to evaluate the merits of an argument on its own, apart from the merits of whoever is advancing it. That is part of how one becomes a mathematician or logician -- learning to do that. This is the situation I see: Even the worst of the cranks have the door open to them. If they wait, someone will come along and, if they have something, agree with them, even if they are cranks. I see this as the best that could be offered to the cranks. The idea the /beginnings/ of arguments should be uniform, that people should be as interested in what BURT or JSH has to say as someone like Andrew Wiles is a non-starter. It won't happen, and I, for one, don't see why it should happen. Some people just /are/ more interesting than others. However, the idea that the /ends/ of arguments should be uniform, that agreement or disagreement should depend on the argument itself and not the personalities involved, is what I think you would see right now, if you looked around without your preconceptions. I think I have said what I meant to say, and now, more and more, I'm thinking, "Didn't I say this before?" I will bow out of this thread with this post, after a few more comments. > What I hope for is for far-out arguments being met > the same way, regardless of whether the poster is more > like DeTurck or more like JSH. Here is where the distinction I make between the beginnings of arguments and the ends of arguments is so important. If you mean the ends of arguments by "being met the same way" then I completely agree. If you mean the beginnings of arguments by "being met the same way" then I completely /dis/agree. >>I don't care about the imagined thread. Imagine whatever >>you like. > > I wish that there were a way to test this out using > real, not imaginary threads. So there could be two > posts, one with the name JSH at the top, and the > other with the name of, say, someone who doesn't > regularly post to sci.math. The bodies of the two > posts would be identical. Then we could see how > posters react to the two threads. You could just copy an old JSH post under a new, just-invented name, and compare. One problem is JSH started deleting his old posts a while back. I'm not sure what is still available. Also, you really could only hold up the imposture for one post. You pretending to be JSH is not JSH. > Unfortunately, in practice this is impossible, > since posters in the second thread would be > influenced form having seen the first thread. What > we would need is to make the posts in parallel > universes, which is not feasible, to say the least. Serial universes, instead of parallel? > Once again, my point is that it's only human nature > to judge posters by their reputation and not just > their mathematical content. I am guilty of this as > much as the next poster. If Burns is able to resist > human nature, then more power to him. But there are > posters who do succumb to human nature, and Gerry > Myerson is one of them. You are clearly talking about the /beginning/ of the argument: whether to pay any attention to this "Abolish Fractions" idea. I don't see either quasi or Gerry Myerson as terribly out of line there. I see it more as a difference of taste. Gerry cut the guy some slack, because of his reputation. (Note that part of the "slack" was looking for ways that article was wrong about what Dennis DeTurck meant.) quasi, not so much. Meh. Why one starts on a topic is much less important than what your conclusion is. > I notice that Myerson himself has posted in this > current thread. Since we are discussing him, let me > enlighten him on what we're talking about: Back in > 2008, the mathematician Dennis DeTurck proposed > that fractions be abolished. Now quasi attacked > DeTurck for making such a controversial idea, then > Myerson criticized quasi for the same. The point > that quasi was making back then (and I am now) is > that Myerson judges proponents of mathematical > ideas on their reputation and not just the > mathematical content of their ideas. > > Of course, this was back in 2008. It's possible > that the Myerson of 2010 would not judge posters > the same way that he did back in 2008. If so, then > more power to him. I'm outa here. Ciao, Lwalker. Ciao, Tommy. Jim Burns
From: Transfer Principle on 25 May 2010 23:53 On May 25, 4:39 pm, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > I'm outa here. > Ciao, Lwalker. > Ciao, Tommy. Burns has made his final post of this thread, and so let me make my final post. I believe that it's human nature to judge posts by the reputation of the poster. Burns believes that it's in the _mathematician_'s nature to judge posts by the strength of the mathematical argument. I believe that a majority of sci.math and sci.logic posters judge posts by the reputation of the poster, but Burns disagrees. Neither of us has convinced the other that he is right. And so we must agree to disagree. All I can do is try to avoid judging posters by their reputations myself. In order to accomplish this, I must remind myself of the three (four?) main cases that best describe the reason behind a poster's argument. Burns has made his final post of this thread, and now I have made mine. This thread is over.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 26 May 2010 07:38
Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > Burns has made his final post of this thread, and now I > have made mine. This thread is over. Honestly, you're a very odd fellow. -- Jesse F. Hughes "But you probably aren't a person with the ability to make any kind of checks for yourself. But you do talk a lot in posts on Usenet where you probably live out some fantasy." --James S. Harris is funning, no? |