for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: master1729 on 26 May 2010 06:49 Jim Burns wrote : > > I see no effort expended to /exclude/ "people who > get called five-letter insults." of course not. because sci.math is not moderated. and people have been insulted , asked to leave or even asked to kill themselves. but no big efforts , since sci.math is not moderated. 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. ah but here you are probably the ' chess player ' and the ' chess game ' is superior to chutes and ladders. well maybe your chess isnt superior. or you chess is actually 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. the switch is mainly to point out that 'chess' is superior. and even if so , there should be respect for chutes and ladders. if there is no chutes and ladders club , you should respect that. those people will come to other clubs or should get one of their own. since sci.math is ' general unmoderated math ' and there is no chutes and ladders club its quite logical the chutes and ladders fans end up here. dont underestimate chutes and ladders. if your good at chess your likely to be bad at other games. regards tommy1729
From: master1729 on 26 May 2010 06:59 > 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. thread is over ?? how about the original subject ?? look at the title ! the thread isnt called " burns vs lwalke " but "for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)" :D http://sites.google.com/site/tommy1729/home
From: christian.bau on 29 May 2010 09:09 On May 26, 3:59 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > how about the original subject ?? look at the title ! > > the thread isnt called " burns vs lwalke " but > > "for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)" What about giving a clear and unambiguous definition of twins (x)? Well, I don't think we can expect that from you. However, it has been demonstrated that with any reasonable definition it is very likely to be false, and with the right definition it might be possible to find counterexamples.
From: master1729 on 29 May 2010 12:02
> On May 26, 3:59 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > how about the original subject ?? look at the title > ! > > > > the thread isnt called " burns vs lwalke " but > > > > "for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)" > > What about giving a clear and unambiguous definition > of twins (x)? > Well, I don't think we can expect that from you. > > However, it has been demonstrated that with any > reasonable definition > it is very likely to be false, and with the right > definition it might > be possible to find counterexamples. yes. |