for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: master1729 on 12 May 2010 05:44 Jim Burns wrote : > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > James Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> writes: > > > >>However, you aren't disputing that cranks exist, > right, > >>Tommy? That would be odd, since you have declared > >>at least a couple of posters "indefensible" > >>with respect to crankdom. > > > > Are you sure you're not confusing Tommy (crank > exemplar) > > with Transfer Principle/LWalker (crank messiah)? > > I don't think I'm mistaken, for what that's worth. > > It was an exchange between LWalker and Tommy, > about expanding the range of posters deemed > indefensible, that first got my attention. > I responded first to Lwalker, but Tommy answered me, > in part: > : Surely , you must understand , you cannot simply > : defend everyone. > <705972730.11927.1272056531229.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.m > athforum.org> > > If I have misunderstood Tommy, or even if he has just > changed his mind since making that remark, I am > willing > to be corrected, but, so far, he hasn't done so. > > Jim Burns > i havent done so. because jim burns is correct. examples of indefensibles include musatov ... well , i cant put anyone in the same category as musatov , that would be a big insult :) as for james harris , some of his posts are indefensible and some are not. his modular aritmetic can be correct , but is known since gauss or even before. i somewhat support his ideas about prime twins. but thats about it i think. ( we both consider 3-valued logic but those views are different ) imho all this is consistant with what i wrote before , although as jim mentions one can perhaps be a crank in one subject and not in another. as for the twins btw , i have to note that i am just " toying with ideas ". intresting ideas , but i cant prove e.g. for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y) and i didnt boost about a proof of it. instead of calling everyone an idiot and saying i proved it ... as a crank would do ... and i dont. if i get insulted first for conjecturing things on a forum , i feel i have the right to insult back though. regards tommy1729
From: Jim Burns on 12 May 2010 22:36 master1729 wrote: > [Jim Burns:] >> Instead, suppose that Poster Y asserts that >> 1 > 0.999... and it is clear he means to use >> those symbols in the standard way. People tell him >> he is mistaken. People go on at great length >> explaining why he is mistaken, all to no avail. >> Eventually, he convinces people that he is not >> merely mistaken but a crank. Suppose that you >> find another mathematical system, another >> interpretation of "1 > 0.999..." in which it >> is true. Your use of "1 > 0.999..." is, in an >> important sense, not even the same thing >> Poster Y is saying. Why would you expect your >> newly introduced system to change anyone's mind >> about Poster Y's crankhood? [...] > 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. The details of what you describe here are unfamiliar to me -- I don't mean people being called "crank" or "idiot". I'm sure that has happened many times. 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. No, it is only unfamiliar to me /in real life/. I see that sort of thing happening all the time in works of fiction. Tommy, I suspect you are letting things diffuse through the fiction/non-fiction boundary in your memory -- by which I mean that I think you are wrong. I find it believable that you could find some few people who have done that, if you looked. However, I would bet that those posters (if they existed) received very little respect from the sci.math and sci.logic posters. I do not say this because they were abusive of an alleged crank. I say this because what they did meant they were likely very poor mathematicians. There is an important lesson that mathematicians and logicians need to absorb before anything other: arguments need to be evaluated /independently/ of where the argument came from. Failing in this is a much more fundamental error than misquoting a theorem or assuming the consequence. If I am wrong -- and you are right -- about cranks being told they are wrong /because/ they are cranks, then you, Tommy, and LWalker have a much better political tool for ridding USEnet of the word (and sentiment) "crank" than what you had before. This is a grave error by the rules of Math and Logic, not some imposed set of rules, which was all that you and Lwalker had up to now. However, don't even think of trying to slide by on bald assertions and hand waving. If you're making that accusation, back it up with evidence. Jim Burns
From: Transfer Principle on 13 May 2010 15:14 On May 12, 4:29 am, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Lwalke's annoying and > outstanding capability to "guess" other posters' actual intention An argument can be made that the key reason that I "guess" other posters' actual intention too often goes right back to grouping. In deciding that two posters belong to the same group, I often assume that their intention for posting is the same -- and more often than not I'm wrong. Therefore, by reducing or eliminating my grouping habit, I should make fewer incorrect guesses about the intentions of other posters. (Once again, habits are hard to break, so it remains to be seen whether I can actually reduce the number of incorrect guesses or not.)
From: Transfer Principle on 13 May 2010 15:20 On May 11, 7:36 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Wow. You've read enough Lwalker that you've matched him in verbosity One reason for my posts being too lengthy is that I too often attempt to anticipate every possible counterargument to a post that I make. And more often than not, I still fail to anticipate the next poster's response. Therefore, I should wait until a poster actually objects to a something that I write, then respond only to the specific objection that was made. This should result in my posts being less verbose. (Note that brevity isn't necessarily better than verbosity -- sometimes I wish that MR would be _more_ verbose!)
From: Transfer Principle on 13 May 2010 15:33
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. Of course, I'm trying to avoid grouping now, and so I should _not_ group _Burns_ with such a poster. So if _Burns_ doesn't automatically judge the mathematical content of a post by its author, then he deserves to be commended for not doing so. But as I said, it's only human nature to pre-judge a post of borderline mathematical rigor based on its author. (I'd like to do a Google search and actually search for such a post -- but of course the Google search isn't very effective, and so it would most likely be a waste of time.) |