Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Ad-homming again? Nobody is impressed by that sentence except you. Did you already find the report button?
What's ad-hom about it is very clear. In your post #340, you sidestepped every issue that Skeptic raised about your
All in all it's very clear you don't react to any question about the content of your "theories", and also why: you don't even have a high-school level of comprehension of math; at least, you haven't shown it.
So, are you going to answer my questions in post #463? It would at least establish your credentials at high-school level.
And are you going to answer my questions in post #404? Those questions are relevant to your claim about the disconnectness of the various mathematical branches.
And lastly, how about clarifying what your idea of "organic unity" now really entails?
ddt
Mafia Penguin
You keep repeating this lie. But then, you're not hampered in your claims by actual knowledge, are you?
But if it's so easy to show the various branches of mathematics are disconnected, show for at least ONE branch it's disconnected from the rest.
Then go on to answer my post #404.
Fail. Your parenthesized sentence is another lie. See my post #437.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
No, it is your claim. You need to be the one showing. You failed again.
Geez, as already pointed out, your example, Formulation #1 __ Formulation #12[sic], isn't even an MAF according to your very own definitions. You fail here, too, only doubly so, since you don't understand your own notation.
Want to try again?
ddt
Mafia Penguin
You're at this obnoxious edit game again?
But you're showing off again your ignorance about mathematics, don't you?
The whole point of different branches of mathematics is that they study different structures. The names of the primitive concepts don't matter; only their relationships matter. As Hilbert famously said, as long as they obey the same axioms, you could do geometry as well with tables, chairs and beermats instead of points, lines and planes.
If a field would obey the same properties as the points and lines on a plane, then group theory would be identical to planimetry, wouldn't it? And that wouldn't make much sense, would it?
The wonderful thing about math is, however, that you can combine these structures, and that techniques from one branch can be used to give results in other branches.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No ddt,
You fail to get this beauty:
In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4121480&postcount=437 you simply used MAF *_*_* (the particular case of clear distinction of MAF *_*_*)
Here is your MAF's particular case:
So as you see, without MAFs, nothing is researchable.
You simply unaware of your use of MAF each time you air your view about something.
Your current awareness of MAFs is like the awareness of the little fish about the water within and around it.
The little fish asks his mother: "Mother, Mother, someone told me that there is such a thing called water. Please Mother show me where can I find it?"
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Very faulty logic. You made up that "common base ground" requirement, didn't you?
Back to the challenges, though: Are you going to try again, or have you given up?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Jsfisher,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4123589&postcount=486 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4123589&postcount=487 are painfully sharp.
I am not going to waste my time here anymore.
Bye, and this time, for good.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4123589&postcount=486 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4123589&postcount=487 are painfully sharp.
I am not going to waste my time here anymore.
Bye, and this time, for good.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Sharp in the sense of falling on your own sword.
I guess you won't stop peddling your nonsense? Good luck then on other fora. You might check out your "Universal Reasoning" thread on CFI forums, it seems there's a post added tonight. But it's only number 7, you don't seem to be quite as popular on other fora as here. On Philosophy Forums, there's only 3 posts in the thread, and on Science Chat Forums no-one has replied.
ETA: what about all the unanswered questions? Are you just going to leave us with them? How cruel! Inquiring minds want to know!
Last edited:
I guess I have to beat this down has well haven’t I?
1. Math uses Logic, math is not Logic (simple concept, all man are human, not all human are man)
2. For so one that doesn’t have any education what so ever, how can you make such statement?
That is a very naïve view:
In fact we can relate them ALL!! All you know about them is just a name (of a field), you are unaware of underlying construct of it all.
We can relate geometry whit “Real Analysis” (if we actually call that a field) whit the inequalities of Pythagoras and basic trigonometric parameters, add it a grouping of variables, and you can make all multidimensional analysis you want.
We can Relate then whit Number Theory (impressively) needing to only use the basic operations (yes that thing to multiply and add) and we can get an entire construct out of it, add it a couple of more “finesse” of differential equation you get something like the prime upperbounds and things like the Reimann functions.
You can relate that and differential equations, knot theory, topology, well you name it (anything). They are by far more interconnected then it appears at first sight.
I personally have made my own independent mathematical analysis, and sometimes I could sleep just to track how extensive was the close relation of that new mathematical finding whit already established mathematical knowledge.
To state that mathematics has different and completely independent fields is complete nonsense, and reveals the immaturity of the person whit the subject.
Doron, you have by now Proved your complete incompetence on the subject, (and demonstrated to be capable of engaging is disgraceful conduct).
Anybody else in your position would have discarded everything, but amazingly you’re persistent on pursuing whit your mistake to catastrophe, and blinded yourself from any reason or intellectual honesty. Perhaps it is time for you to look around and acknowledge that by hammering the same subject over and over again is not going to make it truth, it is not the other people that are unable to understand what you mean but it is you that is unable to understand that you got nothing rather the nonsense. You have been in countless forums and the answer was invariably the same, have at least the balls to admit that you are wrong and move on.
Last edited:
We are very persistent, for me this sort of thing is like sport you know. Helps me get might teeths on hammering down nonsense to dead, good practice.Sharp in the sense of falling on your own sword.
I guess you won't stop peddling your nonsense? Good luck then on other fora. You might check out your "Universal Reasoning" thread on CFI forums, it seems there's a post added tonight. But it's only number 7, you don't seem to be quite as popular on other fora as here. On Philosophy Forums, there's only 3 posts in the thread, and on Science Chat Forums no-one has replied.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
So what is the trunk of the organism called "car"? Or what is the trunk of the organism called "animal"? But then, you thus far obstinately refused to answer post #437.
Ah, more X\Y nonsense.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Just out of curiosity, why two links to the same post?
So, since your "painfully sharp" interesting MAF - linked twice in your post - is neither interesting nor an MAF, you must be giving up, then. Complete failure noted.
Now, what about the other, remaining challenge? Giving up there, too?
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Apart from the nonsense (what in Wotan's name is "clear distinction"?), drawing some stars and lines is no substitute for arguing your case. You haven't made clear whatsoever what relation exists between those statements of mine and why it's relevant. Anyone can draw some lines without explaining what they mean.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That's being nice, as a hammer is actually useful for some tasks, whereas your MAFs are so meaningless - you've actually said yourself they had no meaning - as to be useless.
Drawing and children's stories. Could we lift the conversation above kindergarten level?
ddt --
If you want to learn more about mathematical cranks, there is a very amusing book "Mathematical Cranks" by Underwood Dudley. Even the book's cover is right on the money: a cartoon of a crank holding a pamphlet called "The Amazing Mathematical Solution to Everything" while pointing to a blackboard full of gibberish. Sounds familiar?
As for pointing out that it is gibberish: yes, point it out, but there's no need to go into the details and trying to undestand what the formulas "really mean" in order to show they're wrong. Pointing out that the "definitions" used by the crank are meaningless, home-made, without relation to anybody else's use of the terms, and that the crank himself doesn't know what they mean is usually enough.
Whatever you do, do not attempt to convince the crank that he's wrong, or get into any argument with him. He's ummovable in his delusions -- if for no other reason, then because admitting he's wrong means admitting he spent a lifetime doing nothing but making a fool of himself.
P.S.
Forgot to add -- another very common delusion of cranks is to take metaphors literally. In this case, Hiblert's claim that "math is an organism" is taken by Doron to be waaaaaaaaaaaaay more important than Hilbert ever meant.
Cranks latch onto metaphors by famous mathematicians since, usually, that's the only part of the famous mathematician's work they can undestand. Naturally, they vastly overestimate the metaphor's importance.
If you want to learn more about mathematical cranks, there is a very amusing book "Mathematical Cranks" by Underwood Dudley. Even the book's cover is right on the money: a cartoon of a crank holding a pamphlet called "The Amazing Mathematical Solution to Everything" while pointing to a blackboard full of gibberish. Sounds familiar?
As for pointing out that it is gibberish: yes, point it out, but there's no need to go into the details and trying to undestand what the formulas "really mean" in order to show they're wrong. Pointing out that the "definitions" used by the crank are meaningless, home-made, without relation to anybody else's use of the terms, and that the crank himself doesn't know what they mean is usually enough.
Whatever you do, do not attempt to convince the crank that he's wrong, or get into any argument with him. He's ummovable in his delusions -- if for no other reason, then because admitting he's wrong means admitting he spent a lifetime doing nothing but making a fool of himself.
P.S.
Forgot to add -- another very common delusion of cranks is to take metaphors literally. In this case, Hiblert's claim that "math is an organism" is taken by Doron to be waaaaaaaaaaaaay more important than Hilbert ever meant.
Cranks latch onto metaphors by famous mathematicians since, usually, that's the only part of the famous mathematician's work they can undestand. Naturally, they vastly overestimate the metaphor's importance.
Last edited:
ddt -- forgot to add:
I forgot the very best way to deal with cranks: to laugh at them and tell them, in no uncertain terms, they are fools and that you will not treat them seriously, no matter what they write. They will huff and puff and claim you are a perfect example of the kind of people who persecuted Galileo and Cupernicus, but then they'll leave.
Why? Their real goal is not to spread the truth about mathematics, but to have somebody -- anybody! -- take them seriously. When you try to disprove their work, that is taking them seriously, and it makes them feel they are fighting the evil world. But if you refuse to fight, and simply ignore the crank's declarations that he had "won" and "showed you are all wrong", the crank will leave.
I forgot the very best way to deal with cranks: to laugh at them and tell them, in no uncertain terms, they are fools and that you will not treat them seriously, no matter what they write. They will huff and puff and claim you are a perfect example of the kind of people who persecuted Galileo and Cupernicus, but then they'll leave.
Why? Their real goal is not to spread the truth about mathematics, but to have somebody -- anybody! -- take them seriously. When you try to disprove their work, that is taking them seriously, and it makes them feel they are fighting the evil world. But if you refuse to fight, and simply ignore the crank's declarations that he had "won" and "showed you are all wrong", the crank will leave.
nathan
Zygoticly Phased
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,477
(My emph)
Once again you cannot even remember what you previously wrote. Why are you using a single acronym 'MAF' for two different things? Or have you just decided to drop the 'Agreed' because you were unable to answer my question about who is the other party to this agreement? don't you realize 'Accepted' has the same problem -- who else accepts this form?
I suspect you're just going to ignore this, as with the other times I've asked. Go on, stick your fingers in your ears and go La! La! La!. Or alternatively, if you actually want a dialog, how about answering some questions with answers -- rather than non-sequiturs. I dare you to remain focussed long enough to proved a coherent response.
- Status