Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Such a short quotation and you still managed to misunderstand and misrepresent it.
Click to expand...
This is another example of how jsfisher gets things only by a step-by-step reasoning.

By ignoring the content of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805793&postcount=3651 he thinks that it is a reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805764&postcount=3650 just because it technically follows it.

( the answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805764&postcount=3650 is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805795&postcount=3652 ).
 
doronshadmi said:
This is another example of how jsfisher gets things only by a step-by-step reasoning.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever style of thinking you are using, you need to rethink it. It continues to get you to incorrect results.

By ignoring the content of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805793&postcount=3651 he thinks that it is a reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805764&postcount=3650 just because it technically follows it.
Click to expand...

Here's a good example of how your thinking has let you down. I didn't ignore the content of your post. Quite the opposite. Upon rereading you may notice my post was specifically criticizing your misinterpretation of the simple two-sentence quotation you took from the Cut the Knot website. Not only did you mis-attribute the quote to Conway and Guy, you completely misunderstood what the actual author was suggesting was unexpected.

This is no surprise to anyone here, though.
 
jsfisher said:
you completely misunderstood what the actual author was suggesting was unexpected.
Click to expand...

What is this strange use with the words "was" (you use it twice one after the other)?

Do you mean
jsfisher said:
you completely misunderstood what the actual author was suggesting , was unexpected.
Click to expand...
?

Do you claim that nowadays Algebra and Geometry are not considered completely independent sciences by your community?

Also you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645 .
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
1) Someone said something and you say Conway and Guy said it.
2) The original author suggested something was unexpected and you misunderstood what was unexpected.
Click to expand...
1) My mistake, but it does not change my argument that the cut-the-knot author (2) clearly uses the word 'unexpected' (unexpected simple links between Algerbre and Geomety, like Ford Circles) exactly because according to jsfisher's community Algerbre and Geomety are nowadays consider as completely independent sciences.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
1) My mistake, but it does not change my argument that the cut-the-knot author (2) clearly uses the word 'unexpected' (unexpected simple links between Algerbre and Geomety, like Ford Circles) exactly because according to jsfisher's community Algerbre and Geomety are nowadays consider as completely independent sciences.
Click to expand...

"...and many are quite unexpected in their simplicity" - their simplicity is unexpected, not the links themselves.
 
sympathic said:
"...and many are quite unexpected in their simplicity" - their simplicity is unexpected, not the links themselves.
Click to expand...
Their simplicity is unexpected, exactly becaue the current community of mathematicians claims that Algebra and Geomtry are independent of each other (this nonsense point of view began only in the sixteenth century).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Their simplicity is unexpected, exactly becaue the current community of mathematicians claims that Algebra and Geomtry are independent of each other (this nonsense point of view began only in the sixteenth century).
Click to expand...

This is not what makes their simplicity unexpected judging both from the structure of the sentence, and from the description of these links that follows.
 
doronshadmi said:
Their simplicity is unexpected, exactly becaue the current community of mathematicians claims that Algebra and Geomtry are independent of each other (this nonsense point of view began only in the sixteenth century).
Click to expand...

Be careful with all that backpedaling. You'll hurt yourself if the chain derails.
 
sympathic said:
This is not what makes their simplicity unexpected judging both from the structure of the sentence, and from the description of these links that follows.
Click to expand...

Hare it is again:
cut-the-knot said:
"Still Mathematics went its own way and nowadays Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences."
Click to expand...

Fact 1: Nowadays Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences.

cut-the-knot said:
"But links between the two pop up now and then and many are quite unexpected in their simplicity."
Click to expand...

Fact 2: If Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences, then it is unexpected to define simple links between them.
 
doronshadmi said:
Hare it is again:
cut-the-knot said:
"Still Mathematics went its own way and nowadays Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences."
Click to expand...

Fact 1: Nowadays Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences.
Click to expand...

I suspect Alexander Bogomolny was being a bit more figurative than you would understand, but ok.

cut-the-knot said:
"But links between the two pop up now and then and many are quite unexpected in their simplicity."
Click to expand...

Fact 2: If Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences, then it is unexpected to define simple links between them.
Click to expand...

No. You jumped the gap from what Bogomolny actually wrote and what you want to be true.
 
doronshadmi said:
Hare it is again:


Fact 1: Nowadays Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences.



Fact 2: If Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences, then it is unexpected to define simple links between them.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of you giving your own interpretations for things, and then building mountains of baseless claims from these false interpretations.
 
Alexander Bogomolny (http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=81954) wrote in http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/fords.shtml:

Alexander Bogomolny said:
For the Ancients who did not possess a proper symbolism for either specific (arithmetic) or generic (algebra) numbers, calculations were carried out in a geometric framework. A product of two numbers was represented by the area of a rectangle whose sides were given by the two numbers.
Click to expand...
This is an historical fact about making calculations by using geometric framework.

Alexander Bogomolny said:
Algebra and arithmetic were finally separated from Geometry with the systematic introduction of algebraic notations that began only in the sixteenth century. In the seventeenth century, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) invented Analytic Geometry and claimed that any geometric problem can be solved algebraically. (Which is only true in principle because reduction of a geometric problem often leads to algebraic equations that we only know to solve approximately.)
Click to expand...
We can learn that Geometry and Algebra are not fully translated to each other's framework, but instead of try to get the deeper and more profound links between the two frameworks, in order to unify Mathematics under a one comprehensive framework that clearly demonstrates the common source to both Algebra and Geometry, the community of Mathematicians took exactly the opposite idiotic way and as a result
Alexander Bogomolny said:
nowadays Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences. But links between the two pop up now and then and many are quite unexpected in their simplicity.
Click to expand...
Now this community of mathematicians that took the wrong path for the mathematical science development, uses stupid phrases like "unexpected in their simplicity" about the simple links between Algebra and Geometry, exactly because they are missing the simple common ground of both Algebra and Geometry, and as a result of this dichotomist approach, the common ground randomally and unexpectedly "pops up" (Alexander Bogomolny usues "pop up" exactly because he belongs to a community that does not research and develop systematically the common ground of the mathematical science, and prefers to tear it apart to, so called, "independent sciences")

Jhsisher, you are not aware of my criticism about your community, where Alexander Bogomolny and you are members of it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom