Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Alexander Bogomolny (http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=81954) wrote in http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/fords.shtml:
Click to expand...

Ah! So now that I told you the guy's name, you can use your mad google skills. (You could have found his name yourself, you know. It's not like he hid it.)

...pointless drivel...

Jhsisher[sic], you are not aware of my criticism about your community, where Alexander Bogomolny and you are members of it.
Click to expand...

There you go, assuming again. Wrongly so, too. Just about everyone here following this thread is well aware of your criticism of Mathematics. Just about everyone here knows you make baseless allegations of things you don't understand.

So, faced with a choice of the body of Mathematics that has demonstrated its utility, consistency, expandability, etc., etc., or that of Doronetics that cannot even provide a simple definition without exposing a contradiction, all the rational people choose the former.
 
jsfisher said:
Ah! So now that I told you the guy's name, you can use your mad google skills. (You could have found his name yourself, you know. It's not like he hid it.)
Click to expand...

What trivial details are written by you.


jsfisher said:
There you go, assuming again. Wrongly so, too.
Click to expand...

Do you claim that your community does not take Algebra and Geometry as independent sciences?

jsfisher said:
Just about everyone here following this thread is well aware of your criticism of Mathematics. Just about everyone here knows you make baseless allegations of things you don't understand.

So, faced with a choice of the body of Mathematics that has demonstrated its utility, consistency, expandability, etc., etc., or that of Doronetics that cannot even provide a simple definition without exposing a contradiction, all the rational people choose the former.
Click to expand...

Still avoid http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645 , isn't it (instead you are looking for the members of your community that will support you each time you use phrases like "Just about everyone here knows you make baseless allegations of things you don't understand"
)?

And you call these kinds of replies and behavior, rigorous mathematical arguments.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
You want him to respond to a post that he says doesn't require a response? I think he already has.
Click to expand...

This is a pathetic way of a weak scholar to avoid confrontation with the failure of his reasoning.

This is a typical behavior of any one that does not wish to research things beyond the agreed paradigms of some community, as clearly seen by this phrase:
jsfisher said:
there is no reason for me to define my terms when the usage is in complete agreement with accepted definitions.
Click to expand...

He even avoided the second question in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4811526&postcount=3683 .
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Same post being referenced, now isn't it?

ETA: And, for the record, the post Doron cites is yet another example of his rude rewrites after the post has been made.
Click to expand...

There are actually 3 items on your "avoid list"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4811443&postcount=3680

and the second sentence (my mistake, i wrote question) which is the first question in

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4811526&postcount=3683

Slowly but surly we get your "turning lights off " maneuver.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
There are actually 3 items on your "avoid list"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4811443&postcount=3680

and the second sentence (my mistake, i wrote question) which is the first question in

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4811526&postcount=3683
Click to expand...

Where do you think all of this is leading? Of late your posts have been disjoint and confused (more so than usual). We known you've now abandoned your failure with intervals, just like you did with topology, just like you did with...so many examples, but what new topic of misunderstanding are you taking on now? Surely you are not placing your new hope in Ford Circles and the image you scarfed from wikipedia?

Slowly but surly we get your "turning lights off " maneuver.
Click to expand...

We? Just who is the we of which you speak?
 
Doronshadmi, why can't you write what you mean to say? Looking at this page (posts 3681 - 3692) I see that of the six posts you've made, 4 of them have been re-edited.

Why do you continually re-edit posts after people answer/reply/post after you?
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Doronshadmi, why can't you write what you mean to say? Looking at this page (posts 3681 - 3692) I see that of the six posts you've made, 4 of them have been re-edited.

Why do you continually re-edit posts after people answer/reply/post after you?
Click to expand...
Because real communication is not limited to the technical linear limitations of this forum.

Furthermore, real thinking is not limited to already prepared packages of ideas, and I am not going to write any piece of change in a different post.
 
doronshadmi said:
No realy new things can be developed under :boxedin: community, and this long thread clearly exposes it.
Click to expand...

The only thing exposed in this thread is the depth and breadth of your misunderstanding of Mathematics and contradictions and inconsistencies of your own pseudo-mathematical notions.
 
jsfisher said:
The only thing exposed in this thread is the depth and breadth of your misunderstanding of Mathematics and contradictions and inconsistencies of your own pseudo-mathematical notions.
Click to expand...
:boxedin: member is not in a position to conclude such things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom