Fraud Number 1: MARSHALL
Cimode
RM issues I pointed out...I will begin quoting some of their posts to
demonstrate their incoherence, ignorance or both...I will let the
people judge for themselves...
An example of Marshall *enlightenning* ideas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEGIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Marshall declares// --> (he responds to a post made where I claim
that SQL projected are nothing but bidimensional OR tridimensional at
PHYSICAL LEVEL/)
<< No, I don't think that's correct at all. Physical memory is
> unidimensional;>>
//Me//
> Please explain your point. -->Gave him a chance to explain (maybe did not get it?)
//Marshall declares// --> persists and signs on ignorance...
You keep saying that physical representation is two
dimensional. But that's not correct. Physical memory
is one dimensional; it is a single line of memory from
address 0 to address n.
As you can see above, this ignorant obviously confuses CPU adressing
scheme and memory adressing scheme that are bidimensional or
tridimensional
(RowAdress/ColumnAdress or RowAdress/ColumnAdress)...
He totally ignores the memory architecture of physical RAM memory at
memory controller level which does not prevent from pretending he
knows.
He even persists and signs that on physical level a you have to deal
with column store and row store which are logical constructs of how
data is projected from a relvar which do not say anything about they
are represented *physically* in memory...
So I ask what's more physical then adressing schemes of
banks/row/adresses who precisely represent data from SQL projections in
memory ?
Cimode
This one is a nice dream of his redefining his own mathematics concepts
//MARSHALL//
//Is 3 a real thing? I used to wonder about that. And in fact I
have put the question directly to a few of the best minds in
computer science. They mostly shrug. I now see why: it's
not that interesting a question.// --> Think they shrug because you
looked so silly,they did not want to make you look ridiculous...
//Me//--> puzzled I answer
I do not quite understand what you are getting at...3 is the
mathematical symbol representing a number value extracted from an
ensemble of both reals and integer subset.
//MARSHALL// -->^persists and signs claiming basically that 3 <> 3
In strict English grammar, we would say "3" is the mathematical
symbol representing a number value. But 3 is not the same thing
as "3". 3 is the actual number; the successor to 2, *not* the
glyph. "3" is a real thing, because symbols *do* appear in
the natural world. You see them on pages of math books
all the time. But is 3 a real thing, the way horses are real
and unicorns are not real?
I rather think 3 has more in common with unicorns than
with horses. (This is of course a metaphoric statement
rather than a literal one.) But I find 3 to be ... useful
nonetheless.
--> He uses UNICORNS AND HORSES to explain his defficient dream of
math...
I let people judge for themselves HOw can somebody who state such
idiotic statement be thrusted as somebody who understand RM which is
mathematics applied..
Tony D
concrete literal and the abstract value denoted by the literal. For
example, "3", "three", "III", "drei" and "trois" are all literals that
denote the value 3. Can you say what the problem with this idea is and
provide a pointer to a more correct interpretation ?
Cimode
*mathematical* symbology instead) from the value they represent is a
good thought.
But there's a major problem when somebody puts in doubt the equation
between the two to make a point.
For instance, if one's put question:
IS symbol '3' universally recognized a value 3 (since antique times)
may be FALSE, one's is necessarily redefining ALL mathematics up
implied by that recognition until now. (at least the one I know of not
unicorns and whatever)...
That kind of question/point may be entertaining in mental masturbation
perspective but just can't be taken seriously (except it comes from
some Math Nobel Price or Math Nobe price contender)...
I personally call that ignorance of mathematics (you know; the one we
all agree on). Don't you think?
Sorry but Math is not domain in which one can put all you want...
Do you get it?
Tony D
[ snippage ]
> Do you get it?
>
I get it fine. And I think if Marshall is getting the separation
between a picture of a thing and the thing itself, that's an advance
that should be encouraged rather than stomped on. Even if words of
caution have to be given to make sure he doesn't bolt off on some wild
goose chase (and I have advised caution to Marshall on other threads,
because I can see he's about to charge into some very dangerous
territory, with a broken compass and no map - type systems, for
example).
Marshall
>
> Even if words of
> caution have to be given to make sure he doesn't bolt off on some wild
> goose chase (and I have advised caution to Marshall on other threads,
> because I can see he's about to charge into some very dangerous
> territory, with a broken compass and no map - type systems, for
> example).
Tony,
I've appreciated the advice.
Some minor points:
I don't think what I'm doing could be considered a "charge" in that
my progress is far too plodding. And I do have a map, in the form
of "Types and Programming Languages" (Pierce), "Type Theory
and Functional Programming", (Thompson), "Concepts, Techniques,
and Models of Computer Programming" (Van Roy, Haridi) etc.
As to whether I have the capacity to absorb the above, and
as to whether my compass/brain is broken or not I think it
is an open question. :-) Fortunately, when I have an idea, I can
get it checked by other people, who, whether here or elsewhere,
are only too happy to tell me when I'm wrong, as happened
recently in the thread about handling missing data.
Oh, and wild geese can be fun to chase in their own right.
Anyway, thanks.
Marshall
Cimode
The best word of encouragement one can give to somebody who goes on a
path that leads to nowhere is simply to tell him gently to stop wasting
time.
Redefining mathematics at such level is a simply dead end which I tried
to warn Marshall.
As a proof, check the below comment on my part concluding the
discussion...
> I rather think 3 has more in common with unicorns than
> with horses. (This is of course a metaphoric statement
> rather than a literal one.) But I find 3 to be ... useful
> nonetheless.
I guess we have reached the end of discussing your theory...I can not
really follow you onto unicorns and horses starting from relationship
between math and science.. Nice exchaning with you though...
OTOH. I have seen Marshall not hesistating calling me a crank...with
no supporting evidence...So who's the fraud?
Cimode
Not hesistating to tell people they are wrong brings more drawbacks
than satisfaction.
OTOH, sticking tags on people's forehead is easy and practical to
disqualify their opinions. It also brings satisfaction of belonging
to a group of idiots which actions I am trying to expose. By your
actions, you just have proven to be one of them...even though we had a
nice exchange... just B4...
//Keith H Duggar wrote: //
> Just as sunlight kills trolls (in some mythologies), it also
> helps to deal with cranks. Since you are a reasonable and
> intelligent person, the group would benefit from you outing
> cranks. Thus, for a moment please set aside your excess of
> faith in human nature and your personal kindness. Review the
> recent characters that lead you to the crank concept. Then
> post here the identities of those posters you believe are
> cranks (perhaps with an associated confidence). This would
> be very beneficial.
//YOU RESPOND//
Sigh. Okay.
Cimode is a crank.
Cimode
Thread: terminology
<<there is no distinction between "integer" and "integer value." >>