education grrr
tommy1729
i objected.
but was considered annoying , dumb , ignorant etc and a bad influence on other students.
( im not even sure the teacher knew complex numbers , since he was only teaching to small children the basics )
later on i was teached a method to do sqrt(-1) ; "i".
:s i was pissed off of course.
further the teacher assumed nobody could have known this earlier.
i was pissed of again.
i can give 100 examples of this.
but not only in the domain of math.
similar things happened with e.g. physics.
first i was told about newton.
i objected.
( same procedure )
ending up with einstein afterall.
i still objected
( same procedure )
ending up with the beginning of QM.
( same procedure )
and finally modern QM.
getting closer to my ideas all the way !!
despite being considered an idiot not agreeing with
the " great " newton.
same story for chemistry :
starting from classical
ending up with quantum chemistry , with totally opposite claims by both teachers.
same story for biology :
see " nanobes " , wiki for it if you want to know more.
same story for computers :
the computers evolved faster than my teachers of it.
even worse , they conjectured certain impossibilies in the capacity and performance of computers in the future.
wrong of course.
same story for religion.
and many other studies...
in fact , science is in constant motion and adjustment of previous theorems in all domains.
my rediculized ideas of the past , are the ideas accepted today.
however , i got no credit in the past and i dont get it now.
that sir is a discrease and its lying and cheating.
similar it might very well be that some person in 500 Bc believed in a big bang , a non-flat earth and non-euclidian geometry.
he must have been almost burned by the others or totally ignored by its society and rediculized.
its like einstein said :
" given all this education ; its a wonder i can still think at all "
education
grrr
perhaps we should have went to a good library instead of all those years of education.
there are good books about all subjects afterall.
yes of course ; no fucking piece of paper that proves
you are so - called skilled in something.
but i still see students of calculus taking their calculator to compute 1/2 + 1/3 and they can give the correct answer.
but can they do math ??
there are even calculators doing integrals for the students !!!
not in my time !!!
similar there are calculators for financial studies or physics or statistics.
in my time : by hand !
yet the ex-students dont get as much respect as those new students with their fancy calculators , as if they would be better mathematicians just because they live in a time where FLT has long been proven and they did not.
(not to mention math soft to do their homework , but they cant use that in exams of course )
tommy1729
Neilist
This post is so chock full of math in it, Tommy should write a
mathematical treatise based on it. Lots and lots of math brimming
from this post.
And here I thought one James Harris was too much. Now we have two :-
(
Neilist
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ow, I broke my emoticon:
:-(
quasi
wrote:
>its like einstein said :
>
>" given all this education ; its a wonder i can still think at all "
>
>education
>
>grrr
In the novel
The Bold Saboteurs
by Chandler Brossard
there is a cool quote ...
First, some background from the novel, then the quote ...
Two brothers, one about 13, the other about 7. The brothers are both
very, very smart. It's a broken home -- the father, a hopeless
drunkard, has abandoned them. Times are hard -- it's the depression
era, and they are in serious poverty. To help make ends meet, the
older brother quits school and takes a job as a night watchman.
The older brother is the new father figure, and he makes a project of
the younger one. The younger brother idolizes the older one, and comes
to visit him every night on his job. They have long talks, about
anything and everything.
The older brother, continuing his own education by self-study from
carefully chosen books obtained from the public library, is a gifted
teacher, and leads the younger one in the path of his own newly
acquired knowledge and insights. The younger one absorbs all the new
ideas very rapidly, and at one point, the older brother says to the
younger one ...
"I think you should quit school
so as to further your education."
[In other words, so they could have more time to study on their own,
at their own pace, controlling their own education, free from the
indoctrination, bureaucratization, and mediocratization inherent in
the educational system.]
I always really liked that quote.
quasi
Dustan
[snip]
Welcome to education Tommy. Believe me, you're not the first to feel
this way. You are, however, clearly the worst at coping.
See, when you're in lower maths, there's a correct way to go about
explaining higher maths, which I will explain to you in explicit
detail as follows:
Don't.
You, clearly, did not follow the proper procedure, and therefore, you
fail.
Gonçalo Rodrigues
this fish to the penguins:
>first teachers told me sqrt(-1) could not be done.
>
>i objected.
>
Indeed.
>but was considered annoying , dumb , ignorant etc and a bad
>influence on other students.
>
>( im not even sure the teacher knew complex numbers , since
>he was only teaching to small children the basics )
>
A small children yourself, but obviously ahead of its peers and
teachers.
>later on i was teached a method to do sqrt(-1) ; "i".
>
>:s i was pissed off of course.
>
And right you are about being "pissed". Metaforically speaking, that
is (I hope).
>further the teacher assumed nobody could have known this earlier.
>
>i was pissed of again.
>
>i can give 100 examples of this.
>
>but not only in the domain of math.
>
>similar things happened with e.g. physics.
>
>first i was told about newton.
>
>i objected.
>
Of course you did.
>( same procedure )
>
>ending up with einstein afterall.
>
>i still objected
>
Exactly.
>( same procedure )
>
>ending up with the beginning of QM.
>
>( same procedure )
>
>and finally modern QM.
>
>getting closer to my ideas all the way !!
>
Maybe that is what's wrong with physics. They are just "closer" to
"your ideas" but not "your ideas" exactly. We can only hope that,
asymptotically at least, we will get there.
>despite being considered an idiot not agreeing with
>
>the " great " newton.
>
>same story for chemistry :
>
>starting from classical
>
>ending up with quantum chemistry , with totally opposite claims by
>both teachers.
>
Mathematics, physics, now chemistry.
>same story for biology :
>
>see " nanobes " , wiki for it if you want to know more.
>
And biology.
>same story for computers :
>
>the computers evolved faster than my teachers of it.
>
>even worse , they conjectured certain impossibilies in the capacity
>and performance of computers in the future.
>
>wrong of course.
>
And computer science.
>same story for religion.
>
Ah and religion!
>and many other studies...
>
Many, many, I am sure.
Not trying to disparage your greatness (note the lack of ""), but you
really seemed to have had bad luck in the lot of teachers you got. But
at the same time, this is a sign of true greatness. Ever heard of
Jonathan Swift? He said and I quote:
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this
sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
>in fact , science is in constant motion and adjustment of previous
>theorems in all domains.
>
>my rediculized ideas of the past , are the ideas accepted today.
>
Rediculing you, now, what a redicule thing to do.
>however , i got no credit in the past and i dont get it now.
>
>that sir is a discrease and its lying and cheating.
>
Discrease, is that discredit + disgrace?
>similar it might very well be that some person in 500 Bc believed in a
>big bang , a non-flat earth and non-euclidian geometry.
>
>he must have been almost burned by the others or totally ignored by
>its society and rediculized.
>
Yes, story repeats itself. The tommy's of this world being rediculized
by society, over and over again, in an endless cycle of repetition.
Someone more cynical (not me, of course) would say that the world is
admirably organized: society needs its scapegoats to purge the
collective guilt, and martyr-geniuses need a guilty society to burn
them -- I mean, otherwise, how would posterity recognize them? Their
work is surely not enough for such a recognition -- a point that your
particular case so admirably proves.
>
>its like einstein said :
>
>" given all this education ; its a wonder i can still think at all "
>
>education
>
>grrr
>
Well, education does not seem to have affected you in the least.
>
>perhaps we should have went to a good library instead of all those
>years of education.
>
>there are good books about all subjects afterall.
>
>yes of course ; no fucking piece of paper that proves
>
>you are so - called skilled in something.
>
>but i still see students of calculus taking their calculator to compute
>1/2 + 1/3 and they can give the correct answer.
>
>but can they do math ??
>
>there are even calculators doing integrals for the students !!!
>
>not in my time !!!
>
>similar there are calculators for financial studies or physics or statistics.
>
>in my time : by hand !
>
The good old days... math education is going to the dogs.
>yet the ex-students dont get as much respect as those new students with
>their fancy calculators , as if they would be better mathematicians just
>because they live in a time where FLT has long been proven and they did
>not.
>
>(not to mention math soft to do their homework , but they cant use that in
>exams of course )
>
The gall of these guys!
You've surely pointed out some very deep problems in current education
systems, such as lack of respect for tommy1729, but I wonder, since
you always were ahead of your teachers, why you offer no solution to
this problem of lack of respect? Do you think the problem is hard,
maybe even NP-hard?
Regards,
G. Rodrigues
Boen S. Liong
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:21:27 EST, tommy1729 <tommy1...@gmail.com>
Read about OBE?
Boen S. Liong
galathaea
many have felt that same frustration
you must come to learn that teachers are people too
and must forgive them their ignorance
as you must come to forgive all their ignorance
even your own
yes
teachers of all people should strive to understand
particularly their own subjects
yes
they should have that same desire
that they hope to instill in their students
as nietzsche once wrote (paraphrased)
the overman should seek that which sends her under
the teacher should seek to create better students
than the teacher has been
it is not often the case
though
the solution is online education
allowing the student access to the best material anywhere
at their own pace
to their own depth
unhindered by the constraint of mass education
it is also a solution of revenge
because it would instantly put many
lazy and ignorant teachers
out of work
leaving only the brilliant and engaging their piece
at that time
it will be much easier to forgive them
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
tommy1729
its clear : neilist didnt get what i said.
and quasi understood well , even agrees to at least some point.
regards to quasi
tommy1729
tommy1729
the reason i cant solve it, is because e.g. some prof even want to abolish fractions.
the authorities are giving bad examples.
worse , i cant solve this mathematical ...
because its not a mathematical problem.
its society and politics and the mentality of the people.
the problem is as old as mankind and still exists today.
no , i dont call myself a genius for knowing the complex numbers before learned etc.
i dont even blaim society for not giving much respect or honor for tommy1729 as i am today.
however in the past i did diserve much more respect , but im sure im not alone.
im sure there are others who have experienced similar education when they where young and disagreed.
in fact it might have chased talented people away from getting into what initially intrested them and thats a shame.
you seem to agree a bit to what ive said , but try to imply its about honor for me ; its not.
i just dont want this shameless process of education to continue into the lives of our children and grandchildren.
the current idea of abolishing fractions was the drop, so i posted my feelings.
the idea of not doing math by hand anymore is also part of it.
if you lived in the good old days you know what i mean.
besides , dont get me wrong ; i was not a bad student.
i just played along with the " axioms " of the teachers wheiter it was math or physics or religion to get my grades.
for some subjects i was considered the best student the school ever had.
if only they knew i didnt agree with a word they learned me.
i told my opinion occasionally , but i got in fight with the teacher , and he substracted points , not for giving wrong answers , but for " bad behaviour in class ".
set theory was a nice example of that.
i was not some frustrated student who flunked at everything and thus hates everything , i was a good student , who despite that disagreed with almost anything.
not the best of the school though , since i never did any effort.
funniest thing was i was a good friend of one of the worst students ( who passed that is ), because of emotional reasons.
>
> Regards,
> G. Rodrigues
tommy1729
Neilist
<snip>
Hey, Pwn-boy Tommy, how's your tables of integrals coming?
Do you GET what I'm saying to YOU, PWN-head Tommy?
No, I'm sure you cannot grasp the definition of the noun "integral" at
all.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Table of integrals (as defined by Pwn-head Tommy):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ...
Here's another table of integrals:
int(c)dx = cx+C
int(x) dx= (1/2)*x^2+C
int(sin(x)) dx= -cos(x)+C
int(e^x) dx= e^x +C
Right?
Here's a third table of integrals:
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ...
Here's a fourth table of integrals:
int(c+x) dx = cx+x^2+C
int(x+y) dx= (1/2)*x^2+yx+C
int(x+y) dy = yx+(1/2)*y^2+C
int(e^x) dy = [e^x] *y +C
Everyone agree?
No, I do not.
Pwn on Tommy!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
tommy1729
never !!
not only do i blaim them for the ignorance and lies and way of teaching etc
also for wasting my youth and getting personal towards me.
explain me this :
teacher told me i was an idiot , a loser etc
at the big exam i got more than 95% at his test.
the only fun thing :
teachers slighty changes their opinion towards me as the schoolyear proceded ...
but not for good reasons ; for not making a fool out of themselves , when the other students saw my grades.
no , there was a second fun thing :
when some student confronted the teacher with this bizarre combination , he explained :
i told tommy he needed to change his attitude , and he did ; thus his good grades.
even stronger , he claimed CREDIT FOR MY GRADES !!??!!!
BUT THAT WAS NOT HOW IT HAPPENED !!
TEACHER changed his attitude , not me !
and my grades are independed of his teachings !!
anyone with a score above 90 % can learn on his own from a book , or already knows it.
another thing : at some times , i was just a little boy and this big teacher was yelling at me.
what kind of attitude is that towards children anyways ?
did he really think i respect him more like that , or will agree with him more ?
oh well at least my teachers did not want to abolish fractions.
and some students enjoyed the fights between me and teachers ( secretly of course ! )
tommy1729
Boen S. Liong
Are u suggesting classroom is bad? Or a student like it should not be
or should avoid classroom?
Boen S. Liong
quasi
No, I hadn't heard of it -- I had to look it up.
I assume OBE means "Outcome-Based Education".
I like the idea of certifying knowledge by testing.
However, I'm not sure I trust the test makers.
quasi
galathaea
> or should avoid classroom?
the daycare aspect is the only real issue
and shouldn't be mandatory
(or necessary once in the teenage years)
otherwise
computers offer much more interactivity
they can monitor progress with much greater detail
they can adapt lessons to particular needs or desires
they have the entire gamut of multimedia support
video
audio
a large variety of input devices
the current system is mostly detrimental
both to students with self-drive like tommy
and students that lack the norm
it requires teachers in the location of the student
bloating the need for teachers
and promoting mediocrity (or worse)
all told
a system online can offer more choice
(to parents and students)
can adapt per child
(instead of seeking classroom momentums at some mean)
can monitor and collect passed tests
(providing future employers more detail)
and is a much much cheaper system overall
vast improvements at a cheaper price?
newsgroups and related forum post technologies
are the future of one-on-one assistance
classrooms are archaic
Boen S. Liong
yes, it does. I am not fully in education yet. I am not like t, though
I know complex number when 5th grade, and FLT by 8th grade but there
was no one to guide by that time. But i don't react like t. Never came
across my mind. That time my world was peaceful. I didn't know my
teacher know about complex number, i assume she knew little but not
competent. But the other teacher is 8th grade should know about FLT,
since he hold BSc in math.
Gauss refused to enter FLT contest. According to what I read, he said
it is useless. Would Gauss solve it?
Boen S. Liong
quasi
<mr_bea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gauss refused to enter FLT contest. According to what I read, he said
>it is useless. Would Gauss solve it?
Secretly, I'm sure he played with it, and at some point, wisely gave
up. My guess is he sensed the problem was out of reach, except for
special cases, and he knew better than to squander all his energy on
what would probably have been a futile quest.
quasi
Neilist
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:26:11 -0800 (PST), "Boen S. Liong"
>
> >Gauss refused to enter FLT contest. According to what I read, he said
> >it is useless. Would Gauss solve it?
>
> Secretly, I'm sure he played with it, and at some point, wisely gave
> up. My guess is he sensed the problem was out of reach, except for
> special cases, and he knew better than to squander all his energy on
> what would probably have been a futile quest.
>
> quasi
As I recall the story in E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics and elsewhere,
such as quoted in:
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/kimon/FLT.htm
Gauss was asked about Fermat's Last Theorem, and he supposedly said,
"I confess that Fermat's Last Theorem, as an isolated proposition, has
very little interest for me, because I could easily lay down a
multitude of such propositions, which one could neither prove nor
dispose of".
Sour grapes! Gauss belittled a problem that he couldn't solve. What
a coward!
At least some real and respectable mathematicians, such as Gabriel
Lame, published proofs which were found to be in error. And Wiles'
first proof was flawed and had to be fixed. But these two men (Lame
and Wiles) put their genuine mathematician reputation on the line,
unlike Gauss who published NO proof at all of Fermat's Last Theorem.
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
Sure. He set out instead to come up with what
can be regarded as one of the foundations of
number theory. But, as you know, the number of
(attempted and published) proofs for FLT is the
only measure of a mathematician's prowess.
What have /you/ published, by the way, which
validates your elevated tone and condemning
judgement of Gauss?
-- m
-- m
Tonico
Rubbish. Gauss is deservedly called the prince of mathematics, and his
contributions in many areas are outstanding from any point of view.
I agree in this with quasi: perhaps Gauss took a peek at FLT, played a
little with it, and then wisely backed off.
To qualify a mathematician only, or even mainly, by his contributions
to FLT is, imho, absolute nonsense.
Regards
Tonio
Neilist
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I have published is irrelevant. It's what Gauss said in this
specific instance which deserves contempt. Notice how not only did he
belittle the conjecture, he also made an evasion by saying he could
toss out even more conjectures that couldn't be proven.
Yeah, Gauss "did a lot of math". But this snide comment of his irks
me. I am IRKED!
Neilist
<snip>
> To qualify a mathematician only, or even mainly, by his contributions
> to FLT is, imho, absolute nonsense.
I didn't say or intend that, now did I?
I just slammed Gauss for this specific instance of Gauss being a
cowardly pussy.
Couldn't he just graciously say he did not feel it was important to
him?
Noooooooooo, he had to belittle the Fermat conjecture and pump up his
own ego and superiority in mathematics with a snide comment.
Obviously other real and genunine mathematicians felt that proofing
Fermat's conjecture was important, and new mathematics was spurned and
developed by them by their efforts, such as Kummer, Sophie Germain,
and Wiles.
Luckily, none of those "fools" Kummer, Germain, Wiles, etc. listend to
the "prince of mathematics".
So, what king sired this "prince of mathematics" Gauss anyway?
Yeah, tell me, who would you call the King of Mathematics? Euclid?
Archimedes (the original, not the Plutonium fuckhead)?
Aatu Koskensilta
> At least some real and respectable mathematicians, such as Gabriel
> Lame, published proofs which were found to be in error. And Wiles'
> first proof was flawed and had to be fixed. But these two men (Lame
> and Wiles) put their genuine mathematician reputation on the line,
> unlike Gauss who published NO proof at all of Fermat's Last Theorem.
It is your opinion, then, that, lest they be cowardly, every
mathematician has a duty to attempt proving any and all unsolved
problems, presenting flawed proofs if correct ones are not
forthcoming, even if the problems hold no interest for them?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Neilist
wrote:
<snip>
> It is your opinion, then, that, lest they be cowardly, every
> mathematician has a duty to attempt proving any and all unsolved
> problems, presenting flawed proofs if correct ones are not
> forthcoming, even if the problems hold no interest for them?
No no, a thousand times NO!
I am saying that every mathematician must not express "sour grapes"
over problems that they can't solve or won't dare try to solve.
For example, say YOU are challenged to solve the Goldbach conjecture
or the Riemann Hypothesis or any other unsolved problem.
What do you do?
A. Accept the challenge.
B. Say "it's not of interest to me"
C. Say "I can't do it"
D. Say "I can maybe do it, but it'll be a lot of work, and I'm busy
now, so maybe I'll get to it in the future"
or
E. Say "The (conjecture/hypothesis/problem) is trivial and useless,
so I won't bother"
Some would pick option A, but you're elevating my Gaussian criticism
to say that everyone should pick option A. No!
Many others, such as cryptographers or others in supposedly unrelated
fields, would pick B or C in connection with the Goldbach Conjecture
or the Riemann Hypothesis.
I'd pick C or D, or perhaps A or B, if I dared and had a few years to
throw away like Wiles in his attic.
But big shot math prodigy Gauss chose B, and then followed with option
E, sour grapes and snide remarks, when maybe he should have said C or
D.
So I say, don't criticize what you can't do or won't do. You don't
have to be totally honest and say you can't do it. There's no need to
prove your manhood (I guess women mathematicians lack such, ahem,
evaluators of ego).
In fact, maybe YOU can actually solve a given problem, and are indeed
too busy or lack the interest.
But don't be a pussy like Gauss with snide remarks about genuine
mathematics problems.
And don't be a crank like James Harris and others churning out crap
proofs over the years, and arguing that they are correct, and
complaining that your publication has been withdrawn, and slamming the
mathematics community, and imagining wealth and fame coming your way,
and then threatening to use THE ARMY and THE HAMMER, blah blah blah.
Gauss and James Harris are egomanics! But of the two, Gauss is the
one who had a modicum of math talent.
;-)
tommy1729
it is clear , neilist even insults gauss !!!
gauss is a pussy and james harris is a pussy.
neilist is superobsessed by insults and james harris.
every post he makes is about those two.
neilist believes he is better than gauss.
better than anyone.
espacially harris , james harris.
neilist just dreams about insulting people.
and about james harris.
leave gauss alone neilist , you fuckhead.
if gauss was a pussy , what are you ??
regards
tommy1729
Neilist
<snip>
That makes me more intellectually honest than you, Mr. Tommy-who-can't
understand-the-noun-integral-is-not-a-synonym-for-integer-and-who-
can't-admit-his-error.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I'm laughing at your inferior intellect!
How's your "education" regarding "integrals 1, 2, 3, 4 ..." going,
Tommy-can't-understand-definitions?
On August 28, 2007, 2:35 PM, Tommy1729 wrote:
"integers ...-2,-1,0,1,2,...
integrals 1,2,3,4,...
natural numbers 0,1,2,3,... "
These tables are based on Tommy's definition of the noun "integral".
Table of integrals:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ...
Here's another table of integrals:
int(c)dx = cx+C
int(x) dx= (1/2)*x^2+C
int(sin(x)) dx= -cos(x)+C
int(e^x) dx= e^x +C
Here's a third table of integrals: