JSH: Teachers can be wrong
jst...@msn.com
distributive property I see many of you using techniques that you
clearly think are valid, which I shoot down with a very short logical
argument.
Yet you keep putting them up.
Let me tell you a story.
When I was in college I was reading through a physics text and noticed
something looked wrong. I looked it over a couple of times and went to
my professor with it.
Turned out, I was right, the book was wrong.
I think few of you arguing with me over the distributive property could
ever accomplish the feat of finding an error in a textbook because you
seem to be trusting souls who learned stuff that you hold onto even
when it's been proven wrong.
Sorry, but human beings are fallible creatures--they make mistakes.
You can have been taught something that is quite wrong, used it for
years, and only now run into the wall of a mathematical proof that just
yanks it away from you.
Some people can handle the truth. Others cannot.
My analysis is that a LOT of what mathematicians teach today is just
bogus stuff that has to do with arbitrary human needs, often needs of
the moment.
It's like you think that mathematics is something you create, and that
it is just a tool for human interests, and has no outside validity, so
if you want, you can just make up rules!!!
Sorry, but correct mathematics is actually logical where conclusions
follow logically from basic axioms.
If you make up rules that run into contradictions with logic and those
basic axioms, then your rules are wrong, not mathematics.
It's not your creation, and people make mistakes.
A lot of you have been taught wrong.
That's life. Learn the correct techniques if you can, or refuse and
hold on to things that don't work.
The mathematical truth doesn't change, and it doesn't care what you do.
It never did, and it never will.
James Harris
Zodness
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1142136787.5...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
You are a stupid troll.
Quit being a slob, Get a haircut and a real job.
Your spew is tired, trite, and nonsense.
Any 6th grader pisses on your "research", moron.
Randy Poe
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> In looking at postings now where people are still arguing against the
> distributive property
No, they're not. Nobody is arguing that this is untrue:
7(A'(x)+1)(B(x)+1) = (7A'(x)+7)(B(x)+1)
That's the distributive property. It's correct. Not one single person
has objected to it.
> I see many of you using techniques that you
> clearly think are valid, which I shoot down with a very short logical
> argument.
No, you don't. Here is the step people argue with:
(7A'(x)+7)(B(x)+1) = (A(x)+7)(B(x)+1) implies
7A'(x) = A(x), B'(x) = B(x).
That is NOT the distributive property.
> Yet you keep putting them up.
No, you don't "shoot them down". If somebody exhibits
a set of functions such that 7A'(x) != A(x), B'(x) != B(x),
and yet (7A'(x)+7)(B(x)+1) = (A(x)+7)(B(x)+1), then you have
not "shot down" anything.
Here are the claims from all counterexamples. Take anyone
of them and give a simple argument that says either (a), (b)
or (c) is untrue. THAT would be "shooting it down". Just saying
"you're arguing against the distributive property" while (a),
(b) and (c) are all obviously true is not a counterargument.
So give it a go. Take *anybody's* counterexample, and tell us
which of the following statements is untrue:
(a) (7A'(x)+7)(B(x)+1) = (A(x)+7)(B(x)+1)
(b) 7A'(x) != A(x)
(c) B'(x) != B(x)
Is any one of those false in *anybody's* example?
- Randy
Mr. X
wrote:
>
> No, you don't "shoot them down". If somebody exhibits
> a set of functions such that 7A'(x) != A(x), B'(x) != B(x),
> and yet (7A'(x)+7)(B(x)+1) = (A(x)+7)(B(x)+1),
>
and A'(0) = B'(0) = A(0) = B(0),
>
> then you have not "shot down" anything.
>
> Here are the claims from all counterexamples. Take anyone
> of them and give a simple argument that [shows that] either
> (a), (b), (c),
>
or (d)
>
> is untrue. THAT would be "shooting it down". Just saying
> "you're arguing against the distributive property" while
> (a), (b), (c),
>
and (d)
>
> are all obviously true is not a counterargument.
>
> So give it a go. Take *anybody's* counterexample, and tell us
> which of the following statements is untrue:
>
> (a) (7A'(x)+7)(B(x)+1) = (A(x)+7)(B(x)+1)
> (b) 7A'(x) != A(x)
> (c) B'(x) != B(x)
(d) A'(0) = B'(0) = A(0) = B(0)?
>
> Is any one of those false in *anybody's* example?
>
Well, if spotted at least one; but since there are so many valid
counterexamples (I think), that surely doesn't count.
Mr. X
mensa...@aol.com
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> In looking at postings now where people are still arguing against the
> distributive property I see many of you using techniques that you
> clearly think are valid, which I shoot down with a very short logical
> argument.
>
> Yet you keep putting them up.
>
> Let me tell you a story.
Oh, wow. Can't let this one get away. The slackers here aren't
quoting again, so I'll have to make sure this gets saved for posterity.
>
> When I was in college I was reading through a physics text and noticed
> something looked wrong. I looked it over a couple of times and went to
> my professor with it.
>
> Turned out, I was right, the book was wrong.
What was it? Just a typo? Something earth-shaking?
>
> I think few of you arguing with me over the distributive property could
> ever accomplish the feat of finding an error in a textbook because you
> seem to be trusting souls who learned stuff that you hold onto even
> when it's been proven wrong.
I can't speak for others, but _I_ learned never to trust ANYTHING.
I've seen too much faulty hardware designed by engineers who
should have known better, too much faulty software written by
programmers who should have known better. And it's not just me.
There are no trusting souls who believe everything they read.
Those types don't last long in any profession.
>
> Sorry, but human beings are fallible creatures--they make mistakes.
Duh. And how many mistakes have you made?
>
> You can have been taught something that is quite wrong,
Yeah, sure it is.
> used it for
> years, and only now run into the wall of a mathematical proof that just
> yanks it away from you.
You wish.
>
> Some people can handle the truth. Others cannot.
>
> My analysis is that a LOT of what mathematicians teach today is just
> bogus stuff that has to do with arbitrary human needs, often needs of
> the moment.
Funny that a LOT of the math is wrong. You'd think a clever
bloke could take advantage of this. Think of all the papers
he could get published, the career opportunities.
Oh, but then he'd have to buck the system, wouldn't he?
His papers would get yanked, journals would fold and he'd
spend the rest of his life in obscurity.
What a sad fate for someone whose genius is denied by
the establishment conspiracy.
>
> It's like you think that mathematics is something you create, and that
> it is just a tool for human interests, and has no outside validity, so
> if you want, you can just make up rules!!!
Are you crying again?
>
> Sorry, but correct mathematics is actually logical where conclusions
> follow logically from basic axioms.
...which leads to a conclusion that must be true. Yeah, we've
heard that litany before.
>
> If you make up rules that run into contradictions with logic and those
> basic axioms, then your rules are wrong, not mathematics.
>
> It's not your creation, and people make mistakes.
>
> A lot of you have been taught wrong.
So you keep saying. Funny how they're all getting away with it.
>
> That's life. Learn the correct techniques if you can, or refuse and
> hold on to things that don't work.
That's the Colt 45 talking, right?
lataianu bogdan
William Hughes
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> In looking at postings now where people are still arguing against the
> distributive property I see many of you using techniques that you
> clearly think are valid, which I shoot down with a very short logical
> argument.
>
Piffle.
JSH: Argument A
Other poster: Argument A is wrong, here is a counterexample.
JSH: Your counterexample
must be wrong. Repeats argument A.
This is the mathematical equivalent of puting your
fingers in your ears and saying Nyah Nyah Nyah.
One of the many examples that you have simply ignored is:
A(x) = 7x/(1+|x|^2) + 7/(1+|x|^2) -7
B(x) =x(1+|x|^2) + (1+|x|^2) -1
We have, A(0)=B(0) =0
7(x+1)(x+1) = (A(x) + 7) (B(x) +1)
but A(x) is not equal to (7x +7). Will you continue to ignore
simple algebra?
-William Hughes
Crank Watch International
> In looking at postings now where people are still arguing against the
> distributive property I see many of you using techniques that you
> clearly think are valid, which I shoot down with a very short logical
> argument.
mathematics to a mathematical crank. The effort fails because mathematics
constantly refutes the claims of cranks, and cranks constantly refuse to
absorb any facts that contradict their claims. So the cycle continues ad
infinitum.
Cranks have an IQ of zero.
David Ames
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> In looking at postings now where people are still arguing against the
> distributive property I see many of you using techniques that you
> clearly think are valid, which I shoot down with a very short logical
> argument.
>
> Yet you keep putting them up.
>
> Let me tell you a story.
>
> When I was in college I was reading through a physics text and noticed
> something looked wrong. I looked it over a couple of times and went to
> my professor with it.
>
> Turned out, I was right, the book was wrong.
>
> I think few of you arguing with me over the distributive property could
> ever accomplish the feat of finding an error in a textbook because you
> seem to be trusting souls who learned stuff that you hold onto even
> when it's been proven wrong.
>
> Sorry, but human beings are fallible creatures--they make mistakes.
>
> You can have been taught something that is quite wrong, used it for
> years, and only now run into the wall of a mathematical proof that just
> yanks it away from you.
>
> Some people can handle the truth. Others cannot.
>
> My analysis is that a LOT of what mathematicians teach today is just
> bogus stuff that has to do with arbitrary human needs, often needs of
> the moment.
>
Oh, this is tiresome indeed.
David Ames
David Ames
Virgil
I have heard it rumored that some of them actually achieve negative IQs.
