Algebra with quotient ring.
mina_world
A commutative ring A is called a principal ideal ring
if every ideal of A is principal.
Show that a quotient ring of a principal ideal ring
is principal ideal ring.
---------------------------------------------------
In fact, I want to know that Z_n is principal ideal ring.
so, If I can show above problem, this is trivial by Z/(nZ).
But... I can't.
so, I need your advice.
Bill Dubuque
>
> A commutative ring A is called a principal ideal ring
> if every ideal of A is principal.
>
> Show that a quotient ring of a principal ideal ring
> is principal ideal ring.
>
> so, If I can show above problem, this is trivial by Z/(nZ).
> But... I can't. so, I need your advice.
See my prior post
http://google.com/groups?selm=y8z8yfyyhsn.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
--Bill Dubuque
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>Hello teacher~
>
>A commutative ring A is called a principal ideal ring
>if every ideal of A is principal.
>
>Show that a quotient ring of a principal ideal ring
>is principal ideal ring.
Suppose that R is a principal-ideal ring and I is
an ideal in R; we want to show that R/I is a
principal-ideal ring.
So assume that J is an ideal in R/I; we need to
show that J is principal. Can you think of
some definition J' = _________, so that
J' will be an ideal in R, and then the fact
that J' is principal in R might show that J is
principal in R/I?
(Say q : R -> R/I is the quotient map,
q(x) = x + I. Then the obvious choice
for J' is...)
>---------------------------------------------------
>In fact, I want to know that Z_n is principal ideal ring.
>so, If I can show above problem, this is trivial by Z/(nZ).
>But... I can't.
>so, I need your advice.
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
mina_world
> <mina_...@hanmail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello teacher~
> >
> >A commutative ring A is called a principal ideal
> ring
> >if every ideal of A is principal.
> >
> >Show that a quotient ring of a principal ideal ring
> >is principal ideal ring.
>
> Suppose that R is a principal-ideal ring and I is
> an ideal in R; we want to show that R/I is a
> principal-ideal ring.
>
> So assume that J is an ideal in R/I; we need to
> show that J is principal. Can you think of
> some definition J' = _________, so that
> J' will be an ideal in R, and then the fact
> that J' is principal in R might show that J is
> principal in R/I?
>
> (Say q : R -> R/I is the quotient map,
> q(x) = x + I. Then the obvious choice
> for J' is...)
Yes, good idea.
q is the canonical homomorphism of R onto R/I.
Let J' = q^{-1}(J).
so, J' is a ideal of R.
so, J' = <a> = {r.a | r in R} for some a in R.
and then q(J') = q[q^{-1}(J)] = J
and q(J')= q(<a>) = {q(r.a) | r in R}
= {q(r).q(a) | r in R}
= {(r + I).q(a) | r + I in R/I}
= <g(a)> for some q(a) in R/I.
so, J = <g(a)>
so, J is a principal ideal of R/I.
Thank you very much.
Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake
Suppose B is the quotient ring of A, and suppose I is an ideal of B.
Then phi_inverse(I) is an ideal of A, hence principal, say generated
by x. Is not I then generated by phi(x)? Am I missing something?
Here phi is the canonical projection and phi_inverse is the inverse
image under phi.
Regards,
Achava
Tonico
*********************************************************8
Once again, Bill, you mislead with your (in)famous "see my prior post"
thing: the link you gave talks about localizations, not quotient
rings...*sigh*.
This misleads and confuses sombody wanting something pretty basic and
elementary, not to mention unbased claims like "The fraction ring
construction D S^-1 with denominator submonoid S < D*
preserves many properties of domains D, e.g. Euclidean, PID, UFD,
valuation, Bezout, GCD, Dedekind, Prufer, Krull, Noetherian,
integrally closed, etc."...no proofs, no links...and that "etc." one
might really be frightening to someone asking such an easy bquestion
as the OP.
A pitry, really...
Regards
Tonio
Pazuz...@gmail.com
Your prior post discusses (only) localization, whereas this question
is about passage to the
quotient.
It is true that both localizations and quotients are instances of
homomorphisms f: R -> S such that every ideal of S is "extended from
R", i.e., of the form f(I)S with I an ideal of R, and that
whenever this happens and R is principal ideal ring, then so is S.
But as you don't say that in
your post, it seems unlikely to be helpful to the OP.
Bill Dubuque
>>>
>>> A commutative ring A is called a principal ideal ring
>>> if every ideal of A is principal.
>>>
>>> Show that a quotient ring of a principal ideal ring
>>> is principal ideal ring.
>>>
>>> In fact, I want to know that Z_n is principal ideal ring.
>>> so, If I can show above problem, this is trivial by Z/(nZ).
>>> But... I can't. so, I need your advice.
>>
>> See my prior post
>> http://google.com/groups?selm=y8z8yfyyhsn.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
>
> the link you gave talks about localizations, not quotient rings...*sigh*.
Apparently you don't know enough algebra to see that the
same idea in my linked post applies whichever denotation
of "quotient ring" the OP intended, i.e. whether it
denotes a localization or a factor/residue ring. Both
denotations are in widespread use in abstract algebra.
> This misleads and confuses sombody wanting something
> pretty basic and elementary
I don't compose my posts only for the OP - they are read
by a much wider audience, both now and in the future (e.g.
in archive searches). So even if (part of) my post was
actually over the OP's head (which there is usually no
way to know in general a priori) it may still prove quite
helpful to many other readers of the post.
> not to mention your unbased claims like
>
>>>> The fraction ring construction D S^-1 with denominator
>>>> submonoid S < D* preserves many properties of domains D,
>>>> e.g. Euclidean, PID, UFD, valuation, Bezout, GCD, Dedekind,
>>>> Prufer, Krull, Noetherian, integrally closed, etc
>
> ...no proofs, no links...and that "etc." one might really be
> frightening to someone asking such an easy question as the OP.
> A pitry, really...
Again you win the prize for most bizarre response to an
interesting post. By your logic one should never mention
anything beyond a students knowledge because it might be
so "frightening". Oh the horror that the student might
actually be motivated to investigate some interesting
generalizations and thereby acquire a deeper understanding
of the subject under discussion. In any case, in the part
of my post that you snipped is a sketch of an elementary
proof of said property of localizations - nothing very
"frightening" at all. Your remark that "etc" might be
"really frightening" will surely make it into my log of
most ridiculous remarks I've encountered. Thanks so much
for the laugh. That's almost as hilarious as your prior
remarks that were as naive as the satirical review of
Dummit & Foote, and your reply that took it seriously.
> A pitry, really...
Really, I did not try pi in any of those exotic domains.
Is it fruitful? Should I try a cut of Dedekind? Any eta?
Why do you call my remarks "unbased claims"? If you think
they're in error then do explain why. I do not see such.
Of course there are "no proofs". The remarks were an aside
for cultural enrichment. You'll find similar remarks in
many well-written textbooks and expository papers. One
can easily Google the terms if one desires to learn more.
Do you really expect me to post links for you after you
so rudely complained at length before about how difficult
it was for you to follow all the links in my posts. Sorry,
I'm not your hired tutor. If you can't be bothered to click
your mouse a few times to follow a link then you have not
demonstrated your sincerity to learn mathematics. If it
hurts your brain to navigate a tiny graph of linked posts
then you'll have a very difficult time learning much higher
mathematics - whose many beautiful subjects are linked in
many complex, mysterious and tantalizingly beautiful ways.
One of the goals of my posts is to provide links to many
of these beautiful mathematical interconnections. This is
something one doesn't normally find in textbooks or in
by-the-book replies in other run-of-the-mill followups.
> This misleads and confuses...
If all those big mathematical words confuse you then simply
ignore them. Better, go back to your favorite pastime here
- namely bashing cranks (which accounts for a significant
percentage of your sci.math posts, second only to Uncle Al).
There you should find comfort in the fact that the cranks
won't confuse you so much with many big mathematical words.
And there you might actually comprehend the cranks' jokes,
instead of being the butt of them as here.
--Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
>>>
>>> A commutative ring A is called a principal ideal ring
>>> if every ideal of A is principal.
>>
>>> Show that a quotient ring of a principal ideal ring
>>> is principal ideal ring.
>>
>>> In fact, I want to know that Z_n is principal ideal ring.
>>> so, If I can show above problem, this is trivial by Z/(nZ).
>>> But... I can't. so, I need your advice.
>>
>> See my prior post
>> http://google.com/groups?selm=y8z8yfyyhsn.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
>
> is about passage to the quotient.
>
> It is true that both localizations and quotients are instances of
> homomorphisms f: R -> S such that every ideal of S is "extended from
> R", i.e., of the form f(I)S with I an ideal of R, and that
> whenever this happens and R is principal ideal ring, then so is S.
Congratulations, you correctly comprehended my hint.
> But as you don't say that in your post,
> it seems unlikely to be helpful to the OP.
Since neither you nor I know the mathematical background of the OP
or other readers, such claims are unfounded in general. See also
my prior reply to Tonio for more on this matter.
--Bill Dubuque
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
In the name of $SOMETHING, while we do not know
anything about the OP's mathematical background,
we know he was having problems showing that a quotient
of a PID is a PID. With that as context, expecting him
to see by himself that his case was one covered by the
`all ideals are extended' class of examples is absurd.
In any case, for someone who likes to scream SIMPLER
at people from time to time, the argument which is (very)
implicit in your response to the OP's is risibly
complicated for the question at hand.
Long tirades about typos in other people's responses do
not change that, by the way ;-)
-- m
Tonico
>
> >>> A commutative ring A is called a principal ideal ring
> >>> if every ideal of A is principal.
>
> >>> Show that a quotient ring of a principal ideal ring
> >>> is principal ideal ring.
>
> >>> In fact, I want to know that Z_n is principal ideal ring.
> >>> so, If I can show above problem, this is trivial by Z/(nZ).
> >>> But... I can't. so, I need your advice.
>
> >> See my prior post
> >>http://google.com/groups?selm=y8z8yfyyhsn.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
>
> > Bill, you mislead with your (in)famous "see my prior post" thing:
> > the link you gave talks about localizations, not quotient rings...*sigh*.
>
> Apparently you don't know enough algebra to see that the
> same idea in my linked post applies whichever denotation
> of "quotient ring" the OP intended, i.e. whether it
> denotes a localization or a factor/residue ring. Both
> denotations are in widespread use in abstract algebra.
>
Apparently you're stupid enough not to understand what is written: I
do know how to use localizations, quotients, ring homomorphism,
extended and contracted ideals, etc...but READ and try to understand
the freaking question by the OP: do you REALLY think she/he can even
follow "your hint" when she's doing such an elementary question?
Common....get serious, man. If you're so lazy as to not make some
order in your stuff and always send people to "look at your prior
posts", be at least honest enough as to acknowledge when your answer
messes things up more than clears them up. Don't whine.
Regards
Tonio
Tonico
> Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why do you call my remarks "unbased claims"? If you think
> they're in error then do explain why. I do not see such.
> Of course there are "no proofs". The remarks were an aside
> for cultural enrichment. You'll find similar remarks in
> many well-written textbooks and expository papers. One
> can easily Google the terms if one desires to learn more.
>
> Do you really expect me to post links for you after you
> so rudely complained at length before about how difficult
> it was for you to follow all the links in my posts. Sorry,
> I'm not your hired tutor. If you can't be bothered to click
> your mouse a few times to follow a link then you have not
> demonstrated your sincerity to learn mathematics. If it
> hurts your brain to navigate a tiny graph of linked posts
> then you'll have a very difficult time learning much higher
> mathematics - whose many beautiful subjects are linked in
> many complex, mysterious and tantalizingly beautiful ways.
> One of the goals of my posts is to provide links to many
> of these beautiful mathematical interconnections. This is
> something one doesn't normally find in textbooks or in
> by-the-book replies in other run-of-the-mill followups.
>
*********************************************************
You're a dishonest, whining, lazy cranklike sob. I did REQUEST nicely
and respectfully to know more about some stuff you wrote about some
1.5-2 months ago....remember?
You did NOT respond to that, and then I nicely proposed you to do some
order in your posted stuff, organize a site where everybody interested
could access the knowledge you so kindly offer, since you seem to be
so eager to everyone that you've made many generalizations about so
much stuff in algebra, polynomials, etc.
You think that someone's lazy if she/he is not willing to go across
hundreds (literally) of post, which some times form loops and lead you
back to a formarly visited post, and which some times ALSO do not
contain the answer to some quest, as you agreeded yourself some weeks
ago with some stuff "you still haven't worked out".
Fine, do NOT make order in your stuff: it's up to you...and next time
try to be a little more open minded to understand the OP's maths level
before offering him the equivalent to rubbish...
Regards
Tonio
Bill Dubuque
>Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
Possibly so for the OP, but not necessarily for other readers both
current (and future) who may be reading the thread in the archives.
If you'd bothered to read my other reply here you'd have known that.
You seem to have a rather narrow view of the purpose of newsgroups.
I do not view them simply as sterile static pages for someone to
get complete answers (or, better, hints) for their homework. Rather,
I view them much more like a wiki or blog - as constantly evolving
repositories of mathematical knowledge. They have mutated into
this role ever since they began to be archived by DejaNews and,
more recently, Google Groups, MathForum, etc. But some people
just don't seem to get that (e.g. recently one lunatic protested
loudly that I linked to a post all the way back in 1999 - as if
any mathematics written "way back" then must be stale). Of course
it is your prerogative to use this newsgroup however you desire.
But be aware that not everyone shares such a narrow viewpoint.
> In any case, for someone who likes to scream SIMPLER at people from
> time to time, the argument which is (very) implicit in your response
> to the OP's is risibly complicated for the question at hand.
Get a clue, nowhere did I claim here that anything was "simpler".
Since when does it make sense to extract words from another post
and disengenuously attempt to apply them out of context elsewhere?
I post many types of responses, the simpler viewpoints being only
one small class. And, fyi, the fact that SIMPLER is uppercased is
not meant as a scream, but rather as a topic heading, just like
an uppercased REMARK, COROLLARY, etc. in a textbook. You will
find these too uppercased in my posts. Scream them if you like.
Finally, as I said in my other reply here, I believe it is very
important pedagogically to point students towards generalizations
to better help them comprehend the whole picture, even if they
might not be able to appreciate it fully till a later date. I've
learned some of the most beautiful ideas in mathematics in this
way of gradually evolving enlightenment (e.g. from lectures of
of many eminent mathematicians). I feel it is my duty to share
some of that beauty here. And I've received hundreds of personal
emails thanking me for sharing such beauty, so I know for a fact
the my efforts are not wasted. You have a lot of gall to complain
about such. If you have time to waste on such trivial matters why
don't you spend it more productively and complain to posters such
as Tonio, who flood the newsgroup with hundreds of worthless
posts taunting cranks - posts with zero mathematical content.
> Long tirades about typos in other people's responses do
> not change that, by the way ;-)
I have no idea what you are talking about. You must be confusing
me with somebody else. I do not recall ever authoring posts
such as "Long tirades about typos in other people's responses"
I usually don't post something here unless I deem it of nontrivial
mathematical substance (except as here when forced to by ridiculous
remarks such as yours). Please, let's get back to discussing real
mathematics instead of nonsense like this.
--Bill Dubuque
Michael Press
<a96ff1d7-8b44-4772...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Tonico <Toni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You think that someone's lazy if she/he is not willing to go across
> hundreds (literally) of post, which some times form loops and lead you
> back to a formarly visited post, and which some times ALSO do not
> contain the answer to some quest, as you agreeded yourself some weeks
> ago with some stuff "you still haven't worked out".
When _I_ follow the URLs that Bill quotes I strike gold
right away. Seldom go more than 3 deep, nor examine more
than a 8 posts, and often enough hit a duplicate or a
previously read post. Nothing wrong with hitting a loop.
Tells me I have mined out the vein.
"You think that someone's lazy if she/he is not willing to go across
hundreds (literally) of post" is a complete misrepresentation
of the actual state of affairs, and Bill's intentions.
--
Michael Press
Bill Dubuque
>
> you're stupid ... you're so lazy ... be honest ...
> You're a dishonest, whining, lazy cranklike sob ...
Most readers are here to discuss mathematics, not to engage in the
immature bickering that you seem to enjoy so much. If you indeed have
anything of mathematical substance to contribute to this thread then
please do so. Otherwise please go back to your favorite pastime of
bashing cranks. As amply demonstrated above, you do have those skills.
Pazuz...@gmail.com
>
> >>> A commutative ring A is called a principal ideal ring
> >>> if every ideal of A is principal.
>
> >>> Show that a quotient ring of a principal ideal ring
> >>> is principal ideal ring.
>
> >>> In fact, I want to know that Z_n is principal ideal ring.
> >>> so, If I can show above problem, this is trivial by Z/(nZ).
> >>> But... I can't. so, I need your advice.
>
> >> See my prior post
> >>http://google.com/groups?selm=y8z8yfyyhsn.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
>
> > Your prior post discusses (only) localization, whereas this question
> > is about passage to the quotient.
>
> > It is true that both localizations and quotients are instances of
> > homomorphisms f: R -> S such that every ideal of S is "extended from
> > R", i.e., of the form f(I)S with I an ideal of R, and that
> > whenever this happens and R is principal ideal ring, then so is S.
>
> Congratulations, you correctly comprehended my hint.
Congratulations for comprehending this part of my reply.
> > But as you don't say that in your post,
> > it seems unlikely to be helpful to the OP.
>
> Since neither you nor I know the mathematical background of the OP
> or other readers
What? The fact that someone writes in saying that they tried and
failed to
show that a quotient of a PIR is a PIR doesn't say anything about
their
mathematical background? It certainly said something to me and to
other
knowledgeable readers of this forum.
> such claims are unfounded in general.
Again, what? I didn't make a general claim. I said that context
clues suggest that this
particular person will not be helped by such an oblique reply. We
don't have to philosophize on this: we can find out:
To the OP -- did you find Bill Dubuque's reply helpful? Did you
understand it?
In this case what you said would only make sense to someone who
already knew the more advanced material you were
alluding to. One the one hand, I believe that it was advanced enough
to be unlikely to be helpful to the OP. On
the other hand, it's not like what you said is novel -- anyone who is
working in commutative algebra or related areas knows
it, and it is found in many standard texts, which also serve the
effect of preserving these ideas for posterity and are also either
available or becoming available on the internet.
I can see from your posts that you know a lot of algebra. In fact
some old posts show that you know more about some parts
of algebra than some other research mathematicians. But that's really
all I get from them -- I happen to know a lot of algebra too, so most
of
what you say is known to me, and if you were to refer to something
that was new to me as obliquely as in the present case I probably
wouldn't be
able to figure out what you're talking about either.
Do you do research in algebra? (This is not a rhetorical question; it
seems likely that you might, although you have no papers listed on
MathSciNet.)
If so, why not write it up in a way so that others can understand it
and other experts can react to it? What's so sacred about prior
UseNet posts?
> --Bill Dubuque
Tonico
> In article
> <a96ff1d7-8b44-4772-829c-5a868344b...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You think that someone's lazy if she/he is not willing to go across
> > hundreds (literally) of post, which some times form loops and lead you
> > back to a formarly visited post, and which some times ALSO do not
> > contain the answer to some quest, as you agreeded yourself some weeks
> > ago with some stuff "you still haven't worked out".
>
> When _I_ follow the URLs that Bill quotes I strike gold
> right away. Seldom go more than 3 deep, nor examine more
> than a 8 posts, and often enough hit a duplicate or a
> previously read post. Nothing wrong with hitting a loop.
> Tells me I have mined out the vein.
>
> "You think that someone's lazy if she/he is not willing to go across
> hundreds (literally) of post" is a complete misrepresentation
> of the actual state of affairs, and Bill's intentions.
>
********************************************************
I really don't know how can you know Bill's intentions for sure, but
if you say I'll take it from you.
He in fact wrote that in another forum when the same situation came
up: he answered a question in a way more complex and misleading way
than, apparently, the OP meant...and why "apparently"? Because the
OP's question was such that it was plain clear she/he had a rather
elementary maths level.
That time though (just 5-7 days ago) he also felt like offending some
other poster who answered that question...
Let it be clear: I honestly thing Bill may have some really cool stuff
that could help many, I included, to make some nice generalizations
some times. I DID write to him asking him for something, and I did NOT
find it in the galore of links I had to click on. Later, someone else
said he couldn't find that, or some other, thing, and Bill said then
that he hasn't yet worked out that thing: Why then, for the Great
Pumpkin's sake, do you send people to check tens, or hundreds, of
links, which sometimes lead nowhere?
That's all I've to say...but Bill doesn't like this, and then he gets
mad and mean, and then...etc.
He loves to make sure people knows he's made many generalizations of
many things. Fine, but he's not willing to organize his stuff and
present it in an ordered way. Fine, it's up to him...but then, when
he's told so, he gets mad and things get uglier.
A pity, really...
Regards
Tonio
Tonico
******************************************************
Well, well...you cut out some stuff in my responsae, uh? Oh, it never
mind.
The mathematical, accurate and pretty simple and elementary answer to
the OP's VERY basic question has already been given to her/him. The
mathematical substance needed is already there. No need to write it
again.
It is YOU, showing off your "generalizations" in such a way they
hardly make any sense to a basic level student's questions, that
prompt responses that some times you don't like.
Don't cry as a little baby when some people here, and in other forums,
write you back asking you for clarifications to your "see my prior
posts" nonsense, though.
Now it was the time someone like you, having generalizations and
further ideas around the subject could, graciously, lead us to your
site where that stuff is formally and easily findable and readable.
But you've chosen not to do so. Fine, it's up to you.
I honestly think you can teach us all some rather nice stuff that
either some of us don't know, or else enlight us in some
generalizations, algebraic tricks, etc. in more or less standard
stuff.
In fact, I publicly offer you here to help you out to organize and put
down all that stuff you have in some decent format in some site.
No kidding, no bluffing: write me to my personal e-address, or even
here, and we shall carry this thing out.
Regards
Tonio
Bill Dubuque
> He in fact wrote that in another forum when the same situation came
> up: he answered a question in a way more complex and misleading way
> than, apparently, the OP meant...and why "apparently"? Because the
> OP's question was such that it was plain clear she/he had a rather
> elementary maths level.
> That time though (just 5-7 days ago) he also felt like offending some
> other poster who answered that question...
In what imaginary world did that happen? How about a reference
to support that ridiculous unfounded claim. As usual, I think
you've made yet another error and confused me with someone else.
> I DID write to him asking him for something, and I did NOT
> find it in the galore of links I had to click on. Later, someone else
> said he couldn't find that, or some other, thing, and Bill said then
> that he hasn't yet worked out that thing
More lies and/or twisted self-serving characterizations of events.
Again, references?
> That's all I've to say...but Bill doesn't like this,
> and then he gets mad and mean, and then...etc.
Eh, have you ever seen me get mad? In fact I find you hilarious.
You are the most preposterous lunatic I've ever encountered in
almost three decades online. You may just yet earn the distinction
of being the first person ever to earn a coveted spot in my forever
empty killfile. If you keep up this lunacy there is no doubt that
the name "Jose Antonio Perez" will earn a place in history right
next to all the other infamous sci.math crackpots.
Tonico
> Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He in fact wrote that in another forum when the same situation came
> > up: he answered a question in a way more complex and misleading way
> > than, apparently, the OP meant...and why "apparently"? Because the
> > OP's question was such that it was plain clear she/he had a rather
> > elementary maths level.
> > That time though (just 5-7 days ago) he also felt like offending some
> > other poster who answered that question...
>
> In what imaginary world did that happen? How about a reference
> to support that ridiculous unfounded claim. As usual, I think
> you've made yet another error and confused me with someone else.
>
(1) Link: http://tinyurl.com/6e4c3r . The site is "Topology Q+A Board:
Ask an Algebraist", of York Univ.
This quote's date is july 7, 2008. The "lazy, obvious, sloppy" may
refer to me (Tonio), or (some of it, perhaps) may refer the poster you
were answering to. Perhaps this doesn't look offensive to you, whoever
you were referring to...?
Of course, you could say you were talking about me and not about
anyone else, and thus it is not "some other poster"...
****************************************************
> > I DID write to him asking him for something, and I did NOT
> > find it in the galore of links I had to click on. Later, someone else
> > said he couldn't find that, or some other, thing, and Bill said then
> > that he hasn't yet worked out that thing
>
> More lies and/or twisted self-serving characterizations of events.
> Again, references?
>
******************************************************
(2) Quote :
[Tonio] " > Thanx for the links. it's a little messy to follow those
(I already reached once 1999 and other time 2000...), so: do you have
some site where these techniques are written? For example, I tried to
read about the |Adj A| = |A|^(n-1) but I only found links to other
posts with links to other post with links to...*pant*. If all this is
more or less concentrated in some place, book or articles, it'd be
great. "
[Bill] That example I never elaborated on..."
It is from Jun 10, 1:35 AM, in the "Linear Algebra with eigenvalues
AB" thread in this very sci.math forum, post No. 18 (sorted by reply)
This thread is very interesting and, imo, enlightening about what
we've been talking about here, because of the participations of Bill,
Tonio and Arturo, and the opinions expressed there.
Again, you didn't right precisely "I haven't worked out that", but
rather "I never elaborated on"...my bad.
Pleaso do notice it was EXACTLY Adj A and related stuff that we were
talking about, and for what you send people to "prior posts". In post
No. 16 in the same thread, you wrote:
"Below is the link again. FOLLOW THE LINKS, in my prior posts below,
then follow links in these posts, etc, etc, to traverse the entire
tree of said prior posts.
There you'll find many similar examples, e.g. the Cayley-Hamilton
theorem; adj(A) = det(A)^(n-1); Leibniz's product rule for the
derivative of polynomials;..."
Wanna check again, Bill, about who you're accusing of lying?
***************************************************************
> > That's all I've to say...but Bill doesn't like this,
> > and then he gets mad and mean, and then...etc.
>
> Eh, have you ever seen me get mad? In fact I find you hilarious.
> You are the most preposterous lunatic I've ever encountered in
> almost three decades online. You may just yet earn the distinction
> of being the first person ever to earn a coveted spot in my forever
> empty killfile. If you keep up this lunacy there is no doubt that
> the name "Jose Antonio Perez" will earn a place in history right
> next to all the other infamous sci.math crackpots.
**************************************************************
Are you sure you still want to talk about crackpots, Bill?? I supose
that remark wasn't also intended to offend, uh? Oooo-kaaaay.
Regards
Tonio
Bill Dubuque
>>> He in fact wrote that in another forum when the same situation came
>>> up: he answered a question in a way more complex and misleading way
>>> than, apparently, the OP meant...and why "apparently"? Because the
>>> OP's question was such that it was plain clear she/he had a rather
>>> elementary maths level.
>>> That time though (just 5-7 days ago) he also felt like offending some
>>> other poster who answered that question...
>>
>> In what imaginary world did that happen? How about a reference
>> to support that ridiculous unfounded claim. As usual, I think
>> you've made yet another error and confused me with someone else.
>>
> Ask an Algebraist", of York Univ.
> refer to me (Tonio), or (some of it, perhaps) may refer the poster you
> were answering to. Perhaps this doesn't look offensive to you, whoever
> you were referring to...? Of course, you could say you were talking
> about me and not about anyone else, and thus it is not "some other poster"
All lies as I suspected. Nowhere in said post did "the same situation come
up" where I "answered a question in a way more complex and misleading way".
In fact I didn't answer any math question in that thread, I just corrected
yet another one of Tonico's numerous mathematical errors. Now we also learn
that the thread involved HIM (a fact which he _disingenuously_ hid in the
first paragraph quoted above) and it becomes clear that he's exercising a
grudge against me for pointing out his error. In the second paragraph
above he wrote "he also felt like offending some other poster". This can
only refer to my following remark, which I made to gp (and not to Tonio)
when we were discussing various issues around posting responsibilities
One should aim for some precision when teaching in a forum like
this. Further, one should aim to teach students how to write
mathematics. Certain posters have a habit of hastily composing
sloppy posts riddled with errors. They should not be surprised
when such posts are corrected for the sake of the students.
Above I was polite enough to even write in the abstract and not even
mention specific names. As it turns out, thanks to Tonico, I recently
inadvertently discovered who the worst offenders are here error-wise.
How? Well I happen to maintain a log file of various categories of
sci.math posts, including erroneous sci.math posts. Why errors?
Simply because I happen to have an interest in mathematical reasoning.
And examining errors often reveals interesting clues about pitfalls
in the reasoning process. Whenever I encounter a new person here I
often search my logs to attempt to obtain a quick profile of them,
e.g. what fields they might be interested in, what their level of
knowledge is, etc. Thus when Tonico recently appeared in my threads
ranting ridiculously about how hard he finds it to follow my links,
I searched for his posts in my logs, hoping to better understand what
might be motivating him. As it turns out his name appeared almost
exclusively in my errors log - far more often than anyone else there.
Browsing through his various posts there it is clear that in fact he
is well aware that he commits many errors, since he frequently
prefixes his posts with disclaimers warning of such, e.g.
Excerpts from sci.math posts of Jose Antonio Perez = Tonico = Tonio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I missed something here...Sorry, I completely misunderstood
... Indeed it was pretty elementary [1] http://tinyurl.com/57uvgp
It may well be I misunderstood some things [2] http://tinyurl.com/6fremu
I may be missing something basic here [3] http://tinyurl.com/59qvkn
I may be missing something here [4] http://tinyurl.com/67wg4h
I was TOO missing something [5] http://tinyurl.com/5tztwy
As usual I may be missing something [6] http://tinyurl.com/59md5s
That was a stupid mistake I made up there [7] http://tinyurl.com/5k28xf
etc, etc. Those are just a sample of the posts where he realized a priori
that he probably made an error. There are an order of magnitude more posts
where he makes significant errors and doesn't even realize it in advance.
I will spare him the embarrassment of listing every one of those here.
So when I happened to stumble upon his post in a thread I was browsing
on the "Ask an Algebraist" board, it was no surprise that I noticed yet
another mathematical error in that post. For the sake of the students,
I corrected it. Apparently the price I have to pay for this defense
of truth is to be stalked by him in all my current sci.math threads.
At least now the truth is plain as day for anyone who might care.
Of course I would have never even discovered any of this information
about Jose Antonio Perez if he hadn't behaved so ridiculously foolishly
when complaining about the links in my posts. It is his own fault that,
as a consequence, his dirty laundry is now plainly exposed to the world.
[0] http://at.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/bbqa?forum=ask_an_algebraist;task=show_msg;msg=1827.0001.0001.0001.0001.0002.0002.0001
[1] http://google.com/groups?selm=1160046334.164177.156020%40m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
[2] http://google.com/groups?selm=5a00aded-ee32-466b-8435-3487e5b60031%4079g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
[3] http://google.com/groups?selm=1162980604.054697.109000%40m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
[4] http://google.com/groups?selm=1160137528.705982.23500%40i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
[5] http://google.com/groups?selm=1105865041.950427.117800%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
[6] http://google.com/groups?selm=1163580175.548902.280950%40m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
[7] http://google.com/groups?selm=8c09f9d2.0401290226.43dc72ae%40posting.google.com
Tonico
***********************************************************
Bill, Bill...tsk,tsk,tsk...another lie, yet. I do not hold a grudge
against me for "pointing out an error", but for the way you tried to
do that, remember? Here, I remind you: you wrote to me
"As usual your post contains an error. The final "<==>" is false"
So don't play mother Therese now, hypocrite.
Aftert the above, I replied to you:
"As usual, and in at least two different maths forums, you give no
references, proofs and/or at least evidence to your claims, and then
it is utterly nonsense."
Apparently I hit a very exposed nerve there...sorry, want some
respect? Earn it, and begin by treating others as you'd like to be
treated.
*************************************************************
......[childish "nah-nah-nah, you suck, I rule!" ranting snipped]..
**************************************************************
Wow, Bill: you've really got a fixation there, uh? Well, ya know,
sometimes one just doesn't write down "follow the links to my prior
posts". Sometimes one actually tries to help people out here and
there.
It's easy to mislead people with "follow my prior posts" instead of
actually addressing the problem asked.
What about your "I never elaborated that one" thing? That you didn't
touch at all, uh? Another lie?
Regards
Tonio
Bill Dubuque
>
> Bill, Bill...tsk,tsk,tsk...another lie, yet. I do not
> hold a grudge against me for "pointing out an error"
I think you do hold a grudge against yourself for pointing out
your own errors - as I documented at length in my prior post.
You are a completely new class of lunatic. Since you have
obviously worked so hard to earn the coveted award, I offer
my best congratulations to you for being the first person
ever to earn a place in my previously empty killfile. *PLONK*
Dave L. Renfro
> Most readers are here to discuss mathematics,
> not to engage in the immature bickering that [...]
I just about wrote a reply saying that the sci.math
archives support the opposite, and then I realized
that the archives only support the opposite for
"most posters" (or, more accurately, "most posts"),
which conceivably could be a much different collection
of people than readers of sci.math. Indeed, I can
think of several posters who are probably not readers
at all (Jack Sarfatti, Archimedes Plutonium, etc.).
Dave L. Renfro
Bill Dubuque
I also collected some interesting statistics while I was
attempting to determine what could possibly be motivating
the loon Tonico to stalk me. I noticed that he spends an
unusually high percentage of his time bashing cranks,
at least 10% of his posts if not more. The only other
person that exceeds that is Uncle Al, at about 22%.
So I decided to examine the percentage of crank-bashing
posts for many frequent posters. Not too surprisingly
there seems to be a high-correlation between crank-bashing
and generally low-quality posts. Almost all professional
mathematicians here have a crank bashing percentage (CRAP)
below 2%, with most well under 1%. Perhaps someday I'll
post the CRAP table here since it might prove useful for
constructing killfiles, etc.
--Bill Dubuque
Michael Press
<cc0ca41e-777e-4b23...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Tonico <Toni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2:41�am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a96ff1d7-8b44-4772-829c-5a868344b...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You think that someone's lazy if she/he is not willing to go across
> > > hundreds (literally) of post, which some times form loops and lead you
> > > back to a formarly visited post, and which some times ALSO do not
> > > contain the answer to some quest, as you agreeded yourself some weeks
> > > ago with some stuff "you still haven't worked out".
> >
> > When _I_ follow the URLs that Bill quotes I strike gold
> > right away. Seldom go more than 3 deep, nor examine more
> > than a 8 posts, and often enough hit a duplicate or a
> > previously read post. Nothing wrong with hitting a loop.
> > Tells me I have mined out the vein.
> >
> > "You think that someone's lazy if she/he is not willing to go across
> > hundreds (literally) of post" is a complete misrepresentation
> > of the actual state of affairs, and Bill's intentions.
[...]
> He loves to make sure people knows he's made many generalizations of
> many things. Fine, but he's not willing to organize his stuff and
> present it in an ordered way.
I find the material is very well organized.
Each message has a complete argument.
That message may be linked to other messages
with related complete arguments.
--
Michael Press
Bill Dubuque
> I can see from your posts that you know a lot of algebra. In fact
> some old posts show that you know more about some parts of algebra
> than some other research mathematicians. But that's really all
> I get from them -- I happen to know a lot of algebra too, so most
> of what you say is known to me, and if you were to refer to something
> that was new to me as obliquely as in the present case I probably
> wouldn't be able to figure out what you're talking about either.
>
> Do you do research in algebra? (This is not a rhetorical question;
> it seems likely that you might, although you have no papers listed
> on MathSciNet.) If so, why not write it up in a way so that others
> can understand it and other experts can react to it? What's so
> sacred about prior UseNet posts?
It's not clear to me what really is the point of your above remarks.
If you have somehow become confused into thinking that the purpose
of some of my prior posts is to make priority claims and/or show off
what I might (mistakenly) believe to be original research then you
could not be more mistaken. I point out generalizations, related
topics, etc. primarily because I believe that they have extremely
high pedagogical value. If I have already discussed some topic here
before then I simply link to it. This saves me time (so that I have
more time left to help others) and, just as importantly, eliminates
duplicate posts in the archive - which can greatly obscure search
results when one is searching for answers on topics (as one should
always do before asking a question).
I suspect that the major reason for all this confusion stems from
a basic difference in viewpoint on the function of this newsgroup.
I view it as an evolving body of mathematical knowledge, whereas
some others view it much more ephemerally. Thus, e.g. in the case
at hand, even if my linked post did turn out to be way over the head
of the OP, it still may have proved enlightening to other readers,
both presently and in the future (via archive searches). Moreover,
such links also serve nicely as references to prior related threads.
It never occurred to me that someone might misinterpret my posts in
some self-serving manner. Hopefully these remarks serve to clear up
any possible misconceptions about my motivations.
--Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
>
> I also collected some interesting statistics [...]
> So I decided to examine the percentage of crank-bashing
> posts for many frequent posters. Not too surprisingly
> there seems to be a high-correlation between crank-bashing
> and generally low-quality posts. Almost all professional
> mathematicians here have a crank bashing percentage (CRAP)
> below 2%, with most well under 1%. Perhaps someday I'll
> post the CRAP table here since it might prove useful for
> constructing killfiles, etc.
Ok, see [2] for a more extensive version of said table
(it was constructed circa July 2008).
[1] http://google.com/groups?selm=y8zwsjtbxmf.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
[2] http://google.com/groups?selm=y8z1vtxpjbt.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu