Lynn Killingbeck's dishonesty
Pertti Lounesto
0. On Mar 17, Brett George poses the question:
> Is there a method (or identity) in which you could solve the matrix
> problem inv(A+B), in terms of A,B,inv(A) and inv(B)?
>
> I need this because inv(A) and inv(B) are easy to solve, while there
> sum is not.
1. On Mar 18, Virgil claims falsely that inv(A+B) cannot be expressed
in terms of the matrices A, B, inv(A) and inv(B).
2. Several posters agree with Virgil.
3. On Mar 18, Lounesto corrects Virgil's blunder in a one-line posting:
> Wrong. inv(A+B) = inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A) B inv(A)+...
which contained a sign-error and made no mention of convergence.
4. Over 100 posters rush to point out a sign error of Lounesto.
5. Many posters condemn Lounesto for making a mistake about
convergence, although Lounesto did not mention convergence.
6. Over 100 imposters claim that they would have detected
the mistake of Virgil, although they did not.
7. On Mar 19, Lynn Killingbeck label's Lounesto's non-existing
commentary/mistake on convergence as "horrible".
8. On Mar 19, Killingbeck makes a mistake about convergence,
see below.
9. Over 100 imposters fail to detect Killingbeck's mistake.
10. On Mar 25, Paul Jacobson evaluates "Pertti's solution (as
amended by others) is the most useful one."
11. Dullrich posters rush to condemn Jacobson.
12. On Mar 26, Lounesto gives a counterexample to Killingbeck,
see below.
13. Dullrich imposters continue their convengeance expedition.
14. On Apr 30, Doug Norris admits the mistake of Killingbeck, and
claims that he would have detected the mistake, although he did not.
15. Then, the same day, Killingbeck rushes to admit, for the first
time, his mistake of Mar 19 about convergence.
16. Killingbeck argues that other posters found Killingbeck's mistake
before Lounesto.
17. Killingbeck fails to point out a single poster, who would have
detected Killingbeck's mistake before Lounesto.
18. Killingbeck fails to thank Lounesto for bringing Killingbeck's
mistake to Killingbeck's attention.
19. Killingbeck fails to understand that his dishonesty in (16) was
a preparatory action to carry out (18).
20. On Apr 30, instead of thanking Lounesto, Killingbeck accuses
Lounesto about rambling and obsessing about Killingbeck's mistake,
but forgets his own rambling and obsession about Lounesto's
non-existing mistake on a matter which Lounesto did not comment.
On Mar 19, Lynn Killingbeck first accuses Lounesto about an
"horrible" "blunder" on convergence:
> There is the constraint about existence of A, B, A', and B'.
> Even after fixing the sign mistake, the series clearly fails
> for A=B=1. But, others have already beat down the blunder
> about convergence considerations. A=1, B=2 fails
> horribly, because of failure to consider convergence.
On Mar 26, Lounesto gives a counterexample to Killingbeck:
> f(A,B) = inv(A)-inv(A) B inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A) B inv(A)-+...
>
> On Mar 19, Killingbeck errs about convergence:
>
> > My own intuition is that, if there is some norm N() such that
> > N(B)<N(A), then the technique converges. If the strict
> > inequality is the other direction, interchange A<->B.
> > If N(A)=N(B), I give up. All by analogy to the expansion
> > of 1/(1+x)=1-x+x^2-x^3+-... converging for |x|<1.
>
> Wrong. Counterexample A = [2 0,0 1/2] and B = I. The spectral
> radius of B*inv(A) is 2, and interchanging the roles of A and B does
> not change the situation, that is, both f(A,B) and f(B,A) diverge.
Those who want to know more about the role of counterexamples
in mathematics, are invited to point their browser to:
Pertti Lounesto
20. On Apr 30, instead of thanking Lounesto for correcting his
misconception and instead of apologizing Lounesto for accusing
Lounesto unfoundedly, Killingbeck accuses Lounesto about
rambling and obsessing about Killingbeck's mistake, but forgets
his own rambling and obsession about Lounesto's non-existing
mistake on a matter which Lounesto did not comment.
On Mar 19, Lynn Killingbeck first accuses Lounesto about an
"horrible" "blunder" on convergence:
> There is the constraint about existence of A, B, A', and B'.
> Even after fixing the sign mistake, the series clearly fails
> for A=B=1. But, others have already beat down the blunder
> about convergence considerations. A=1, B=2 fails
> horribly, because of failure to consider convergence.
On Mar 26, Lounesto gives a counterexample to Killingbeck:
> f(A,B) = inv(A)-inv(A) B inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A) B inv(A)-+...
>
> On Mar 19, Killingbeck errs about convergence:
>
> > My own intuition is that, if there is some norm N() such that
> > N(B)<N(A), then the technique converges. If the strict
> > inequality is the other direction, interchange A<->B.
> > If N(A)=N(B), I give up. All by analogy to the expansion
> > of 1/(1+x)=1-x+x^2-x^3+-... converging for |x|<1.
>
> Wrong. Counterexample A = [2 0,0 1/2] and B = I. The spectral
> radius of B*inv(A) is 2, and interchanging the roles of A and B does
> not change the situation, that is, both f(A,B) and f(B,A) diverge.
On Apr 30 Lynn Killingbeck rambles and obsesses:
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> >
> > (kookie ramblings snipped)
>
> Hot damn, I got my name in a kookie header! Into PL's kookie jar!
>
> You just ain't looking very hard, if that's the worst of my posting
> mistakes. But, you will have to do your own homework. Seems to me that
> several others pointed out that my intuition was wrong, too. Won't be
> the first time. Won't be the last time. Some of us just don't obsess
> about it. But, thanks again for including my name with some really
great
> mathematicians who post useful mathematics to this newsgroup!
Erik Max Francis
> Thread: solving: inv(A+B)
Nobody cares, you big baby.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.269 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 246 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| Crank Dot Net -- http://www.crank.net/
__
/ \ Love is the selfishness of two persons.
\__/ Antoine de la Salle
Doug Norris
>4. Over 100 posters rush to point out a sign error of Lounesto.
WRONG, you pompous boob. I want a list of one hundred DISTINCT posters
that pointed out your sign error, with references.
I'm sure that you're capable of coming up with this list, you lunatic.
Doug
Pertti Lounesto
for their kind co-operation on responding to my posting below
and supporting my main claim about dishonesty of Lynn
Killingbeck. Killingbeck claimed untruthfully that other posters
detected Killinbeck's error before Lounesto, but failed to name
anybody as the detector (see the case 17 below). By refraining
from naming anybody else as a detector, JRR & EMF & DN
supported Lounesto's argument about Killingbeck's dishonesty.
On Apr 30 Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> Thread: solving: inv(A+B)
>
> 0. On Mar 17, Brett George poses the question:
> > Is there a method (or identity) in which you could solve the matrix
> > problem inv(A+B), in terms of A,B,inv(A) and inv(B)?
> >
> > I need this because inv(A) and inv(B) are easy to solve, while there
> > sum is not.
>
> 1. On Mar 18, Virgil claims falsely that inv(A+B) cannot be expressed
> in terms of the matrices A, B, inv(A) and inv(B).
> 2. Several posters agree with Virgil.
> 3. On Mar 18, Lounesto corrects Virgil's blunder in a one-line posting:
>
> > Wrong. inv(A+B) = inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A) B inv(A)+...
>
> which contained a sign-error and made no mention of convergence.
> 4. Over 100 posters rush to point out a sign error of Lounesto.
Erik Max Francis
> I thank John R Ramsden, Erik Max Francis and Doug Norris
> for their kind co-operation on responding to my posting below
> and supporting my main claim about dishonesty of Lynn
> Killingbeck. Killingbeck claimed untruthfully that other posters
> detected Killinbeck's error before Lounesto, but failed to name
> anybody as the detector (see the case 17 below). By refraining
> from naming anybody else as a detector, JRR & EMF & DN
> supported Lounesto's argument about Killingbeck's dishonesty.
You have a strange definition of "supported," whacko.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.284 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| blackgirl international -- http://www.blackgirl.org/
__
/ \ Every exit is an entry somewhere else.
\__/ Tom Stoppard
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
> > I thank John R Ramsden, Erik Max Francis and Doug Norris
> > for their kind co-operation on responding to my posting below
> > and supporting my main claim about dishonesty of Lynn
> > Killingbeck. Killingbeck claimed untruthfully that other posters
> > detected Killinbeck's error before Lounesto, but failed to name
> > anybody as the detector (see the case 17 below). By refraining
> > from naming anybody else as a detector, JRR & EMF & DN
> > supported Lounesto's argument about Killingbeck's dishonesty.
>
> You have a strange definition of "supported," whacko.
I have the usual definition of "supported", as used in
scientific debates: An argument is presented for the
purpose of being tested by counterarguments. If an
argument is responded, but not falsified, the argument
has passed a test. As such, it is more credible than
an untested argument. In other words, your response,
which did not falsify my argument, added credibility
of my argument, and thus supported my argument.
Do I understand that you did not intend to support?
Erik Max Francis
> I have the usual definition of "supported", as used in
> scientific debates: An argument is presented for the
> purpose of being tested by counterarguments. If an
> argument is responded, but not falsified, the argument
> has passed a test. As such, it is more credible than
> an untested argument. In other words, your response,
> which did not falsify my argument, added credibility
> of my argument, and thus supported my argument.
>
> Do I understand that you did not intend to support?
Nice job, Mr. Misrepresentation. So anyone who does not provide a
counterexample is a supporter?
Stop acting like an idiot, Lounesto, you're not impressing anyone.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.289 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| REALpolitik -- http://www.realpolitik.com/
__
/ \ 'Tis man's to fight, but Heaven's to give success.
\__/ Homer
Doug Norris
>Do I understand that you did not intend to support?
The last time I supported you was when you said that you'd be leaving this
newsgroup. Apparently, you're a liar as well as a lunatic.
Doug
John R Ramsden
>
> I thank John R Ramsden, Erik Max Francis and Doug Norris
> for their kind co-operation on responding to my posting
> below and supporting my main claim about dishonesty of
> Lynn Killingbeck.
Pertti, let me say yet again (and this time it might help if you
move your finger along the line as you read it), I didn't comment
on your claim about Lynn! I was only trying to help you with your
vocabulary.
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R Ramsden (j...@redmink.demon.co.uk)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed.
St Augustine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Norris
>On Apr 30, in the evening, Doug Norris wrote:
>> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> writes:
>>
>> >Do I understand that you did not intend to support?
>>
>> The last time I supported you was when you said
>> [something a month ago]
Pertti, there must be something wrong with your newsreader. What I *said*
was:
"The last time I supported you was when you said that you were leaving."
I don't know what the libel laws in Finland are, but if you keep this
up, you can guarantee that I'll find out.
Doug
Jake Wildstrom
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
>> I thank John R Ramsden, Erik Max Francis and Doug Norris
>> for their kind co-operation on responding to my posting below
>> and supporting my main claim about dishonesty of Lynn
>> detected Killinbeck's error before Lounesto, but failed to name
>> anybody as the detector (see the case 17 below). By refraining
>> from naming anybody else as a detector, JRR & EMF & DN
>> supported Lounesto's argument about Killingbeck's dishonesty.
>
>You have a strange definition of "supported," whacko.
Actually, it follows from Hempel's paradox, kind of. The premise of the paradox
is that, if we suppose a scientific law saying "All crows are black", this is
logically equivalent to "if something is a crow, it is black", whose
contrapositive is "if something is not black, than it ins not a crow", so
every non-black thing which isn't a crow supports the assertion.
So how does that tie to "supporting" PL's claim? Well, let's suppose PL said
"Killingbeck's post #n is wrong". Logically, as above, this is the same as
saying "All correct things are not Killingbeck's post #n". Thus, claiming that
any non-Killingbeck post was correct is, from a purely logic-based perspective,
support for PL's claim.
Pure nonsense, of course. I can support anything I want in that manner. For
instance, I can claim that Pertti Lounesto is a cucumber (whether this cucumber
has supernatural powers is a moot point). By examining a great many
non-cucumbers which aren't PL, I can quickly produce massive, damning evidence
that he is, in fact a cucumber. Or anything else.
A cucumber with supernatural powers would actually make for a pretty good comic
book, come to think of it.
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Richard Carr
:Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 02:03:12 +0200
:From: Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Lynn Killingbeck's dishonesty
:
:Doug Norris wrote:
:
:> I don't know what the libel laws in Finland are, but if
:> you keep this up, you can guarantee that I'll find out.
:
:The address of the local District Attorney is
:
:Helsingin kihlakunnansyytt"aj"anvirasto
:Pasilanraitio 11
:FIN-00240 Helsinki, Finland
:
:Direct your libel to the attorney P"äivi Karkela-Aho,
:who accused me unfoundedly, on Aug 7, 1996,
:about a crime I did not commit, and she knew
:that I did not commit it. The judge was Vesa
:Komulainen, who quitted me, but explained the
:false accusation of Karkela-Aho on the best.
:I wrote to the Highest Court of Finland, and asked
:for a punishment to both Karkela-Aho and Komulainen,
:but the Highest Court did not accept my requirement,
:because I was quitted.
So you are really vindictive enough that you even want to punish the judge
who (presumably ac)quitted you? I hate to think what you might have done
if you'd been found guilty.
:
:Of course, you might also ask NATO to bomb
:the local courts in Helsinki, instead of Kosovo.
:
Doug Norris
>Of course, you might also ask NATO to bomb
>the local courts in Helsinki, instead of Kosovo.
That'd be throwing out the baby with the Pertti-water.
Mr. Lounesto, you're treading on thin ice here - there are things you
can get away with on Usenet, and there are things you cannot do. Libelling
people is in the second category.
You've claimed that I am not a good mathematician. Lest you find out
what I *am* good at, you'd be best advised to call off the dogs.
Doug
Richard Carr
:15. Then, the same day, Killingbeck rushes to admit, for the first
: time, his mistake of Mar 19 about convergence.
Is Lynn male then? I'd always assumed Lynn was female- if only because the
only male Lynn I've ever heard of is Lynn Davies.
Erik Max Francis
> The subject of this thread is possible dishonesty of Killingbeck.
I'm sure that's why you created it. The problem is that nobody gives a
shit. Do you understand yet? Nobody cares to discuss the truth of
falsity of your statement. Therefore nobody is agreeing with you. They
simply don't care. Do you understand now? Are you really this
retarded?
> I claim that Killingbeck is a liar.
No. Body. Cares.
Shut. Up.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.298 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| Interstelen -- http://www.interstelen.com/
__
/ \ Seat thyself sultanically among the moons of Saturn.
\__/ Herman Melville
Erik Max Francis
> Direct your libel to the attorney P"äivi Karkela-Aho,
> who accused me unfoundedly, on Aug 7, 1996,
> about a crime I did not commit, and she knew
> that I did not commit it.
hahah. As if we couldn't guess that Lounest has had run-ins with court
proceedings.
Erik Max Francis
> Actually, it follows from Hempel's paradox, kind of. The premise of
> the paradox
> is that, if we suppose a scientific law saying "All crows are black",
> this is
> logically equivalent to "if something is a crow, it is black", whose
> contrapositive is "if something is not black, than it ins not a crow",
> so
> every non-black thing which isn't a crow supports the assertion.
The problem is that nobody was even addressing the validity of his
claim. People were just telling him to shut up. That's a metaargument;
it has no relevance on his assertion whatsoever.
"Person X is a liar!"
"Cram it."
"So you support me then!"
Richard Carr
:Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 03:12:34 +0200
:From: Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Lynn Killingbeck's dishonesty
:
:Richard Carr wrote:
:
:
:In my mother tongue, Finnish, there is only one word
:common for both he and she. So, I cannot always make
:the distinction between he and she - words of English.
:
If you cannot tell the distinction between his and her then your English
is as bad as your personality.
Erik Max Francis
[repairing mutilated attributions]
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> > Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> >
> > > I claim that Killingbeck is a liar.
> >
> > No. Body. Cares.
> >
> > Shut. Up.
>
> If you don't care, why do you respond with name calling? If Lounesto
> is
> wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not immature namecalling.
Where is the namecalling? I'm telling him that nobody cares, and
telling him to shut up. That's not namecalling.
It's ironic that you're accusing me of namecalling, when you quote
Lounesto calling Killingbeck a "liar."
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.305 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| Interstelen -- http://www.interstelen.com/
__
/ \ The chicken was the egg's idea of getting more eggs.
\__/ Samuel Butler
David C. Ullrich
<Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>Thread: solving: inv(A+B)
>
>0. On Mar 17, Brett George poses the question:
>> Is there a method (or identity) in which you could solve the matrix
>> problem inv(A+B), in terms of A,B,inv(A) and inv(B)?
>>
>> I need this because inv(A) and inv(B) are easy to solve, while there
>> sum is not.
>
>1. On Mar 18, Virgil claims falsely that inv(A+B) cannot be expressed
> in terms of the matrices A, B, inv(A) and inv(B).
>2. Several posters agree with Virgil.
>3. On Mar 18, Lounesto corrects Virgil's blunder in a one-line posting:
>
>> Wrong. inv(A+B) = inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A) B inv(A)+...
>
>which contained a sign-error and made no mention of convergence.
>4. Over 100 posters rush to point out a sign error of Lounesto.
>5. Many posters condemn Lounesto for making a mistake about
> convergence, although Lounesto did not mention convergence.
Um, no, you did not mention convergence in your
_original_ post. The error is not that you did not mention
convergence, the point is that what you said is simply not true.
False. Wrong. Incorrect. An _error_. What you said (with the
sign error corrected) is true for _some_ matrices, but not
for all.
Then in a later post, after the problem about convergence
had been pointed out, you _did_ mention convergence, _incredibly_
saying that the series _did_ converge in some other norm.
>6. Over 100 imposters claim that they would have detected
> the mistake of Virgil, although they did not.
>7. On Mar 19, Lynn Killingbeck label's Lounesto's non-existing
> commentary/mistake on convergence as "horrible".
Like if it was a question about expressing (a+b)^2
in terms of monomials in a and b, and I said that
(a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2.
That would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for SOME numbers
a and b, if I suggest it as a way to simplify (a+b)^2 I
have commited an ERROR, because it is only true for
SOME numbers. Just like what you said about Inv(A+B)
is only true for SOME matrices - that's why it was
ERRONEOUS.
>8. On Mar 19, Killingbeck makes a mistake about convergence,
> see below.
>9. Over 100 imposters fail to detect Killingbeck's mistake.
>
>10. On Mar 25, Paul Jacobson evaluates "Pertti's solution (as
> amended by others) is the most useful one."
>
>11. Dullrich posters rush to condemn Jacobson.
What a fucking asshole you are, making up these
silly names for people.
More to the point: I did not rush to condemn
anyone, I pointed out that calling it _your_ solution
was unfair to the two other people who had simultaneously
posted CORRECT versions of the same solution.
At which point you assumed I was talking about
corrections to your post, showing that you think that
nobody else knows what the sum of a geometric series
is. So I pointed out that I was not referring to
corrected versions of your post, I was referring
to independent, simultaneous (and also CORRECT)
versions of the same answer.
Really. Of the three people who suggested
the geometric series might be useful here you're
the only one who made two errors. And that's
how it came to be thought of as "your" solution.
Makes a person wonder.
>12. On Mar 26, Lounesto gives a counterexample to Killingbeck,
> see below.
>13. Dullrich imposters continue their convengeance expedition.
>14. On Apr 30, Doug Norris admits the mistake of Killingbeck, and
> claims that he would have detected the mistake, although he did not.
>15. Then, the same day, Killingbeck rushes to admit, for the first
> time, his mistake of Mar 19 about convergence.
>16. Killingbeck argues that other posters found Killingbeck's mistake
> before Lounesto.
>17. Killingbeck fails to point out a single poster, who would have
> detected Killingbeck's mistake before Lounesto.
>18. Killingbeck fails to thank Lounesto for bringing Killingbeck's
> mistake to Killingbeck's attention.
>19. Killingbeck fails to understand that his dishonesty in (16) was
> a preparatory action to carry out (18).
>20. On Apr 30, instead of thanking Lounesto for correcting his
> misconception and instead of apologizing Lounesto for accusing
> Lounesto unfoundedly, Killingbeck accuses Lounesto about
> rambling and obsessing about Killingbeck's mistake, but forgets
> his own rambling and obsession about Lounesto's non-existing
> mistake on a matter which Lounesto did not comment.
No, you did not comment on convergence. Which is exactly
half of what was WRONG with your solution.
In case you missed it the first 17 times: The formula
you gave is simply FALSE. Even with the sign corrected, it's
still FALSE. To make it true you need to say something about
for which matrices it holds.
If you're not going to specify for which matrices
it holds then the most charitable interpretation is that
you meant to say that it holds for SOME matrices. It's true
that "your" formula holds for SOME matrices. It's also
true that
Inv(A+B) = A + BA - 17BB
holds for SOME matrices. That doesn't make
"Inv(A+B) = A + BA - 17BB" a correct answer to
the question.
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
> > I have the usual definition of "supported", as used in
> > scientific debates: An argument is presented for the
> > purpose of being tested by counterarguments. If an
> > argument is responded, but not falsified, the argument
> > has passed a test. As such, it is more credible than
> > an untested argument. In other words, your response,
> > which did not falsify my argument, added credibility
> > of my argument, and thus supported my argument.
> >
> > Do I understand that you did not intend to support?
>
> Nice job, Mr. Misrepresentation. So anyone who
> does not provide a counterexample is a supporter?
>
> Stop acting like an idiot, Lounesto, you're not impressing anyone.
The subject of this thread is possible dishonesty of Killingbeck.
I argue that I was the first one to detect Killingbeck's mistake
of Mar 19. I showed Killingbeck wrong on Mar 26, and
Killingbeck admitted being wrong on Apr 30. The same day,
Killingbeck tried to take away glory from me, by claiming that
someone else detected Killingbeck's mistake before me.
I claim that Killingbeck is a liar. My claim is falsifiable, and
as such scientific. Anybody can falsify my claim by giving
the date of a posting and a name of a poster, who detected
Killingbeck's mistake before me. If my claim is not falsified,
I remain confident that Killingbeck is generally regarded as
liar by all posters of sci.math.
On Apr 30 Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> Thread: solving: inv(A+B)
>
> 0. On Mar 17, Brett George poses the question:
> > Is there a method (or identity) in which you could solve the matrix
> > problem inv(A+B), in terms of A,B,inv(A) and inv(B)?
> >
> > I need this because inv(A) and inv(B) are easy to solve, while there
> > sum is not.
>
> 1. On Mar 18, Virgil claims falsely that inv(A+B) cannot be expressed
> in terms of the matrices A, B, inv(A) and inv(B).
> 2. Several posters agree with Virgil.
> 3. On Mar 18, Lounesto corrects Virgil's blunder in a one-line posting:
>
> > Wrong. inv(A+B) = inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A) B inv(A)+...
>
> which contained a sign-error and made no mention of convergence.
> 4. Over 100 posters rush to point out a sign error of Lounesto.
> 5. Many posters condemn Lounesto for making a mistake about
> convergence, although Lounesto did not mention convergence.
> 6. Over 100 imposters claim that they would have detected
> the mistake of Virgil, although they did not.
> 7. On Mar 19, Lynn Killingbeck label's Lounesto's non-existing
> commentary/mistake on convergence as "horrible".
> 8. On Mar 19, Killingbeck makes a mistake about convergence,
> see below.
> 9. Over 100 imposters fail to detect Killingbeck's mistake.
>
> 10. On Mar 25, Paul Jacobson evaluates "Pertti's solution (as
> amended by others) is the most useful one."
>
> 11. Dullrich posters rush to condemn Jacobson.
> 12. On Mar 26, Lounesto gives a counterexample to Killingbeck,
> see below.
> 13. Dullrich imposters continue their convengeance expedition.
> 14. On Apr 30, Doug Norris admits the mistake of Killingbeck, and
> claims that he would have detected the mistake, although he did not.
> 15. Then, the same day, Killingbeck rushes to admit, for the first
> time, his mistake of Mar 19 about convergence.
> 16. Killingbeck argues that other posters found Killingbeck's mistake
> before Lounesto.
> 17. Killingbeck fails to point out a single poster, who would have
> detected Killingbeck's mistake before Lounesto.
> 18. Killingbeck fails to thank Lounesto for bringing Killingbeck's
> mistake to Killingbeck's attention.
> 19. Killingbeck fails to understand that his dishonesty in (16) was
> a preparatory action to carry out (18).
> 20. On Apr 30, instead of thanking Lounesto for correcting his
> misconception and instead of apologizing Lounesto for accusing
> Lounesto unfoundedly, Killingbeck accuses Lounesto about
> rambling and obsessing about Killingbeck's mistake, but forgets
> his own rambling and obsession about Lounesto's non-existing
> mistake on a matter which Lounesto did not comment.
>
>
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> writes:
>
> >Do I understand that you did not intend to support?
>
> The last time I supported you was when you said
> [something a month ago]
The last time you supported me was this morning, when
you admitted that Killingbeck was wrong in his claim
about convergence on, Mar 19. After your admission,
Killingbeck rushed to admit his blunder, the same day.
On Apr 30, in the morning, Doug Norris admitted:
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
> > Does your vision [ ] reach the math-mistake of Killingbeck?
>
> Yes, because there are several people down the hall that could
> find this mistake.
Why did nobody down the hall report about Killingbeck's
mistake (of Mar 19) before I exposed it (on Mar 26)? Why
didn't you admit Killingbeck's mistake before Apr 30?
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
> >
> > I thank John R Ramsden, Erik Max Francis and Doug Norris
> > for their kind co-operation on responding to my posting
> > below and supporting my main claim about dishonesty of
> > Lynn Killingbeck.
>
> Pertti, let me say yet again (and this time it might help if you
> move your finger along the line as you read it), I didn't comment
> on your claim about Lynn!
Exactly! You responded to my article, which argued that Lynn
is a liar, when he claims that somebody else detected his error
(of Mar 19) before me (on Mar 26), but fails to provide the name
of that "somebody". While you did not provide the name of
any "somebody" either, in your response, I have reason to believe
that there is no "somebody", who would be more vigilant than
myself in detecting errors about convergence of series.
John, the fact that you did not provide a name of "somebody"
in your posting, quoted above, makes me even more
confident about Lynn Killinbeck being a liar.
Pertti Lounesto
> I don't know what the libel laws in Finland are, but if
> you keep this up, you can guarantee that I'll find out.
The address of the local District Attorney is
Helsingin kihlakunnansyytt"aj"anvirasto
Pasilanraitio 11
FIN-00240 Helsinki, Finland
Direct your libel to the attorney P"äivi Karkela-Aho,
who accused me unfoundedly, on Aug 7, 1996,
about a crime I did not commit, and she knew
that I did not commit it. The judge was Vesa
Komulainen, who quitted me, but explained the
false accusation of Karkela-Aho on the best.
I wrote to the Highest Court of Finland, and asked
for a punishment to both Karkela-Aho and Komulainen,
but the Highest Court did not accept my requirement,
because I was quitted.
Of course, you might also ask NATO to bomb
Pertti Lounesto
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
> :15. Then, the same day, Killingbeck rushes to admit, for the first
> : time, his mistake of Mar 19 about convergence.
>
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> >
> > (rant snipped)
>
> I'm going to hurt myself if I laugh any harder!
>
> Off for a meal of kooked kabbage with kookies and kreme for desert!
>
> Lynn Killingbeck
>
> P.S. You forgot to include, in you chronology, the date when you decided
> to attract extra derision by nominating people as kooks! That really,
> really is too important an item to leave out!
I notice that Lynn Killingbeck responses to my posting,
but fails to present any names to support his/her claim
that somebody else would have detected Killingbeck's
mistake of Mar 19, before I exposed it, on Mar 26.
The question number 1 of this thread is:
Was Lounesto the first one to expose Killingbeck's blunder?
Up till today, the following persons have contributed to
this thread, without being able to give a name of an
assumed error-detector, who might have preceded
Lounesto in falsifying Killingbeck's result on convergence:
Lynn Killinbeck, Erik Max Francis, Doug Norris, Jack
Wildstrom, John Ramsden, Richard Carr. Quite a catch
on the first day, alone.
The question number 2 of this thread is:
Is Lynn Killingbeck lying about somebody beating Lounesto
as an error-detector, on errors of convergence by Killingbeck?
On Mar 19, Lynn Killingbeck first accuses Lounesto about an
"horrible" "blunder" on convergence:
> There is the constraint about existence of A, B, A', and B'.
> Even after fixing the sign mistake, the series clearly fails
> for A=B=1. But, others have already beat down the blunder
> about convergence considerations. A=1, B=2 fails
> horribly, because of failure to consider convergence.
On Mar 26, Lounesto gives a counterexample to Killingbeck:
> f(A,B) = inv(A)-inv(A) B inv(A)+inv(A) B inv(A) B inv(A)-+...
>
> On Mar 19, Killingbeck errs about convergence:
>
> > My own intuition is that, if there is some norm N() such that
> > N(B)<N(A), then the technique converges. If the strict
> > inequality is the other direction, interchange A<->B.
> > If N(A)=N(B), I give up. All by analogy to the expansion
> > of 1/(1+x)=1-x+x^2-x^3+-... converging for |x|<1.
>
> Wrong. Counterexample A = [2 0,0 1/2] and B = I. The spectral
> radius of B*inv(A) is 2, and interchanging the roles of A and B does
> not change the situation, that is, both f(A,B) and f(B,A) diverge.
On Apr 30 Lynn Killingbeck claims that Lounesto was not the first
one to detect Killinbeck's mistake of Mar 19::
Peter Johnston
wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not immature namecalling.
>
> > I claim that Killingbeck is a liar.
>
> No. Body. Cares.
>
> Shut. Up.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
> Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.298 Ms p.L.
> San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
> __________________| Interstelen -- http://www.interstelen.com/
> __
Pertti Lounesto
> Are you really this retarded?
>
> > I claim that Killingbeck is a liar.
>
> No. Body. Cares.
>
> Shut. Up.
Erik Max Francis then asks Johnston and claims:
> Peter Johnston wrote:
>
> > If you don't care, why do you respond with name calling?
> > If Lounesto is wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not
> > immature namecalling.
>
> Where is the namecalling? I'm telling him that nobody cares,
> and telling him to shut up. That's not namecalling.
>
> It's ironic that you're accusing me of namecalling, when you
> quote Lounesto calling Killingbeck a "liar."
Erik Max Francis failed to shut up Lounesto by sourced facts.
This is what happened:
1. Killingbeck makes a mistake about convergence, on Mar 19.
2. Lounesto offers a counterexample to Killingbeck, on Mar 26.
3. Killingbeck admits being mistaken about convergence, on Apr 30.
4. On Apr 30, Killingbeck argues that somebody else exposed
Killingbeck of mistake-making before Lounesto.
5. On Apr 30, Lounesto asks for sourced facts: the name of the
one who beat Lounesto in locating Killingbeck's mistake.
6. On Apr 30, Killingbeck responses to Lounesto, does not refute
his/her lies, and fails to provide any sourced facts.
7. On Apr 30, Lounesto called Killingbeck a liar.
You may find sourced facts by pointing your browers at
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck
Pertti Lounesto
> your English is as bad as your personality.
Is my personality bad because
1. I do not admit that someone else detected Killingbeck's blunder
on convergence before me, although no names have been given,
see http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
2. I do not admit that Kovarik's methods of rotating planes in 4D
is better than mine, although my method proved more useful
than Kovarik's, see http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Zdislav.Kovarik.
3. I do not admit that Chapman won his challenge of proving his
theorems, although Chapman made a math-mistake on the
topic of his theorems, see http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/mistake.
4. I claim that sci.math is dense of mathematically dullrich posters,
see http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/dullrich.
Pertti Lounesto
> Mr. Lounesto, you're treading on thin ice here - there are
> things you can get away with on Usenet, and there are things
> you cannot do. Libelling people is in the second category.
1a. Does Lynn Killingbeck's act, of Mar 19, of claiming that
I made a mistake about convergence, on Mar 18, constitute
a libel, while I made no mention of convergence, on Mar 18?
1b. Does the label of "horrible" "blunder", attached by Killingbeck
to my non-existing mistake, make Killingbeck's libel more serious?
2a. Does Lynn Killingbeck's act, of Apr 30, of claiming that
somebody else detected her blunder on convergence, of Mar 19,
before I detected it, on Mar 26?
2b. Does Killingbeck's refusal to name anybody, as a possible
candidate of being more vigilant than me in detecting her mistake,
of Mar 19, make her libel more serious?
For sourced facts, see http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
> You've claimed that I am not a good mathematician.
You got it all backwards. It is assumed that you not good in
mathematics, till you demonstrate your skills, by contributing
to mathematics or catching others of mistake-making. Catching
poor mathematicians does not count, only the renowned count.
For a model, see http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm.
Slamet
...
> Catching
> poor mathematicians does not count, only the renowned count.
> For a model, see http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm.
Then I suggest you to stalk E. Witten.
slamet
Robin Chapman
ull...@math.okstate.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 14:36:37 +0200, Pertti Lounesto
> <Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>
> >
> >11. Dullrich posters rush to condemn Jacobson.
>
> What a fucking asshole you are, making up these
> silly names for people.
Don't be shy David, tell us what you *really* think of Pertti :-)
--
Robin Chapman, http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"`The twenty-first century didn't begin until a minute
past midnight January first 2001.'"
John Brunner, _Stand on Zanzibar_ (1968)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pertti Lounesto
> Then in a later post, after the problem about convergence
> had been pointed out, you _did_ mention convergence, _incredibly_
> saying that the series _did_ converge in some other norm.
You must be incredibly weak in mathematics, if you really
believe that anybody would believe that a series like that
would converge for all A and B. In my posting of Mar 23,
I characterized convergence (likewise divergence) "with
respect to a norm defined by a convex, symmetric, expelling
and absorbing set". Do you know anything about that? I
claim that my characterization of convergence by a "convex,
symmetric, expelling and absorbing set" is the most elegant.
> >6. Over 100 imposters claim that they would have detected
> > the mistake of Virgil, although they did not.
> >7. On Mar 19, Lynn Killingbeck label's Lounesto's non-existing
> > commentary/mistake on convergence as "horrible".
>
> Like if it was a question about expressing (a+b)^2
> in terms of monomials in a and b, and I said that
>
> (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2.
>
> That would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for SOME numbers
The matter of convergence is a trivial thing, which a
competent mathematician can complete himself. It
seems that I overestimated your skills, and Killinbeck's.
Although I put up a web-page for Killingbeck's blunder,
I hasten to add that s/he is not of the same caliber as
Kovarik or Chapman. I feel embarrassed to point out
mistakes on such self-evident matters.
> >8. On Mar 19, Killingbeck makes a mistake about convergence,
> > see below.
> >9. Over 100 imposters fail to detect Killingbeck's mistake.
Among them D.Ullirich. D.Ullrich thinks that Lounesto, who
manages to recognize, on Mar 26, falsity of Killingbeck's claim,
of Mar 19, on convergence, would make a mistake about
convergence on Mar 23.
> >10. On Mar 25, Paul Jacobson evaluates "Pertti's solution (as
> > amended by others) is the most useful one."
> >
> >11. Dullrich posters rush to condemn Jacobson.
>
> What a fucking asshole you are, making up these
> silly names for people.
I see no make-up or silliness in the name of Jacobson.
> More to the point: I did not rush to condemn
> anyone, I pointed out that calling it _your_ solution
> was unfair to the two other people who had simultaneously
> posted CORRECT versions of the same solution.
If you, again for the third time, fail to provide me with
a name of somebody, who actually presented the same
solution simultaneously (modulo sign error), I remain
confident that you are again lying.
It goes without saying that according to you, convergence
should have been mentioned in such a solution, although
Killingbeck-like inaccuracies would have been acceptable.
> At which point you assumed I was talking about
> corrections to your post, showing that you think that
> nobody else knows what the sum of a geometric series
> is. So I pointed out that I was not referring to
> corrected versions of your post, I was referring
> to independent, simultaneous (and also CORRECT)
> versions of the same answer.
Again, I ask, independent solutions by which posters?
If you fail to provide names, you are lying.
> Really. Of the three people who suggested
> the geometric series might be useful here you're
> the only one who made two errors. And that's
> how it came to be thought of as "your" solution.
> Makes a person wonder.
No one else has claimed priority over my solution.
I can see many dependent solutions correcting my
sign-error, but no one, no two independent solutions.
Why are you silent about Killingbeck's mistake, which s/he
himself admits, although only after one months silence?
Do you really do not understand that Lounesto, who
detected Killingbeck's mistake, must have understood
questions of convergence, in order to detect Killingbeck's
mistake on convergence?
> If you're not going to specify for which matrices
> it holds then the most charitable interpretation is that
> you meant to say that it holds for SOME matrices. It's true
> that "your" formula holds for SOME matrices. It's also
> true that
>
> Inv(A+B) = A + BA - 17BB
>
> holds for SOME matrices. That doesn't make
> "Inv(A+B) = A + BA - 17BB" a correct answer to
> the question.
Once more, in my one-line response of Mar 18, I corrected
Virgil's blunder, and did not focus on convergence, which
I regard as a trivial and non-interesting issue.
Once again, Killingbeck specifically discussed about convergence,
made a mistake about convergence, on Mar 19, and accused
me about making a mistake about convergence, on Mar 19,
although I had not raised the issue of convergence at all, on Mar 18.
Why are you silent about Killingbeck's mistake, even after s/he
s/himself has admitted, on Apr 30, s/his mistake? Do you hope
that because of your silence, Killingbeck might withdraw s/his
admission for making a mistake on Mar 19?
David, it seems that you are grossly misjudging the situation:
Lounesto could not have had cogntitive gaps about convergence
(I feel that detecting my cognitive gaps is your final goal),
because he was the first one to detect the mistake of Killingbeck
on convergence, on Mar 26. It took over one month for
Killingbeck to admit s/his mistake, on Apr 30, or anybody to
approve validity of Lounesto's counterexample, also on Apr 30.
Does that not demonstrate, to you, how incredibly low the
level of vigilance of sci.math is, in matters of convergence?
Should you not rather be happy that somebody (= Lounesto)
pays some attention to correctness of convergence, which
seems to be so important to you?
Name one! Killingbeck and Ullrich, name one!
> >> pointed out that my intuition was wrong, too. Won't be
> >> the first time. Won't be the last time. Some of us just
> >> don't obsess about it. But, thanks again for including
> >> my name with some really great mathematicians
> >> who post useful mathematics to this newsgroup!
> >
> >
> >Those who want to know more about the role of counterexamples
> >in mathematics, are invited to point their browser to:
> >
> >http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm.
David, a final word: right now on sci.math, there are several
posters, who have interrupted their posting-activities in order
to get better acquainted with my counterxamples, which I have
provided to them, to remove their misconceptions. Such
posters usually stay away for a couple of days or weeks, and
come back with a stronger understanding of mathematics.
Unfortunately, convergence is such a trivial matter that there
is not much to learn to Killingbeck, from my counterexample.
Pertti Lounesto
> dull...@math.okstate.edu wrote:
> > Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
> >
> > >11. Dullrich posters rush to condemn Jacobson.
> >
> > What a fucking asshole you are, making up these
> > silly names for people.
>
> Don't be shy David, tell us what you *really* think of Pertti :-)
David just envies me, because I was invited to Germany,
RWTH-Aachen, to lecture about convergence in the
spinor norm, although I know less about convergence
than David. But, David does not take into account the
fact that after having cashed in my knowledge of the
spinor norm, I can forget everything about it.
David C. Ullrich
<peter.j...@dotrs.gov.au> wrote:
>If you don't care, why do you respond with name calling? If Lounesto is
>wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not immature namecalling.
That's been tried many times. Doesn't work, because he
simply comes back with something ignoring the refutation.
Sometimes he's explicit: Someone says "I had a bagel for lunch"
and PL replies "Since you had a bagel for lunch I assume you
agree that I [whoever he's ranting about today] is a moron."
>> > I claim that Killingbeck is a liar.
>>
>> No. Body. Cares.
>>
>> Shut. Up.
>>
Erik Max Francis
> What a fucking asshole you are, making up these
> silly names for people.
I'd say it's a pretty good indication of his social age, regardless of
how smart he is (or thinks he is). That social age -- about 12 -- is
backed up by all the rest of his behavior, such as self-aggrandization,
deliberately and admittely reinterpreting what people say, ignoring what
people are saying to continue to talk about whatever subject he's
interested in, and invading every thread he can to talk about his boring
crap.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.360 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| Crank Dot Net -- http://www.crank.net/
__
/ \ Awards are merely the badges of mediocrity.
\__/ Charles Ives
Erik Max Francis
> David just envies me, because I was invited to Germany,
> RWTH-Aachen, to lecture about convergence in the
> spinor norm, although I know less about convergence
> than David. But, David does not take into account the
> fact that after having cashed in my knowledge of the
> spinor norm, I can forget everything about it.
Yep, just about 12.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.360 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| REALpolitik -- http://www.realpolitik.com/
__
/ \ No man quite believes in any other man.
\__/ H.L. Mencken
Pertti Lounesto
> "Peter Johnston" <peter.j...@dotrs.gov.au> wrote:
>
> >If you don't care, why do you respond with name calling? If Lounesto
> >is wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not immature namecalling.
>
> That's been tried many times. Doesn't work, because he
> simply comes back with something ignoring the refutation.
Ullrich has posted in this thread before and claims above that he has
refutated Lounesto's argument. Lounesto's argument in this thread is:
Lounesto was the first one to point out Killingbeck's blunder of Mar 19.
On Apr 30, Lynn Killingbeck argued that besides Lounesto, "several
others pointed out that my [= Killingbeck's] intuition was wrong, too".
Killingbeck has, along with the several other posters, failed to provide
any name among the "several others". The essential question is this:
Who was the first one to detect Killingbeck's blunder on convergence?
Is Killingbeck a liar, when he lets understand that someone else detected
Killingbeck's blunder of Mar 19 before Lounesto's detection, on Mar 26?
Is Ullrich a bigger liar than Killingbeck, when he argues having refuted
Lounesto's claim, without bringing forth any names of poster having
posted between the dates Mar 19-26?
Sourced facts in http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
Pertti Lounesto
It is not a good idea to stalk anybody, in particular. Such
targeted stalking results in actions too familiar here in
sci.math; just look at the actions of Doug Norris, Erik Max
Francis and David Ullrich, who have not managed to
refute Lounesto's argument:
Lounesto was the first one, who falsified, in Mar 26,
Lynn Killingbeck's wrong statement, of Mar 19, about
convergence of inv(A) - inv(A) B inv(A) +- ...
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>In article <390c83b2.358504758@news>,
> ull...@math.okstate.edu wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 14:36:37 +0200, Pertti Lounesto
>> <Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >11. Dullrich posters rush to condemn Jacobson.
>>
>> What a fucking asshole you are, making up these
>> silly names for people.
>
>Don't be shy David, tell us what you *really* think of Pertti :-)
Sorry. Actually I thought I was pretty clear;
must be one of those two-nations-divided-by-a-common-tongue
things. Perhaps someone with more competence in both
versions of English could supply a translation.
Or better yet start 153 threads on the topic.
And put up a web site. I bet the domain
www.whatullrichmeantwhenhecalledperttiafuckingasshole.com
is still available.
Erik Max Francis
> It is not a good idea to stalk anybody, in particular.
Then why are you trying so hard?
> Such
> targeted stalking results in actions too familiar here in
> sci.math; just look at the actions of Doug Norris, Erik Max
> Francis and David Ullrich, who have not managed to
> refute Lounesto's argument:
... and who have never tried, so the fact that they haven't is
irrelevant.
Or do you still not understand that, you raving lunatic?
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.363 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| Crank Dot Net -- http://www.crank.net/
__
/ \ Of war men ask the outcome, not the cause.
\__/ Seneca
Doug Norris
>sci.math; just look at the actions of Doug Norris, Erik Max
>Francis and David Ullrich, who have not managed to
>refute Lounesto's argument:
My name stays out of this, Lounesto. Now. Entienda? Or you'll be
underwater so fast, Jacques Cousteau couldn't find you.
Doug
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> writes:
>
> >sci.math; just look at the actions of Doug Norris, Erik Max
> >Francis and David Ullrich, who have not managed to
> >refute Lounesto's argument:
>
> My name stays out of this, Lounesto. Now. Entienda? Or you'll
> be underwater so fast, Jacques Cousteau couldn't find you.
On that list remains everybody, who presents critical
comments about Lounesto's person, but fails to refute
Lounesto's argument:
"Lounesto was the first one to find a counterexample
to Killingbeck's false statement about convergence",
facts in http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
I understand your above posting so that it implies that
1. you know Lounesto was the first one to detect error,
2. you admit that you do not know anybody, who would
have found Killinbeck's mistake before Lounesto.
Please, explicate which choice, and I will remove your
name from the list.
Doug Norris
>Please, explicate which choice, and I will remove your
>name from the list.
That's it, fruitcake. Down you go. You won't know where, and you won't
know when, but expect it.
Doug
Virgil
Especially if you work so hard to create them.
Example: Pertti Lounesto.
--
Virgil
vm...@frii.com
Richard Carr
Pertti, I see that your Erd\H{o}s number is 3. Isn't that rather
high? Maybe I should publish some mathematics after all. Then I might get
my Erd\H{o}s number down to less than 1.03- far less than yours.
Peter Johnston
enemies in a childish way.
>
> >If you don't care, why do you respond with name calling? If Lounesto
is
> >wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not immature namecalling.
>
> That's been tried many times. Doesn't work, because he
> simply comes back with something ignoring the refutation.
Richard Carr
:Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 01:22:43 +0200
:From: Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Pertti's Erd\H{o}s number
:
:Richard Carr wrote:
:
:> Pertti, I see that your Erd\H{o}s number is 3. Isn't
:> that rather high?
:
:Yes, it is high. But, it is in accordance with me: I am
:6 feet 3 tall. If I grow up,
Many people around here have expressed that hope. : )
:maybe my Erdos number goes up?
Erik Max Francis
> Again, if he's wrong, ignore him or demonstrate his error. Stop
> making
> enemies in a childish way.
You're obviously new here.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.392 Ms p.L.
San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 244 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__________________| Crank Dot Net -- http://www.crank.net/
__
/ \ The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
\__/ (an Arab proverb)
Erik Max Francis
> Yes, it is high. But, it is in accordance with me: I am
> 6 feet 3 tall. If I grow up, maybe my Erdos number
> goes up?
How's the lobotomy faring?
Pertti Lounesto
> On my list remains everybody, who presents critical
> comments about Lounesto's person, but fails to refute
> Lounesto's argument:
>
> "Lounesto was the first one to find a counterexample
> to Killingbeck's false statement about convergence",
>
> facts in http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
>
> I understand your earlier posting so that it implies that
>
> 1. you know Lounesto was the first one to detect error,
> 2. you admit that you do not know anybody, who would
> have found Killinbeck's mistake before Lounesto.
>
> Please, explicate which choice, and I will remove your
> name from the list.
Doug Norris wrote:
> That's it, fruitcake. Down you go. You won't know
> where, and you won't know when, but expect it.
>
> Doug
By implication, you admit that you do not know anybody,
who would have detected Killingbeck's blunder before
Lounesto, but you refuse to make explicitly the above
equivalent choice (2). So, your name remains on the list of
my www-page http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
Pertti Lounesto
> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you don't have
> real enemies. Especially if you work so hard to create them.
>
> Example: Pertti Lounesto.
So, you are in favor of keeping silent about Killingbeck's
blunder on convergence, although you yourself accused
Lounesto of a non-existing blunder on convergence.
Also, you are in favor of not granting Lounesto the honor
of detecting a mistake of Killingbeck.
Although you fail to give a name, who would have detected
Killinbeck's blunder before Lounesto, I will not add your
name into the list of liars, in
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck
because you are a coward, who does not have courage
to use his/her own name. Why do you conceal your name?
Are you a paranoid?
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti, I see that your Erd\H{o}s number is 3. Isn't
> that rather high?
Yes, it is high. But, it is in accordance with me: I am
Peter Johnston
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote in article
<390E430F...@alcyone.com>...
> Peter Johnston wrote:
>
> > Again, if he's wrong, ignore him or demonstrate his error. Stop
> > making
> > enemies in a childish way.
>
> You're obviously new here.
>
Pertti Lounesto
For Erdos number, see:
http://www.acs.oakland.edu/~grossman/erdoshp.html
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/kolme
By the way, my Fields number is 1:
L. Ahlfors, P. Lounesto: Some remarks on Clifford algebras,
Complex Variables, Theory and Application 12 (1989), 201-209.
Pertti Lounesto
> Like if it was a question about expressing (a+b)^2
> in terms of monomials in a and b, and I said that
>
> (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2.
>
> That would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for
> SOME numbers a and b, if I suggest it as a way to
> simplify (a+b)^2, I have commited an ERROR, because
> it is only true for SOME numbers. Just like what
> you said about Inv(A+B) is only true for SOME
> matrices - that's why it was ERRONEOUS.
Likewise,
(a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for SOME
numbers a and b, you would commit an ERROR, because
it is only true for SOME numbers.
jmfb...@aol.com
ull...@math.okstate.edu (David C. Ullrich) wrote:
>On 1 May 2000 01:39:20 GMT, "Peter Johnston"
><peter.j...@dotrs.gov.au> wrote:
>
>>If you don't care, why do you respond with name calling? If Lounesto is
>>wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not immature namecalling.
>
> That's been tried many times. Doesn't work, because he
>simply comes back with something ignoring the refutation.
>Sometimes he's explicit: Someone says "I had a bagel for lunch"
>and PL replies "Since you had a bagel for lunch I assume you
>agree that I [whoever he's ranting about today] is a moron."
And he appears to be sucking you down to his level.
By that, I mean that you people are now spending bandwidth
countering his nonsense rather than teaching, an apparent
goal of Pertti. I'm not trying to stop you from responding
to his quackery, but there has to be some way to balance
things. I've not discovered when to tell enough is enough
and there is that problem of the assumption that no
response indicates agreement. It's a unique problem in
newsgroups.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Victor Eijkhout
> "Lounesto was the first one to find a counterexample
> to Killingbeck's false statement about convergence",
Oh jeez. Can we all just shout "Hail Lounesto" and you go away?
--
Victor Eijkhout
"When I was coming up, [..] we knew exactly who the they were. It was us
versus them, and it was clear who the them was were. Today, we are not
so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." [G.W. Bush]
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> writes:
>
> > "Lounesto was the first one to find a counterexample
> > to Killingbeck's false statement about convergence",
>
> Oh jeez. Can we all just shout "Hail Lounesto" and you go away?
Hitler was not a mathematician. He lost his campaign,
because he delayed his attack to the Soviet Union by
attacking first to Balkan. Thus, he could not conquer
Stalingrad before the fall of the winter. My attack to
the Balkan of sci.math will not delay my principal
conquests in the universe of mathematics. I will be
there before the winter falls. I am just getting some
warming-up exercises here in Balkan of sci.math in
order to be well prepared for my major conquests.
Look at my warm-up exercises:
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/David.Ullrich,
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck,
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman,
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Zdislav.Kovarik.
I admit that the first two were not really challenging,
but they kept me warm.
Doug Norris
>Victor Eijkhout wrote:
>> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> writes:
>>
>> > "Lounesto was the first one to find a counterexample
>> > to Killingbeck's false statement about convergence",
>>
>> Oh jeez. Can we all just shout "Hail Lounesto" and you go away?
>Hitler was not a mathematician.
There's a difference between "heil" and "hail", you moron.
Doug
Virgil
wrote:
[snip]
>Likewise,
>
> (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
>
>would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for SOME
>numbers a and b, you would commit an ERROR, because
>it is only true for SOME numbers.
For most of us, if ab is not equal to ba, we are no longer in Kansas.
For Pertti, speaking Ex Cathedra as usual,"numbers" are what he defines
them to be, not what everyone else agrees they should be. "It's a
question of who's to be Master, that's all.
--
Virgil
vm...@frii.com
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti....@hit.fi wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >Likewise,
> >
> > (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
> >
> >would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for SOME
> >numbers a and b, you would commit an ERROR, because
> >it is only true for SOME numbers.
>
> For most of us, if ab is not equal to ba, we are no longer in Kansas.
>
> For Pertti, speaking Ex Cathedra as usual,"numbers" are what he defines
> them to be, not what everyone else agrees they should be. "It's a
> question of who's to be Master, that's all.
There are also Clifford numbers, called like that because they share
many features in common with elements of fields. If you want to
know more about Clifford numbers, I can recommend the book
Marcel Riesz: Clifford numbers and spinors. Kluwer, 1993,
http://kapis.www.wkap.nl/kapis/CGI-BIN/WORLD/book.htm?0-7923-2299-1.
David C. Ullrich
<Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>
>> "Peter Johnston" <peter.j...@dotrs.gov.au> wrote:
>>
>> >If you don't care, why do you respond with name calling? If Lounesto
>> >is wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not immature namecalling.
>>
>> That's been tried many times. Doesn't work, because he
>> simply comes back with something ignoring the refutation.
>
>Ullrich has posted in this thread before and claims above that he has
>refutated Lounesto's argument. Lounesto's argument in this thread is:
>
>Lounesto was the first one to point out Killingbeck's blunder of Mar 19.
This is simply a lie, like so many of the other things you
say. I have not ever said one single thing about refuting you claim
that you were the first to point out Killingbeck's malapropism.
I've said a lot of things about the nonsense you said baclk then
about convergence, and about the nonsense you're currently
producing (where you claim that the fact that you didn't mention
convergence (another lie, btw) makes your "solution" correct -
in fact your failing to mention convergence is exactly what
makes it wrong, just as though I'd said Inv(A+B) = B*B, without
bothering to mention that it only holds for some A and B.)
Way back when it happened I _did_ point out that he
just said "my intuition is"; this sort of disclaimer makes
your chatracterization of his statement as a "blunder" both
hilarious and pathetic. But that was not in this thread, and
that was not a comment about your claim that you were the
first to refute his "blunder" - about that I have never said
one word.
It's kinda funny: Someone asks why people don't
just refute the things you say instead of calling you
names, I point out that that doesn't work because whatever
anyone says you simply ignore it and claim they said
something else - now you attempt to refute this statement
of mine by ignoring it and claiming I said something
else.
>On Apr 30, Lynn Killingbeck argued that besides Lounesto, "several
>others pointed out that my [= Killingbeck's] intuition was wrong, too".
>Killingbeck has, along with the several other posters, failed to provide
>any name among the "several others". The essential question is this:
>
>Who was the first one to detect Killingbeck's blunder on convergence?
>
>Is Killingbeck a liar, when he lets understand that someone else detected
>Killingbeck's blunder of Mar 19 before Lounesto's detection, on Mar 26?
>
>Is Ullrich a bigger liar than Killingbeck, when he argues having refuted
>Lounesto's claim, without bringing forth any names of poster having
>posted between the dates Mar 19-26?
>
>Sourced facts in http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
Sourced facts, right. Exactly where did I say anything
about your claim to have been the first to find his "blunder"?
_Exactly_ where. (I want a reference where I actually _said_
something _about_ that, not something where you assume that's
what I meant.)
David C. Ullrich
<peter.j...@dotrs.gov.au> wrote:
>Again, if he's wrong, ignore him or demonstrate his error. Stop making
>enemies in a childish way.
>
>
>>
>> >If you don't care, why do you respond with name calling? If Lounesto
>is
>> >wrong, shut him up with sourced facts, not immature namecalling.
>>
>> That's been tried many times. Doesn't work, because he
>> simply comes back with something ignoring the refutation.
>> Sometimes he's explicit: Someone says "I had a bagel for lunch"
>> and PL replies "Since you had a bagel for lunch I assume you
>> agree that I [whoever he's ranting about today] is a moron."
Did you happen to notice his response to this? (It's in
a new thread - starting new threads is a hobby of his). I make a
comment about the fact that his replies consistently have nothing
to do with what he's replying to, and he replied as though I'd
said something about his claim to have been the first to
refute Killingbeck's blunder. In fact he _said_ I'd said something
about that, although I've never said a word about it.
It's too hilarious to ignore - I say something about
the obseesive irrelevance of his replies, and he replies
with something totally irrelevant.
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>
>> What a fucking asshole you are, making up these
>> silly names for people.
>
>I'd say it's a pretty good indication of his social age, regardless of
>how smart he is (or thinks he is). That social age -- about 12
Hey, you know you may be on to something here. About 12.
We know that Pertti knows nothing about set theory - we know that
because he's repeatedly said he's _proud_ of his ignorance of the
axiom of choice. Now who else do we know who knows nothing about
set theory? Is Pertti actually Great enough to be Nathan?
>-- is
>backed up by all the rest of his behavior, such as self-aggrandization,
>deliberately and admittely reinterpreting what people say, ignoring what
>people are saying to continue to talk about whatever subject he's
>interested in, and invading every thread he can to talk about his boring
>crap.
The theads where he talks to himself are fun to watch. I've
seen them grow to about three levels deep - he says something,
then he replies to himself, saying <Pertti said>, then he replies
to himself again. At this point someone always butts in - takes
all the fun out of it.
>--
> Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
> Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | 971.360 Ms p.L.
> San Jose, CA, US | icbm 37 20 N 121 53 W | 245 days left | &tSftDotIotE
>__________________| Crank Dot Net -- http://www.crank.net/
> __
>/ \ Awards are merely the badges of mediocrity.
>\__/ Charles Ives
David C. Ullrich
<loun...@pop.hit.fi> wrote:
>"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>
>> Like if it was a question about expressing (a+b)^2
>> in terms of monomials in a and b, and I said that
>>
>> (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2.
>>
>> That would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for
>> SOME numbers a and b, if I suggest it as a way to
>> simplify (a+b)^2, I have commited an ERROR, because
>> it is only true for SOME numbers. Just like what
>> you said about Inv(A+B) is only true for SOME
>> matrices - that's why it was ERRONEOUS.
>
>Likewise,
>
> (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
>
>would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for SOME
>numbers a and b, you would commit an ERROR, because
>it is only true for SOME numbers.
Nice try. Wrong, but a nice try.
Wrong because there is such a thing as context.
In a context where someone says (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
there's already an established context, and in that
context the statement is correct.
You have to claim that there was an inequality
about the norms of the matrices implicit in the context -
you're not going to claim that because it would be
ridiculous. hahahahahahahahaha.
Marco Talamanca
wrote:
>Hitler was not a mathematician. He lost his campaign,
>because he delayed his attack to the Soviet Union by
>attacking first to Balkan. Thus, he could not conquer
>Stalingrad before the fall of the winter. My attack to
Moscow, Pertti, it was Moscow. The Red Army and the weather stopping cold
the Wehrmacht in front of Moscow in the fall of 1941 was probably the real
turning point of WWII.
Marco
Pertti Lounesto
> The Red Army and the weather stopping cold
> the Wehrmacht in front of Moscow in the fall of
> 1941 was probably the real turning point of WWII.
>
> Marco
Marco, this is not a place for a rematch for losers of WWII.
This is a thread about "Lynn Killinbeck's dishonesty", and
your silent approval for the dishonesty.
On May 3, Lynn Killingbeck argues that Ullrich was the first to correct
her blunder, but cannot give reference to Ullrich's assumed posting:
> The only one who corrected my idle musing about conditions for
> convergence was Dr. Ullrich. He was right; I was wrong (neither the
> first nor last time!). I just shrugged it off, perhaps learned a
> little bit (or, perhaps not), and got on with life. PL, if he really
> did make a correction, counts for naught, since his stuff is discarded
> unread. Any later corrections, if any, are likely also unread, since
> it seems pointless to count how many people, or in what order, I was
> told I was wrong.
Killingbeck's mistake of Mar 19 was corrected by Lounesto on Mar26,
not by Ullrich, who did not even comment on Killingbeck's mistake
before Lounesto, and then only by commenting on Lounesto's article.
See Killingbeck's false statement and Lounesto's counterexample to it,
in http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
Marco, if you want you name to be removed from the above list
of posters, who post in this thread but keep silent about Killingbeck's
lies, you must choose one of the following:
1. Admit that you do not know anybody, who would have detected
Killingbeck's mistake before Lounesto, or
2. Admit that you know that Lounesto was the first one to detect
Killingbeck's mistake, and not Ullrich.
James Hunter
Marco Talamanca wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2000 22:43:24 +0200 Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi>
> wrote:
>
> >Hitler was not a mathematician. He lost his campaign,
> >because he delayed his attack to the Soviet Union by
> >attacking first to Balkan. Thus, he could not conquer
> >Stalingrad before the fall of the winter. My attack to
>
> Moscow, Pertti, it was Moscow. The Red Army and the weather stopping cold
> the Wehrmacht in front of Moscow in the fall of 1941 was probably the real
> turning point of WWII.
Stalin was not a mathematician and he won his campaign.
So fake correlations between "logic" and "real" don't prove anything.
Pertti Lounesto
>
> Stalin was not a mathematician and he won
> his campaign. So fake correlations between
> "logic" and "real" don't prove anything.
James, this thread is not about correlations and proving.
This is a thread about "Lynn Killinbeck's dishonesty", and
your silent approval of her dishonesty.
On May 3, Lynn Killingbeck argued that Ullrich was the first to correct
her blunder, but could not give reference to Ullrich's assumed posting:
> The only one who corrected my idle musing about conditions for
> convergence was Dr. Ullrich. He was right; I was wrong (neither the
> first nor last time!). I just shrugged it off, perhaps learned a
> little bit (or, perhaps not), and got on with life. PL, if he really
> did make a correction, counts for naught, since his stuff is discarded
> unread. Any later corrections, if any, are likely also unread, since
> it seems pointless to count how many people, or in what order, I was
> told I was wrong.
Killingbeck's mistake of Mar 19 was corrected by Lounesto on Mar26,
not by Ullrich, who did not even comment on Killingbeck's mistake
before Lounesto, and then only by commenting on Lounesto's article.
See Killingbeck's false statement and Lounesto's counterexample to it,
in http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
James, if you want you name to be removed from the above list
of posters, who posted in this thread but kept silent about Killingbeck's
James Hunter
Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> James Hunter wrote:
>
> >
> > Stalin was not a mathematician and he won
> > his campaign. So fake correlations between
> > "logic" and "real" don't prove anything.
>
> James, if you want you name to be removed from the above list
> of posters, who posted in this thread but kept silent about Killingbeck's
> lies, you must choose one of the following:
>
> 1. Admit that you do not know anybody, who would have detected
> Killingbeck's mistake before Lounesto, or
> 2. Admit that you know that Lounesto was the first one to detect
> Killingbeck's mistake, and not Ullrich.
Since the main reason I bother reading sci.math or *any* math for that
matter is check up on what's the lastest-and-greatest in binary
"intelligence", you're choices are really limited to:
1) Admit that I don't care.
Linus Thand
>
> James Hunter wrote:
>
> > Stalin was not a mathematician and he won
> > his campaign. So fake correlations between
> > "logic" and "real" don't prove anything.
>
> This is a thread about "Lynn Killinbeck's dishonesty", and
> your silent approval of her dishonesty.
Pertti, this newsgroup is not about boosting egos and insulting people.
This is a newsgroup about maths.
Kind regards,
Linus Thand
Department of Computer Science
The University of York
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti, this newsgroup is not about boosting egos and
> insulting people. This is a newsgroup about maths.
Indeed, this newsgroup is about mathematics. But, it
also about how to conduct discours about mathematics.
How to effectively approach the truth in a dialogue,
carried out in mathematics.
This happened
Killingbeck accused me of a "horrible" "blunder", in a
matter about convergence, which I had not dealt at all.
Killingbeck made herself a mistake about convergence.
I brought Killingbeck's mistake to her attention by a
counterexample. Killingbeck admitted her mistake,
did not admit that her accusation against me was false,
and argued that Ullrich found her mistake first.
For more details, see
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck
I am not interested in boosting my ego or insulting
anybody, as you assume. My interest is elsewhere.
In a scientific debate arguments are presented for the
purpose of being falsified (in a scientic debate the opponents
do not try to show off their knowledge, and boost egos,
but they try to converge together toward the truth). If an
argument cannot be falsified by the opponent, then it is
regarded as true, temporarily, till falsified. Thus, my
argument saying that
"Lounesto was the first one to present a counterexample to
Killingbeck's mistake on convergence, of Mar 19, 2000"
remains true, temporarily, till somebody finds from
DejaNews an anterior refutation of Killingbeck's statement.
I hasten to add that I am not intersted in being "the first
falsifier of Killingbeck". Instead, I am interested in
demonstrating to sci.math that it is a poor instrument in
search of the scientific truth, because dialogues converge
so slowly, while so many posters refute to display their
findings of DejaNews searches, telling that Lounesto
was the first one to correct Killingbeck's mistake in
Mar 26, 2000. When many posters participate in these
threads, and pretend that have not carried out DejaNews
searches, it shows that dialogues in sci.math converge
only slowly, if at all, toward the truth. The more there
are comments like yours, the stronger I have demonstrated
that sci.math dialogues do not converge to the truth.
In a summary: Low understaning of convergence (of
series in mathematics) was used to demonstrate slow
convergence to undertanding (in dialogues of sci.math).
Linus Thand
>
> I am not interested in boosting my ego or insulting
> anybody, as you assume. My interest is elsewhere.
Very well, but the result is the same.
If you want to make your point then perhaps another approach would
yield better results.
I don't doubt that what you're saying (about the actual
maths) is true, and in any case it's not relevant,
but together with all insulting, confused, and
off topic comments I don't blame people for not
listening to what you have to say.
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> >
> > I am not interested in boosting my ego or insulting
> > anybody, as you assume. My interest is elsewhere.
>
> Very well, but the result is the same.
>
> If you want to make your point then perhaps another
> approach would yield better results.
Perhaps, perhaps not. My point is this:
In a scientific debate, only a few know the details under
debate, in general. Thus, the losers take advantage of this
situation, and do not admit their mistakes. The majority
can then easily be misguided, in such situations.
> I don't doubt that what you're saying (about the actual
> maths) is true, and in any case it's not relevant,
I agree, the details of my math are not my point.
> but together with all insulting, confused, and
> off topic comments
It is not an insult to insist that my arguments hold,
and my opponents arguments do not hold. See
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Zdislav.Kovarik
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/David.Ullrich
> I don't blame people for not listening to what you
> have to say.
That is exactly my point: the majority is not listening,
and cannot be blamed for its ignorance. But, their
ignorance does not falsify my mathematical arguments.
Linus Thand
> Linus Thand wrote:
>
> > I don't doubt that what you're saying (about the actual
> > maths) is true, and in any case it's not relevant,
>
> I agree, the details of my math are not my point.
But then perhaps this discussion does not belong in sci.math?
> It is not an insult to insist that my arguments hold,
> and my opponents arguments do not hold.
True, not as such. Most people can do it whilst being nice,
but for some reason you fail.
> > I don't blame people for not listening to what you
> > have to say.
>
> That is exactly my point: the majority is not listening,
> and cannot be blamed for its ignorance.
Exactly. THEY cannot be blamed, but YOU can.
You made them ignore you.
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
> > I agree, the details of my math are not my point.
>
> But then perhaps this discussion does not belong in sci.math?
While I solved problems of other posters, won challenges
of other posters, and showed other posters wrong, when
they believed that I would have been mistaken, my posting
do belong to sci.math.
> > It is not an insult to insist that my arguments hold,
> > and my opponents arguments do not hold.
>
> True, not as such. Most people can do it whilst being nice,
> but for some reason you fail.
Most people? Who in sci.math has as impressive list of
winning in problem solving, challenges or in error-detection?
Inside sci.math or outside of sci.math?
Inside:
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Zdislav.Kovarik
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/David.Ullrich
Outside:
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm
As for your your claim that I "fail" to be "nice", point me
in the above web-pages a spot which is not "nice".
> > That is exactly my point: the majority is not listening,
> > and cannot be blamed for its ignorance.
>
> Exactly. THEY cannot be blamed, but YOU can.
> You made them ignore you.
Yes, I made them ignore math, because I won them in math
(at their own challenges and in solving their own problems).
That is how people behave, every day.
David C. Ullrich
<Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>Linus Thand wrote:
>
>> Pertti, this newsgroup is not about boosting egos and
>> insulting people. This is a newsgroup about maths.
>
>Indeed, this newsgroup is about mathematics. But, it
>also about how to conduct discours about mathematics.
Nope.
>How to effectively approach the truth in a dialogue,
>carried out in mathematics.
No, that's not what it's about either.
[...]
>
>I hasten to add that I am not intersted in being "the first
>falsifier of Killingbeck". Instead, I am interested in
>demonstrating to sci.math that it is a poor instrument in
>search of the scientific truth,
Here's something that has been explained to you
proviously. Pay attention this time: Nobody anywhere has
ever claimed that sci.math _is_ an instrument in search
of the scientific truth! You keep saying you're determined
to demonstrate that it's not. Of course it isn't.
Doug Norris
>Is Pertti actually Great enough to be Nathan?
Impossible - Nathan the Dull-Witted is occasionally entertaining. Seldom,
but that's better than Petty Loser does.
Doug
John R Ramsden
Also, I'm fairly sure Nathan is British.
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R Ramsden (j...@redmink.demon.co.uk)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed.
St Augustine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pertti Lounesto
>
> Pertti Lounesto <loun...@pop.hit.fi> wrote:
> >"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
> >
> >> Like if it was a question about expressing (a+b)^2
> >> in terms of monomials in a and b, and I said that
> >>
> >> (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2.
> >>
> >> That would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for
> >> SOME numbers a and b, if I suggest it as a way to
> >> simplify (a+b)^2, I have commited an ERROR, because
> >> it is only true for SOME numbers. Just like what
> >> you said about Inv(A+B) is only true for SOME
> >> matrices - that's why it was ERRONEOUS.
> >
> >Likewise,
> >
> > (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
> >
> >would be WRONG. Even though it IS true for SOME
> >numbers a and b, you would commit an ERROR, because
> >it is only true for SOME numbers.
>
> Nice try. Wrong, but a nice try.
>
> Wrong because there is such a thing as context.
> In a context where someone says (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
> there's already an established context, and in that
> context the statement is correct.
In your first paragraph, you speak about matrices,
and then you comment on the identity
(a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2.
Is the identity correct, in that context? Read
again http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
User923005
news:3912ecf6.1805996@news...
[snip]
> Here's something that has been explained to you
> proviously. Pay attention this time: Nobody anywhere has
> ever claimed that sci.math _is_ an instrument in search
> of the scientific truth! You keep saying you're determined
> to demonstrate that it's not. Of course it isn't.
The purpose of the newsgroup is to post hokey non-solutions to FLT, to
decide if 2.2 pounds of lard will grease 1.9999... so that it will slip into
the 2.0 slot, and (finally) to decide if p-adics make infinite integers
useful for pot-washing.
Quite frankly, I don't think publishing here is on a par with a peer
reviewed math journal.
--
C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
"The C-FAQ Book" ISBN 0-201-84519-9
C.A.P. Newsgroup http://www.dejanews.com/~c_a_p
C.A.P. FAQ: ftp://38.168.214.175/pub/Chess%20Analysis%20Project%20FAQ.htm
Pertti Lounesto
> David C. Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Here's something that has been explained to you
> > proviously. Pay attention this time: Nobody anywhere has
> > ever claimed that sci.math _is_ an instrument in search
> > of the scientific truth! You keep saying you're determined
> > to demonstrate that it's not. Of course it isn't.
>
> The purpose of the newsgroup is to post hokey non-solutions
> to FLT, to decide if 2.2 pounds of lard will grease 1.9999...
> so that it will slip into the 2.0 slot, and (finally) to decide
> if p-adics make infinite integers useful for pot-washing.
>
> Quite frankly, I don't think publishing here is on a
> par with a peer reviewed math journal.
Sci.math has features in common with research groups.
So, sci.math can be used to demonstrate existence of
certain features of research groups, to those who have
never participated in research of mathematics.
I have used sci.math to show, in live, that:
1. In a group there are poor and good mathematicians.
2. Also good mathematicians make serious mistakes.
3. Also good mathematicians refute to admit mistakes.
4. This happens, when the poor mathematicians around
have no idea of what was argued about.
Those who want to know more about defence mechanisms
of mistaken and trapped good mathematicians, point
your browsers to
User923005
news:391A6595...@pop.hit.fi...
> User923005 wrote:
> > David C. Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > Here's something that has been explained to you
> > > proviously. Pay attention this time: Nobody anywhere has
> > > ever claimed that sci.math _is_ an instrument in search
> > > of the scientific truth! You keep saying you're determined
> > > to demonstrate that it's not. Of course it isn't.
> >
> > The purpose of the newsgroup is to post hokey non-solutions
> > to FLT, to decide if 2.2 pounds of lard will grease 1.9999...
> > so that it will slip into the 2.0 slot, and (finally) to decide
> > if p-adics make infinite integers useful for pot-washing.
> >
> > Quite frankly, I don't think publishing here is on a
> > par with a peer reviewed math journal.
>
> Sci.math has features in common with research groups.
Absolutely correct. Both groups will contain pompous, self-important,
knee-jerk sociopaths, average citizens and interesting people. This set is
not inclusive, but rather a subset.
> So, sci.math can be used to demonstrate existence of
> certain features of research groups, to those who have
> never participated in research of mathematics.
So might a dog dish and some foot-long hot-dogs, if you use your
imagination.
> I have used sci.math to show, in live, that:
>
> 1. In a group there are poor and good mathematicians.
Granted, excellent
> 2. Also good mathematicians make serious mistakes.
Granted, excellent.
> 3. Also good mathematicians refute to admit mistakes.
Refute actually means show the original argument to be incorrect. If that
is the case then no mistake has been made. But if that is *not* the case,
then Pertti Lounesto has made a *mistake* _and_ the evil User923005 was the
first person to find it!!!!
I think I'll run off and make a web site, dedicated to my greatness.
> 4. This happens, when the poor mathematicians around
> have no idea of what was argued about.
Hmmm... There is no connection I see. Please demonstrate this point. What
if (instead) it were schnauzer dogs instead of poor mathematicians? Or are
the dogs members of that class? How would a Clifford Algebra bear on this
important and pivotal point in the debate?
> Those who want to know more about defence mechanisms
> of mistaken and trapped good mathematicians, point
> your browsers to
>
> http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!!!!
Erik Max Francis
> I have used sci.math to show, in live, that:
>
> 1. In a group there are poor and good mathematicians.
> 2. Also good mathematicians make serious mistakes.
> 3. Also good mathematicians refute to admit mistakes.
> 4. This happens, when the poor mathematicians around
> have no idea of what was argued about.
"In any group, there is a range of understanding."
"In any group, all participants are human and not perfect."
Congratulations, Lounesto, you've spent the last few years stating the
blindingly obvious. And being insulting, condescending,
self-aggrandizing, and downright _bizarre_ in the process.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ The actor is not quite a human being -- but then, who is?
\__/ George Sanders
Fat Boy and Little Man / http://www.fatboyandlittleman.com/
Watch Fat Boy and Little Man go about their antics.
Pertti Lounesto
>
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
> > I have used sci.math to show, in live, that:
> >
> > 1. In a group there are poor and good mathematicians.
> > 2. Also good mathematicians make serious mistakes.
> > 3. Also good mathematicians refute to admit mistakes.
> > 4. This happens, when the poor mathematicians around
> > have no idea of what was argued about.
>
> "In any group, there is a range of understanding."
>
> "In any group, all participants are human and not perfect."
>
> Congratulations, Lounesto, you've spent the last few years stating the
> blindingly obvious. And being insulting, condescending,
> self-aggrandizing, and downright _bizarre_ in the process.
4. This happens, when the poor mathematicians around
have no idea of what was argued about, and regard
the contents of the debate downright _bizarre_.
ull...@math.okstate.edu
Actually the person who appears to have no idea what
these debates are about would be _you_ (Pertti). You
demonstrate this over and over, with your replies that
have absolutely no relevance whatever to the point you're
replying to.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pertti Lounesto
> Actually the person who appears to have no idea what
> these debates are about would be _you_ (Pertti). You
> demonstrate this over and over, with your replies that
> have absolutely no relevance whatever to the point you're
> replying to.
In the thread "David Ullrich's challenge: define the field C",
initiated by me on Oct 10, 1997, and summarized by me on
Dec 10, 1997, in http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/David.Ullrich,
all other mistake-makers admitted their mistakes except one:
Ullrich. Mistakes were detected simultaneously by several
posters, but none by Ullrich. While Ullrich posted repeatedly
in that thread but did not detect mistakes, I infer that Ullrich
had absolutely no idea whatever what posters were debating.
ull...@math.okstate.edu
You're really putting us on, right? This is the second
time recently I've pointed out how your replies tend to be
totally irrlevant to what was said and you replied with
something totally irrelevant to what I said.
Sometimes with irrlevant truths, sometimes (as here)
with irrelevant lies. I've stated _twice_ on sci,math, in
posts that you replied to, that yes, of course that famous
"error" of mine was not true, if we interpret everything
very formally instead of trying to understand what the
speaker means. Maybe you don't recall the times I've said
this, because each time I've pointed out that your harping
on such a silly quibble this way is exactly why people wonder
whether any of your famous counterexamples have any actual
significance.
(Like anyone cares: No, of course strictly speaking
two structures of different types cannot be literally
isomorphic. So when someone says that the complex numbers
are isomorphic to the complex numbers with a distinguished
subfield it _must_ be that the guy simply has no idea what
he's talking about - the idea that the guy was simply speaking
a little informally is just impossible. For heaven's sake.)
ull...@math.okstate.edu
Of course not. What does this have to do with
whether that series converges?
> Read
> again http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Lynn.Killingbeck.
That's impossible. I would have to have read it
once to be able to read it again. Why in the world
would I do that?
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>
> > In the thread "David Ullrich's challenge: define the field C",
> > initiated by me on Oct 10, 1997, and summarized by me on
> > Dec 10, 1997, in http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/David.Ullrich,
> > all other mistake-makers admitted their mistakes except one:
> > Ullrich. Mistakes were detected simultaneously by several
> > posters, but none by Ullrich. While Ullrich posted repeatedly
> > in that thread but did not detect mistakes, I infer that Ullrich
> > had absolutely no idea whatever what posters were debating.
>
> So when someone says that the complex numbers
> are isomorphic to the complex numbers with a distinguished
> subfield it _must_ be that the guy simply has no idea what
> he's talking about - the idea that the guy was simply speaking
> a little informally is just impossible. For heaven's sake.
If you had some idea about the relations between R and C,
at the time, why did you not point out mistakes of the other
posters, in that thread? After all, several posters pointed
out different mistakes of five regular posters, in that thread.
I argue that you did not really undersand the relations of
R and C, at the time. I justify my arguments by
1. Ullrich did not point out mistakes about "R in C",
2. Ullrich is eager to point out mistakes on other topics.
From (1) and (2), I infer "Ullrich did not know how
R is in C".
User923005
news:391B7C0E...@hit.fi...
Lounesto likes to look for mistakes by other persons and even makes web
sites to show how important he thinks this is. Despite this perverted
penchant, Lounesto frequently fails to point out mistakes of other posters.
Can we infer by this that Lounesto does not know that they are mistakes?
Rather, might we infer that Lounesto was not paying attention or Lounesto
was not interested in that point or Lounesto was thinking about what a swell
website he has created to glorify his majestic dignity.
That the real numbers is a subset of the complex numbers is known to high
school students. Therefore, for you to make such a stupid inference is a
serious mistake and shows your incapability to deal with simple logic. I'm
not a real mathematician, and I know it. Ullrich is a real mathematician.
Do you really suppose he was unfamiliar with some ultra-simple mathematics
that even high school students know?
You really are a peach.
It's time.
*plonk*
Pertti Lounesto
Why don't you read first the web-site you commented:
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/David.Ullrich? The other
mistake-makers were teachers of mathematics, and
better than Ullrich. Do you know the difference between
the algebra C over R and the field C, with no linear
structure over R?