Re: A new math usenet group
M.M.M.
> On Aug 14, 6:56 am, William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who all would like to have a new math discussion group
> > sci.math.moderatered or sci.math.mod that would
> > be a moderated group with a platform or topic focus
> > similar to sci.math's platforum?
>
> > If such a group was set up, who would be willing to
> > be the moderator?
>
> How about a semi-automated system where someone with a certain
> number of approved posts under their belt, or a certain level
> of user ratings could be provided with a personal key which
> they would include on the first line of a post, or encoded
> somehow with their .sig) to have the post auto-approved by
> a robo-moderator? (This key token would of course not appear
> in the posted item.)
>
> Or the robo-moderator could issue a key based solely on user
> ratings, and later disable a key if those ratings subsequently
> dipped below a minimum. That would limit the moderation task
> to only newby posts.
>
> A rating made by a reader would be weighted according to the
> reader's own rating. So a "borderline" or new reader would
> have little influence. These would help avoid malicious
> readers downgrading others based on personal animosity etc.
>
> To shoe-horn this into the standard usenet system, a rating
> would be made via a reply comprising one line, e.g.:
>
> rating: 3
>
> The robo-moderator would append to the first post of
> each thread a brief summary of the format of rating
> lines, along with the rating values that could be used.
> This would make the system self-documenting.
>
> I'm sure it should be possible to devise a workable system
> along the lines sketched above, and something like that is
> certainly needed as sci.math is almost unusable using Google
> Groups (I know - "use a proper news reader!". But that isn't
> always practical if one uses different PCs a lot.)
>
> Cheers
>
> John R Ramsden (jhnrm...@yahooo.co.uk) remove one o
>
> P.S. Here's a sample .sig, incorporating an auto-approval key,
> which would prompt the robo-moderator to post the article
> automatically, with the name and key stripped out. (I think
> one would also need a user name.) :
>
> "When all is said and done - there's much more said than done."
> ~!~ user: jramsden, auto-approve-key: a67f56e8900db44879a7a5200 ~!~
Why, so math becomes more like politics?
So the popular control what is truth to the masses, whether it is
their intend or not?
There is not greater than liberty in truth.
The system self-regulated by the goodness of people as we realize
our errors and become better in time.
Are we less Barbarians than were we 1,000 years ago?
Are we so convinced we are perfect that in another 1,000 years
we will look back unchanged at the age we reached moral perfection
in applied science and mathematics in logic and philosophy?
I believe we never stop changing.
I believe post industrial revolution we have seen ourselves
as plateau amongst the 'gods'.
The idea that because there is no more land unseen there is nothing
more to discover.
Now that we mapped the human genome what do we do?
We must become like children to learn the greatest truths.
We have become foolish adults. Have, I, too?
Yes, I have seen this error in my eyes and removed
the plank of mine.
And what I see is simply too beautiful to not show it.
No matter what is said about me.
The world is too big to contain truth as we see it.
mmm
BOfL
> On Aug 14, 2:23 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Why, so math becomes more like politics?
Because in any group, there are a mutiltude of characteristics that
are mutually attracting.
>
> So the popular control what is truth to the masses, whether it is
> their intend or not?
Groups, by their very nature, have built in restrictions regarding
truth.
>
> There is not greater than liberty in truth.
Groups do not realize liberty, thats is the realm of the individual.
>
> The system self-regulated by the goodness of people as we realize
> our errors and become better in time.
Sure, groups do evolve, but as in calculus, they continually approach
the base line without getting there.
>
> Are we less Barbarians than were we 1,000 years ago?
Compare Socrates with Pol Pot. Time is irrelevant.
>
> Are we so convinced we are perfect that in another 1,000 years
> we will look back unchanged at the age we reached moral perfection
> in applied science and mathematics in logic and philosophy?
Groups need motivation.
>
> I believe we never stop changing.
Paradoxially, that applies to the individual. groups always provide
the necessary platform.
>
> I believe post industrial revolution we have seen ourselves
> as plateau amongst the 'gods'.
>
> The idea that because there is no more land unseen there is nothing
> more to discover.
>
Only when the outer terrain has been discovered does the real journey
begin.
> Now that we mapped the human genome what do we do?
As above.
>
> We must become like children to learn the greatest truths.
"I" must become 'present'...the quality of children, is they have not
yet learned to be distracted.
>
> We have become foolish adults. Have, I, too?
Not foolish. This feeling comes from the process of sperating from
familiar (group) territory. Should an adult feel foolish because of
how he saw life as an adolescent?
>
> Yes, I have seen this error in my eyes and removed
> the plank of mine.
>
> And what I see is simply too beautiful to not show it.
>
> No matter what is said about me.
>
> The world is too big to contain truth as we see it.
Replace "I" for "we".
There will always be 'echoes' from the group.
BOfL
>
> mmm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OwlHoot
>
> [..]
>
> Why, so math becomes more like politics?
No, so that people have fewer distractions discussing *maths*
on *sci.math*, rather than having to endure off-topic ramblings
and obsessive scattergun posting from self-indulgent people
like you.
You're worse than the viagra and fake handbag spammers - At
least they don't try and hijack other peoples' threads.
> So the popular control what is truth to the masses, whether
> it is their intend or not?
>
> There is not greater than liberty in truth.
>
> [..]
Blah, blah. This philosophizing may be interesting in some groups.
But it isn't maths is it? Nobody is interested here, even if they
may be elsewhere.
M.M.M.
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / / / / / / |
/\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ / / / / / |
/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ / / / / |
\ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ / / / / |
\/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ / / / |
\/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / / / |
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / / |
/\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ / |
/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ |
\ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ |
\/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \ |
\/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \ \ |
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ \ \ |
/\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \ \ \ |
/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \ \ \ |
\ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \ \ \ \ |
\/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \ \ \ \ \ |
\/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \ \ \ \ \ \ |
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
/\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
\ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
\/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
\/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
/ /\--/ /\--/ /\--/ /\--/ /\---\ \---\ \---\ \---\ \---\ \-0
mmm
8.14.09
'How many infinite planes do you see?'