Easily stumping mathematicians
Virgil
<3c65f87.03060...@posting.google.com>,
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> One of the more profound errors of Western civilization has been a
> continual collapse to dogma, and current dogma claims that
> mathematicians as a group represent a blessed society which is
> extraordinarily intelligent and not prone to error.
An error not necessarily shared by mathematicians
themselves. They mostly know how prone to error they are and
spend immense amounts of time and energy trying to eliminate
such errors from their work.
An admirable characteristic not shared by James.
Xcott Craver
>
> So then to stump your local mathematican, simply ask them to prove
> that given,
>
> abc=5
>
> where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are certain special numbers called algebraic
> integers,
Okay, given that....
> that no 'a' and 'b' exists such that neither a=1, b=1, nor
> ab=1, which is what most of them BELIEVE though in fact their belief
> is false.
I think you mis-phrased this? What about a=b=c=(5)^(1/3)?
There ya go, none of them equal 1, no product of two of them
equal 1.
If they must be distinct, how about a = (5)^(1/3),
b = (5)^(1/2), and c = (5)^(1/6) ??
These are all algebraic integers, obviously.
David C. Ullrich
>One of the more profound errors of Western civilization has been a
>continual collapse to dogma, and current dogma claims that
>mathematicians as a group represent a blessed society which is
>extraordinarily intelligent and not prone to error.
>
>That may sound weirdly phrased
Indeed. Also not something I've ever heard anyone else
say, which is curious considering it's "dogma".
(The part about "not prone to error" is the part that's new to me.)
>but when you think about it carefully
>as I've had reason to do, it is the best explanation for the current
>situation I'm facing, where I can stump mathematicians--no matter how
>supposedly brilliant or "genius", anywhere in the world--with a rather
>simple thing.
>
>Now I'll give this simple thing in just a bit but I want those of you
>who aren't part of math society to watch carefully what happens next.
>If mathematicians were what I'm sure many of you think they are, then
>what I'm about to do would be news. But in reality they are NOT a
>blessed society, and in general they are not much more intelligent
>than average--by my standards.
>
>However, they live and breathe in a special status based on your
>BELIEF of their blessed state of supposedly superior knowledge and
>ability, and make the lives of people like me miserable when we make
>important discoveries, but refuse to play by their rules.
>
>So then to stump your local mathematican, simply ask them to prove
>that given,
>
> abc=5
>
>where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are certain special numbers called algebraic
>integers, that no 'a' and 'b' exists such that neither a=1, b=1, nor
>ab=1, which is what most of them BELIEVE though in fact their belief
>is false.
Do most mathematicians believe this? I doubt it - I'm pretty sure
that if you choose a mathematician at random and ask him this
question he would say he has no idea whether it's true or false.
That would apply to at least 99% of the mathematicians in
the world.
>It's actually rather easy to prove that their belief is false, but I
>proved it, wrote a paper, and now math society appears to be doing its
>best to ignore me!
Meaning the paper has been rejected? Did they say why?
>The question is not trivial because though they can't prove it,
>mathematicians teach the belief as fact.
_This_ is not so. Right now I don't have any opinion on
whether it's true or false (your saying it's false counts as
no evidence, and your _saying_ mathematicians believe
it's true also counts as no evidence, given that _so_
many of the things you say turn out to be wrong.)
But I don't believe that "they" teach that it's true
although they can't prove it.
Ok, lemme think about it for a second. Hmm, actually
it's _obvious_ that such a, b and c _do_ exist. Consider
the polynomial x^3 - 5. This is certainly irreducible over
Z, since if not it would have a monic linear factor, but
it has no integer roots. So the three roots are algebraic
integers. Say the roots are a, b, and c. Then a, b and
c are distinct, and it can't happen that for example ab = 1
because that would mean c = 5.
So the statement that there are no such a, b, c is indeed
false (and it doesn't take a genius like you to see this,
only took me a minute of thought.) Now tell us exactly
_who_ has been "teaching" that there _are_ no such
a, b, c?
>It's basically just a
>mistake within "core" mathematics.
No, the mistake is in your understanding of basic
mathematics - here I would _guess_ that there's
some other statement that mathematicians teach,
which they can indeed prove, which you _think_
implies that there are no such a, b and c, although
it actually doesn't.
Tell us, exactly _what_ evidence do you have that
mathematicians teach that there are no such a,
b and c?
>I've been puzzling about the behavior of mathematicians as I'd think
>that when I pointed out their mistake they'd work to fix it. After
>all, a mistake is a mistake no matter how blessedly brilliant other
>people think you are.
>
>I had a bit of a realization when I came across the following tonite
>on the web.
>
><Quote>
>What is a proof? The question has two answers. The right wing
>("right-or-wrong", "rule-of-law") definition is that a proof is a
>logically correct argument that establishes the truth of a given
>statement. The left wing answer (fuzzy, democratic, and human
>centered) is that a proof is an argument that convinces a typical
>mathematician of the truth of a given statement.
>
>While valid in an idealistic sense, the right wing definition of a
>proof has the problem that, except for trivial examples, it is not
>clear that anyone has ever seen such a thing.
></Quote>
>
>From "When is a proof?" http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html,
>excerpt is first paragraph and beginning of second.
>
>So for those of you who believe in mathematical certainty the argument
>is that what mathematicians really talk about when they say "proof" is
>something that convinces *them* and not necessarily something that is
>unequivocably the truth.
>
>That math society aspect is what has given me problems as I have
>certain rather dramatic math finds, which mathematicians have the easy
>claim for ignoring by simply *claiming* that they don't understand me.
"Claiming" they don't understand. I like that.
>If you're curious about what those finds are simply go to
>
> http://groups.msn.com/AmateurMath
>
>where you'll also see a paper that gives you the route to solving the
>little conundrum I presented.
Pshaw. The only "route" needed to solve that conundrum is the
definition of "algebraic integer" plus some _trivial_ reasoning.
I gave a correct solution above in about a minute. Does this
make me a transcendent genius too? (Hint: no it doesn't.)
> It also highlights an error that
>mathematicians teach to their trusting students, which they should no
>longer teach now that I've pointed the error out.
>
>Understand that the work at my site is irrefutable, and actually
>represents what that author above calls that "right wing" definition
>of a proof.
>
>My work is irrefutable. But I'm not part of the math community.
>
>However, the math community has a certain position based on general
>belief that mathematicians represent a blessed group--blessed with
>superior mental faculties and knowledge.
>
>So what happens when an irrefutable proof from outside the community
>i.e. an irresistable force meets that community's recalcitrance?
>
>We'll see if the truth wins sooner or later against the mathematical
>community.
>
>But what will happen is that the truth will win as the truth, you see,
>is an irresistable force and an immovable object.
>
>Though I'm sure there are mathematicians who are wishing it were more
>movable and "left wing" because I'm the discoverer.
>
>Oh yeah, don't mathematicians say the damndest things?
>
>
>James Harris
******************
David C. Ullrich
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>James Harris wrote:
>>
>> So then to stump your local mathematican, simply ask them to prove
>> that given,
>>
>> abc=5
>>
>> where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are certain special numbers called algebraic
>> integers,
>
> Okay, given that....
>
>> that no 'a' and 'b' exists such that neither a=1, b=1, nor
>> ab=1, which is what most of them BELIEVE though in fact their belief
>> is false.
>
> I think you mis-phrased this? What about a=b=c=(5)^(1/3)?
> There ya go, none of them equal 1, no product of two of them
> equal 1.
>
> If they must be distinct,
You can just take the three _complex_ cube roots of 5.
>how about a = (5)^(1/3),
> b = (5)^(1/2), and c = (5)^(1/6) ??
>
> These are all algebraic integers, obviously.
******************
David C. Ullrich
C. Bond
[snip standard diatribe against critics]
> So then to stump your local mathematican, simply ask them to prove
> that given,
>
> abc=5
>
> where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are certain special numbers called algebraic
> integers, that no 'a' and 'b' exists such that neither a=1, b=1, nor
> ab=1, which is what most of them BELIEVE though in fact their belief
> is false.
I do not know any mathematicians who believe what you claim they believe.
The roots of the polynomial x^3-5 are all algebraic integers, as I
understand the common usage of the term. Those roots are:
x1 = (-1)^(2/3)*5^(1/3,
x2 = -(-5)^(1/3)
x3 =5^(1/3)
whose product is 5, as you require. Further, none of these values,
corresponding to your 'a', 'b' and 'c' is 1. Furthermore, no paired
products are 1. There is nothing beyond the elementary in the above, and
nothing that I believe any mathematician would dispute. If I am wrong, and
those values for x1,x2 and x3, do not satisfy your stated requirements for
an 'a', 'b' and 'c' then here is an opportunity for a refutation.
> It's actually rather easy to prove that their belief is false, but I
> proved it, wrote a paper, and now math society appears to be doing its
> best to ignore me!
As you can see, it doesn't require a paper, merely a counterexample.
However, the counterexample given above shows that there *are* algebraic
integers such that the product of three of them is 5 and none of them are
1 and none of their paired products is one. You claimed that
mathematicians do not believe such numbers exist. Possibly your claim is
wrong.
> The question is not trivial because though they can't prove it,
> mathematicians teach the belief as fact. It's basically just a
> mistake within "core" mathematics.
What do you mean "they can't prove it"?
[snip]
> If you're curious about what those finds are simply go to
>
> http://groups.msn.com/AmateurMath
>
> where you'll also see a paper that gives you the route to solving the
> little conundrum I presented. It also highlights an error that
> mathematicians teach to their trusting students, which they should no
> longer teach now that I've pointed the error out.
What conundrum? What "error that mathematicians teach to their trusting
students"?
--
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
Uncle Al
>
> One of the more profound errors of Western civilization has been a
> continual collapse to dogma, and current dogma claims that
> mathematicians as a group represent a blessed society which is
> extraordinarily intelligent and not prone to error.
Hey stooopid,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/
Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, "Principia Mathematica"
(1910, 1912, 1913).
Read it, shithead.
You know nothing about mathematics and even less about
mathematicians. Get a Project Head Start slum bunny to lecture you
about "rigor." And if you think math has holes in its substance,
burrow down in the middle of a featureless Arabian desert when
aeronautical engineering, control theory, and the GPS system conspire
to drop 5000 pounds of high explosive amd shrapnel upon your empty
head (give or take a meter).
> It's actually rather easy to prove that their belief is false, but I
> proved it, wrote a paper, and now math society appears to be doing its
> best to ignore me!
Learn the difference among "ignore," "disdain," and "ridicule with
loathing."
Psychotic ineducable boring James Harris,
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
George Greene
: That may sound weirdly phrased but when you think about it carefully
: as I've had reason to do, it is the best explanation for the current
: situation I'm facing, where I can stump mathematicians--no matter how
: supposedly brilliant or "genius", anywhere in the world--with a rather
: simple thing.
This is just bullshit, James.
You do not have ACCESS to mathematicians of arbitrarily
high "genius", "anywhere" in the world. You have a usenet
newsgroup. You have the sewer. You have the least common
denominator. The main problem you face right now is that you
have behaved so badly historically that mathematicians who
are smart enough to make your claim relevant will simply have
nothing to do with you, unless your prior history can be hidden
from them. That is one of the reasons why it was so evil for
the fool who "warned" the journal about you to have done so.
: So then to stump your local mathematican, simply ask them to prove
: that given,
:
: abc=5
:
: where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are certain special numbers called algebraic
: integers, that no 'a' and 'b' exists such that neither a=1, b=1, nor
: ab=1, which is what most of them BELIEVE though in fact their belief
: is false.
Well, unless you have the exact same definition as standard
mathematicians with actual math degrees have of "algebraic
integers", that is going to collapse into silliness, very
quickly. Of course, if they gave a standard definition, you
would disagree with it and then accuse them of collapsing
into dogma, if history is any guide.
: It's actually rather easy to prove that their belief is false, but I
: proved it, wrote a paper, and now math society appears to be doing its
: best to ignore me!
To whom did you submit your paper?
Did it ever occur to you that most people who submit papers are
professionally attached (even if only as MATH graduate students)
to an actual math department? Couldn't you at least seek some
informal affiliation or endorsement via a local math department?
The military has all manner of educational sub-parts; couldn't you
go that way?
: The question is not trivial because though they can't prove it,
: mathematicians teach the belief as fact. It's basically just a
: mistake within "core" mathematics.
Whatever it may be, it is NOT that. How did you even find out what
"algebraic integers" ARE, anyway? Can you post a link to a standard
definition?
Uncle Al
>
> jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.03060...@posting.google.com>...
> <deleted to focus on key error>
>
> Well after I made this post I went off and thought for a while and
> realized that there were problems.
Braggart. That's like my 82-year old brain-shriveled mother-in-law
with her revolked license saying she drove the Indy 500... but the
steering pulled a little to the right.
You are ignorant, self-deluded, and stooopid. You have been
instructed at length with punctilious rigor that you are stooopid.
You are so stooopid you are too stooopid to comprehend how stooopid
you are. You aren't entertaining, either.
1) http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
2) http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
Here's a hint, stooopid: Say anything you want in psychology,
economics, history, Fine Arts, Liberal Arts, social advocacy, ethnic
history, religion, or Feminazi studies. It's all posturing bullshit
anyway. If you try that in mathematics, engineering, or the sciences
you will be pinned in a killing jar by your testiclettes. Again.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Gib Bogle
> One of the more profound errors of Western civilization has been a
> continual collapse to dogma, and current dogma claims that
> mathematicians as a group represent a blessed society which is
> extraordinarily intelligent and not prone to error.
...
Here we go again. Will it be any different this time?
Gib
Allen L. Barker
An error definitely shared by mathematicians, though not necessarily
wrt to the original thread (and one hopes in lesser quantities
than in certain other professions). Cliques and politics are
not unknown to mathematicians and logicians (by a long shot), and
standards of proof and allowable assumptions also tend to vary.
Where does something like "reputation" fit into the calculation of
whether a proof holds?
If mathematicans are so concerned with errors, why so little
concern with computer proof systems? Does John Henry fear the
proof machine? The near future will belong to the computer-aided
mathematicians who can supply the machine with what it does not have
(imagination, visualization, real-world concerns, etc.), and who make
use of what the machine can do (brute force computation, symbolic and
otherwise, graphic displays, etc.). The interface is where it's at,
for now at least.
I don't really care about the original thread, I just saw a chance
to stand on my soapbox.
"Intelligent," in the natural language sense, is a whole other matter,
which I have disregarded as irrelevant for this problem.
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker
Marek Williams
You have finally earned plonkage.
--
Bogus e-mail address, but I read this newsgroup regularly, so reply here.
Mark Martin
> So for those of you who believe in mathematical certainty the argument
> is that what mathematicians really talk about when they say "proof" is
> something that convinces *them* and not necessarily something that is
> unequivocably the truth.
G.H. Hardy, a mathematician's mathematician, used to say the
following:
"The criterion for proof is certainty, but there is no proof that
certainty guarantees truth."
Mathematicians know perfectly well that they're able to make
mistakes. As an example, a few years ago there was a major debate over
a proof of the sphere packing theorem. The purpose of a proof is to
satisfy the author that there's ample justification to subscribe to a
theorem. They want high confidence. Go read Hardy's book, "A
Mathematician's Apology". Read some of the good biographies of
influential mathematicians. In particular there are excellent ones on
von Neumann & Hilbert. Read Bertrand Russel's autobiography. (He used
to sit around buck naked on hot days during WW-2.) You'll learn that,
not only are they not an elite corp, but also that they, themselves,
don't particularly see themselves or their colleagues as such. They're
just people who aren't satisfied with glib, wishy-washy awnswers. Do
the general public see them as an elite group? Hell, in my experience
most people don't even know what they do. The public sure doesn't lose
any sleep over the mathematical community.
> My work is irrefutable.
Ah, so YOU'RE the one who is elite & unassailable. Well it's a good
thing we finally found you.
-Mark Martin
Rick Russell
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
<verbiage>
None of your statements addresses the fact that many of your claims
have been refuted. You even go so far as to attribute the work of
others to yourself -- somebody will post that you are wrong and show
you how you are wrong, then you will suddenly have a realization and
post a "correction". And then a correction to that correction, ad
infinitum. And yet you make this claim of irrefutability.
You talk at length about the "mathematical priesthood" and how we
should question the reliability and honesty of the mathematical
establishment.
Perhaps you should shine the spotlight on yourself. If you take a good
hard look in that withering beam, you might see what the rest of us
see -- that your credibility is zero.
Rick R.
George Greene
: However, Usenet lets me conveniently talk to the world, including
: those people out there who aren't most of you, who are people none of
: you will ever know, even though they basically control your lives.
:
: It's about access. Most of you don't have it.
:
: I do.
It's a safe bet that if most of those people saw how you
behave here, you wouldn't have it much longer.
--
---
"It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any
strength, but internal issues have to be addressed."
--- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America
William Kunka
Re: Easily stumping mathematicians
Group: alt.writing Date: Mon, Jun 9, 2003, 10:06am (EDT-3) From:
jst...@msn.com (James Harris)
George Greene <gre...@swan.cs.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:<xesn0gs...@swan.cs.unc.edu>...
That may sound weirdly phrased but when you think about it carefully as
I've had reason to do, it is the best explanation for the current
situation I'm facing, where I can stump mathematicians--no matter how
supposedly brilliant or "genius", anywhere in the world--with a rather
simple thing.
This is just bullshit, James.
You do not have ACCESS to mathematicians of arbitrarily high "genius",
"anywhere" in the world. You have a usenet newsgroup. You have the
sewer. You have the least common denominator. The main problem you face
right now is that you have behaved so badly historically that
mathematicians who are smart enough to make your claim relevant will
simply have nothing to do with you, unless your prior history can be
hidden from them. That is one of the reasons why it was so evil for the
Well among people with whom I've corresponded, not terribly successfully
unfortunatly, are Andrew Granville, Kenneth Ribet, Andrew Odlyzko,
Rudolph Kalman, among others. For those of you who read the New York
Times there was a recent article about a nice mathematician named Arlie
O. Petters, and I contacted him.
(If I mention a name, then yes, they actually replied back to me, some
of them more extensively than others, not surprisingly.)
I've successfully contacted people who have been written up in major
magazines for having the highest I.Q.'s in the country.
I have another person I've successfully contacted, more famous than
those mentioned.
I've also received at least form letter responses from the White House
(it's in Washington, D.C.) in response to communications on other
subjects than math, of course. But not recently as George W. Bush
doesn't reply to me.
And I have a certain level of contacts in the news media.
It turns out, amazingly enough, that I've even helped the FBI out a few
times (mostly minor stuff, but some of it is kind of funny).
I've met at least one governor by chance, a senator (both former), and
I've had some really good seats at sports games.
My life is not Usenet. My experiences are not your experiences. Many of
you may assume you know what I'm about, but from where I sit, you hardly
know much about what's going on around you.
I've at times tried to give you some idea, like giving you a head's up
about Iraq, but it blows right past you.
My assessment is that most people really don't need to know.
However, Usenet lets me conveniently talk to the world, including those
people out there who aren't most of you, who are people none of you will
ever know, even though they basically control your lives.
It's about access. Most of you don't have it.
I do.
James Harris
When that fracture line in your psyche gives way I hope its a clean
break...maybe something can be salvaged.
Bill
Jan
> continual collapse to dogma, and current dogma claims that
> mathematicians as a group represent a blessed society which is
> extraordinarily intelligent and not prone to error.
I am a mathematician and have never heard such a thing. The whole
system or however you'd prefer to call it just doen't operate this
way.
Jan Bielawski
Brian Quincy Hutchings
you never do reply to me, it seems. anyway,
*your* assumptions about others are just tautological BS, although
most folks are certainly aware of their particular cohorts
in what ever world of ideas they like; so?
sorry, for even mentioning that I exist,
before I am quickly snuffed-out!
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.03060...@posting.google.com>...
> Let's not play games here. Most of you know that your opinion doesn't
> matter. As a group your opinion can have some meaning but as an
> individual I suspect most of you don't expect to have a voice.
>
> So you probably assume that because I'm bothering to post, I'm talking
> to you, and because I'm talking to you, what I'm saying can't be
> important because you're not important.
> If you hadn't noticed, I rarely see reason to reply to a particular
> individual, for that individual. That's because it's just not worth
> my time.
--A church-school McCrusade (Blair's ideals?):
Harry-the-Mad-Potter want's US to kill Iraqis?...
For a 1000-year "anglo-american hegemony?"
"HEY, JIMMY; LET'S US and SU FIGHT" -then-PM of England & Zbiggy
http://www.tarpley.net/bush25.htm ("Thyroid Storm" ch.)
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo.PCX
Bill Vajk
> People of action learn to do what they can, rather than whine about
> what is.
If whining isn't action, what is it?
Christian Bau
Bill Vajk <bill9...@hotmail.ditchthis.com> wrote:
James Harris, a man of action, constantly whines about how the evil
mathematicians don't give him the respect that he undoubtedly deserves
for being the most obnoxious little fart that has been pestering
sci.math for more than seven years now.
Mark Martin
In my estimation, Jimmy's problem is that, in reality, he sees
mathematicians precisely as he accuses them of being seen by everyone
else. He wants to be counted among them, but he fails to get what he
wants. (i.e., walking down a university hallway and having someone in
the math department accost him, asking his expert input on some
intractible relationship) So he does the "If I can't have them, nobody
will!" routine.
-Mark Martin
George Greene
: George Greene <gre...@eagle.cs.unc.edu> wrote in message news:<xesr863...@eagle.cs.unc.edu>...
: > jst...@msn.com (James Harris) writes:
: > : However, Usenet lets me conveniently talk to the world, including
: > : those people out there who aren't most of you, who are people none of
: > : you will ever know, even though they basically control your lives.
: > :
: > : It's about access. Most of you don't have it.
: > :
: > : I do.
: >
: > It's a safe bet that if most of those people saw how you
: > behave here, you wouldn't have it much longer.
:
: You talk as if you know.
You have been doing the same thing, about algebra,
ever since you got here. AND, far worse, about the
character of what you mis-perceive as "the mathematical
community" generally.
: You post on a logic newsgroup, why don't you justify your assertion as
: an exercise in consistency.
My assertion was about the physical world;
logic is of marginal relevance.
: Emotions don't rule the world George. It is a world of laws. Your
: anger or despair can't change the law.
What laws, exactly, are you talking about?
Your anger or despair cannot change the fact that
mathematicians in general have GOOD reasons not to take
you seriously.
: People of action learn to do what they can, rather than whine about
: what is.
Whining IS doing something in ANY context where people can actually
be convinced to change their opinion by hearing new information.
George Greene
: But the current system is set-up on a feudal level, as Westerners have
: a feudal history which they keep trying to go back to, for some odd
: reason.
:
: So mathematicians ride over mathematics like priests rode over
: Medieval Europe, and most of you think of yourselves as peasants in
: their court.
:
: I don't. I'm a discoverer. I found some really nice indestructible
: objects and want proper credit.
You ain't found SHIT, dumbass.
All you are doing is embarrassing black intellectuals
everywhere. Sit yo' DUMBass the FUCK down, shut the FUCK up,
and go the FUCK home, BEFORE somebody actually explains to one
of your superior officers what is going on here.
George Greene
: And mathematicians better think carefully if they believe they're
: invulnerable. They need to look at Enron, Waksal, Martha Stewart,
: Bush, Catholic priests and ask themselves do they really think they
: can win by believing that the world is feudal.
:
: Well I know that eventually--if necessary--I'll have prosecutors
: knocking on your doors.
:
: You see, I don't whine, I get things done. And right now I'm properly
: informing mathematicians that they are to tell the truth or else.
:
: I have no problem with any number of mathematicians spending time in
: jail.
You would wind up in a loony bin (if you're not an escapee
already) long before that happens.
But this shit is SO comical that I'm actually starting
think you have natural talent. Russell Simmons wants
YOU.
Brett
>
> those people out there who aren't most of you, who are people none of
> you will ever know, even though they basically control your lives.
>
> It's about access. Most of you don't have it.
>
> I do.
>
>
Everyone watch out! This James Harris is an illuminatus! If you don't
believe his maths, he will imminentize the eschaton! You have been
warned! ;)
C. Bond
[snip standard diatribe against critics]
> Well I know that eventually--if necessary--I'll have prosecutors
> knocking on your doors.
>
> You see, I don't whine, I get things done. And right now I'm properly
> informing mathematicians that they are to tell the truth or else.
>
> I have no problem with any number of mathematicians spending time in
> jail.
Look, are you still rattling your sword? Or do you intend to have your attorneys file charges and get on with it? I'd hate to think you were
bluffing -- that's a bit dishonest.
> Of course, some of them might appreciate it as a way to get some
> isolation so that they can spend more time looking for proofs!
Bob Pease
"C. Bond" <cb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3EE68347...@ix.netcom.com...
> James Harris wrote:
>
> [snip standard diatribe against critics]
>
> > Well I know that eventually--if necessary--I'll have prosecutors
> > knocking on your doors.
> >
> > You see, I don't whine, I get things done. And right now I'm properly
> > informing mathematicians that they are to tell the truth or else.
> >
> > I have no problem with any number of mathematicians spending time in
> > jail.
>
> Look, are you still rattling your sword? Or do you intend to have your
attorneys file charges and get on with it? I'd hate to think you were
> bluffing -- that's a bit dishonest.
>
> > Of course, some of them might appreciate it as a way to get some
> > isolation so that they can spend more time looking for proofs!
>
He's nuts!!!
rj p
Mark Martin
> The situation as it stands is that people rely on mathematicians when
> it comes to mathematical discoveries. That is, mathematicians are the
> gatekeepers.
The general public doesn't "rely" upon mathematicians to make
mathematical discoveries. The general public doesn't make such
discoveries because they aren't interested in making them. A typical
human being picked at random has no concept of higher mathematics.
(This isn't a derisive statement. It's a simple fact that people come
in a variety of flavors.) That leaves only mathematicians, the few
who care enough to spend their lives exploring mathematics, to make
such discoveries. It's the same with just about any academic
specialty. On average, entemological discoveries are made by
entemologists. Other people step on bugs without a second thought.
As for mathematicians, when a real talent comes along, that
individual is likely to be nurtured, not rejected. Nash was from coal
country, the last place you might expect to find one of the 20th
century's sharpest minds. Ramanujan didn't even have much of an
education, but was literally lifted out of his slum because of the
brilliance of his theorems. He walked the walk.
Do non-mathematicians have access to pros? Definitely. I'm not a
mathematician. I'm literally a "nobody". But I've never had one bit of
trouble communicating with either mathematicians or physicists at
will.
> If getting proper credit means that the entire current feudal system
> is ended, then I just figure that's what it takes to solve the
> problem.
And this really is the issue here. You don't want truth. You want
"credit". You wish to be recognised by mathematicians for your genius.
You wish to be counted among them, and be within the elite corp.
> And mathematicians better think carefully if they believe they're
> invulnerable. They need to look at Enron, Waksal, Martha Stewart,
> Bush, Catholic priests and ask themselves do they really think they
> can win by believing that the world is feudal.
>
> Well I know that eventually--if necessary--I'll have prosecutors
> knocking on your doors.
>
> You see, I don't whine, I get things done. And right now I'm properly
> informing mathematicians that they are to tell the truth or else.
>
> I have no problem with any number of mathematicians spending time in
> jail.
Jail? You gotta be kidding. It's not even legal to copyright a
mathematical theorem. So what has anyone done that's illegal? Did
someone steal something from you? Did someone deprive you of
employment that you were qualified for? Did someone plagiarise your
work? It doesn't sound to me that anyone has broken any laws by
ignoring you.
Tell you what, you have internet access. Thus means that you have
access to free webspace. Put up a website. Publish your work. You've
nothing to bitch about.
-Mark Martin
Y.Porat
> jst...@msn.com (James Harris) writes:
> : And mathematicians better think carefully if they believe they're
> : invulnerable. They need to look at Enron, Waksal, Martha Stewart,
> : Bush, Catholic priests and ask themselves do they really think they
> :
> : jail.
>
> You would wind up in a loony bin (if you're not an escapee
> already) long before that happens.
>
> But this shit is SO comical that I'm actually starting
> think you have natural talent. Russell Simmons wants
there is one thing that is obvious to me
and i wonder how obvious is it to others.
physics has been taken over by mathematicians
in a similar way that say 500 years ago, political power
was taken over by clergy.!
ie it became a source of living to too mant smart and assertive
people who turned thyis scince into a source of personal power.
and power and status, is the main goal and interest.
(just see what happence to anyone who will dare to say
a word of criticism againt mathematicians !- he will be
run over imediately, as a dangerous insect)
now to say something apposite in short:
mathematics should not be the leader of physics!
physics should be the leader of phjysics !
(now i am going to be run over (:-)
all the best
Y.Porat
----------
William Kunka
ill ride over mathematics like priests rode over Medieval Europe, and
most of you think of yourselves as peasants in their court.
No mathematician ever rode up to me and demanded my cabbages.
Bill
dre
No mathematician ever called me a spic! Hah! (Muhammed Ali would be
proud)
dre
the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Kick it!
Go for the Oscar, James!
It's just so much fun, and these posts are crossposted to so many
different groups. He does bring people together - I don't think it
will ever truly be over mathematics, but he does get people riled....
Robert J. Kolker
Y.Porat wrote:
> now to say something apposite in short:
> mathematics should not be the leader of physics!
> physics should be the leader of phjysics !
> (now i am going to be run over (:-)
Without abstract mathematical notions of symmetry and invariance,
physics would be returned to 1880 in a flash. The progress in field and
particle theory is precisely due to mathematical abstraction.
Bob Kolker
David C. Ullrich
>[...]
>
>Well I know that eventually--if necessary--I'll have prosecutors
>knocking on your doors.
>
>You see, I don't whine, I get things done. And right now I'm properly
>informing mathematicians that they are to tell the truth or else.
>
>I have no problem with any number of mathematicians spending time in
>jail.
Hint: you're sounding like a lunatic again. You should really try
to avoid this - as has been explained in the past, if someone who
knew nothing whatever about mathematics read what you just
wrote he'd conclude you must be wrong about everything
because you're obviously nuts.
Just a hint. If on the other hand you're not interested in
credibility but you _do_ want to provide entertainment
value for us then never mind, proceed as you have been.
>Of course, some of them might appreciate it as a way to get some
>isolation so that they can spend more time looking for proofs!
>
>But those are probably the real mathematicians anyway, and they aren't
>the ones that I think would give me problems.
>
>
>James Harris
******************
David C. Ullrich
math-guy
>
> It's about access. Most of you don't have it.
>
> I do.
>
brain.
--
Posted via http://web2news.com the faster web2news on the web
Jack Rudd
> James Harris, a man of action, constantly whines about how the evil
> mathematicians don't give him the respect that he undoubtedly deserves
> for being the most obnoxious little fart that has been pestering
> sci.math for more than seven years now.
Maybe we should introduce him to Walt Frazee and Bill Magaletta. I'm
sure Bill would find some merit in his ideas.
Jack Rudd
Kenneth Almquist
> Well after I made this post I went off and thought for a while and
> realized that there were problems.
>
> I said:
>
>> So then to stump your local mathematican, simply ask them to prove
>> that given,
>>
>> abc=5
>>
>> where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are certain special numbers called algebraic
>> integers, that no 'a' and 'b' exists such that neither a=1, b=1, nor
>> ab=1, which is what most of them BELIEVE though in fact their belief
>> is false.
>
> The mistake here is easy enough because as given you can use
>
> a=b=c=5^{1/3}
>
> to refute my claims.
> Here's what I should have said:
>
> So then to stump your local mathematicians, simply ask any of them to
> prove that given,
>
> abc=5
>
> where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are certain special numbers called algebraic
> integers that no 'a' and 'b' exists such that neither a=1, b=1, nor
> ab=1, when 'a' and 'b' are coprime to 5, and 'a', 'b', and 'c' are all
> roots of one particular polynomial with integer coefficients.
The new conditions you list are:
1) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are all roots of one particular polynomial with
integer coefficients.
The solution a=b=c=5^{1/3} meets this condition, since a, b, and c are
all roots of the polynomical x^3 - 5 = 0.
2) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are algebraic integers.
This is a fancy way of saying that the first coefficient of the polynomial
mentioned in the previous condition must be one. The solution a=b=c=5^{1/3}
also meets this condition.
3) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are coprime to 5.
You made an obvious mistake here, because the term "coprime" is only
defined for integers, and there is no requirement that 'a', 'b', and
'c' be integers. Saying that an integer is coprime to 5 is a fancy
way of saying that the integer is not an integral multiple of 5. In
the solution a=b=c=5^{1/3}, none of 'a', 'b', or 'c' are integral
multiples of 5.
The bottom line is that your "corrections" to your previous post
haven't fixed the problem.
I am not a professional mathematician, and have no interest in
becoming one. If this thread is indicative of your mathematical
abilities, perhaps you, too, should consider finding an area of
interest more in line with your abilities.
Kenneth Almquist
C. Bond
[snip]
> The new conditions you list are:
>
> 1) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are all roots of one particular polynomial with
> integer coefficients.
>
> The solution a=b=c=5^{1/3} meets this condition, since a, b, and c are
> all roots of the polynomical x^3 - 5 = 0.
The other roots are: (-1)^(2/3)5^(1/3) and -(-5)^(1/3).
> 2) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are algebraic integers.
>
> This is a fancy way of saying that the first coefficient of the polynomial
> mentioned in the previous condition must be one. The solution a=b=c=5^{1/3}
> also meets this condition.
>
> 3) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are coprime to 5.
>
> You made an obvious mistake here, because the term "coprime" is only
> defined for integers, and there is no requirement that 'a', 'b', and
> 'c' be integers. Saying that an integer is coprime to 5 is a fancy
> way of saying that the integer is not an integral multiple of 5. In
> the solution a=b=c=5^{1/3}, none of 'a', 'b', or 'c' are integral
> multiples of 5.
It would be appropriate to ask James to define (exactly) what he means by the
terms he uses, but he has prior history of ignoring such requests or attacking
the requestor.
Since the roots of the polynomial x^3-5 appear to be simple candidates for a
specific explanation of his assertion, you would think he would jump at the
chance to identify those values which precisely fit his description. For
example, 1) the roots of the polynomial x^3-5 are algebraic integers, their
product is 5, none of them are 1 and no paired products are 1. So, given these
numbers:
a = (-1)^(2/3)5^(1/3)
b = -(-5)^(1/3)
c = 5^(1/3)
which ones, if any, are coprime to 5?
> The bottom line is that your "corrections" to your previous post
> haven't fixed the problem.
>
> I am not a professional mathematician, and have no interest in
> becoming one. If this thread is indicative of your mathematical
> abilities, perhaps you, too, should consider finding an area of
> interest more in line with your abilities.
> Kenneth Almquist
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the
obvious.
Randy Poe
> So then to stump your local mathematican, simply ask them to prove
> that given,
>
> abc=5
>
> where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are certain special numbers called algebraic
> integers, that no 'a' and 'b' exists such that neither a=1, b=1, nor
> ab=1, which is what most of them BELIEVE though in fact their belief
> is false.
For the record, I note that:
(1) James never did succeed in revising this statement to
make a true statement,
(2) Eventually he walked away from these threads and stopped
trying, but
(3) He now, true to form, claims in other threads that he has
a statement that "stumps mathematicians".
- Randy
Arturo Magidin
note followups.
In article <bc8u5d$433$1...@shell.monmouth.com>,
Kenneth Almquist <k...@sorry.no.email> wrote:
[.snip.]
>3) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are coprime to 5.
>
>You made an obvious mistake here, because the term "coprime" is only
>defined for integers,
Actually, no; "coprime" or "comaximal" is the term used for arbitrary
rings; "relatively prime" is the term usually reserved for unique
factorization domains (like the integers), or in extreme cases to
Dedekind domains.
Two ideals I and J are comaximal if and only if I+J=R. Two elements
are also said to be comaximal (or coprime) if and only if the
principal ideals they generate are comaximal.
In the case of algebraic integers, which are a Bezout domain, two
elements a and b are coprime if and only if there exist algebraic
integers r and s such that ar+bs = 1. This is equivalent to the
definition given above, and also equivalent to
(*) If x divides a and x divides b in the ring of algebraic
integers, then x is a unit.
======================================================================
"Why do you take so much trouble to expose such a reasoner as
Mr. Smith? I answer as a deceased friend of mine used to answer
on like occasions - A man's capacity is no measure of his power
to do mischief. Mr. Smith has untiring energy, which does
something; self-evident honesty of conviction, which does more;
and a long purse, which does most of all. He has made at least
ten publications, full of figures few readers can critize. A great
many people are staggered to this extend, that they imagine there
must be the indefinite "something" in the mysterious "all this".
They are brought to the point of suspicion that the mathematicians
ought not to treat "all this" with such undisguised contempt,
at least."
-- "A Budget of Paradoxes", Vol. 2 p. 129 by Augustus de Morgan
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu
William Kunka
Re: Easily stumping mathematicians
Group: alt.writing Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 9:35am (EDT-3) From:
qed...@hotmail.com (Mark Martin)
Seems likely...The classic "jilted lover".
Bill
Kenneth Almquist
> Kenneth Almquist <k...@sorry.no.email> wrote:
>
> [.snip.]
>
>> 3) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are coprime to 5.
>>
>> You made an obvious mistake here, because the term "coprime" is only
>> defined for integers,
>
> Actually, no; "coprime" or "comaximal" is the term used for arbitrary
> rings; "relatively prime" is the term usually reserved for unique
> factorization domains (like the integers), or in extreme cases to
> Dedekind domains.
>
> Two ideals I and J are comaximal if and only if I+J=R. Two elements
> are also said to be comaximal (or coprime) if and only if the
> principal ideals they generate are comaximal.
I stand corrected.
Judging by the world wide web, this usage of coprime is relatively
obscure. For example the PlanetMath entry for "coprime" states that,
"two integers a, b are coprime if their greatest common divisor is 1."
(See <http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Coprime.html>.) MathWorld
defines "coprime" to be a synonym for "relatively prime." (See
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Coprime.html>.) The original poster
could have avoided confusion by using the term "comaximal" rather than
"coprime".
Kenneth Almquist
George Greene
: > Kenneth Almquist <k...@sorry.no.email> wrote:
: >
: > [.snip.]
: >
: >> 3) 'a', 'b', and 'c' are coprime to 5.
: >>
: >> You made an obvious mistake here, because the term "coprime" is only
: >> defined for integers,
: mag...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
: > Actually, no; "coprime" or "comaximal" is the term used for arbitrary
: > rings; "relatively prime" is the term usually reserved for unique
: > factorization domains (like the integers), or in extreme cases to
: > Dedekind domains.
: >
: > Two ideals I and J are comaximal if and only if I+J=R. Two elements
: > are also said to be comaximal (or coprime) if and only if the
: > principal ideals they generate are comaximal.
k...@sorry.no.email (Kenneth Almquist) writes:
: Judging by the world wide web, this usage of coprime is relatively
: obscure. For example the PlanetMath entry for "coprime" states that,
: "two integers a, b are coprime if their greatest common divisor is 1."
: (See <http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Coprime.html>.) MathWorld
: defines "coprime" to be a synonym for "relatively prime." (See
: <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Coprime.html>.) The original poster
: could have avoided confusion by using the term "comaximal" rather than
: "coprime".
That's far from clear. For one thing, he said coprime TO 5.
How is any, let alone all, of a, b, and c, supposed to be
"coprime to 5" in ANY context that includes ALL the roots of
ALL integer polynomials??
John Starrett
>
<snip>
> My work is irrefutable.
<snip>
Makes a nice sig line.
--
John Starrett
"It does not require a majority to prevail,
but rather an irate, tireless minority keen
to set brush fires in people's minds."
Samuel Adams
Jesse F. Hughes
> James Harris wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>> My work is irrefutable.
> <snip>
>
> Makes a nice sig line.
Oh, please. There are so many much better signature quotes from James
than this one. Really, James's quotability is an embarrassment of
riches. Believe me.
Synchronicity, by the way, prompted my machine to randomly choose the
quote below (from ~60 or so choices) for this post.
--
Jesse Hughes
"Yes, I'm one of those arrogant people who tries to be quotable.
There is actually at least one person who quotes me often."
-- James Harris
Richard Henry
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.03061...@posting.google.com...
>
> It seems to me that a lot of posters on Usenet take themselves WAY too
> seriously.
I have noticed that.
>
> I don't. I have fun. And I kick ass.
Actually, I haven't noticed THAT at all.
George Greene
: > James Harris wrote:
: >> My work is irrefutable.
jes...@cs.kun.nl (Jesse F. Hughes) writes:
: Oh, please. There are so many much better signature quotes from James
: than this one. Really, James's quotability is an embarrassment of
: riches. Believe me.
This is going to create a problem.
I mean, if it is really true, then James really has
something to be proud about (alt.writing is the one
group he *belongs* in). As long as that is the
case, he has motivation to keep doing this.
That would be tragic.
: Synchronicity, by the way, prompted my machine to randomly choose the
: quote below (from ~60 or so choices) for this post.
: --
: Jesse Hughes
: "Yes, I'm one of those arrogant people who tries to be quotable.
: There is actually at least one person who quotes me often."
: -- James Harris
Maybe you should post the whole list of 60, so the
rest of us can have some fun.
George Greene
: I like the following quotes as some of my favorites:
Like most writers, he needs an editor.
If Jesse is actually good at that then
they are both in a potentially embarrassing
form of symbiosis.
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
When James brags about the way he tends to obliterate his
opponents it always reminds me of the Monty Python thing
(Holy Grail): The knight with both his legs cut off
sitting there on the stumps shouting "come back here,
you cowards!..."
******************
David C. Ullrich
David C. Ullrich
<gre...@eagle.cs.unc.edu> wrote:
>I had uncharitably alleged:
> : >You are NOT just curious.
> : >You are just quoting me, cursing, out of context,
> : >trying to allege to all readers that this might somehow
> : >be appropriate,
>
>David C. Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> writes:
> : Not trying to allege any such thing.
>
>Well, that is a relief.
>But surely you must understand that re-posting
>that without the context of what provoked it is
>guaranteed to have that effect. So claiming that
>you did not intend the effect is disingenuous, especially
>given our history.
>
> : >or maybe the way I talk,
> :
> : Um. You are _much_ more likely than anyone else here
> : to reply to a purely "intellectual" comment on _logic_
> : with words like "shut up, bitch". That's a fact.
>
>Indeed.
>
> : >or maybe
> : >the way black intellectuals disproportionately talk.
> :
> : Positively _not_ alleging that.
>
>That is also a relief.
>
> : I'm suggesting that when
> : _you_ talk the way you consistently _do_ and then
> : say that someone can't be black because he doesn't
> : write the way "we black intellectuals"[or words to that
> : effect] talk it sounds to the reader like _you_ are
> : alleging this.
>
>Well, I'm not.
>C'mon, use some common sense about the context.
>Any black intellectual that you get to read, about
>any issue of import, is writing in something with
>at least regional distribution, in the employ of some
>white institution. He is PROFESSIONALLY OBLIGATED to
>speak civilly. I am speaking recreationally in an
>unmoderated newsgroup. It DOES make a difference.
>
> : >IF You had actually QUOTED what I was talking about at
> : >the time,
> :
> : Do you recall the incident I'm referring to? If so, can you
> : find a quote? If so by all means post it.
>
>No, I'm sorry. I really wish I could.
>If I was daring to generalize about what my whole
>intellectual community would opine then it was probably
>actually important.
>
> : >you would see (and, more importantly, all observers
> : >would see) that THAT "kind of language" was not even relevant
> : >to what I was talking about, back then.
> :
> : I didn't say that it was relevant. This was supposed to be a hint
> : for your benefit -
>
>Thank you.
>
> : it seemed to me that the reader might think
> : that's what you were talking about (and even if the reader
> : didn't think that's what you were talking about a reader
> : familar with your tendency to say things like "shut up, bitch"
> : might nonetheless find your comments on the way "we"
> : black intellectuals write a little, um, maybe the word is
> : incongruous.)
>
>Of course. However, if you attend a university where
>a tenure-track black professor was denied tenure and eventually
>forced off the faculty for quoting rap lyrics with curse words
>in a commencement speech, you would understand that I personally
>have no monopoly whatsoever on this particular incongruity.
Of course you don't have any such monopoly. But the example
you mention does not show this - he's _quoting_ those lyrics,
not talking that way himself.
> : As long as I'm giving unsolicited advice, actually I suspect
> : that when you refer to yourself as a black intellectual a _lot_
> : of readers are going to find it a little, again I can't put my
> : finger on exactly the right word.
>
>And neither can they. However, since I got 800 on the
>GRE verbal, I could, if there were one. Let's start
>with "hubristic" and work our way back to "ridiculous".
>Although at this point and in this context, one is
>almost tempted to coin "Harristic".
>
> : > : But I know of a few journalists who _claim_ to
> : > : be black - it appears they must be lying about that, for
> : > : some reason.)
>
>Come ON. Unless you quote the episode, I cannot
>tell whether the style of speech I was condemning
>as non-black does or doesn't match the journalistic
>style these writers are using. BOTH sides of the
>equation are just impossible to evaluate.
>
> : >Not exactly. The journalists to whom you allude are
> : >straight up 'ho's. Yes, Condi Rice is a ho.
> :
> : Wasn't referring to her. Actually had a columnist for
> : either Newsweek or Time in mind, I _think_ the
> : name is Jack White, not sure about that.
>
>That sounds right. I like Jack White.
>You are certainly right that his writing style
>is kind of white-bread even though he is a black
>intellectual. He would not have made the mistake
>that the professor I alluded to above made (although
>in the prof's defense it must be stressed that popular
>culture is a relevant academic sub-discipline for him, and
>as an academic, he was supposed to have more freedom along
>this axis than anybody who writes for Newsweek).
>
> : Anyway, I'd read his columns for years, sometimes agreeing,
> : sometimes disagreeing, and sometimes finding
> : food for thought - exactly what's supposed to
> : happen. Had no idea he was black for a long time,
> : until one day he said so, when it was relevant to
> : whatever the topic was.
>
>I would also put William Raspberry in this camp.
>Both of these people are choosing to make their
>contribution by being very much NOT an Angry Black Man.
>They are being as polite and professional, in tone, as they
>know how to be. Obviously, not EVERYbody can, or even should,
>do that. But for those of you who can't take it any other
>way, who will necessarily (however wrongly) prioritize
>style over content, it is of course good that SOME intelligent
>black person is willing to take the trouble to talk to you
>in your preferred style.
>
> : And my point is that that comment you made earlier,
> : which I'm sorry I can't quote precisely, implies that
> : when a black man is writing on a topic that has
> : nothing to do with race one should still be able
> : to deduce from his style that he's black - if not
> : he's doing something Wrong somehow.
>
>Well, he's acting. More pejoratively, we could say that he's
>frontin'. Most pejoratively, we could say that he's not keepin' it
>real.
Why do we have to say any of those things? Why is it
impossible that he's simply saying exactly what he wants
to say, in what seems to him to be the most direct way to
say it?
I mean really. In that perfect world we wish this world
was the color of a person's skin makes no difference
to anything, right? So when a black writer doesn't
"sound black" why does that always imply he's
acting? Why couldn't it be that he doesn't sound
black because there really isn't any such thing
as sounding black?
>But why would we want to wax pejorative? I mean, he chose a
>style. Maybe it was an appropriate choice. Maybe there were good
>reasons for it. Just because it would be (ethnically) self- hating
>to chemically straighten your hair and bleach your skin, while
>surgically narrowing your nose and thinning your lips,
The difference is that a man with black skin _does_ have
black skin - that _is_ part of who he is. Speaking in a
certain way is _not_ part of being black.
No, I'm not that out of touch, actually I have observed
that in fact there is such a thing as typically black American
English. But that's not something determined by the
way the universe is, it's a cultural artifact.
>does NOT
>mean that you should NEVER use hair care products or makeup! There
>are right ways and wrong ways to use masking and lensing. Not all
>artifice is destructive or deceitful. More to the point, the
>allegation that there is some authentic underlying "real" style to
>begin with is itself suspect; your birthday suit is STILL *a* suit;
>it is still *a* costume; the null set is still *a* set.
>
>The fact that "GG thinks this black writer is doing something
>wrong" is what you personally chose to infer from it does NOT
>mean that I was implying that; that might just be YOUR error.
Above you say quite explicitly that Jack White is "acting".
>Until and unless you quote both me and the allegedly faux/black
>writer I was condemning, IN context, so we can get a BROAD sample of
>reactions from a lot of readers, it is simply not clear what I was
>implying. If, AFTER you do that, MOST of the people who read us
>infer the same thing you did, THEN I stand convicted of implying
>it. Until then, you're just hatin'-as-usual.
_I'm_ hatin'-as-usual? I don't see anything hateful in any
of this exchange (a fact which I find somewhat heartening)
right up to that crack you just made about how I'm hatin
as usual.
>I certainly had no idea that the discussion to which you
>were alluding was about an issue that had nothing to do
>with race. How did the writer's race even come up in
>the first place, in that case? And was it ever factually
>ascertained whether the writer was or wasn't black?
Hmm. The writer in question said that for all you knew
_he_ could be black. You replied that you _knew_
damm well he wasn't. Why do you need to ask if
you already know?
> : Maybe that's not what you meant, but if not then
> : fyi it _is_ the impression I got. (i) If that's not what
> : you meant: well, now you know that at least one
> : person thought that that _was_ what you meant.
> : (ii) If that _was_ what you meant: I just can't
> : believe you feel that way. (???)
>
>I think *I* can tell. That doesn't mean I think *you* can tell or
>that white people in general can tell (unless they've made it a
>point both to read African-American writers and to listen to average
>black people just talking -- the "American" part needs stressing
>here because black authors from other countries, writing in English
>or in translation, obviously will NOT sound/style the same).
Agreeing for the sake of argument that Jack White is "acting",
that's not relevant to my point here: If you didn't know that he
was black, and you read what he wrote, other than things
where he explicitly mentioned his race, would you know he
was black?
Seems a little circular: You can tell a black writer by the
way he wriites, unless he's putting on a front, where
putting on a front is defined to be writing in a way such
that you can't tell he's black.
******************
David C. Ullrich
Kevin Buhr
> opponents it always reminds me of the Monty Python thing
> (Holy Grail): The knight with both his legs cut off
> sitting there on the stumps shouting "come back here,
> you cowards!..."
Hmmm, how long will it be before someone points out this was the
*Black* Knight and accuses you of being racist?
I'm guessing within 24 hours.
So, can armless black intellectuals swim in Cretian waters? This is
just the kind of thing we should hash out in a 500-article
sci.{skeptic,math,logic,physics} crossposted flamewar!
--
Kevin <bu...@telus.net>
Y.Porat
and ........?
do you realise where those theories led us to ..?
if you dont know i will wake you up from your illusions.
it led us to dead ends
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------
Firas
>
> Maybe you should post the whole list of 60, so the
> rest of us can have some fun.
You know what would really get a quote-filled post from Mr.
Self-styled-saviour here? If he posts one of these rants and gets no
replies. Talk about literary pyrotechnics.
On the other hand, if he really does want to become the center of
focus, he should xpost to sci.psychology.misc. Poor Freud doesn't know
what he's missing.
--
Firas | http://www.ujournal.org/users/fd
please put 'post' in the subject if e-mailing