Dirk, on who exactly is this joke?
EL
Dirk, on who exactly is this joke?
If you think what I think that you think, please add yourself in your fumbles.
If not, then you should switch the names.
From Immortal Fumbles
{{{
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#AndersonLogic
Androcles: Debunking Andersen Logic. (26-Jul-2001)
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:3B5F47B9...@hia.no...
> Androcles wrote:
[snip]
> > This isn't even funny anymore.
> > Just incredibly stupid.
>
> Well. It still is a bit funny.
> It's more stupid than funny, though.
> But most of all, it is sad.
>
> It's probably futile, - no, it's certainly futile,
> but I will give you a hint anyway:
> The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
> They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
> Note what sqrt(1) equals in both cases.
WOW!
According to Andersen logic,
x = -x.
I guess it is sad after all.
}}}
Dirk Van de moortel
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com...
> [EL]
> Dirk, on who exactly is this joke?
> If you think what I think that you think, please add yourself in your fumbles.
> If not, then you should switch the names.
>
> From Immortal Fumbles
> {{{
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#AndersonLogic
Obviously and apparently the joke was on you as well.
Anticipation: 1.5 years. Not bad.
I have added a pointer to your remark at the bottom of the entry.
Allow google some time before it archives it.
Welcome.
Dirk Vdm
Minor Crank
> Dirk, on who exactly is this joke?
> If you think what I think that you think, please add yourself in
your fumbles.
> If not, then you should switch the names.
I'm not sure I know what you think Dirk thinks.
Nor do I know who you think the joke is on.
Sorry. I'm _not_ trying to be cute here, or I would have extended
the string of "I think/You think" to some absurd length.
1) Androcles didn't understand the concept of multiple roots.
2) Andersen tried to enlighten Androcles on some basic math.
3) Androcles mocked Andersen.
4) Dirk recorded the exchange in his fumbles list.
It should be obvious that the joke is on Androcles.
> From Immortal Fumbles
> {{{
>
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#
AndersonLogic
>
> Androcles: Debunking Andersen Logic. (26-Jul-2001)
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:3B5F47B9...@hia.no...
> > Androcles wrote:
> [snip]
> > > This isn't even funny anymore.
> > > Just incredibly stupid.
> >
> > Well. It still is a bit funny.
> > It's more stupid than funny, though.
> > But most of all, it is sad.
> >
> > It's probably futile, - no, it's certainly futile,
> > but I will give you a hint anyway:
> > The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
> > They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
> > Note what sqrt(1) equals in both cases.
> WOW!
> According to Andersen logic,
> x = -x.
> I guess it is sad after all.
> }}}
Minor Crank
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com...
> > [EL]
> > Dirk, on who exactly is this joke?
> > If you think what I think that you think, please add yourself in your fumbles.
> > If not, then you should switch the names.
> >
> > From Immortal Fumbles
> > {{{
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#AndersonLogic
>
> Obviously and apparently the joke was on you as well.
> Anticipation: 1.5 years. Not bad.
> I have added a pointer to your remark at the bottom of the entry.
I hope you shall not regret it and be forced to add a pointer to your
pointer as the worst fumble of all fumbles.
Go suck on your thumb kid, you were too jerky with professor EL.
> Allow google some time before it archives it.
>
> Welcome.
>
> Dirk Vdm
[EL]
You do not seem to take me seriously and check what you have on your
web page.
There is a serious mistake for sure.
Here, let me remind you with inserted identifications on who said what
and check it again please.
{{{
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:3B5F47B9...@hia.no...
> Androcles wrote:
[snip]
[Androcles]
> > This isn't even funny anymore.
> > Just incredibly stupid.
>[Paul]
> Well. It still is a bit funny.
> It's more stupid than funny, though.
> But most of all, it is sad.
>
> It's probably futile, - no, it's certainly futile,
> but I will give you a hint anyway:
> The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
> They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
> Note what sqrt(1) equals in both cases.
[Androcles]
WOW!
According to Andersen logic,
x = -x.
I guess it is sad after all.}}}
[EL]
I cross posted this to sci.math too and if I am not 100% correct that
you made a mistake of identity then I fail to understand the logic of
quoting other people in your way.
This is kindergarten stuff, and you are ridiculing all ridiculous
people and I agree with most of it.
But that particular exchange is outrageous.
I think that Paul somehow got mixed up between the proof and the
"inverse notation"
In ABC rules of mathematical exponents and roots:
2^2=4 and (-2)^2 = 4 also, this literally means that there are two
real square roots of 4, namely 2 and -2.
The reason behind including the negative root is a logical consequence
of negating negation or inverted inversion.
To identify the negative square root of 4 in its square root form we
would specify it as [-sqrt(4)] in form.
It is not part of the proof at all but a conclusion. That is why the
way Paul had explained it turned out ambiguous and lead Androcles to
conclude that since Paul wrote that x = a and x = -a then x = -x.
Please take note of "and" and emphasize it.
The unambiguous form must be the squared form:
x^2 = [+|sqrt(1)|]^2
and
x^2 = [-|sqrt(1)|]^2
Therefore:
either x = 1 or x = -1 but x may not be 1 and -1 concurrently.
If Paul had said:
"They are x = |sqrt(1)| = 1, OR x = [-|sqrt(1)|] = -1"
I would have had no objections.
Roots are alternative solutions, which are all true but alternative.
If your bank account was indifferently a credit or a debit it would be
a nightmare for you, right? ;-)
Now go and correct that shit of yours immediately and say "yes Sir".
:)
EL
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com...
> > [EL]
> > Dirk, on who exactly is this joke?
> > If you think what I think that you think, please add yourself in
> your fumbles.
> > If not, then you should switch the names.
>
> I'm not sure I know what you think Dirk thinks.
> Nor do I know who you think the joke is on.
>
> Sorry. I'm _not_ trying to be cute here, or I would have extended
> the string of "I think/You think" to some absurd length.
>
> 1) Androcles didn't understand the concept of multiple roots.
> 2) Andersen tried to enlighten Androcles on some basic math.
> 3) Androcles mocked Andersen.
> 4) Dirk recorded the exchange in his fumbles list.
>
> It should be obvious that the joke is on Androcles.
[EL]
I respect Paul and I do not know Androcles.
But when you write:
(x = a) AND (x = -a), then x = -x must be true then!
Nevertheless, if you you write:
(x = a) OR (x = -a), then (x =/= -x) must be true and (x = -x) must be
false.
The rule is quite simple indeed and it is that the product of two
negative signs is a positive sign.
This leads to the fact that the roots of a positive quantity may be
Either positive OR negative, and it is false to say that the solution
is BOTH positive AND negative.
Did you get my point?
Zachary Turner
You're being silly and nitpicky over the use of one word, which can be
interpreted many different ways.
1) Do you agree that x = 1 is a root of x^2 = 1?
2) Do you agree that x = -1 is a root of x^2 = 1?
If you answered yes to both of the above questions, then you certainly must
agree that both x = 1 and x = -1 are roots of the equation x^2 = 1. If you
want to say OR instead of AND, your statement is still true. The statements
to consider are:
____ AND ____ are roots of x^2 = 1
____ OR ____ is a root of x^2 = 1
If you choose OR, that means that either blank 1, or blank 2, or maybe both
blanks are roots of x^2 = 1. In other words, if you replace x by what's in
the first blank, or replace x by what's in the second blank, or possibly if
you replace x by what's in both blanks, you get a true statement.
If you choose AND, that means that both blank 1, and blank 2, are roots of
x^2 = 1. To say that statement 1 implies 1 = -1 is idiotic, since you're
ignoring the scope of variable definition.
Given a logical implication of the form A o B implies C, where o
is a boolean operator such as AND, A and B are two completely independent
statements. If what happened inside one statement depended on what happened
inside another statement you wouldn't even be able to write the following
statement:
(x_i < 4 for 0 < i < 10) AND (y_i < 7 for 10 <= i < 20) IMPLIES
__________________________
EL
[EL]
I do not think that it is silly trying to be fair when an ambiguous
form lead Androcles to assume a wrong assumption not meant by Paul.
Certainly I do agree with the formality you have presented which is
beside the point I raised.
I was pointing out that there was no strong reason to ridicule
Androcles for disliking an ambiguous form.
The form under dispute is not an implied meaning but rather a
*literal* form and I am not nitpicking but rather analysing the reason
behind the confusion.
The form I am analysing is this:
{{{Paul wrote:
> They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
}}}
From the formality of that one-liner x appears twice being equated to
1 and -1, hence the conclusion Androcles made.
Naturally, within context anyone with primitive basics shall
understand what Paul wants to say and let it go.
It seems that there was some kind of negative emotions and a
superiority show going on between them.
There is nothing more ridiculous than discussing what we are
discussing right now (from my point of view).
I only pointed out that the form {[x=a] AND [x=-a]} is a logical false
condition, while the form {[x=a] OR [x=-a]} is a logical true
condition.
Paul *could* have said:
{{
{Since (1 x 1) = 1, AND (-1 x -1) = 1, then (1)^2 = (-1)^2}
As can be seen x could be equal to (1) OR (-1) and lead to the same
result on squaring,
which means that both (1) AND (-1) are valid roots for the function
(x^2=1)
}}
This formality is very clear and void of *ambiguity leading to wrong
conclusions*.
If Androcles was not in a dispute with Paul he should have accepted
the final conclusion being implied regardless of the form.
Nevertheless, it is not I who is nitpicking but Androcles did, and he
was obviously "punished" for pointing out the ambiguity of the form
and for not being kind enough to conclude what Paul was obviously
saying.
If you call my point of view "a silly nitpicking" then what do you
call what Paul, Androcles and Dirk were doing?
Fooling around, having nothing to do but silly and childish war-game!
I still think that it was a biased *taking sides* on Dirks attitude
towards Androcles, although he might have a very good reason for being
so biased from his point of view.
I have had enough ridiculousness for a lifetime from what I may read
per day on those news groups and perhaps it is time to stop wasting my
valuable time.
Regards.
EL
Dirk Van de moortel
There are two possibilities.
They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'.
EL could also have looked at the fumble immediately preceding it:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SqrtAnswers
where our genius Androcles states, like many other engineers,
that sqrt(1) = 1 or sqrt(1) = -1.
There are two possibilities.
They are 'EL has looked', and 'EL has not looked'.
Does EL live in Florida by any chance?
There are two explanations:
They are 'EL lives in Florida', and 'EL does not live in Florida'.
Dirk Vdm
EL
> | The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
> | They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
>
> There are two possibilities.
> They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'.
>
> EL could also have looked at the fumble immediately preceding it:
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SqrtAnswers
> where our genius Androcles states, like many other engineers,
> that sqrt(1) = 1 or sqrt(1) = -1.
> There are two possibilities.
> They are 'EL has looked', and 'EL has not looked'.
>
> Does EL live in Florida by any chance?
> There are two explanations:
> They are 'EL lives in Florida', and 'EL does not live in Florida'.
>
> Dirk Vdm
What does all this waffling you make has to do with my observation!
Even your Androcles seems to have known that the square root of (1)
could be either (1) or (-1).
That was never the issue.
The issue was an issue of formality in logic.
Do I need to remind you of the truth tables for logic operators such
as AND & OR?
Many people use the words "and" and "or" alternatively in *bad*
linguistic habits.
Forcing your "logic" by reinstating it does not make it correct.
When you initiate your argument by saying:
"There are two possibilities."
There are as many combinations as the context allows.
Let me demonstrate to you the concept in details.
A first exclusive condition may be that it is EITHER raining OR NOT
raining. (Opposite alternatives)
A second exclusive condition may be that I either go shopping OR I do
not go shopping. (Opposite alternatives)
A combination of conditions allow me to go shopping in the rain or
refrain from shopping in the rain. (Not opposing alternatives)
That combined condition is not exclusive.
This is to be stated that I may go shopping in the rain OR I may
refrain from shopping in the rain.
Therefore I may go shopping AND it is raining (True).
Also I may not go shopping OR it is raining (True).
Now let us go back to your "Two Possibilities"
They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'. (False)
They are 'EL has looked', and 'EL has not looked'. (False)
They are 'EL lives in Florida', and 'EL does not live in Florida'.
All those three expressions are logically equivalent to:
1 and 0 . (False)
Or
True and False. (False)
The correct forms for such statements is:
"There are two possibilities."
They are either Dirk is an idiot or Dirk is not an idiot. (TRUE)
"There are two possibilities."
They are either Dirk has looked or Dirk has not looked. (TRUE)
"There are two possibilities."
They are either Dirk lives in Florida or Dirk does not live in
Florida. (TRUE)
All those three expressions are logically equivalent to:
1 or 0 . (TRUE)
Or
True or False. (TRUE)
****
Therefore, by the rules of logic, ANDING two opposing alternatives is
a false logical condition by default.
The only context in which we may "and" the opposing alternatives is
the context of enumeration.
Therefore, it is correct to say that the roots of (x^2 = 9) are namely
(+3) and (-3).
That is, x may have the value of (+3) or the value (-3).
That is, either x=3 or x=-3.
It is wrong to say that a conclusion is that x=3 and x =-3.
It is ambiguous to say that the roots of (x^2 = 9) are (x=3) and
(x=-3) because it is quite possible to imply the false condition of
concurrency of opposing alternatives.
N.B.
This thread has expired its purpose, and if you consider every one who
differs with you in opinion to be wrong and you rush adding him to
your list of idiots then the only idiot I can see must be you.
Do not believe yourself that you can intimidate others to fear
differing with you by having a silly web-page like yours.
In fact if I wish to haunt you and teach you how to respect yourself
and others I may do so at will.
I advise you to reconsider your biased and reckless jerky acts before
they cause you what you dislike.
EL
Dirk Van de moortel
news:<4351a.37234$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
>
> > | The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
> > | They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
> >
> > There are two possibilities.
> > They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'.
> >
> > EL could also have looked at the fumble immediately preceding it:
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SqrtAnswers
> > where our genius Androcles states, like many other engineers,
> > that sqrt(1) = 1 or sqrt(1) = -1.
> > There are two possibilities.
> > They are 'EL has looked', and 'EL has not looked'.
> >
> > Does EL live in Florida by any chance?
> > There are two explanations:
> > They are 'EL lives in Florida', and 'EL does not live in Florida'.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> [EL]
> What does all this waffling you make has to do with my observation!
There is one possibility: you are an idiot.
Dirk Vdm
pst...@ix.netcom.com
This is as bad of a logical conclusion as your original gaff...
There are, in fact, several 'possibilities'... But, in fact,
you have not addressed his issue, you're attempting to distract
FROM IT!
Paul Stowe
Rusty Shackleford
With the risk of finding my name on Dirks Web page I would like to say that
I think EL's logic is impeccable.
Rusty Shackleford
mshna...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
Uncle Al
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4351a.37234$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
>
> > | The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
> > | They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
> >
> > There are two possibilities.
> > They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'.
He could be superposition of states - sort of like Shroedinger's
idiot.
[snip]
> It is ambiguous to say that the roots of (x^2 = 9) are (x=3) and
> (x=-3) because it is quite possible to imply the false condition of
> concurrency of opposing alternatives.
[snip]
One supposes that illustrates the difference between philosophy and
competency.
A chemist, an engineer, and a psychologist are sharing a hotel room
when the wastebasket catches on fire.
The chemist says, "cover it to cut off the oxygen and break free
radical reaction chain propagation."
The engineer says, "dump water on it for cooling through latent heat
of vaporization until the reaction rate is insignificant."
Meanwhile the psycholgist has ignited the bedclothes, the drapes, the
carpeting... "I need a variance measure before I can propose a
defendable hypothesis."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Michael N. Christoff
<quote>
This thread has expired its purpose, and if you consider every one who
differs with you in opinion to be wrong and you rush adding him to
your list of idiots then the only idiot I can see must be you.
Do not believe yourself that you can intimidate others to fear
differing with you by having a silly web-page like yours.
In fact if I wish to haunt you and teach you how to respect yourself
and others I may do so at will.
I advise you to reconsider your biased and reckless jerky acts before
they cause you what you dislike.
</quote>
l8r, Mike N. Christoff
Dirk Van de moortel
"Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message news:b23ir...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Of course EL's logic is impecable.
But EL is also a silly, nitpicking idiot who does not understand
the first thing about communication and language.
When you throw a die, there are six outcomes.
They are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
When you throw a coin, there are two outcomes.
They are 'heads' and 'tails'.
The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
These are three instances of what a linguist would call
'enumerations'. The word 'and' is used to delimit the
last and one but last element of the enumeration.
By the way, these are not roots of the equation, but solutions.
Polynomials have roots. Equations have solutions. So strictly
speaking it should have been:
The equation: x^2 = 1 has two solutions for x.
They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
Mathematically, formally and properly expressed:
x^2 = 1 <==> x =1 OR x = -1
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Michael N. Christoff" <mchri...@MAPSONsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dbd1a.35604$CF1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I hadn't even read it.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:b23f2a$qg4$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
No reason to shout.
I never defend myself against pathetic attacks like that, so
I chose not to address his issue and let him make an even
bigger fool of himself, which apparently he happily did.
You should know better.
By the way, give my regards to James Demeo when you
guys meet each other next week.
Dirk Vdm
Rusty Shackleford
news:3E455BBB...@hate.spam.net...
That was really funny. This is a joke however, I can not tell to a neighbor
and expect the same results. Especially if he is 'Joe Six-Pack' :)
Rusty Shackleford
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
EL
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4351a.37234$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> >
> > > | The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
> > > | They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
> > >
> > > There are two possibilities.
> > > They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'.
>
> He could be superposition of states - sort of like Shroedinger's
> idiot.
I sincerely agree Al, I certainly feel like an idiot to argue with
idiots including posting a reply to your post.
Shame on you to disregard the rules of logic to feed a grudge.
Grow up Al, grow up.
EL
EL
My logic forces me to agree with you this time Dirk.
I certainly feel like an idiot when I argue with a true idiot.
Is the phonetic similarity between Dirk an Jerk a coincidence or was
it insight from your parents?
I fear you not, so say and do whatever an idiot can do.
Farewell goodbye.
EL
Dik T. Winter
> The issue was an issue of formality in logic.
Is there a need for formality in logic on articles on Internet? And so,
do your articles pass the test?
> Many people use the words "and" and "or" alternatively in *bad*
> linguistic habits.
Where are the antecedents to those "*bad* linguistic habits"?
> Forcing your "logic" by reinstating it does not make it correct.
> When you initiate your argument by saying:
> "There are two possibilities."
> There are as many combinations as the context allows.
Hrm. There is a Dutch proverb that states
"It can freeze and thaw".
Now freezing and thawing are mutually exclusive, so it can not do both
at the same time. The normal (colloquial) interpretation of the word
"and" is not that both are true at the same time, but that there are
two possibilities. This may be bad from a logical standpoint, but
language is not logical. That logic has taken this word and uses it
with some specific meaning does *not* mean that the linguistic habits
are bad.
> A first exclusive condition may be that it is EITHER raining OR NOT
> raining. (Opposite alternatives)
It may rain, or not.
> A second exclusive condition may be that I either go shopping OR I do
> not go shopping. (Opposite alternatives)
I may go shopping and I may not go shopping, I will see.
> This is to be stated that I may go shopping in the rain OR I may
> refrain from shopping in the rain.
I may go shopping in the rain, and I may refrain from shopping in the rain.
You know, the colloquial meaning of "and" differs from the logical meaning.
Logicians have just usurped a meaning.
> Now let us go back to your "Two Possibilities"
> They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'. (False)
Why false? What is the antecedent of "they are"? Those words are not
there in vacuum. The common meaning is: "the first one is A and the other
one is B".
> All those three expressions are logically equivalent to:
> 1 and 0 . (False)
So if I state:
The roots of x^2 - x = 0 are 0 and 1.
is a false statement? And it would not improve with
The roots of x^2 - x = 0 are x=0 and x=1?
How would you in a few words state what the roots of x^2 - x = 0 are?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
EL
> "Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message news:b23ir...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > With the risk of finding my name on Dirks Web page I would
> > like to say that I think EL's logic is impeccable.
> >
> > Rusty Shackleford
>
> Of course EL's logic is impecable.
> But EL is also a silly, nitpicking idiot who does not understand
> the first thing about communication and language.
>
> When you throw a die, there are six outcomes.
> They are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
>
> When you throw a coin, there are two outcomes.
> They are 'heads' and 'tails'.
>
> The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
> They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
>
> These are three instances of what a linguist would call
> 'enumerations'. The word 'and' is used to delimit the
> last and one but last element of the enumeration.
>
*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*
[Dirk Van de moortel]
> By the way, these are not roots of the equation, but solutions.
*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*
[EL]
Would you kindly then explain to us why (x) is called the square ROOT
of (x^2)? :)
*******************************************************************.
Would your majesty like us to change all the books and call it the
square SOLUTION?
************************************************************************.
P.S. Please be brave enough and add your personal fumble to your
fumbles' collection.
Be fair and brave for a change.
EL
******
The World Wide Wade
hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
> [EL]
> Would you kindly then explain to us why (x) is called the square ROOT
> of (x^2)? :)
First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
square root.
Your problem seems to be a confusion between the term "square root" and the
"square root symbol". They are not the same.
For example, -2 is a square root of 4. However, sqrt(4) = 2. Period.
Review: For x > = 0, the symbol
____
\ / \/
\/ /\
means, by definition, the unique *nonnegative* real number y such that y^2
= x. You can find this in almost any elementary math text.
On Usenet we write sqrt(x) for the above. It follows that sqrt(x) is always
>= 0. Thus sqrt(1) = 1, but writing sqrt(1) = -1 is obviously wrong.
Think about it. There's a reason the solutions to the quadratic equation
are written as
[-b +/- sqrt(b^2 - 4ac)]/2a.
There would be no need for +/- if the symbol sqrt already included both.
See
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareRoot.html
before you achieve legendary status on Dirk's web site.
EL
> In article <7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) writes:
> > The issue was an issue of formality in logic.
>
> Is there a need for formality in logic on articles on Internet?
As far as *needs* go, on the internet, there is no need for logic
itself.
You may very well go ahead and mumble jumbles that costs you nothing.
> And so, do your articles pass the test?
[EL]
I tried many times to persuade God herself to evaluate me but she
refused to leave bed.
Less than God herself may find a bit of difficulty to rise to the
required level.
If you have the temerity to evaluate my logic you may go ahead and
make sex with God, as she is still in bed. :)
>
> > Many people use the words "and" and "or" alternatively in *bad*
> > linguistic habits.
>
> Where are the antecedents to those "*bad* linguistic habits"?
[EL]
In everyday life languages (not only in English) the slang usage of a
conjugations especially that with the meaning of "and", proves to be
"wild card" in many contexts. A time sequence of events needs "and" to
link the sequence but else than that people improvise about using
them. When the issue is a conditional logic with "IF a AND b then c"
it is usually unambiguous but some people do confuse the and with the
or usage along with verb to be and with conditions such as "when".
>
> > Forcing your "logic" by reinstating it does not make it correct.
> > When you initiate your argument by saying:
> > "There are two possibilities."
> > There are as many combinations as the context allows.
>
> Hrm. There is a Dutch proverb that states
> "It can freeze and thaw".
[EL]
Correct, that proverb is good.
Freezing and thawing are reversible processes that may coexist in
states of equilibrium.
Just like evaporation and condensation are similarly concurrent and
reversible.
> Now freezing and thawing are mutually exclusive,
[EL]
False conclusion that reflects little physics knowledge.
> so it can not do both at the same time.
[EL]
In fact they are both at the same time most of the time.
> The normal (colloquial) interpretation of the word
> "and" is not that both are true at the same time, but that there are
> two possibilities.
[EL]
Bad usage in a logical context, but good usage in an enumeration
context.
>This may be bad from a logical standpoint, but language is not
logical.
[EL]
Do you mean that language is illogical?
> That logic has taken this word and uses it with some specific meaning
[EL]
Here you have formulated the premises.
>does *not* mean that the linguistic habits are bad.
[EL]
Here you have jumped to a conclusion, without any founded and
substantiated proof.
It seems that I shall keep that key of the gate to Her bedroom. :)
I shall consider it "an unfounded opinion and let it go". ;)
>
>
> > A first exclusive condition may be that it is EITHER raining OR NOT
> > raining. (Opposite alternatives)
>
> It may rain, or not.
[EL
Good usage of logic.
>
> > A second exclusive condition may be that I either go shopping OR I do
> > not go shopping. (Opposite alternatives)
>
> I may go shopping and I may not go shopping, I will see.
[EL]
A wonderful example of a pathetic linguistic talent. :)
Point in case and case on point.
You may not be both going and not going, because you either go or you
do not go.
Listen to the eternal words of Shakespeare in Hamlet:
"To be OR not to be, that is the question" :)
>
> > This is to be stated that I may go shopping in the rain OR I may
> > refrain from shopping in the rain.
>
> I may go shopping in the rain, and I may refrain from shopping in the rain.
[EL]
Yet another good example of BAD usage of the conjugation word "and.
>
> You know, the colloquial meaning of "and" differs from the logical meaning.
> Logicians have just usurped a meaning.
[EL]
This is a false statement.
Logicians have adopted the profound semantics for which the words were
created in the first place.
"And" means togetherness and it means "side by side" in place or time.
It follows that any two members of a set are bounded together by the
same boundary, whether that set was spatial or temporal.
>
> > Now let us go back to your "Two Possibilities"
> > They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'. (False)
>
> Why false?
[EL]
Because the qualities lack togetherness.
>What is the antecedent of "they are"? Those words are not
> there in vacuum. The common meaning is:
> "the first one is A and the other one is B".
[EL]
Very good; now follow your own logic and realise that "the first one"
happens to be "the second one".
Then realise that A equals NOT B.
Within an enumeration context it is even allowed to construct sets of
binary oppositions and then we may say:
Let "hungry" be the opposite of "full", then hungry and full are all
the possibilities of your state towards food.
This does not violate togetherness as defined to be a set of binary
opposites.
The False argument is to claim there are two states of A and Not A.
You may deliberately concoct this combination to provide a false
statement.
Another mind may interpret that sentence to be saying that there are
two states (for each of) A and Not A.
Winter could be the name of a man and it could be a name of a season;
here we have two possibilities also but there is no contradiction in
having a season called Winter and in the same time a man called
Winter.
When I ask you about your name i may say:
Is your name Winter or is it Summers?
I may not ask you saying:
Is your name Winter and is it Summers? (Ridiculous)
That is because you have a name, one name to identify your family name
or it loses profundity.
There are two possibilities concerning your family name and those two
possibilities are that your family name is Winter or your family name
is Summers.
I dare you to make sense by replacing the or with an and.
I deliberately used the "is" operator as a replacement for the "equal"
sign while attaching a value that have emotional significance to you.
Now you might be able to see better.
>
> > All those three expressions are logically equivalent to:
> > 1 and 0 . (False)
>
> So if I state:
> The roots of x^2 - x = 0 are 0 and 1.
> is a false statement?
[EL]
No,it is NOT a false statement because that form is an enumeration
form of the set of answers and it is quite acceptable.
> And it would not improve with
> The roots of x^2 - x = 0 are x=0 and x=1?
[EL]
Indeed that statement is false, because that form is enumerating two
contradictory facts being anded rather than ored.
The value of x may not be 0 and 1 concurrently, it is either x= 0 or
x=1.
> How would you in a few words state what the roots of x^2 - x = 0 are?
[EL]
The roots of (x^2 - x = 0) are 0 and 1.
Just as you did. :)
I may lend you the key for a night if you can handle a Goddess. :)
EL
Dirk Van de moortel
I can not promise you that I will accept an apology, but I do
promise I will *consider* accepting one from you, and from
the few who backed you up.
Otherwise, an anonymo like you does not have to fear changing
its name after going down flatly: you can just stop using EL, and
come back with another phoney name. The morons do it all the
time:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#ChangeName
> EL
> ******
>
> > Polynomials have roots. Equations have solutions. So strictly
> > speaking it should have been:
> > The equation: x^2 = 1 has two solutions for x.
> > They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
> >
> > Mathematically, formally and properly expressed:
> > x^2 = 1 <==> x =1 OR x = -1
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
Dirk Vdm
EL
If I am going to receive any more of those replies I shall open a club
for armature nitpickers and armature logicians.
Oh! And I shall charge a fee.
This one is on the house. :)
The World Wide Wade <wadera...@attbi.remove13.com> wrote in message news:<waderameyxiii-266...@pop.nothingbutnet.net>...
> In article <7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com>,
> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
>
> > [EL]
> > Would you kindly then explain to us why (x) is called the square ROOT
> > of (x^2)? :)
>
> First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
> square root.
[EL]
Hahahaha, very arrogant and VERY WRONG. :)
x IS the square root of x^2.
If (x^2 = 4) then 2 is a root of this square where x = 2.
Another root of the (x^2 = 4) is -2 where x = -2.
Since in any case the square is x^2 then in all cases the root is sqrt
(x^2) = x.
Therefore (x) is called THE square ROOT of (x^2).
As it is a variable that may hold all solutions of the square root.
This means that you fail in the "ENTRY" level. :)
Kindergarten is waiting for you. :)
It is clear that you are trolling for fun.
I have no problem with that at all (for now).
>
> Your problem seems to be a confusion between the term "square root" and the
> "square root symbol". They are not the same.
[EL]
!
Huh!
^^
00
|||
~~
>
> For example, -2 is a square root of 4. However, sqrt(4) = 2. Period.
[EL]
Period!
In the "World Wide Wade" Bible?
And here is a quote from the site that YOU advised me to study and it
contradicts with your "Period"
{Open quote}
A square root of x is a number r such that r^2 = x.
Square roots are also called radicals or surds.
Any positive real number has two square roots: one positive and one
negative.
{Close quote}
<snip trolling>
> Think about it. There's a reason the solutions to the quadratic equation
> are written as
>
> [-b +/- sqrt(b^2 - 4ac)]/2a.
>
> There would be no need for +/- if the symbol sqrt already included both.
[EL]
Yet if you know how to read mathematical notations out loud, you shall
discover that +/- "spells" plus OR minus.
which brings the significance outside the context of a square root and
the reason behind that is the emphasis on both values rather than
assuming the principal square root only.
>
> See
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareRoot.html
>
> before you achieve legendary status on Dirk's web site.
[EL]
Children like you and Dirk the jerk do not intimidate me a flying
monkeys fart.
In fact I advise you to suck on your thumb a bit more to stimulate
your milk teeth to grow.
Thank you for the advise attitude and the feeling of kindly care you
show.
Right now my smarmy book has come to life, jumped in my lap and is
pleading to be opened.
You are damn lucky that I have control over my smarmy book and do not
give in easily.
Tempt me more.
EL the keeper of HELL.
Spaceman
"The World Wide Wade" <wadera...@attbi.remove13.com> wrote in message
news:waderameyxiii-266...@pop.nothingbutnet.net...
Wrong
the only square root of 4 is 2
the square root of -4 is -2
silly humans
still can not grasp a "number line" and directions.
still think multiplying negatives gives a positive!
<LOL>
Still think when they increase west speed by it's own west speed
it will reverse direction and jump twice the amount to
the other side of 0. (east)
<LOL>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:1tu1a.50626$HN5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "The World Wide Wade" <wadera...@attbi.remove13.com> wrote in message
> news:waderameyxiii-266...@pop.nothingbutnet.net...
> > For example, -2 is a square root of 4. However, sqrt(4) = 2. Period.
>
> Wrong
> the only square root of 4 is 2
> the square root of -4 is -2
Yeah little submoron, you already told us about your
magical (-4)*(-4) = -16, so in your wonderful world
(-2)*(-2) can't differ much from -4 indeed.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Dingbat
Thanks for your contribution. Good dog.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
> Yeah little submoron, you already told us about your
> magical (-4)*(-4) = -16, so in your wonderful world
> (-2)*(-2) can't differ much from -4 indeed.
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Dingbat
>
> Thanks for your contribution. Good dog.
And you still have yet to show why
-x=q will not work with a number line that has
q in place of the -x side.
you lose ..big time..
Too bad you won't even try such a number line change.
show the math,
then replace
-x..........0..........x
as
q..........0..........x
and
-x=q
instead.
Still don't get it huh?
Why would q change to x with multiplication?
Hint..(It would not.)
your direction sense is "lost in spacetime".
<LOL>
HA HA!.
<LOL>
The World Wide Wade
> > First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
> > square root.
> [EL]
> Hahahaha, very arrogant and VERY WRONG. :)
Never mind: Under the influence of wine last night I made a huge mistake: I
assumed you were not a complete moron.
Rusty Shackleford
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:1tu1a.50626$HN5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
all machines that deal with math that they are wrong in their concept that
a - * - = +. I am curious what Mathew Orman thinks about your idea on
this?
Rusty Shackleford
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
Spaceman
"Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message news:b2685...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Space Cadet,
Fuch Off Rusty,
> you better tell the manufactures of Calculators, computers and
> all machines that deal with math that they are wrong in their concept that
> a - * - = +. I am curious what Mathew Orman thinks about your idea on
> this?
They are wrong and more sad,
they are programmed to be just like you.
Do you think x=-x?
You refuse to use anything else as a variable
on the negative side of the number line huh?
Try thinking on the below...
-x |||||||||0||||||||| x
replaced with
q |||||||||0||||||||| x
proves you "and calculators" are "programmed" wrong.
Try it,
or stay a fool that thinks multiplying a "direction" will
give you the opposite direction.
If I tell you to multiply a left turn,
you would turn right wouldn't you?
<LOL>
Dirk Van de moortel
> If I am going to receive any more of those replies I shall open a club
> for armature nitpickers and armature logicians.
> Oh! And I shall charge a fee.
> This one is on the house. :)
>
> The World Wide Wade <wadera...@attbi.remove13.com> wrote in message
news:<waderameyxiii-266...@pop.nothingbutnet.net>...
>
> > In article <7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com>,
>
> > hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
> >
> > > [EL]
> > > Would you kindly then explain to us why (x) is called the square ROOT
> > > of (x^2)? :)
> >
> > First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
> > square root.
> [EL]
> Hahahaha, very arrogant and VERY WRONG. :)
> x IS the square root of x^2.
> If (x^2 = 4) then 2 is a root of this square where x = 2.
> Another root of the (x^2 = 4) is -2 where x = -2.
> Since in any case the square is x^2 then in all cases the root is sqrt
> (x^2) = x.
Hey silly idiot, I hadn't even seen this fresh fumble of yours :-))
I'll spell it out for you:
sqrt(x^2) = x <==> x >= 0
sqrt(x^2) = -x <==> x =< 0
Understood?
> Therefore (x) is called THE square ROOT of (x^2).
> As it is a variable that may hold all solutions of the square root.
> This means that you fail in the "ENTRY" level. :)
> Kindergarten is waiting for you. :)
> It is clear that you are trolling for fun.
> I have no problem with that at all (for now).
No, I guess not (for now).
Dirk Vdm
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:Pfy1a.52635$HN5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
talking about such ridiculous things. You can't "multiply" a turn.
On the other hand, If you told me to make 1 left turn, I'd turn left. If
you told me to make 4 left turns, I'd save myself the trouble and stand
still. If you told me to make 3 left turns, rather than actually making 3
of them to end up at the point at which +1 left left turns would get me back
to my starting point, I'd make -1 left turns, and simply turn right.
EL
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<97q1a.39773$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
[EL]
You fail to backup your farts and your unfounded arrogance.
Everyone can clearly see that you avoid reasoning with EL because you
know very well that you WILL lose. :)
Go suck on your thumb kid, and hope to grow some milk teeth. :)
I may promise you that I shall make you my toy for a while until I
render you the most boring thing that ever existed.
I can backup every claim I make, can you back UP YOURS? ;-)
Hee hehe hahaha
> > [EL]
> > Would you kindly then explain to us why (x) is called the square ROOT
> > of (x^2)? :)
> > *******************************************************************.
> > Would your majesty like us to change all the books and call it the
> > square SOLUTION?
> > ************************************************************************.
> > P.S. Please be brave enough and add your personal fumble to your
> > fumbles' collection.
> > Be fair and brave for a change.
>
COWARD "Dirt Fan the Mortal"
> > EL
> > ******
"Kindness is the top most feature of power and cruelty is the ultimate
evidence of inferiority"
(EL Hemetis)
EL
hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message news:<7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com>...
> [EL]
> If I am going to receive any more of those replies I shall open a club
> for amateur nitpickers and amateur logicians.
Spaceman
"Zachary Turner" <_NOzturner...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VAy1a.36304$yb.25...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> If you told me to multiply a left turn I'd tell you you're an idiot for
> talking about such ridiculous things. You can't "multiply" a turn.
and you can't multiply a negative (for real) either.
so ..
WAKE UP!
-x |||||||||0||||||||| x
replaced with
q |||||||||0||||||||| x
proves you are wrong when you say
-x*-x = x^2
unless q*q=x^2 too.
sheesh!
If you don't try to get it, (brainwashing probs usually)
don't blame me for your "wrong" direction changes.
Never worked with real number lines huh?
EL
[EL]
So that is "how" you feed!
Did you ever consider explaining to James why the product of an even
number of negative signs must be positive?
So what if he did not understand the reasoning behind a mathematical
rule?
What is in it for you Dirk to FEED on his errors?
You disgust me.
Be gone.
EL
Spaceman
> So that is "how" you feed!
> Did you ever consider explaining to James why the product of an even
> number of negative signs must be positive?
> So what if he did not understand the reasoning behind a mathematical
> rule?
> What is in it for you Dirk to FEED on his errors?
> You disgust me.
EL,
the mathematical rule of multiplying negatives is "Wrong"
please try thinking of this.
-x |||||||||0||||||||| x
replaced with
q |||||||||0||||||||| x
Does the above mean that
q*q = x^2?
Dirk Van de moortel
news:<6Ou1a.40439$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:1tu1a.50626$HN5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > "The World Wide Wade" <wadera...@attbi.remove13.com> wrote in message
> > > news:waderameyxiii-266...@pop.nothingbutnet.net...
> > > > For example, -2 is a square root of 4. However, sqrt(4) = 2. Period.
> > >
> > > Wrong
> > > the only square root of 4 is 2
> > > the square root of -4 is -2
> >
> > Yeah little submoron, you already told us about your
> > magical (-4)*(-4) = -16, so in your wonderful world
> > (-2)*(-2) can't differ much from -4 indeed.
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Dingbat
> >
> > Thanks for your contribution. Good dog.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> [EL]
> So that is "how" you feed!
> Did you ever consider explaining to James why the product of an even
> number of negative signs must be positive?
Yes. With patience. A lot of serious honest patience.
Check it out if you dare.
> So what if he did not understand the reasoning behind a mathematical
> rule?
So what if it does not want to understand?
What if it thrives on being called a submoron?
I'm just paying it a service.
> What is in it for you Dirk to FEED on his errors?
It is called altruism.
And it is fun.
> You disgust me.
Apparently :-)
Dirk Vdm
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Zachary Turner" <_NOzturner...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VAy1a.36304$yb.25...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > If you told me to multiply a left turn I'd tell you you're an idiot for
> > talking about such ridiculous things. You can't "multiply" a turn.
>
> and you can't multiply a negative (for real) either.
> so ..
> WAKE UP!
>
> -x |||||||||0||||||||| x
> replaced with
> q |||||||||0||||||||| x
>
> proves you are wrong when you say
> -x*-x = x^2
> unless q*q=x^2 too.
How is changing all strings consisting of the character '-' followed by the
'x', to the string consisting of the single character 'q', supposed to be
some enlightening proof of anything, other than that you know how to use a
keyboard?
> Never worked with real number lines huh?
Never worked with definitions eh?
Even though you're obviously arguing just to get a rise out of people, I
will ask you the follwing
Question: Do you believe in the existence of negative numbers?
Mathew Orman
Dear scientists,
please share this undisputable evidence of Einstein's fallacy!
It will help restore the logical common sense reasoning in scientific
communities
thus allowing the progress of civilization to continue with out legacy of
dark ages!
Einstein new that Doppler in Lorentz give asymmetric shifts so he..
..invented his own version of Doppler theory,
but he overlooked one small detail.
Yes,
The Maxwell laws could not be altered using Lorentz equation!
Lorentz has defined an absolute function.
But Maxwell didn't state that his laws confirms the absolute property of
space.
Maxwell defined propagation speed of EM wave relative to source.
And he did it long before Einstein has invented his absolute property of
space.
The magnetic field and electric field component in the near field propagates
with infinite speed.
The effect manifestoes it self in the following way:
The EM wave's propagation speed is infinite at the center of radiation
(center of radiating antenna)
and gradually decreases into speed of c at the end of near field.
For the magnetic field emitted by coil inductor antenna which is
substantially smaller than the wavelength,
the effect of infinite speed of change of the field gradient shows no
decries throughout the near field range.
As observed in the experiment ( no variation in signal phase with distance
from the center of coil).
This spells The End of Einstein's era.
The Einstein's theory has now been proven False!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
ps.Some detail are listed below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franz Heymann wrote:
> From Wabnig's last note on the subject, it appears thatgengineers and
> physicists have different concepts of "near" and "far" fields.
> The physicist's near and far fields are the two field terms associated
> with an elementary dipole oscillator, as I indicated.
You are right, that there are shades of meaning
the the words "near field". I think of it thus:
The field around the dipole can be decomposed into
two pieces. An evanescent part and the rest of it.
Near the dipole, the evanescent part is strong, but it
dies out more quickly with distance than the other part.
This corresponds roughly to near field and far field.
In Ormand's case, the non-propagating evanescent part
dominates the rest, so it is no surprise that as he
moves his pick up coil around he sees no phase shift.
By any definition, he is completely immersed in the
near field.
--
Thank you for reading and or replying
If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like
you.
Local optimization almost never yields global optimization.
Opinions expressed here are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franz Heymann wrote:
<snip>
> You have snipped withoutsaying so.
Sorry Franz, I thought it was obvious and did not
change the meaning. I've always used the convention
that if I only snip from the beginning and the end
(no snipping in the middle so as to juxtapose words
that weren't) it is not necessary to explicitly say so.
I will endeavor to be more careful when I quote you,
but let me apologize in advance if my old habits
sometimes return.
> The part you snipped contains the correct inference that since both
> the fields contain the same time-dependence, namely
> (t-r/c)
> That is sufficient to prove that both fields are propagated with phase
> speed c.
> No further arguments can change that fact.
Franz, you broke the total field into two pieces that
you called near field and far field and showed that each
when considered separately appears to travel at c. That
is a useful but arbitrary separation of the field into
components.
I broke those components up into more components
and showed that some of the apparently propagating
components actually canceled each other. I combined
them to show that the composite resembled a
non propagating field for small r. Or to put it
another way, I can also separate the total field into
two arbitrary components with one being a non propagating
component which I call the near field.
The difference is that my near field expression
suggests that the phase of the near field is constant
and not a linear function of r, whereas a casual
examination of your expressions suggest that the phase
would be a linearly increasing function of r at all
distances.
--
Thank you for reading and or replying
If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like
you.
Local optimization almost never yields global optimization.
Opinions expressed here are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Franz Heymann wrote:
> H_phi = [ lambda A / (2 pi r^2) cos w(t-r/c)] - A/r sin w(t-r/c)
> where A depends on the amplitude of the dipole moment
looking in Balanis, "Antenna Theory",1997, p207
he has the near field and far field with the same
multiplier, so dropping common multiplicative constants
and letting w/c = k what is left is
= (1/kr) [ 1 / kr] cos(wt-kr) - 1/kr [1 - 1/(kr)^2] sin
(wt-kr)
using trig identities
= (1/kr) [ 1 / kr ] [ cos(wt) cos(kr) + sin(wt)sin(kr)]
- 1/kr [1 - 1/(kr)^2] [ sin (wt)cos(kr) - cos(wr)sin(kr)]
= (1/kr) [ 1 / kr ] [ cos(wt) cos(kr) + sin(wt)sin(kr)]
1/kr [1 - 1/(kr)^2] [-sin (wt)cos(kr) + cos(wr)sin(kr)]
gather similar terms
= (1/kr) cos(wt) [cos(kr)/kr + (1 - 1/(kr)^2)sin(kr) ]
+(1/kr) sin(wt) [sin(kr)/kr - (1 - 1/(kr)^2)cos(kr) ]
assuming r => 0,
approximate cos(kr) = 1 - (kr)^2
sin(kr) = kr
= (1/kr) cos(wt) [(1 - (kr)^2)/kr + (1 - 1/(kr)^2)(kr) ]
+(1/kr) sin(wt) [(kr)/kr - (1 - 1/(kr)^2)(1 - (kr)^2) ]
= (1/kr) cos(wt) [1/kr - kr + kr - 1/kr ]
+(1/kr) sin(wt) [-1 +(kr)^2 + 1/(kr)^2 ]
= (1/kr) sin(wt) [-1 +(kr)^2 + 1/(kr)^2 ]
and since we've lost the cos(wt) term, what is left looks
like a non propagating constant phase field.
--
Thank you for reading and or replying
If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like
you.
Local optimization almost never yields global optimization.
Opinions expressed here are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"Roy McCammon" <rbmcc...@mmm.com> wrote in message
news:3E455634...@mmm.com...
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >
> > "Roy McCammon" <rbmcc...@mmm.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E42E349...@mmm.com...
> > > Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > > the fields contain the same time-dependence, namely
> > > > (t-r/c)
> > > > That is sufficient to prove that both fields are propagated with
> > phase
> > > > speed c.
> > > > No further arguments can change that fact.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> respected colleague
>
> that is not a sufficient condition. I can decompose
> a zero field into two equal but opposite valued traveling
> components. Even though the components are traveling,
> the field is not.
>
>
> < snip >
>
> > Both the "induction field" and the radiation field, to give them their
> > proper names, propagate a the same speed because of what you call
> > "the phase would be a linearly increasing function of r at all
> > distances.
> > The significant difference between them is that the induction field
> > falls off as 1/r^2 and the radiation fieldfalls off as 1/r
>
> If you look at a traveling wave, like a plane wave,
> the zero crossings appear to progress though space
> as a function of time. Its phase is a linear function
> of distance.
>
> If you look at a standing wave, the zero crossings stay
> in one place. The phase of a standing wave is a constant
> independent of position.
>
> The field near a small dipole is dominated by a standing
> wave
> that appears to be constant phase.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thank you for reading and or replying
>
> If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like
> you.
> Local optimization almost never yields global optimization.
>
>
>
> Opinions expressed here are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.
>
And you can easily visualize this doing the following mind experiment:
In the frame of experiment:
A.
Rotating permanent magnet and stationary solenoid coil.
The magnetic field rotates simultaneously with the magnet.
The coil outputs sinusoidal waveform (non inductive sensor can be used as
well).
I state that the magnet is not producing magnetic waves or EM waves.
B.
Stationary permanent magnet and orbiting solenoid coil.
The magnetic field is stationary.
The coil outputs sinusoidal waveform (non inductive sensor can be used as
well).
I state that the magnet is not producing magnetic waves or EM waves.
C.
Rotating permanent magnet with synchronously orbiting solenoid coil.
The magnetic field rotates simultaneously with the magnet.
The coil outputs no waveform (non inductive sensor can be used as well).
I state that the magnet is not producing magnetic waves or EM waves.
I state based on A, B and C that magnetic field is instantaneous.
If there was any delay with the field gradient propagation away from magnet
than case C would produce sinusoidal waveform due to lagging gradient.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
ps. I also claim that with in propagating EM wave relative magnetic and
electric field gradient propagates instantaneously too, in the direction
perpendicular to the
direction of propagation ( so if you are riding the wave you experience the
same effect
as if you where sitting next to the stationary electromagnet,... just a
funny
engineer's analogy)
//==========================================================================
One 20 cm 5 turns rectangular coil driven with ac low impedance power source
(HP 33120A waveform generator plus CMOS high current pushpull driver).
One sensing coil 10uH connected to the input of high speed comparator 500ps
rise/fall time.
The driving power source frequency set at 1MHz.
Osciloscope HP 54602A channel 1 mentors the ac power waveform and triggers
the scope.
The channel 2 is connected to the output of the comparator.
Set the sensing coil 33 cm from the rectangular coil on axis maximum
coupling.
Store the sensed waveform.
No move the sensing coil to the distance of 3 cm.
Rotate the coil and observe the signal from it.
When you match the amplitude with the stored waveform press the store button
again.
It stores the second waveform.
According to Einstein the should be about 1ns delay between the two
waveforms.
I didn't see the delay.
Mathew Orman
Spaceman
> > WAKE UP!
> >
> > -x |||||||||0||||||||| x
> > replaced with
> > q |||||||||0||||||||| x
> >
> > proves you are wrong when you say
> > -x*-x = x^2
> > unless q*q=x^2 too.
>
> How is changing all strings consisting of the character '-' followed by the
> 'x', to the string consisting of the single character 'q', supposed to be
> some enlightening proof of anything, other than that you know how to use a
> keyboard?
Still do not get simple numberlines huh?
or variable swaps?
Sad..
Are you ignorant or brainwashed to ignore such?
> > Never worked with real number lines huh?
> Never worked with definitions eh?
Definitions of what?
-x?
<LOL>
You are a twisted fool also.
> Even though you're obviously arguing just to get a rise out of people, I
> will ask you the follwing
> Question: Do you believe in the existence of negative numbers?
No
and if you do,
That is your problem.
a negative number is a positive number in another direction only.
There are no "real" negatives".
you need to prove
q*q=x^2
using this number line
q |||||||||0||||||||| x
or you have nothing but twists and "brainwash effects" showing on your side.
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
>
> > Even though you're obviously arguing just to get a rise out of people, I
> > will ask you the follwing
> > Question: Do you believe in the existence of negative numbers?
>
> No
> and if you do,
> That is your problem.
> a negative number is a positive number in another direction only.
The fact that you said this means you do believe in the existence of
negative numbers.
>
> There are no "real" negatives".
> you need to prove
> q*q=x^2
> using this number line
> q |||||||||0||||||||| x
> or you have nothing but twists and "brainwash effects" showing on your
side.
Do you believe in the existence of positive numbers? If so, then you
probably agree everything on the 'x' portion of your number line is a
positive number.
Then q is clearly just a positive number in the opposite direction as you've
claimed, so q*q is that same number whose direction is reversed, and then
reversed again, thus giving you back the original positive number.
But I suppose you don't believe in positive numbers either, do you?
So, where should we begin our number line? Certainly not in the center, at
0. Maybe you can come up with something better.
Just a hint, it's idiotic to argue against the _definition_ of something.
If you want to use your own definition, then terrific, but when somebody
makes up rules, follows them, and you say "wake up, that's not how it
works", then it's you that needs to wake up and realize what it means for
something to be a _definition_.
Spaceman
> The fact that you said this means you do believe in the existence of
> negative numbers.
No not at all.
It means I believe in "postive numbers" with different directions.
> Do you believe in the existence of positive numbers? If so, then you
> probably agree everything on the 'x' portion of your number line is a
> positive number.
> Then q is clearly just a positive number in the opposite direction as you've
> claimed, so q*q is that same number whose direction is reversed, and then
> reversed again, thus giving you back the original positive number.
No,
q is merely a different direction.
not a negative number at all.
Are you going to prove
q*q=x^2
using this number line
q |||||||||0||||||||| x
Or are you going to twist forever?
Show the proof or shove off twist artist.
Show
q*q=x^2
with
q |||||||||0||||||||| x
If you do not attempt to show proof, (again)
you will be admitting I am correct.
and
Thanks.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
No such proof exists with your definition of 'q', because you redefined the
real number system to something which is not the ACTUAL definition of the
real number system. If you want to use something other than the real number
system in your calculations, then excellent. Everyone else will continue to
use the real number system, where (-x)^2 = x^2. Note that it's obvious
we're talking about two _completely_ different number systems here, since in
yours, negative numbers don't exist.
Spaceman
Thanks for your proof of "not having any proof".
I have only marked the numbers on the left without any negative signs.
You lack any proof to show me wrong.
I have proven you wrong.
Thanks.
Now,
go time travel back 1 hour for me will ya!
<LOL>
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
You haven't proven me wrong because you don't understand what a proof is,
and you don't understand what 'definition' means. For instance, you don't
understand that you're talking about something completely different than
"real numbers". I'd tell you to go look up the definition of 'definition',
but obviously, you wouldn't understand it.
Spaceman
I asked you to show q*q=x^2 using the simple number line I posted.
you showed no proof.
I need not show proof ,
you need to show I am wrong.
and you still have not and still just blab on and on.
Thanks for the "non proof" again that you lack.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:dOA1a.54199$HN5.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Zachary Turner" <_NOzturner...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:XwA1a.21664$%U2.16...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
[snip]
> You haven't proven me wrong because you don't understand what a proof is,
> > and you don't understand what 'definition' means. For instance, you don't
> > understand that you're talking about something completely different than
> > "real numbers". I'd tell you to go look up the definition of 'definition',
> > but obviously, you wouldn't understand it.
>
> I asked you to show q*q=x^2 using the simple number line I posted.
> you showed no proof.
> I need not show proof ,
> you need to show I am wrong.
> and you still have not and still just blab on and on.
> Thanks for the "non proof" again that you lack.
The thing is, Spacejames, we are not intelligent enough
to show it to you and make it stick. Our failure.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
> The thing is, Spacejames, we are not intelligent enough
> to show it to you and make it stick. Our failure.
No Mr van de mortel
you are not intelligent enough to grasp the simple.
That is why it is so bad for you.
q . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . x
Show how, in the above number line, that q*q=x^2
Too bad you don't grasp and "just refuse to grasp" why you are wrong.
Too bad you have no clue about your own ignorance.
Too bad you still think atomic clocks do not malfunction.
Too bad you could not break out of a non existant paper bag,
simply because you were brainwashed into thinking the bag is unbreakable
even though it does not even exist.
<LOL>
It is too bad for you Dirk,
Not me.
Dik T. Winter
...
> *FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*
> [Dirk Van de moortel]
> > By the way, these are not roots of the equation, but solutions.
> *FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*
>
> Would you kindly then explain to us why (x) is called the square ROOT
> of (x^2)? :)
If you had read a bit more, you would have known:
> > Polynomials have roots. Equations have solutions.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message
> news:hxB1a.41422$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > The thing is, Spacejames, we are not intelligent enough
> > to show it to you and make it stick. Our failure.
>
> No Mr van de mortel
> you are not intelligent enough to grasp the simple.
> That is why it is so bad for you.
>
> q . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . x
>
> Show how, in the above number line, that q*q=x^2
It's too bad you still don't understand what a definition is.
Do you claim this is the real number line? If so, the "proof" you desire is
trivial because it follows trivially from the axioms of arithmetic. q
is -x, so (-x)^2 = x^2. Doesn't matter if you believe the axioms of
arithmetic are true or not, hence the word 'axiom'. So in the system with
these axioms (called the real number system), it's true.
If the above number line is not the real number, your question is
irrelevant, since we aren't concerned with number lines other than the real
number line.
PLONK
Spaceman
>
> "Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:_LB1a.55230$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message
> > news:hxB1a.41422$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > > The thing is, Spacejames, we are not intelligent enough
> > > to show it to you and make it stick. Our failure.
> >
> > No Mr van de mortel
> > you are not intelligent enough to grasp the simple.
> > That is why it is so bad for you.
> >
> > q . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . x
> >
> > Show how, in the above number line, that q*q=x^2
>
> It's too bad you still don't understand what a definition is.
Still twisting huh?
Refuse to do the above huh?
You are brainwashed to the first degree and have no clue!
<LOL>.
> Do you claim this is the real number line?
I know it is.
and it works fine to anyone with a brain.
>PLONK
Great proof!
<LOL>
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
Do you believe x + q = 0?
If not, what does it equal?
Rusty Shackleford
High School Graduate. It is obvious that you do not understand the concept
of simple math which a High School Diploma would have enabled you to do. I
don't think you could balance your check book let alone understand that -
* - = +. How could you use a calculator. You would have to ignore the
results. What about addition of signed numbers, do you have the same
problem with them? I have always looked at you as Mathew Ormans side kick.
What a team.
Rusty Shackleford
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
Spaceman
depends on waht the variables are.
x = 1 mile east
q = 1mile west
x + q = 0 .
yup back to 0.
It can work.
looks fine to anyone with a clue.
Too bad you still don't get that "directional" fact.
Spaceman
"Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message news:b26rl...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> "Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:_LB1a.55230$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message
> > news:hxB1a.41422$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > > The thing is, Spacejames, we are not intelligent enough
> > > to show it to you and make it stick. Our failure.
> >
> > No Mr van de mortel
> > you are not intelligent enough to grasp the simple.
> > That is why it is so bad for you.
> >
> > q . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . x
> >
> > Show how, in the above number line, that q*q=x^2
> >
> > Too bad you don't grasp and "just refuse to grasp" why you are wrong.
> > Too bad you have no clue about your own ignorance.
> > Too bad you still think atomic clocks do not malfunction.
> >
> > Too bad you could not break out of a non existant paper bag,
> > simply because you were brainwashed into thinking the bag is unbreakable
> > even though it does not even exist.
> > <LOL>
> > It is too bad for you Dirk,
> > Not me.
> >
> >
> Space Cadet, in order to show you any proof you would have to have been a
> High School Graduate.
I am asshole,
I graduated one year "ahead" of my class dickweed.
so,
While I got a job,
morons like you were still trying to learn the stuff I already knew.
Can't get it huh?
Can't make q*q equal x^2 huh?
Refuse to see why either huh?
Can't even grasp the concept huh so you insult instead?
It is you that lack the brains, dung for brains.
not I.
can not even attempt to grasp
q . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . x
as a number line huh moronic asshole?
Screw off.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
I was sure hoping you'd agree to that trivial fact. Because now,
1) x*(x + q) = x*0 = 0
x*x + x*q = 0
2) (x + q)*q = 0*q = 0
x*q + q*q = 0*q = 0
Therefore, x*x + x*q = x*q + q*q
For shorthand, let g = x*q
Then x^2 + g = g + q^2
x^2 + g = q^2 + g
Uh oh!
x^2 = q^2
PLONK
Spaceman
It is not a fact.
you have no proof except ignorance so far.
> 1) x*(x + q) = x*0 = 0
> x*x + x*q = 0
>
> 2) (x + q)*q = 0*q = 0
> x*q + q*q = 0*q = 0
>
> Therefore, x*x + x*q = x*q + q*q
>
> For shorthand, let g = x*q
LET>
let?
<LOL>
let nothing!
letting means crap!
<LOL>
> Then x^2 + g = g + q^2
> x^2 + g = q^2 + g
>
> Uh oh!
>
> x^2 = q^2
>
> PLONK
Let a= you
Let b= moron
a=b
<LOL>
Let means shit
shove the "let" without the real fact..
up your butt.
and
variables without numbers means crap.
watch and cry...
In the case against you I have simply this...
(less lines too)
x*x=x^2
and also
x^2=-x*-x
therefore
x=-x
bummer for you, not me.
also
x+g=z
let x=1 quart
let g=3 quarts
let z=1 gallon.
1+3=1
Shove your "lets" where they belong.
in the trash can.
Still just refuse to even try huh?
sad.
let... your brain decay more,
I could care less.
and please mean that PLONK this time.
tis very sad to see it re-done.
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
Actually, you just _agreed_ to it. Remember? I know short term memory
holds only 7 things, so that's why I even quoted you agreeing to it.
>
>
> > 1) x*(x + q) = x*0 = 0
> > x*x + x*q = 0
> >
> > 2) (x + q)*q = 0*q = 0
> > x*q + q*q = 0*q = 0
> >
> > Therefore, x*x + x*q = x*q + q*q
> >
> > For shorthand, let g = x*q
>
> LET>
> let?
>
> <LOL>
> let nothing!
> letting means crap!
> <LOL>
Bahaha. I knew you'd come back with something idiotic like this. Fine,
DON'T let g = x*q.
x*x + x*q = x*q + q*q
x*x = q*q
The end.
> up your butt.
> and
> variables without numbers means crap.
> watch and cry...
> In the case against you I have simply this...
> (less lines too)
> x*x=x^2
> and also
> x^2=-x*-x
> therefore
> x=-x
> bummer for you, not me.
Perhaps in another number system, but not in the real number system.
Because you didn't follow the _axioms_ of the real number system.
Funny that you have a case against me, when I just gave you a proof of which
you didn't point out a specific error.
Spaceman
> Bahaha. I knew you'd come back with something idiotic like this. Fine,
> DON'T let g = x*q.
>
> x*x + x*q = x*q + q*q
wrong.
It does not.
Whree the hell do you get such crap?
and that is the point I am saying you frellin moron.
> x*x = q*q
See,
wrong dunghead.
> Perhaps in another number system, but not in the real number system.
> Because you didn't follow the _axioms_ of the real number system.
<LOL>
you are so full of "brainwashed dung asnd twisting" that you will never get it
or just refuse to!
<ROFLOL>
> Funny that you have a case against me, when I just gave you a proof of which
> you didn't point out a specific error.
I am laughing at you too hard to show you "your" error,
I did this time
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Zachary Turner" <_NOzturner...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehD1a.8348$yn1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > Bahaha. I knew you'd come back with something idiotic like this. Fine,
> > DON'T let g = x*q.
> >
> > x*x + x*q = x*q + q*q
>
> wrong.
> It does not.
> Whree the hell do you get such crap?
> and that is the point I am saying you frellin moron.
Jeez, do I have to do it again?
YOU SAID:
If x lies on the right-hand side of your number line, and q lies on the left
hand side, and is the same distance away from 0 that x is (just in the other
direction), then you _agreed_ that
x + q = 0
THEN,
x*(x + q) = x*0
x*x + x*q = 0
ALSO,
(x + q) * q = 0*q
x*q + q*q = 0
THEREFORE, since 0 = 0,
x*q + q*q = x*x + x*q
THEREFORE,
q*q = x*x
PLONK
Dik T. Winter
...
> > Is there a need for formality in logic on articles on Internet?
> [EL]
> As far as *needs* go, on the internet, there is no need for logic
> itself.
> You may very well go ahead and mumble jumbles that costs you nothing.
Uh, good from you.
>
> > And so, do your articles pass the test?
> [EL]
> I tried many times to persuade God herself to evaluate me but she
> refused to leave bed.
I can sympathise. But being out of bad myself...
> If you have the temerity to evaluate my logic you may go ahead and
> make sex with God, as she is still in bed. :)
Oh, no. It is not yet time for bed.
> > Hrm. There is a Dutch proverb that states
> > "It can freeze and thaw".
> [EL]
> Correct, that proverb is good.
> Freezing and thawing are reversible processes that may coexist in
> states of equilibrium.
And just that it *not* the meaning of the proverb. The meaning is
"it can go two ways".
> > The normal (colloquial) interpretation of the word
> > "and" is not that both are true at the same time, but that there are
> > two possibilities.
> [EL]
> Bad usage in a logical context, but good usage in an enumeration
> context.
Ah, let's see.
> >This may be bad from a logical standpoint, but language is not
> logical.
> [EL]
> Do you mean that language is illogical?
Oh yes. It is.
> > That logic has taken this word and uses it with some specific meaning
> [EL]
> Here you have formulated the premises.
>
> >does *not* mean that the linguistic habits are bad.
> [EL]
> Here you have jumped to a conclusion, without any founded and
> substantiated proof.
Hm. I thought my conclusion was that no conclusion could be drawn.
But it may be that I jumped to that conclusion. Can you state *why*
a conclusion can be drawn from the premises?
> > > A second exclusive condition may be that I either go shopping OR I do
> > > not go shopping. (Opposite alternatives)
> >
> > I may go shopping and I may not go shopping, I will see.
> [EL]
> A wonderful example of a pathetic linguistic talent. :)
> Point in case and case on point.
> You may not be both going and not going, because you either go or you
> do not go.
Yup, right. But nevertheless, in common language that can be said.
As I stated, language is not logical.
> > You know, the colloquial meaning of "and" differs from the logical meaning.
> > Logicians have just usurped a meaning.
> [EL]
> This is a false statement.
> Logicians have adopted the profound semantics for which the words were
> created in the first place.
I would think otherwise. You state something here, can you back it up?
As in showing that those profound semantics were in the word "and" when
it was created? Apparently you are thinking words were created with a
profound semantic meaning.
> "And" means togetherness and it means "side by side" in place or time.
> It follows that any two members of a set are bounded together by the
> same boundary, whether that set was spatial or temporal.
Not only that. Or care to explain a sentence like:
"And I were able to I would go"?
which was pretty common back in the 18th century, well after the word
"and" was created.
> > > Now let us go back to your "Two Possibilities"
> > > They are 'EL is an idiot', and 'EL is not an idiot'. (False)
> >
> > Why false?
> [EL]
> Because the qualities lack togetherness.
Eh?
> >What is the antecedent of "they are"? Those words are not
> > there in vacuum. The common meaning is:
> > "the first one is A and the other one is B".
> [EL]
> Very good; now follow your own logic and realise that "the first one"
> happens to be "the second one".
You state that the first possibility happens to be the second possibility?
The antecedent to the "they are" is "two possibilities". Note that we
*have* an enumeration context here. Follow your own logic.
> Is your name Winter or is it Summers?
I may answer: yes.
> I may not ask you saying:
> Is your name Winter and is it Summers? (Ridiculous)
You may ask (why not?), my answer will be no.
> That is because you have a name, one name to identify your family name
> or it loses profundity.
There is no profundity at all in my family name. For some reason Napoleon
decreed that all people in the Netherlands would have family names, and
those were chosen pretty haphazard. That was just about 200 years ago.
Some of the names chosen were clearly jokes, but taken seriously. Like
"Naaktgeboren" (translated "Born naked"). My great-great-grand-father
(or somesuch) chose the name of a season, as many (completely unrelated)
people did. I am probably closer related to some people with the
family name "Herfst" ("Autumn") than with other "Winters". (And than
consider a luxurous sounding family name as "Vennegoor of Hesseling",
which just means a farmer normally called "Vennegoor" (I will not
translate that) coming from the farm named "Hesseling".) If Napoleon
had not been around my name would probably have been Dik Dirkszoon
(just as it is still the case on Iceland).
Let's consider Dirk Van de moortel. Note that in Belgium case is important.
You have also "van de Moortel", "Vandemoortel", "Van Den Moortel" and quite
a few other variants. Those are all unrelated families. I do not know
what "moortel" does mean (slone mason, Dirk?), but many people chose such
a name. And all the variants come because they were written down by
French speaking clercs that did not know how to spell the Flemish names...
> There are two possibilities concerning your family name and those two
> possibilities are that your family name is Winter or your family name
> is Summers.
There are quite a lot more possibilities.
> I dare you to make sense by replacing the or with an and.
> I deliberately used the "is" operator as a replacement for the "equal"
> sign while attaching a value that have emotional significance to you.
> Now you might be able to see better.
But such a conjunction did not occur in the first instance.
>
> >
> > > All those three expressions are logically equivalent to:
> > > 1 and 0 . (False)
> >
> > So if I state:
> > The roots of x^2 - x = 0 are 0 and 1.
> > is a false statement?
> [EL]
> No,it is NOT a false statement because that form is an enumeration
> form of the set of answers and it is quite acceptable.
>
> > And it would not improve with
> > The roots of x^2 - x = 0 are x=0 and x=1?
> [EL]
> Indeed that statement is false, because that form is enumerating two
> contradictory facts being anded rather than ored.
> The value of x may not be 0 and 1 concurrently, it is either x= 0 or
> x=1.
But why is this not an enumeration context? Oh, sorry, you write that
it is an enumeration. So why is this statement false in exactly this
enumeration context? And what makes this enumeration context different
from other enumeration contexts where it is allowed?
Zachary Turner
Has Spaceman made it into your immortal fumbles yet?
Spaceman
> x + q = 0
What numbers for x or q dinkweed.
Sheesh
I told you without numbers the letter mean shit!
Sheesh!
shove you twists up your ass,
oops you can't,
your head is already there.
Nevermind twisthead.
You will never get it and you can "reverse direction" all you want with bad math.
I don't give a crap
since that only limits you,
not me.
Spaceman
Oops my bad,
you are the rock!
<LOL>
"Zachary Turner" <_NOzturner...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FLD1a.8689$yn1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Zachary Turner" <_NOzturner...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GzD1a.8556$yn1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > x + q = 0
>
> What numbers for x or q dinkweed.
> Sheesh
> I told you without numbers the letter mean shit!
> Sheesh!
I told you already, but you secretly snipped that part of the post. Here it
is _again_.
Zachary Turner" <_NOzturner...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GzD1a.8556$yn1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> YOU SAID:
> If x lies on the right-hand side of your number line, and q lies on the
left
> hand side, and is the same distance away from 0 that x is (just in the
other
> direction), then you _agreed_ that
>
> x + q = 0
>
> THEN,
> x*(x + q) = x*0
> x*x + x*q = 0
>
> ALSO,
> (x + q) * q = 0*q
> x*q + q*q = 0
>
> THEREFORE, since 0 = 0,
> x*q + q*q = x*x + x*q
>
> THEREFORE,
> q*q = x*x
Oops. Did you forget you agreed to that? Let me quote the part where you
agreed
> > > Do you believe x + q = 0?
> > >
> > > If not, what does it equal?
> >
> > depends on waht the variables are.
> > x = 1 mile east
> > q = 1mile west
> > x + q = 0 .
> > yup back to 0.
> > It can work.
> > looks fine to anyone with a clue.
Huh. So I'll be damned. Sure enough, you agreed that if x is a number a
certain distance to the RIGHT of 0, and q is a number the exact same
distance to the LEFT of 0, then x + q = 0. See? It's right there. You
agreed right there.
So, for ANY two numbers which share this property:
> x + q = 0
>
> THEN,
> x*(x + q) = x*0
> x*x + x*q = 0
>
> ALSO,
> (x + q) * q = 0*q
> x*q + q*q = 0
>
> THEREFORE, since 0 = 0,
> x*q + q*q = x*x + x*q
>
> THEREFORE,
> q*q = x*x
Do you need to see it a few more times?
EL
> In article <7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com>,
> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
>
> > > First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
> > > square root.
> > [EL]
> > Hahahaha, very arrogant and VERY WRONG. :)
>
> Never mind: Under the influence of wine last night I made a huge mistake: I
> assumed you were not a complete moron.
[EL]
Under the influence of wine last night you were talking to yourself in
the mirror.
Certainly I do not mind; it was YOUR bottle and YOUR mirror.
So moron or not it is up to you when you sober from wine and look
again in your mirror.
Yet it is really interesting to consider that you are an infinite
moron with partial morons as middle terms. :)
The sum of all terms should converge onto a finite moron in the mirror
holding a bottle of wine. :)
LOL
EL
EL
> > [EL]
> > x IS the square root of x^2.
> > If (x^2 = 4) then 2 is a root of this square where x = 2.
> > Another root of the (x^2 = 4) is -2 where x = -2.
> > Since in any case the square is x^2 then in all cases the root is sqrt
> > (x^2) = x.
>
> Hey silly idiot, I hadn't even seen this fresh fumble of yours :-))
>
> I'll spell it out for you:
>
> sqrt(x^2) = x <==> x >= 0
> sqrt(x^2) = -x <==> x =< 0
>
> Understood?
>
>
> Dirk Vdm
[EL]
:)
I can see how desperate you are to make it look like I did not know
what I was talking about.
But you kid never seem to learn softly and prefer it the hard way.
[Free lesson for "Dirt fan the mortal"]
In Algebra we use variables.
In the expressions you posted up there (x) is being used as a
variable.
Excluding the sign from the variable implies that your concept of a
variable does not tolerate negative values.
Please answer by YES or NO.
Are you suggesting that an algebraic variable may not acquire a
negative value internal to the symbolic representation?
|_| Yes?
|_| No?
Your answer please.
EL
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com...> news:<6Ou1a.40439$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > > "Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:1tu1a.50626$HN5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...> > > > news:waderameyxiii-266...@pop.nothingbutnet.net...
> > > > > For example, -2 is a square root of 4. However, sqrt(4) = 2. Period.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong
> > > > the only square root of 4 is 2
> > > > the square root of -4 is -2
> > >
> > > Yeah little submoron, you already told us about your
> > > magical (-4)*(-4) = -16, so in your wonderful world
> > > (-2)*(-2) can't differ much from -4 indeed.
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Dingbat
> > >
> > > Thanks for your contribution. Good dog.
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > [EL]
> > So that is "how" you feed!
> > Did you ever consider explaining to James why the product of an even
> > number of negative signs must be positive?
>
> Yes. With patience. A lot of serious honest patience.
> Check it out if you dare.
[EL]
Daring is improper when you mean "if I care".
If you can prove that you did care to educate James then I apologise.
I guess you have expired your patience then.
>
> > So what if he did not understand the reasoning behind a mathematical
> > rule?
>
> So what if it does not want to understand?
> What if it thrives on being called a submoron?
> I'm just paying it a service.
[EL]
I had my own "go" with James too, and he is locked in tiers and breaks
but that is totally beside the point I am raising Dirk. James would
too often troll unintentionally or intentionally for fun but that is
HIS problem. When you make his problem becomes YOUR problem how can
you make a better sub-moron of yourself? Having fun? Well then do
whatever you wish and be labelled as a troll.
>
> > What is in it for you Dirk to FEED on his errors?
>
> It is called altruism.
> And it is fun.
[EL]
Ah! I did not see that coming but I could certainly predict it was.
>
> > You disgust me.
>
> Apparently :-)
[EL]
Not anymore. ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
EL
> You haven't proven me wrong because you don't understand what a proof is,
> and you don't understand what 'definition' means. For instance, you don't
> understand that you're talking about something completely different than
> "real numbers". I'd tell you to go look up the definition of 'definition',
> but obviously, you wouldn't understand it.
Hahahahaha.
Too late dear Turner, you had been severely TROLLED.
James is an expert spoon dragger and you just swallowed it.:):)
Hard luck.
EL
dull...@sprynet.com
The LOL is that you didn't realize that the quote you provided to
prove you were right actually proves that WWW's comment was
exactly correct:
>> First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
>> square root.
>[EL]
>Hahahaha, very arrogant and VERY WRONG. :)
>x IS the square root of x^2.
[...]
>In the "World Wide Wade" Bible?
>And here is a quote from the site that YOU advised me to study and it
>contradicts with your "Period"
>{Open quote}
>A square root of x is a number r such that r^2 = x.
>Square roots are also called radicals or surds.
>Any positive real number has two square roots: one positive and one
>negative.
>{Close quote}
He says it's _a_ square root, not _the_ square root. You say he's
very arrogant and VERY WRONG, and to prove this you give a
quote that clearly talks about "a" square root.
LOL indeed.
>EL
David C. Ullrich
Spaceman
> Daring is improper when you mean "if I care".
> If you can prove that you did care to educate James then I apologise.
> I guess you have expired your patience then.
And Now EL is pulling the bully crap.
simply because he also "thinks" negative reals exist.
<LOL>
> [EL]
> I had my own "go" with James too, and he is locked in tiers and breaks
> but that is totally beside the point I am raising Dirk. James would
> too often troll unintentionally or intentionally for fun but that is
> HIS problem. When you make his problem becomes YOUR problem how can
> you make a better sub-moron of yourself? Having fun? Well then do
> whatever you wish and be labelled as a troll.
EL can't use a different number line either I see...
Or just refuses to.
<LOL>
EL,
can't get this huh?
q | | | | | 0 | | | | | x
Spaceman
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.0302...@posting.google.com...
Fuch You EL,
you are more of a troll than I am just with this post alone.
You call me a troll because you can not answer the "Facts" I propose.
Tis sad.
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
At least you put the word facts in quotation marks, to let everyone know
you've redefined it to mean something which it normally doesn't mean.
Spaceman
>
> At least you put the word facts in quotation marks, to let everyone know
> you've redefined it to mean something which it normally doesn't mean.
And still no facts to prove my facts wrong huh?
Zachary,
seek help.
You are brainwashed.
EL
> On 9 Feb 2003 20:53:34 -0800, hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
>
> >The World Wide Wade <wadera...@attbi.remove13.com> wrote in message news:<waderameyxiii-E5E...@pop.nothingbutnet.net>...
> >> In article <7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com>,
> >> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
> >>
> >> > > First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
> >> > > square root.
> >> > [EL]
> >> > Hahahaha, very arrogant and VERY WRONG. :)
> >>
> >> Never mind: Under the influence of wine last night I made a huge mistake: I
> >> assumed you were not a complete moron.
> >[EL]
> >Under the influence of wine last night you were talking to yourself in
> >the mirror.
> >Certainly I do not mind; it was YOUR bottle and YOUR mirror.
> >So moron or not it is up to you when you sober from wine and look
> >again in your mirror.
> >Yet it is really interesting to consider that you are an infinite
> >moron with partial morons as middle terms. :)
> >The sum of all terms should converge onto a finite moron in the mirror
> >holding a bottle of wine. :)
> >LOL
>
> The LOL is that you didn't realize
How did you come to the conclusion that "I did not realise"?
Is it not very possible that YOU did not realise that I did realise?
>that the quote you provided to prove
[EL]
I do not see any "quote" provided by me or others above your insertion
point.
What do you mean by "quote"? Is it something between quotation marks?
Would you be so kind as to quote the quote that I quoted, or are you
an imbecile wasting my precious time?
>you were right actually proves that WWW's comment was
> exactly correct:
[EL]
Are you afraid to insult me by calling me "a complete moron"?
Why do you feel that you need to be so indirect when you wish to
insult someone?
Do you lack the courage to be insolent or is it that you do not have
the temerity to face me EL.
What is the difference between half a moron and a complete moron?
Only a moron would assume that there are half morons and complete
morons of course.
Since you seem to be in agreement with a moron who saw a moron in a
mirror, I may confidently assume that you are just another moron who
was bored and looking for someone to insult for discharging some
tensions.
That is fine by me, I have tolerated many times the inconvenience of
toddlers pissing in my lap.
>
> >> First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
> >> square root.
> >[EL]
> >Hahahaha, very arrogant and VERY WRONG. :)
> >x IS the square root of x^2.
> [...]
> >In the "World Wide Wade" Bible?
> >And here is a quote from the site that YOU advised me to study and it
> >contradicts with your "Period"
> >{Open quote}
> >A square root of x is a number r such that r^2 = x.
> >Square roots are also called radicals or surds.
> >Any positive real number has two square roots: one positive and one
> >negative.
> >{Close quote}
>
> He says it's _a_ square root, not _the_ square root.
[EL]
It's!
What is that "it", is it your ass you refer to?
Funny that you have a square ass.
Or is it your head that is squared?
Did you miss the fact that we were talking about a variable namely
"x"?
Fine, here is a reminder:
By the way kid, we were debating if the square root of (x squared) was
x and only x symbolically or if it wasn't.
There you go kitty, kitty.
>You say he's very arrogant and VERY WRONG,
[EL]
Indeed, just you little toddler.
> and to prove this you give a quote that clearly talks about "a" square root.
[EL]
Oh my! I am stuck in kindergarten with you kids.
You lack the common sense of figures of speech too, huh.
To explain to morons what square roots are, we explain that:
If a^p = N, where p is a positive integer, a the pth root of N, and
there may be more than one real pth root of N.
Considering the multiplicity of the possibility of the value that the
variable may hold we certainly realise that each solution of the root
variable is *a* solution out of many solutions. Nevertheless we
certainly have one and only one variable that may hold a value of the
values of such root.
Therefore, when we address the variable symbolically we MUST call it
*the square root* as in:
The square root of x^2 is x.
Yet when we consider the numerical solutions of the equation (x = sqrt
(4)), we MUST say that 2 is a root and -2 is the other root. Once we
formalise the solutions we MUST say the either x = 2 OR x = -2.
Now that I am really getting tired of explaining such obvious and
basic logic to nymphs and worms I have decided to be very cruel with
the next insolent moron who dares to insult me. If someone does not
have the normal powers of logical conceptions I shall be very kind to
explain over and over, but no more insolence shall be tolerated along
with ignorance.
Now realise that the quote stated "A square root of x is a number r".
Yes because if he was taking about the algebraic variable, he would
have said THE variable, yet he certainly was taking about A number
(implicitly, out of many) symbolised by r for one of the solutions
only because he then says "such that r^2 = x".
The inverse semantics would be that x is the square of all the
possible (r^2), while r is a square root of x.
A placeholder is not the same as the algebraic variable, because if
the quote intended the algebraic semantics it could have said that x
is the square root of (x-squared), that is (x.x) = (x^2), and in that
algebraic sense x must be a variable that can be negative or positive
internally.
This concept is more evident when build a set of solutions or a set of
sets of solutions.
What is the difference between -(x) and (-x)?
Or do you comprehend the difference between a negative set of positive
values versus a positive set of negative values?
This is a very serious matter in the set theory because -(|x|)^2 =/=
(-|x|)^2, and if you cannot see the difference you have to ask me very
politely to kindly explain it to you.
EL
The World Wide Wade
dull...@sprynet.com wrote:
> The LOL is that you didn't realize that the quote you provided to
> prove you were right actually proves that WWW's comment was
> exactly correct:
>
> >> First, it would not be called "the" square root; it would be called "a"
> >> square root.
> >[EL]
> >Hahahaha, very arrogant and VERY WRONG. :)
> >x IS the square root of x^2.
> [...]
> >In the "World Wide Wade" Bible?
> >And here is a quote from the site that YOU advised me to study and it
> >contradicts with your "Period"
> >{Open quote}
> >A square root of x is a number r such that r^2 = x.
> >Square roots are also called radicals or surds.
> >Any positive real number has two square roots: one positive and one
> >negative.
> >{Close quote}
>
> He says it's _a_ square root, not _the_ square root. You say he's
> very arrogant and VERY WRONG, and to prove this you give a
> quote that clearly talks about "a" square root.
>
> LOL indeed.
That's why I bailed out; I can't compete with these splendid
self-refutations.
Dirk Van de moortel
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com...
Since you really insist,
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#MolBioBra
Title: "Molecular Biochemibra"
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
Spaceman is Right!
Spaceman for President!!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:9mte4v0efvs2rl56g...@4ax.com...
Perfect match.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
> Perfect match.
Still can not grasp a "variable line" huh Dirk?
Poor thing.
Brainwashed, soaked, hung out to dry, and shriveling up huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:9mte4v0efvs2rl56g...@4ax.com...
Those is fighting words to them.
:)
> Spaceman for President!!
No thanks man.
I am already a VP.
:)
Henri Wilson
>"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Ipd1a.38600$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
>> "Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message news:b23ir...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>> > With the risk of finding my name on Dirks Web page I would
>> > like to say that I think EL's logic is impeccable.
>> >
>> > Rusty Shackleford
>>
>> Of course EL's logic is impecable.
>> But EL is also a silly, nitpicking idiot who does not understand
>> the first thing about communication and language.
>>
>> When you throw a die, there are six outcomes.
>> They are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
>>
>> When you throw a coin, there are two outcomes.
>> They are 'heads' and 'tails'.
>>
>> The equation: x^2 = 1 has two roots.
>> They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
>>
>> These are three instances of what a linguist would call
>> 'enumerations'. The word 'and' is used to delimit the
>> last and one but last element of the enumeration.
>>
>*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*
>[Dirk Van de moortel]
>> By the way, these are not roots of the equation, but solutions.
>*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*FUMBLE*
>
>[EL]
>Would you kindly then explain to us why (x) is called the square ROOT
>of (x^2)? :)
>*******************************************************************.
>Would your majesty like us to change all the books and call it the
>square SOLUTION?
>************************************************************************.
>P.S. Please be brave enough and add your personal fumble to your
>fumbles' collection.
>Be fair and brave for a change.
>EL
>******
>
>> Polynomials have roots. Equations have solutions. So strictly
>> speaking it should have been:
>> The equation: x^2 = 1 has two solutions for x.
>> They are x = sqrt(1) = 1, and x = -sqrt(1) = -1
>>
>> Mathematically, formally and properly expressed:
>> x^2 = 1 <==> x =1 OR x = -1
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
When Dirk refers to his 'fumbling',
It's a sign his belief system's crumbling.
Square root (minus 4)
Is just 2 minus 4.
So don't accuse Spaceman of mumbling.
dull...@sprynet.com
You can be a very funny guy when you try. The part I'm referring
to as a "quote" is the part that you _marked_ with the words
"(Open quote)" and "(Close quote)" in your post. You know, the
part you wrote just after you wrote the words "Here is a quote"?
I'd quote that quote for you but I already did in my reply - see
below.
>>you were right actually proves that WWW's comment was
>> exactly correct:
>[EL]
>Are you afraid to insult me by calling me "a complete moron"?
>Why do you feel that you need to be so indirect when you wish to
>insult someone?
>Do you lack the courage to be insolent or is it that you do not have
>the temerity to face me EL.
This is truly fascinating. You don't seem to like it when people
call you a moron. But when someone _doesn't_ call you a moron
you complain about that as well. A real keeper.
David C. Ullrich
dull...@sprynet.com
Yeah, but look what you miss that way. See his reply to me:
He says "Here is a quote", he marks the quote "Open quote"
and "Close quote", then when I say something about the
quote he quoted, _quoting_ it, he asks what quote I'm
talking about.
Oh well, to each his own.
David C. Ullrich
EL
What self-refutations! Wishful dreams are not logical reasons.
The quote is clearly assigning "a" to a numerable result but the
assignment of "the" must be to a variable which is the set of all
solutions. Since the variable is the set of all solutions it must be
THE only answer that contains all answers.
You are one more idiot short of comprehension and that is all. Your
pride shall prevent you from admitting it of course.
Since you have demonstrated a malicious stance I have no choice but
treat you like a kindergarten toddler.
Now here is a box that ends with letter x and let us call THE box x.
We have some coloured balls and there is A ball in the box.
What is THE colour of THE ball in THE box?
{A ball in a box usually has a colour r such that r may be red, blue
or green}
Here are two boxes one we call x and one we call y.
Please open THE x box and find out THE colour of THE ball, which you
find in THE box x}
DID YOU UNDERSTAND?
Or are your wits so dim that you still have anything to say?
EL
Dik T. Winter
...
> By the way kid, we were debating if the square root of (x squared) was
> x and only x symbolically or if it wasn't.
Normally it isn't. sqrt(x^2) = |x|.
EL
Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you are but a vermin, a
worm, a parasite, a psychopath and a cranck.
*Plonk*
hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message news:<7563cb80.03020...@posting.google.com>...
> Never be intimidated by a jerk like Dirk.
> [EL]
> To all members of physics news groups.
> Never be intimidated by people like:
> "Dirk Van de moortel" or some other crank who keeps a file of
> psychopathic food.
> If you think for a moment about the cause of self-appointing as a
> judge who may condemn others, you shall realise that those pests are
> incompetent and they harbour a lack of confidence.
******************************************************
> They do not have sound arguments most of the time and they feel the
> need of a weapon to intimidate others when their logic fails in a
> debate.
******************************************************
> Be assured that those trolls are just vulnerable humans and they are
> neither gods nor authority by any measures.
> In fact, only an idiot would waste his time in keeping a web page of
> clips cut out of context as fumbles. It only gives him a psychological
> illusion of superiority that never existed or shall ever exist.
> Never fear them.
> Face them and confront them.
> Kick their ass by sound logic and good argument.
> Let them feel how small they really are.
> Get enlisted in their fumbles because once you are inside there there
> is nothing more he can do.
> Yet you can always make him eat shit by your sound argument any time
> you wish.
> Never be intimidated by a jerk like Dirk.
>
> EL
The World Wide Wade
dull...@sprynet.com wrote:
> >That's why I bailed out; I can't compete with these splendid
> >self-refutations.
>
> Yeah, but look what you miss that way. See his reply to me:
> He says "Here is a quote", he marks the quote "Open quote"
> and "Close quote", then when I say something about the
> quote he quoted, _quoting_ it, he asks what quote I'm
> talking about.
But you're making my point for me. I can't compete with that stuff - and
it's somewhat depressing. You try to point out why X was a moronic thing to
say and he comes back with Y, practically inventing a whole new phylum of
moron life-forms. I'm telling you, these guys are good ...
RP Henry
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> Square root (minus 4)
> Is just 2 minus 4.
> So don't accuse Spaceman of mumbling.
Some time ago, I decided Henri Wilson was not worth reading, and I have long
ignored all his postings. I must admit I was mistaken. He's not as funny
as spacey, but getting closer.
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
You're right, no facts to prove yours wrong. Except of course the ones in
another portion of this thread which you secretly stopped responding to
since you knew you'd only dig yourself deeper by responding to them.
Spaceman
> You're right, no facts to prove yours wrong. Except of course the ones in
> another portion of this thread which you secretly stopped responding to
> since you knew you'd only dig yourself deeper by responding to them.
Do you always pull the lying routine when you can not prove something wrong?
Tis sad.
Zachary Turner
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
Tee hee. Tis a shame that people need only read the rest of this thread to
see that what I said was indeed true.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:ts7g4v8eu8strsmuu...@4ax.com...
>> Is just 2 minus 4.
>> So don't accuse Spaceman of mumbling.
>
>ignored all his postings. I must admit I was mistaken. He's not as funny
>as spacey, but getting closer.
>
always welcome.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
EL
I am telling YOU, that you are to me what spaceman is to you.
Did you understand moron.
Your half science and half wit gives you an upper hand on your lesser
blindly because you still have an intact eye.
You need to work your mind very hard to reach my stance.
But I know that you are resisting what I taught you out of your
arrogance and embarrassment only.
That is fine by moi.
Learn or eat shit, it is finally up to you.
EL
EL
> In article <7563cb80.03021...@posting.google.com> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) writes:
> ...
> > By the way kid, we were debating if the square root of (x squared) was
> > x and only x symbolically or if it wasn't.
>
> Normally it isn't. sqrt(x^2) = |x|.
Now you are talking like a mathematician and to me it makes all the
difference.
I cannot help being meticulous.
"Normally" here is synonymous to "Unless otherwise noted", right?
So if we wish to pick the positive root we write:
sqrt(x^2) = |x|
Or if we wish to pick the negative root we write:
sqrt(x^2) = -|x|
I cannot disagree with good formalities
This means that the set (x) of all solutions (-|x|, |x|) is THE
sqrt(x^2), don't you agree?
EL
EL
[EL]
I was keen on pointing out to you that you should never comment a
quote by inserting the comment twenty lines above the quote, because
only a moron would do that.
Normal people would refer to a quote after it had been quoted and not
before it.
If you behave like an idiot and resist us for showing you your error
then why do you insist on showing me my error if I had any that you
believe that I should be shown?
If you allow yourself to show others their errors then the least is to
accept that others show you yours.
So your comment here above is void of truth and you are being
deliberately twisted in your ways, that is because you made your
comment way before the quote in such a way that does not bind to it.
Nevertheless, I explained to you why your comment was invalid due to
what is being referred to.
I showed you that a reference to a general root must be addressed as
"a root" but when we address the variable which is the set of all
solutions we have no choice but addressing it as "The root".
So go ahead an laugh as much as you want, but I am sure that between
you and your ugly self you know that I am right and sophisticated too
much for your taste.
I happen to be proud of my level of sophistication that you can hardly
fathom, which makes me laugh, in the very way that makes you laugh and
be proud of yourself when you argue with spaceman. It is a
relativistic issue you know.
We could be friends if you stop fooling around like an idiot and start
to talk like a true mathematician.
EL
EL
"Below" is not good enough David. I know very well what I quoted.
I was reminding you of an academic etiquette that you did not bother
to follow.
I was very clear on not seeing a quote **above* the point of
insertion* but you chose to neglect the meaning of what I said.
Are you bored and have nothing better to do with your time than this
shit we are both in David?
We could use that time in discussing better things I am sure.
Get a grip man and stop defending jerks like Dirk, because it is
really lowly to keep a web page of intimidation whether he was right
or wrong concerning its contents.
>
> >>you were right actually proves that WWW's comment was
> >> exactly correct:
> >[EL]
> >Are you afraid to insult me by calling me "a complete moron"?
> >Why do you feel that you need to be so indirect when you wish to
> >insult someone?
> >Do you lack the courage to be insolent or is it that you do not have
> >the temerity to face me EL.
>
> This is truly fascinating.
[EL]
It is a pleasure to have fascinated you. :)
>You don't seem to like it when people call you a moron.
[EL]
Do you?
> But when someone _doesn't_ call you a moron
> you complain about that as well. A real keeper.
[EL]
Ah! But that one was saying that someone who called me "a complete
moron" was correct.
So I had all the reasons to conclude that you are a coward who
shudders to call me a moron when he really wants to call me a moron.
;-)
Yet I have the courage to tell you that I find your behaviour to be
cowardice concerning that particular matter.
If I find you to be a moron, be certain that I shall tell you about my
findings sir. :)
I am sure you are just mistaken about me and you were not given a
decent way to retreat from your jerky response.
Let me give you my personal experience on this matter.
When I find that I was too hasty in judging someone I usually shut the
fuck up, and I advise you to do the same David.
It saved me a lot of embarrassment really.
Kind regards.
EL