Re: [OT] Re: Bondy & Murty's book available on-line (was: Re: Eulerianpath in infinite graph)
George Cox
>
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
> > You honestly are that thick, that you think it was and still is
> > appropriate for you, repeatedly, to claim that anyone who had the
> > temerity to be posting in this comp.theory thread was _obliged_, _on
> > your say-so_, to be able to recognize Paul Erdos in a framed image hung
> > on a wall behind the main subject of a home page author's online
> > photograph, must be lying to claim not to have recognized the image, and
> > to continue that insistence time after time, despite that poster's
> > repeated insistances, that no, he'd never happened to see a picture of
> > Paul Erdos that identified itself as such?
>
> Nice sentence.
>
> Yes, I think that anyone who cared about the face on a ooster of a graph
> theorist's office would know who Erdos is, by name and by face. The mere
> fact some someone visited that professor's webpage and cared about what he
> had on his wall would suggest that he had some interest in faces and in
> graph theory, and the most famous face in graph theory is probably Erdos'.
> (Hence his face on that large poster.... and many other posters as well.)
Me(1): no great interest in graph theory, an amateur's interest in
mathematics generally (and hence reads 80% of sci.math posts, whatever
their subject so long as it's mathematical);
Me(2): interest in poster merely idle curiosity;
Me(3): sighted.
I'm sorry if I've caused two people to have a slanging match about this,
but I'm bowing out of this thread now.
--
G.C.
Note ANTI, SPAM and invalid to be removed if you're e-mailing me.
Kent Paul Dolan
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>> You honestly are that thick, that you think it
>> was and still is appropriate for you, repeatedly,
>> to claim that anyone who had the temerity to be
>> posting in this comp.theory thread was _obliged_,
>> _on your say-so_, to be able to recognize Paul
>> Erdos in a framed image hung on a wall behind the
>> main subject of a home page author's online
>> photograph, must be lying to claim not to have
>> recognized the image, and to continue that
>> insistence time after time, despite that poster's
>> repeated insistances, that no, he'd never
>> happened to see a picture of Paul Erdos that
>> identified itself as such?
> Nice sentence.
I pride myself on writing as if my audience
consisted of educated adults capable of parsing
moderately complex English sentence structure,
rather than dumbing down everything I write to
persons whose mental age matches your ethical
development age, yes.
> Yes, I think
Your opinions on what someone _should_ be able to
do, based on your quite unbalanced criteria of the
requirements for one to be interested in graph
theory, are of no interest whatever in this
discussion. What is of interest is your rudeness in
insisting on _imposing_ your expectations on someone
who *denied*, *repeatedly*, that they were
appropriate or sensible in _his_ _particular_
_case_, to question his honesty in making such
assertions in the face of your implacable ignorance,
and in general to behave like the contemptible fool
you are and apparently intend always to remain.
I realize, by your unaltered stance despite grossly
overabundant factual information that would cause
a normal person to alter his opinion, that you fit
in that all too frequently encountered subset of
Usenet participants, a category first defined long
before the discovery of electricity by a "Saint
Thomas Aquinus": the "invincibly ignorant" to whom
no conveyance of fact suffices to impart learning.
_He_ used that category to _excuse_ people from
their religious "obligation" to agree with his
dogma or go to Hell. Today, being somewhat wiser, we
use it to _condemn_ people who by their voluntary
choice, and despite the obvious mental capacity to
do otherwise, remain in error rather than admit
to their error and correct that error.
> that anyone who cared about the face on a [p]oster
> of a graph theorist's office would know who Erdos
> is, by name and by face.
You undoubtedly have some series of non-rectum
extracted derivations of this astonishing claim?
My own, graduate school, graph theory textbook,
by a Russian author if I recall correctly, contained
_no_ human images, least of all recognizable ones of
Paul Erdos. More than that, Paul Erdos was a
notorious polymath, contributing to many, many
fields, so your trying to claim him exclusively for
"graph theory" is merely one more example of your
abundant idiocy.
Now we have _two_ falsifying examples to counter
your claim. Do you have some particular number of
falsifying examples which you are willing to
agree would suffice, or are you inherently and by
your divine powers correct from the beginning to the
end of time, so that no amount of evidence from
independent sources can even be conceived which
might prove you to be incorrect? If so, how in the
name of the unforgiving universe do you manage to
finish even one piece of math homework? Are your
answers, with all intermediate steps shown, fetched
to you, perhaps, by a dove descending from on high?
> The mere fact some someone visited that
> professor's webpage and cared about what he had on
> his wall would suggest that he had some interest
> in faces and in graph theory,
Your continuing to be a fool is no longer
surprising, but let us again proceed as if there is
some hope of factual input having any modifying
ability on your adamantine opinions.
The context was _not_: go check out this page to
see the neat picture of the famous graph theory
guru behind the seated professor whose home page it
is. The context was, and I quote:
:>> While I am still interested in an (easy) reference
:>> on infinite graphs (or perhaps a survey), I did find
:>> something that left me quite happy.
:>> Prof. Adrian Bondy has put his *entire* book
:>> available on-line on his homepage, which is
:>> something quite helpful, since the book seems to be
:>> long out-of-print and not all libraries have this
:>> book available (especially depending on where you
:>> live).
:>> His personal homepage is:
:>> <http://www.ecp6.jussieu.fr/pageperso/bondy/bondy.html>.
In terms simple enough for my child at his age
two, and thus possibly for you, since you seem to
feel it necessary to bemoan complex sentence
structure, that context at your desired reading
level is:
"Free book. Go look."
George Cox in response to that invitation, "went and
looked", and in all innocence, made a short, casual
inquiry, in no way deserving of a single one of your
sarcastic, obnoxious, insulting, bullying responses:
:> Whose 'photo is that on his office wall?
Not: "I am a profoundly interested student of graph
theory, have made it my lifelong passion, and take
responsibility for knowing at sight the famous
toilers in the field, but this one escapes my
ability to identify him," merely, again at your
comprehension level as previously indicated by you:
"Who dat?"
> and the most famous face in graph theory is
> probably Erdos'.
How nice for you that you think so; the most famous
face in graph theory, _to me_, is Dr. Stephen
Olariu(sp?; it's been a couple of decades), the
person who taught the only class I ever took in the
subject, and a world class prolific producer of
results in the field, at the "published paperS per
month" level.
> (Hence his face on that large poster.... and many
> other posters as well.)
Again, how splendid for you.
This is supposed to excuse your rude, obnoxious,
sarcastic, bullying articles, in response to a
casually expressed request for information, again,
exactly how?
> To make an analogy to an extreme case: if someone
> was interested in physics and looks at a
> particular physicists' website and saw a big
> picture of Einstein on it and asked "hey, who is
> that person in that big poster," he would surely
> get sarcastic replies along the lines of "Well,
> Einstein, that is Albert Einstein."
Only from an utter fool more interested in flaunting
his superiority than in answering the question
without a spectacular outburst of ego. I'm sure we
have one such example on prominent display at the
moment, so the existence proof is satisfied.
To make an analogy to a less extreme case, if the
collection of drooling net.idiots were compressed
into a modern day Baalam's Ass, we'd look for the
part which had been you, under the tail. See how
wonderfully useful analogical reasoning can be when
used maliciously, or are you again immune to
education?
> Now, Paul Erdos is not as common a figure in the
> public eye as Einstein, but within the graph
> community, he is as close as anyone will get.
Umm, but in his query, do I see George Cox saying
"I am a proud, card carrying member of the graph
theory community, responsible for recognizing its
iconic images of worship as revered by the feeble
minded fools to whom such idiocy holds pride of
place over such piddling details as being able to do
the math"? I do not. Perhaps you could show me
where I missed that part.
>> Apparently you lack not merely any detectable
>> social skills, but any likelihood of ever
>> attaining them.
> I don't think my comments can allow you to infer
> anything about my social skills,
To the contrary, they are as a sounding trumpet to
anyone not suffering from the effective autism that
seems to be your lot in life. It is sad for you, as
for Arthur T. Murray, James Harris, Steven Boursey,
Stan Rothwell, David Hayes, Dan Sempsey and a
"difficult to count with less than a beachful of
grains of sand for tallying tools" similar litany of
Usenet's "lifetime loser extra achievement ribbon
with double bronze cluster" recipients, that you
apparently have no insight into the extra
information conveyed by your own words beyond that
lesser amount which you intended them to convey.
For example, your intent to show your superiority
in all ways "graph theory iconic image related" to
George Cox, had the unintended side effect of
showing you to be a drooling feeble-minded ethically
challenged fool with a championship stubborn streak,
and continues to reinforce that opinion with each of
your successive responses.
Do you see how that works yet, or does the cliche
"read between the lines" remain on your "meaningless
and opaque phrases" list?
> while your posts clearly give an indication
> towards yours.
Why stop at an indication? All of it is in the
public record and has been for almost two
decades now. Shyness is not one of my faults.
I am diagnosed, for over 19 years now, as a "severe
clinical atypical monopolar depressive". I was
release from involuntary confinement in a mental
hospital, with the notation back to the court and to
my medical record: "improved, not cured". Though I
have been under professional psychiatric care much
of that time since, my life remains in a shambles,
my days are mostly spent curled in a ball, my
housekeeping would offend trespassing rodents, but
my odor gives them sufficient warning that none
trespass.
I suffer obdurate fools (such as you) with extremely
bad grace, leading to short employments and long
periods seeking employment, despite that I am a
skilled technician in my profession with a splendid
list of past achievements, skills in demand, and
current ongoing accomplishments there.
But that doesn't help you a bit to evade your
current behavior difficulty repercussions, does it?
See, the problem is:
"You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes."
-- Maimonides
So, me being mad as a hatter doesn't make your
behavior toward George Cox a speck more acceptable
_to me_, or, more than likely, to those immensely
enjoying, for cause, your ongoing humiliation as
this discussion continues and you maintain your
spiraling descent in flames.
Sidebar:
Strangely with all list of problems, my list of
_friends_ remains immense and planet girdling,
in 82 nations at one count. Many of them go far
out of their way to assist me in living my
difficult life, local ones frequently visiting
to clean my house for me, dragging me out to get
healthful exercise, treating me to movies,
bringing me food, (even mailing me food across
oceans), giving me clothes, shoes, small gifts
and such.
Perhaps it is because I do similar things within
my capacity for them, incessantly, having some
detectable amount of human insight and empathy,
things you have proved resoundingly merely in
this one thread that you lack entirely, and
which I'm sure a close review of your Usenet and
personal life, behavior, and relations with
others, would confirm all the more dramatically.
Denial is not a river in Egypt, Jim, stop swimming
in it. When you make a mistake, grasp your manhood
to you, if you have any to grasp, and admit that
mistake. Don't, in refusing even to entertain the
notation that you are capable of making the
grotesque social blunders which in the case you
so often commit, merely worsen the damage you do
to yourself with each flailing attempt to turn
the blame for your errors to others instead of
accepting that it is yours, and yours alone.
HTH
xanthian. Did I mention not being a nice person, and
being capable of getting nasty? I may start that
heightened response any time now. Aren't you glad
you have something to anticipate in life besides the
boredom of being an infinitely-correctly-categorized
social outcast? If I had a "short list" of fools,
you'd be on it, but unfortunately it goes on for
pages, and you are merely another unimportant
annotation down toward the bottom, with the fading
ink recently refreshed. You chose your place in the
scheme of things by your actions. Don't fuss at
me, I don't create the news, I just write it down
to keep my typing skills fresh.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Jim Nastos
> Me(1): no great interest in graph theory, an amateur's interest in
> mathematics generally (and hence reads 80% of sci.math posts, whatever
> their subject so long as it's mathematical);
> Me(2): interest in poster merely idle curiosity;
> Me(3): sighted.
Of course, there would be exceptional cases like yourself here and it is
unfortunate that my (in my opinion, fairly safe) assumptions have caused
this fine newsgroup a flooding of verbal diarrhea.
> I'm sorry if I've caused two people to have a slanging match about this,
> but I'm bowing out of this thread now.
You don't need to apologize for that; I feel more apologetic for having
paid him any attention.
Now I will have to do like I do when a madman on the street is
offensively ranting and just keep walking.
J
Shotgun Squad
news:46b38b807f70b18d919...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> I pride myself on writing as if my audience
> consisted of educated adults capable of parsing
> moderately complex English sentence structure,
> rather than dumbing down everything I write to
> persons whose mental age matches your ethical
> development age, yes.
Translation: I pride myself on condemning anyone
who disagrees with me. If they oppose my views,
they are wrong and a numskull head. No one can
oppose me, for by some strange feature of the
universe, my ideas are always right, and I am
incapable of incorrect thought.
Result: You have only accomplices and subjugates
to spend your life with. Your type of mindcrime is
infectious, because people see themselves taking
on a deity-like status in your presence as you
provide false praise to the band of compadres that
you have managed to throw the wool over the eyes of.
Pity: You miss so much in this world, viewing it
only through your own eyes.
Cause: You prize social interaction over real
knowledge. You have mistakenly conceived that the
reason we are on this earth is to interact with
its people, rather than the earth and universe itself.
Hint: People are a construct, a side matter and a
mere distraction from the true experience of self.
You will find this out shortly.
--
People start thinking about a better time
When shotgun squads kept the people in line
Vigilantes walking the streets with a gun
Is said the real way that the West was won
Kent Paul Dolan
> Translation: I pride myself on condemning anyone
> who disagrees with me.
I can't even tell you to take your meds, because
I strongly suspect you are not even under the care
you need. Instead, guessing your cycle as close
to what mine was before meds fixed that, I'll just
invite you to rewrite that at the bottom of your
depressive half cycle in a week or two.
Meanwhile, my ride to go visit a hospitalized friend,
the quadripeligic Jessi (Jesus) just arrived, and I
must go visit one of the more interesting accumulations
of particles and the rules under which they operate
in the universe, a living being.
xanthian.
Shotgun Squad
> "Shotgun Squad" <shotguns...@yahoo.com> raved:
>
> > Translation: I pride myself on condemning anyone
> > who disagrees with me.
>
> I can't even tell you to take your meds, because
> I strongly suspect you are not even under the care
> you need. Instead, guessing your cycle as close
> to what mine was before meds fixed that, I'll just
> invite you to rewrite that at the bottom of your
> depressive half cycle in a week or two.
Go ahead. Keep condemning me as mad. It will make it even harder for
you when it comes time to apologize.
--
LAY ON YOUR FACE
AND BEG
THAT THE MERCY OF GOD
WILL COME UPON YOU
Kent Paul Dolan
> Go ahead. Keep condemning me as mad.
Condemning you as mad? Where? I'm merely
noticing that the problems with your mind you
claimed to be all the fault of the medical care
you received in South Dakota (and which care you
chose to fight tooth and nail) continue right on
happening as before when you are receiving _no_
medical care, and are in Utah.
When you are calmer, this might, I say _might_,
give you a clue as to the correctness of your
previous claims, conclusions, and attributions
of malice to your attempted caregivers.
Do I think you are "mad"? In a non-judgemental
sense, yes. Do I condemn you for it? Why would
I? I've been there myself; our minds are what
they are. I've spent years trying to get mine
fixed, to little avail, you've spent years
resisting having yours fixed, to little avail.
It is a bit hard to draw a line in the sand
between those two histories, and say: "this side
is condemned, this side is blessed", and then to
find a way to defend that separation.
> It will make it even harder for you when it
> comes time to apologize.
When I do something for which _I_ see a need to
apologize, I'm quite quick to do so. When I have
someone unbalanced, and remaining so by his own
choice, telling me that the things I do will
soon be requiring me to apologize, and he has
not been grotesquely offensive in the process,
I just wish him better mental health in the
future. Life's too short for hate-as-hate,
though I do tend to take offense rather easily.
xanthian.
A nice day today, all in all. Jesus is back from
the hospital, no longer racked with infection.
Hideki and I spent 45 minutes with Jesus, went off
and had a splendid dinner at the store selling
octopus heads for 1/16th the price per weight of
octopus tentacles, then came to my place where I
worked with him for a couple of hours on his
English pronunciations again. [_You_ try to get
the vowels right in "full", "fool", "fall" when
your birth language contains neither of the
consonent sounds "F" or "L". Both of us were in
giggles by the time that particular problem had
been under work for half an hour.] He's finished
school, will stay for a year working in the US,
with luck helping run a charity, his just finished
field of study, before going home.
Kent Paul Dolan
> exceptional cases
> paid him any attention
> offensively ranting
1) The case was not exceptional, anyone with a bit of insight
into humanity would _expect_ that case.
2) You'd have saved yourself _loads_ of embarrassment if you'd
had the guts to stop, look back, and admit your error. You
failed to take steps anyone else would have taken, and you
injured yourself as a result.
3) Riiiiight. Let's see, I was exactly correct, you fought
tooth and nail to avoid admitting that, and _I_ was the
one "offensively ranting"? Does your house lack mirrors?
Somehow, it's all still anyones fault but yours, I see.
You might meditate on that idea for a decade or two, to see
if you can find an alternative viewpoint before you die of
old age.
I've got to go climb another mountain in five hours from now,
so I can't stop to teach you to think this evening. Twice I
have attempted to write a line by line analysis of where you
went wrong, to help you see the clues anyone else sees easily,
and twice my computer has wedged itself and nuked the entire
effort, for reasons not related to that work at all.
Fate must have a _very_ strong reason for you to remain
abjectly incompetent in human affairs.
I am _so_ glad not to be you with such a geas on me.
xanthian.
Acid Pooh
> "Shotgun Squad" <shotguns...@yahoo.com> raved:
>
> > Translation: I pride myself on condemning anyone
> > who disagrees with me.
> Meanwhile, my ride to go visit a hospitalized friend,
> the quadripeligic Jessi (Jesus) just arrived, and I
> must go visit one of the more interesting accumulations
> of particles and the rules under which they operate
> in the universe, a living being.
>
> xanthian.
You've got to admit, he's got a point there.
1) Your grammar is just _terrible_.
2) You insult someone for calling you on it.
3) You rant for several dozen lines about absolutely nothing.
Clearly, Shotgun Squad's assessment was not too far off the mark. I
would only like to add that it it clear to me that your are an
incredible narcissist.
Symptoms: Everything Shotgun Squad described, plus your transparent
attempt at showing us how great a person you are indicates a severe
need for acceptance and adoration by those around you. What, are you
trying to make him feel guilty for not thinking you're a god among
men?
'cid 'ooh
Kent Paul Dolan
> You've got to admit,
No, I don't. You are, besides making a fool of
yourself by knee-jerk reactions not mediated by
sufficient prior research, also incorrect.
> he's got a point there.
The "point" of Julian Waldby when he is in the
throes of voluntarily suffered bipolar disorder
cycles, is strictly in the eye of the beholder. The
more pointiform Julian's text seem to you, the
blinder your eye appears to others.
> 1) Your grammar is just _terrible_.
Compared to that of someone, say, who answers an
article by two male authors, back to the entire
'Net, and uses pronouns "he" and "you" without
giving clue one of the antecedents of those
pronouns? Perhaps you have trouble differentiating
"bad grammar" from "text _you_ cannot understand,
due to poor reading skills and no clue what good
grammar is".
> 2) You insult someone for calling you on it.
Julian and I have been having this little
conversation for somewhat over a decade. Before
commenting further about what you think is being
said, go gain sufficent understanding and context to
follow the gist without making yourself a
laughing-stock to clueful readers.
> 3) You rant for several dozen lines about
> absolutely nothing.
Again, your lack of English comprehension skills
does not equate to my lack of writing skills.
> Clearly, Shotgun Squad's assessment was not too
> far off the mark.
"The manic cycle sufferer has it right" is your
final assessment? Snort.
> I would only like to add that it it clear to me
> that your are an incredible narcissist.
You haven't seen what I have to face in my mirror.
I have a splendid ego, more than sufficient to
survive maggot-tossed "slings and arrows" from grubs
of your ilk, but like most long term severe
depressives, my self-image is one with the benthic
slime.
> Symptoms:
Oh, splendid, and I thought David Longley was
more than sufficient tele-psyhchologists for any one
Usenet. Seems we must suffer another dunce who
pretends to clairvoyance to do diagnoses.
> Everything Shotgun Squad described, plus your
> transparent attempt at showing us how great a
> person you are indicates a severe need for
> acceptance and adoration by those around you.
There are dozens if not hundreds of 'Net-virtual
former-person-shaped piles of flame-cinders who, if
they were able, would jump, leap, even spring to
disagree with you.
> What, are you trying to make him feel guilty for
> not thinking you're a god among men?
_Julian_, think _someone_else_ a god????
Bwahahahahaha!
My, I hope the shuttle back to your home planet
remembers to pick you up at your stop.
> 'cid 'ooh
One more poster qualifies for a spot on the list of
Usenet's mental munchkins. Too bad that list is so
extensive your addition to it won't even be noticed.
xanthian, as always, vastly amused by the
unintentionally amusing.
For those following the background story, Jesus
V.-S. is back from the hospital after 8 days on
interveinous antibiotics, plus two transfusions,
just to clear up a fairly simple infection. A body
mostly unused doesn't have much in the way of immune
system self-defenses.
Acid Pooh
> "Acid Pooh" <pooh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You've got to admit,
>
> No, I don't. You are, besides making a fool of
> yourself by knee-jerk reactions not mediated by
> sufficient prior research, also incorrect.
>
> > he's got a point there.
>
> The "point" of Julian Waldby when he is in the
> throes of voluntarily suffered bipolar disorder
> cycles, is strictly in the eye of the beholder. The
> more pointiform Julian's text seem to you, the
> blinder your eye appears to others.
>
> > 1) Your grammar is just _terrible_.
>
> Compared to that of someone, say, who answers an
> article by two male authors, back to the entire
> 'Net, and uses pronouns "he" and "you" without
> giving clue one of the antecedents of those
> pronouns? Perhaps you have trouble differentiating
> "bad grammar" from "text _you_ cannot understand,
> due to poor reading skills and no clue what good
> grammar is".
>
Have you ever heard of "context"? Given the context in which I wrote
my previous message, it is clear to whom I was referring. You
certainly understood it. I'm sure most people who bothered to read my
post did. If you don't have a clue, you need to get one.
> > 2) You insult someone for calling you on it.
>
> Julian and I have been having this little
> conversation for somewhat over a decade. Before
> commenting further about what you think is being
> said, go gain sufficent understanding and context to
> follow the gist without making yourself a
> laughing-stock to clueful readers.
And why, pray-tell, should I care what people on talk.bizarre or
misc.misc care?
>
> > 3) You rant for several dozen lines about
> > absolutely nothing.
>
> Again, your lack of English comprehension skills
> does not equate to my lack of writing skills.
>
I wasn't refering to your grammar, but your rant's content--or lack
thereof. Spewing vitriol in defense that the following sentence is
grammatical is ridiculous:
<quote>
>> You honestly are that thick, that you think it
>> was and still is appropriate for you, repeatedly,
>> to claim that anyone who had the temerity to be
>> posting in this comp.theory thread was _obliged_,
>> _on your say-so_, to be able to recognize Paul
>> Erdos in a framed image hung on a wall behind the
>> main subject of a home page author's online
>> photograph, must be lying to claim not to have
>> recognized the image, and to continue that
>> insistence time after time, despite that poster's
>> repeated insistances, that no, he'd never
>> happened to see a picture of Paul Erdos that
>> identified itself as such?
</quote>
> > Clearly, Shotgun Squad's assessment was not too
> > far off the mark.
>
> "The manic cycle sufferer has it right" is your
> final assessment? Snort.
>
> > I would only like to add that it it clear to me
> > that your are an incredible narcissist.
>
> You haven't seen what I have to face in my mirror.
> I have a splendid ego, more than sufficient to
> survive maggot-tossed "slings and arrows" from grubs
> of your ilk, but like most long term severe
> depressives, my self-image is one with the benthic
> slime.
>
> > Symptoms:
>
> Oh, splendid, and I thought David Longley was
> more than sufficient tele-psyhchologists for any one
> Usenet. Seems we must suffer another dunce who
> pretends to clairvoyance to do diagnoses.
>
Your age is showing. Who is David Longley, what does he have to do
with the issue at hand, and why should I care?
> > Everything Shotgun Squad described, plus your
> > transparent attempt at showing us how great a
> > person you are indicates a severe need for
> > acceptance and adoration by those around you.
>
> There are dozens if not hundreds of 'Net-virtual
> former-person-shaped piles of flame-cinders who, if
> they were able, would jump, leap, even spring to
> disagree with you.
>
> > What, are you trying to make him feel guilty for
> > not thinking you're a god among men?
>
> _Julian_, think _someone_else_ a god????
>
> Bwahahahahaha!
>
> My, I hope the shuttle back to your home planet
> remembers to pick you up at your stop.
>
Your "response" isn't one. In particular, a course of action's lack
of effectiveness does not entail suspension of such a practice.
>
> One more poster qualifies for a spot on the list of
> Usenet's mental munchkins. Too bad that list is so
> extensive your addition to it won't even be noticed.
>
I take it you're on talk.bizarre? That makes some sense. Well, I can
assure you, I'm not posting from misc.misc. I suggest that if you're
going to use a single sample of a person's behavior with which to
judge them, to make sure that the sample actually supports your
conclusion. Or you might want to try to follow your own advice to me.
(Atleast one of us ought to--it's not bad advice)
'cid 'ooh
Kent Paul Dolan
> I wasn't refering to your grammar, but your rant's content--or lack
> thereof.
And yet, grammar was your subject, and to the sane person's eye,
considering your continuing sentence, just below, still _is_ your
subject. Do you have these problems with truthfulness frequently?
> Spewing vitriol in defense that the following sentence is grammatical
> is ridiculous:
> <quote>
>>> You honestly are that thick, that you think it was and still is
>>> appropriate for you, repeatedly, to claim that anyone who had the
>>> temerity to be posting in this comp.theory thread was _obliged_, _on
>>> your say-so_, to be able to recognize Paul Erdos in a framed image
>>> hung on a wall behind the main subject of a home page author's
>>> online photograph, must be lying to claim not to have recognized the
>>> image, and to continue that insistence time after time, despite that
>>> poster's repeated insistances, that no, he'd never happened to see a
>>> picture of Paul Erdos that identified itself as such?
> </quote>
Perhaps, since you still fail to distinguish richly textured text which
you simply fail to understand, from "ungrammatical" text, you would be
willing to point out the grammatical errors no doubt rife in that
sentence? I have no trouble at all diagramming it, and cannot find a
single such error. Maybe you can point out, as a lesson in writing good
English, and strictly for the benefit of the onlookers, of course, where
your education fails to let you do the same? Note that neither
complexity nor pleonasm count as "errors", merely as foibles, so you
must do much better than that to be thought anything but a constantly
carping incompetent critic.
I saw the rest of your post, I'm deliberately ignoring it since it seems
still to be based upon your ignorance is evaluating the above text.
That you repeated, rather than defending, the rest of your errors merely
increases your entertainment value as the butt of your own unintentional
jokes.
xanthian, wondering just which age that is that I was showing, mental,
physical, emotional, or aspirational?
===== selected quote by, about, or appropriate to, this author =====
"I just wanted to call everyones attention to this
particularly agonizing and downright Kentish work of
grammatical convolution. (I have no brain...)"
-- ham...@chopin.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Shotgun Squad
> For those following the background story, Jesus
> V.-S. is back from the hospital after 8 days on
> interveinous antibiotics, plus two transfusions,
> just to clear up a fairly simple infection. A body
> mostly unused doesn't have much in the way of immune
> system self-defenses.
No one cares about you or your community stories of "interveinous"
treatments. During April, we had a time when talk.bizarre did not have
quite such a pungent obscene stench, because you were not present and
you were not posting. You returned at the beginning of May, and
without polling anyone or asking anyone's opinion, you declared
talk.bizarre as having been worse off without you. Get the opinions,
moron. No one wants you here, and everyone enjoyed your hiatus.
Shotgun Squad
news:286ce806.04060...@posting.google.com...
Haha, no response from Kent. That's because he a big vagina head!
He a big intrinsic moron who cannot respond to attacks because
he think they go away if he ignore them! Haha, big dummy head
running with his tail between his legs! Haha Kent you big pussy head!
Kent Paul Dolan
> Haha, no response from Kent.
Julian,
That's in part because one of the participants in
one of your target newsgroups, a nice lady named
Barbara, objects to me using the large numbers of
Usenet mentally ill as punching bags for public
sport.
Mostly I ignore such behavioral admonitions, as many
mentally ill make such nuisances of themselves
mocking them is a good way for onlookers to stay
sane. Since you have abandoned treatment and made a
conscious decision to let your illness run out of
control, to keep peace I'll be trying to follow the
long neglected request from your father that I quit
making more of a fool of you in public than you
accomplish quite handily on your own.
Whether I can for very long succeed at that level of
self-restraint is problematic, based on my previous
attempts.
FYI
xanthian.
While you've been flying high in untreated bipolar
mania, I've been walking high, for 13 kilometers at
about 3000 meters of altitude, in the US Forest
Service's Dinkey Lakes Wilderness, at N37,09,00
W119,04,00, yesterday when you missed my response.
I'm doing this to toughen my lungs for a 37
kilometer hike to 5000 meters later this summer. I
find my brand of "high" to be the more satisfying
variety, having tried yours (by accident of a Prozac
prescription malfunction) and rejected it as an
undesirable-to-me loss of personal self-control to
an accident of brain chemistry, a situation which
I'd rather skip encountering in the future, being a
bit in love with being in charge of myself, and not
at all in love with having the universe wrest
control away from me.
That you prefer to let your brain chemistry yank you
around like a dog on a choke chain and leash is a
personal choice you make, that no one can unmake for
you.
Shotgun Squad
> "Shotgun Squad" <shotguns...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Haha, no response from Kent.
>
> Julian,
>
> That's in part because one of the participants in
> one of your target newsgroups, a nice lady named
> Barbara, objects to me using the large numbers of
> Usenet mentally ill as punching bags for public
> sport.
That's a real nice excuse, Kent. You must enjoy dodging
the question. Hehe. I may be mad, but surely some other
people are wondering why you celebrated your own victory
without asking them whether or not they enjoyed your
absence.
Rogério Brito
I'm currently remembering learning some (long forgotten) things about
Graph Theory via Robin J. Wilson's "Introduction to Graph Theory", 2nd.
ed., 1972.
Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time with one of the exercises, which
asks for the reader to show that the infinite square grid is an Eulerian
graph by showing an explicit two-way Eulerian path (i.e., one path that
covers every edges of the graph and that extends in both directions).
Where can I find a hint for this excercise?
Just out of curiosity, where could I find more information about
infinite graphs? The material on infinite graphs covered in Wilson's
book is just approximately 5 pages long and the proofs could certainly
be improved (e.g., the proof of König's Infinity Lemma presented there
is not as careful as I like to read).
Thanks for any help, Rogério Brito.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogério Brito - rbr...@ime.usp.br - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David Eppstein
Rogério Brito <rbr...@ime.usp.br> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time with one of the exercises, which
> asks for the reader to show that the infinite square grid is an Eulerian
> graph by showing an explicit two-way Eulerian path (i.e., one path that
> covers every edges of the graph and that extends in both directions).
>
> Where can I find a hint for this excercise?
Hint: spiral.
It's not especially difficult if you just start drawing some pictures.
Just make sure both ends of the path are always on the boundary of the
region you've already covered.
--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
Rogério Brito
> In article <c2ii6s$1t3kv9$1...@ID-218953.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Rogério Brito <rbr...@ime.usp.br> wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time with one of the exercises, which
>>asks for the reader to show that the infinite square grid is an Eulerian
>>graph by showing an explicit two-way Eulerian path (i.e., one path that
>>covers every edges of the graph and that extends in both directions).
>>
>>Where can I find a hint for this excercise?
>
>
> Hint: spiral.
Thanks. I had already shown that the infinite grid was Hamiltonian by
using exactly this technique of showing a two-way spiral, but this
particular two-way spiral left some edges uncovered.
> It's not especially difficult if you just start drawing some pictures.
> Just make sure both ends of the path are always on the boundary of the
> region you've already covered.
Ok, thank you very much. I will try it again with the hint of the
paragraph above.
BTW, this is a particularly nice exercise, since any finite grid
(sufficiently large) is clearly not Eulerian (many vertices of odd
degree), but the infinite graph is Eulerian. Nice.
Thanks again, Rogério Brito.
Siamak
> [...]
> BTW, this is a particularly nice exercise, since any finite grid
> (sufficiently large) is clearly not Eulerian (many vertices of odd
> degree), but the infinite graph is Eulerian. Nice.
Grids on torus, i.e. C_m * C_n, are finite and Eulerian.
David Eppstein
ta...@dpir.com (Siamak) wrote:
More to the point for this specific exercise, even-sized diamond-shaped
subsets of the integer grid (rather than the more obvious rectangular
shape) are also finite and Eulerian.
Rogério Brito
> Just out of curiosity, where could I find more information about
> infinite graphs? The material on infinite graphs covered in Wilson's
> book is just approximately 5 pages long and the proofs could
> certainly be improved (e.g., the proof of König's Infinity Lemma
> presented there is not as careful as I like to read).
While I am still interested in an (easy) reference on infinite graphs
(or perhaps a survey), I did find something that left me quite happy.
Prof. Adrian Bondy has put his *entire* book available on-line on his
homepage, which is something quite helpful, since the book seems to be
long out-of-print and not all libraries have this book available
(especially depending on where you live).
His personal homepage is:
<http://www.ecp6.jussieu.fr/pageperso/bondy/bondy.html>.
Hope this helps others in the newsgroups, Rogério Brito.
Rogério Brito
> Grids on torus, i.e. C_m * C_n, are finite and Eulerian.
What exactly does the * notation mean between two graphs? Intuitively, I
understand that the grid on a torus would be flat grid with its left
edge identified ("merged" or "collated") with it right edge and its
upper edge identified with its bottom edge.
If that is the case, then this is a finite graph whose degrees are all
finite and then the usual proofs for finite graphs are still valid, correct?
Is the intuition right? BTW, how is the * operation defined formally
between two graphs?
Thanks in advance, Rogério Brito.
Siamak
> Siamak wrote:
> > Grids on torus, i.e. C_m * C_n, are finite and Eulerian.
>
> What exactly does the * notation mean between two graphs?
Cartesian product:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GraphCartesianProduct.html
> Intuitively, I
> understand that the grid on a torus would be flat grid with its left
> edge identified ("merged" or "collated") with it right edge and its
> upper edge identified with its bottom edge.
Yes.
> If that is the case, then this is a finite graph whose degrees are all
> finite and then the usual proofs for finite graphs are still valid, correct?
That's right.
Just an unncessary note: An explicit construction for an infininte
object should be the way that each part of the object is determined at
a time, once and for all. Otherwise the construction may not make
sense.
Cheers,
Siamak
George Cox
>
> Prof. Adrian Bondy ... homepage is:
> <http://www.ecp6.jussieu.fr/pageperso/bondy/bondy.html>.
Whose 'photo is that on his office wall?
--
Jim Nastos
> > Prof. Adrian Bondy ... homepage is:
> > <http://www.ecp6.jussieu.fr/pageperso/bondy/bondy.html>.
>
> Whose 'photo is that on his office wall?
umm.. Erdos?
George Cox
Yes, having looked at some pictures of Erdos at
http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/PictDisplay/Erdos.html, I think
you're right. Thanks.
Jim Nastos
> > umm.. Erdos?
>
> Yes, having looked at some pictures of Erdos at
> http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/PictDisplay/Erdos.html, I think
> you're right. Thanks.
I knew I was right... my question mark was a kind of sarcastic "are you
really asking that?" kind of question.
Looking around Bondy's site, one will find that Erdös and Bondy were
probably quite close, as Erdös returned his honourary degree back to
UWaterloo after Bondy's unfortunate political battle with the university.
(I guess one could guess that they were pretty close as they jointly
published a couple of papers together, too.)
J
George Cox
>
> On Wed, 19 May 2004, George Cox wrote:
>
> > > umm.. Erdos?
> >
> > Yes, having looked at some pictures of Erdos at
> > http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/PictDisplay/Erdos.html, I think
> > you're right. Thanks.
>
> I knew I was right... my question mark was a kind of sarcastic "are you
> really asking that?" kind of question.
Never having met the man, nor having had him described to me, I have no
way of knowing whose the picture was other than by seeing a similar
picture with a name attached to it--the usual arrangement, I think.
> Looking around Bondy's site, one will find that Erdös and Bondy were
> probably quite close, as Erdös returned his honourary degree back to
> UWaterloo after Bondy's unfortunate political battle with the university.
> (I guess one could guess that they were pretty close as they jointly
> published a couple of papers together, too.)
>
> J
Jim Nastos
> Never having met the man, nor having had him described to me, I have no
> way of knowing whose the picture was other than by seeing a similar
> picture with a name attached to it--the usual arrangement, I think.
Many people haven't met famous people nor had famous people's physical
descriptions described to them, but their faces still become known by
virtue of being famous. Erdös is a celebrity of the highest class... (at
least for comp.theory / sci.math newsgroups.)
J
George Cox
>
> On Thu, 20 May 2004, George Cox wrote:
>
> > Never having met the man, nor having had him described to me, I have no
> > way of knowing whose the picture was other than by seeing a similar
> > picture with a name attached to it--the usual arrangement, I think.
>
> Many people haven't met famous people nor had famous people's physical
> descriptions described to them, but their faces still become known by
> virtue of being famous.
Their _just_ being famous won't get their face known. The named face
has to be depicted in some public medium, then, for each member of the
public, there will be a first time that they see that named face. How
is someone supposed to know what a famous face looks like without that
name+picture? Their being "a celebrity of the highest class" on its own
won't help.
> Erdös is a celebrity of the highest class... (at
> least for comp.theory / sci.math newsgroups.)
>
> J
Jim Nastos
> Their _just_ being famous won't get their face known. The named face
> has to be depicted in some public medium, then, for each member of the
> public, there will be a first time that they see that named face. How
> is someone supposed to know what a famous face looks like without that
> name+picture? Their being "a celebrity of the highest class" on its own
> won't help.
Well, having a film made about them ("N is a number") is one medium in
which name+picture are presented together. There are at least two popular
biographies ("My Brain is Open" and "The Man who Loved only Numbers")
which contain pictures, and there are probably more. And then there are
probably countless webpages (countless with respect to the digits on
my hands and feet) with biographical information and pictures of him on
the web. One would think that an internet user interested in graph theory
would have - at one point in their life - come across at least one of
these.
J
Jim Nastos
> Jim, you've been completely out of line and in the
> wrong for several consecutive postings in this
> thread. Just admit you were being a donkey's rear,
> apologize to the nice man, and get on with your
> life.
Kent, neither George Cox nor I resorted to childish
name-calling, and I really don't think your comments
are appropriate.
> So, again, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and digging
> yourself in deeper with each defense of your
> indefensible boorishness.
Again, spare the name-calling and explain exactly
what is "wrong." I suspect the points you will make
will be subject to one's personal opinion and not factual.
J
Kent Paul Dolan
> Bah --- that only shows how many friends with digital
> cameras you have. :)
None, I have to scan them in one by one, but since I prefer
to put images separately and only put links that the user
may _choose_ to click on the pages with text where my name
is spelled out, the many other vanity photos of myself I
keep online are not "seen" by the Google Images search
mechanism.
Since I set some sort of weird combined planetary record for
unattractiveness and vanity:
http://www.anycities.com/user/xanthian/KentImages/KentImages.html
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Again, spare the name-calling and explain exactly
> what is "wrong."
You honestly are that thick, that you think it was
and still is appropriate for you, repeatedly, to
claim that anyone who had the temerity to be posting
in this comp.theory thread was _obliged_, _on your
say-so_, to be able to recognize Paul Erdos in a
framed image hung on a wall behind the main subject
of a home page author's online photograph, must be
lying to claim not to have recognized the image, and
to continue that insistence time after time, despite
that poster's repeated insistances, that no, he'd
never happened to see a picture of Paul Erdos that
identified itself as such?
Apparently you lack not merely any detectable social
skills, but any likelihood of ever attaining them.
I have a small child suffering Asperger's Syndrome;
he reads six grades ahead of level, has social
skills six years behind his physical age. As a
parent, I find bridging that 12 year mismatch
"challenging" to say the least, spotting him 30 or
40 points of IQ while he spots me 50 years of
emotional maturity, but it gives me quite a bit of
insight into possible causes for behaviors similar
to yours. It might benefit you to go look up the
description of Asperger's Syndrome, look in the
mirror, and check for similarities.
Meanwhile, lacking some such documented excuse for
your aberrant behavior, name calling is far milder
than what you deserve. That you are willing to apply
grotesquely inappropriate criticism to George, yet
spring immediately into bristling defense when any
entirely appropriate criticism is directed at you,
should be informing, but again, apparently, is not,
in your case. That constitutes a flaw in your mental
processing.
Horse whipping you, merely done as a personal favor
to attract your apparently impenetrable attention to
the datum that your behavior is entirely out of
line, would be a more appropriate excellent
beginning, and certainly more satisfying from the
handle end of the whip, that trying to teach empathy
to such an insensitate lump of clay as you present
yourself to be.
xanthian.
Hint 1: Even blind people with math or computer
science degrees, or even (horrors) without such
professional bona fides, may quite possibly read
comp.theory. Blind article writers participated in
other comp.* newsgroups I have followed in the past.
I hadn't noticed you, in your infinite folly, even
politely inquiring of George whether he was a
sighted participant in the newsgroup, before wading
into him for his lack of face-to-name image matching
skills, though I'm fairly sure he is sighted from
other comments.
However, that leaves your insensitive and ill-thought
comments blatantly insulting to any such blind or
sight-impaired participants as amy exist here.
Hint 2: I'm not, as you have been, speaking from a
zero knowledge base. I happen to have an excellent
memory for faces, and a vanishingly small ability to
retain the names that go with those faces. Though I
have seen pictures of Paul Erdos dozens of times, I
did not look at that photo and say to myself: "Hey,
there's Paul Erdos!" My reaction was: "Hey, there's
a familiar face!" and went no further.
Within a week of having name matched to image, I will
again be reduced to: "Hey, there's a familiar face!"
Had I bothered to mention that I didn't recognize by
name the person whose face I saw in the framed photo,
you would have been lashing out at me for the same
unacceptable-to-you behavior on my part that you
attacked in George, though my mental difficulty has
a well documented genetic/developmental physical
basis in the brain seen frequently enough in the
population to be well described in the neuromedical
literature, and has exactly no relationship to my
"rights" to participate in a thread on computer
theory.
Your behavior would thus have been infinitely
condemnable in that case, as it is in this one,
for you are ethically obliged to treat people's
rights to your good behavior as fully equal,
one to another, when they have done you no prior
injury.
Hint 3: Stop being a donkey's rear, stop making
excuses for being a donkey's rear, stop attacking
those who bring to your attention that you are being
a donkey's rear (the messenger may be responsible
for the tone of the message, but is not the cause of
the unpleasant contents of the message), admit you
are and have been from the beginning entirely in the
wrong, and apologize to the nice man.
You may notice that this third hint resembles some
hint you may have read recently but somehow failed
to heed.
However, it has begun a slow recursion, from your
inexplicable failure to notice and grasp that kind
hint the first time [as any sane and reponsible
participant would have done, in preference to
prolonging his descent into an ineradicable
reputation for being a sociopathic and ineducable
fool of negative net value to newsgroups where he
participates, however otherwise knowledgable there,
and being invited by the general audience there to
depart as a boor and buffoon no longer welcome].
I seem to recall similar conversations with you in
the past, so if my recollection is correct, I
suspect your behavior is incorrigible or at least
as yet unimproved. Then again, I am mostly seen by
myself as rapidly becoming horribly senile, and have
even been known to make the occasional mistake in
recalling such events.
Hint 4: If that doesn't explain the "what did I do
wrong" issue sufficiently for you, nothing will.
Don't bother asking again.
Don't bother claiming you didn't receive that for
which you asked.
Don't continue to pretend that your behavior was
appropriate or acceptable.
Menacity and correct math don't mix.
Go check out the oeuvre of James Harris in sci.math
to review a proof of that latter claim which is
horrifically super-sufficient, and take it as an
object lesson in guiding your future behavior, lest
you join him as the infinitely deserving butt of
unceasing ridicule wherever he posts news articles,
whatever their contents.
Hint 5: I can get nasty if you force the issue.
Don't take my word for that, ask others to do your
homework for you, in an age old tradition in the
newsgroup. You are even allowed do your own homework
before replying [rather than letting emotion rule
your response] breaking the precedent set by those
numberless hordes of unsavory characters of tiny
mind going before you.
Hint 6: I do this mentoring of obdurate fools for
the sheer pleasure of the activity, and it takes
me a really, really long time to be bored by it,
even in each individual case.
There are a rather long list of wildly famous
net.kooks and panspecific web-idiots who have made
an attempt to do battle with a certain profoundly
mentally ill geezer, and rather rapidly retreated
with their egos level with their socks.
Again, a small bit of research will supply you
with examples ranging over the years since at
least 1987.
I have no embarrassment at taking advantage of their
(or your) emotionally immature inability to walk
away from such a challenge, even wrapped in all
obligatory warnings, as is this one, to lure them to
their dooms. Unlike in the case of my emotionally
immature child, in whose survival I have a Darwinian
investment, from my point of view, doom is exactly
what I desire for them: the supply of twits is
inexhaustible, one of me overfilling my bag limit
for joy of the sport involved doesn't endanger the
species, and I enjoy fishing with dynamite anyway.
Calculate in full your likely overall expected
investment before choosing to make it, guppy.
Heh.
Hint 7: Whining about "name calling" is a sign of
weakness; the wolves begin to notice you among the
herd, edge in your direction, salivate, discuss
recipes, issue invitations, review table manners
with the cubs.
Hint 8: Hint 3 is not optional.
Jim Nastos
> You honestly are that thick, that you think it was and still is
> appropriate for you, repeatedly, to claim that anyone who had the
> temerity to be posting in this comp.theory thread was _obliged_, _on
> your say-so_, to be able to recognize Paul Erdos in a framed image hung
> on a wall behind the main subject of a home page author's online
> photograph, must be lying to claim not to have recognized the image, and
> to continue that insistence time after time, despite that poster's
> repeated insistances, that no, he'd never happened to see a picture of
> Paul Erdos that identified itself as such?
Nice sentence.
Yes, I think that anyone who cared about the face on a ooster of a graph
theorist's office would know who Erdos is, by name and by face. The mere
fact some someone visited that professor's webpage and cared about what he
had on his wall would suggest that he had some interest in faces and in
graph theory, and the most famous face in graph theory is probably Erdos'.
(Hence his face on that large poster.... and many other posters as well.)
To make an analogy to an extreme case: if someone was interested in
physics and looks at a particular physicists' website and saw a big
picture of Einstein on it and asked "hey, who is that person in that big
poster," he would surely get sarcastic replies along the lines of "Well,
Einstein, that is Albert Einstein."
Now, Paul Erdos is not as common a figure in the public eye as Einstein,
but within the graph community, he is as close as anyone will get.
> Apparently you lack not merely any detectable social skills, but any
> likelihood of ever attaining them.
I don't think my comments can allow you to infer anything about my
social skills, while your posts clearly give an indication towards yours.
J