Fractal wrongness

396 views
Skip to first unread message

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Nov 9, 2019, 1:35:18 PM11/9/19
to
I learned a new expression today (actually I think I'd come across it
before, but it didn't stick:

> Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable
> scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong
> person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any
> small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as
> the whole worldview.

(https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness)

Does that remind us of anyone here? (More than one, actually)


DKleinecke

unread,
Nov 9, 2019, 6:08:29 PM11/9/19
to
A usable concept - thank you for passing it on.

On the whole the most useful level to discuss wrongness is the
highest level. But wrong people always seem to want to discuss
the lowest possible level. Compare Franz or, on a much
sophisticated level, Peter Olcutt. Trump IMO is wrong at the
highest possible level.

Being wrong is not a sin but not being willing to listen to
good sense is.

António Marques

unread,
Nov 9, 2019, 10:31:31 PM11/9/19
to
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 10:35:18 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> I learned a new expression today (actually I think I'd come across it
>> before, but it didn't stick:
>>
>>> Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable
>>> scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong
>>> person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any
>>> small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as
>>> the whole worldview.
>>
>> (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness)
>>
>> Does that remind us of anyone here? (More than one, actually)
>
> A usable concept - thank you for passing it on.
>
> On the whole the most useful level to discuss wrongness is the
> highest level. But wrong people always seem to want to discuss
> the lowest possible level. Compare Franz or, on a much
> sophisticated level, Peter Olcutt.

I don't think PO's command of logic is any better than Franz's command of
linguistics.
PO may have read more literature, but he's yet to demonstrate he
understands any of it.

> Trump IMO is wrong at the
> highest possible level.

Trump is a spoiled brat and a bully. I don't know that he has any
convictions aside from self-worship, so I don't even know if he's wrong
about anything.

Arnaud Fournet

unread,
Nov 9, 2019, 11:24:42 PM11/9/19
to
Personally, I can't figure out what Trump really wants to achieve, so it's quite hard to assess if his words are consistent with his goals, because his words and goals are quite obscure and confused in the first place.

DKleinecke

unread,
Nov 9, 2019, 11:52:19 PM11/9/19
to
Olcutt appears to seek out high level ideas and suggest stupid
changes to them. But when challenged he responds at the level
of pedantic detail. Franz appears to recognize that that is what
people think he doing and has hijacked the prefix "meta-" as a
pejorative name for attempts to correct his fundamental errors.

I would be happy to say Trump is completely wrong at all levels.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 10, 2019, 8:36:11 AM11/10/19
to
The ONLY thing Trump has any understanding of or any interest in at all
is money. Every foreign "policy" pronouncement is couched in terms of
profits and costs.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 11, 2019, 3:21:18 AM11/11/19
to
endless meta-blabla
sci.chosis of psy.lang

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 11, 2019, 4:48:13 AM11/11/19
to
On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 10:21:18 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
> endless meta-blabla
> sci.chosis of psy.lang

It seems Franz sees himself defeated here.

Ruud Harmsen

unread,
Nov 11, 2019, 6:09:26 AM11/11/19
to
Sat, 9 Nov 2019 19:35:16 +0100: Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> scribeva:
Trump. And lotsa people on Twitter.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 12, 2019, 3:33:31 AM11/12/19
to
Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless, what nonsense are you
telling us? the formula of religious phanatism? you deviate one iota from
my confession, ergo all you say is wrong; you dare criticize the sci.lang
ersatz religion of 'hors sol' sound algebra, ergo all you say is wrong ...

I prefer my formula from 1974: No sentence is completely true, and none
completely wrong. When applied on itself, then also this formula is not
completely true, and so there can be true statements, for example proven
theorems of mathematics and mathematical logic, also false ones, the claim
that we can discard a proven theorem of mathematics and matheatical logic.
In any other scientific discipline, a theory, even the best one, can be
modified or discarded one day. The truth we live by in real life, apart
from the abstraction of mathematics, is like a broken vessel: we can't
regain the whole vessel by putting together all shards and fragments,
and so we can't name the total truth, but as every shard keeps a piece
of the original shape, no sentence is completely wrong.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Nov 12, 2019, 3:58:28 AM11/12/19
to
On 2019-11-12 08:33:29 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

> On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 7:35:18 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> I learned a new expression today (actually I think I'd come across it>
>> before, but it didn't stick:
>>
>>> Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable> >
>>> scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong> >
>>> person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on
>>> any> > small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as
>>> wrong as> > the whole worldview.
>>
>> (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness)
>>
>> Does that remind us of anyone here? (More than one, actually)
>
> Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless, what nonsense are you
> telling us? the formula of religious phanatism? you deviate one iota from
> my confession, ergo all you say is wrong; you dare criticize the sci.lang
> ersatz religion of 'hors sol' sound algebra, ergo all you say is wrong ...
>
> I prefer my formula from 1974: No sentence is completely true, and none
> completely wrong.

You have yourself demonstrated, many times, that some statements can be
complete nonsense.

> When applied on itself, then also this formula is not
> completely true, and so there can be true statements, for example proven
> theorems of mathematics and mathematical logic, also false ones, the claim
> that we can discard a proven theorem of mathematics and matheatical logic.
> In any other scientific discipline, a theory, even the best one, can be
> modified or discarded one day. The truth we live by in real life, apart
> from the abstraction of mathematics, is like a broken vessel: we can't
> regain the whole vessel by putting together all shards and fragments,
> and so we can't name the total truth, but as every shard keeps a piece
> of the original shape, no sentence is completely wrong.


--
athel

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 12, 2019, 4:11:01 AM11/12/19
to
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 9:58:28 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> You have yourself demonstrated, many times, that some statements can be
> complete nonsense.
>

Meta-babble, as long as you can't point out and focus on such a statement.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 12, 2019, 4:49:29 AM11/12/19
to
one: Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.

two: The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

three: Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

four: Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.

five: You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.

six: On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".

seven: Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.

eight: On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.

nine. To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.

ten. And your tastes in music still suck.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 12, 2019, 4:51:51 AM11/12/19
to
alpha - Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.

bravo - The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

charlie - Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

delta - Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.

echo - You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.

foxtrot - On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".

golf - Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.

hotel - On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.

india - To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.

juliet - And your tastes in music still suck.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 2:32:07 AM11/13/19
to
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:

> one: Cave art gives us no clue
>
> two: The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue


Panu Petteri Höglund of the Slavic alias got no clue but has a long
history of aggression. Once he posted ugly messages to soc.men,
attacking women. Then he joined sci.lang in early 2006 and attacked
me out of the blue. May my head burst, he wrote in a stilted German,
the sooner the more betterer. He applied what I call the strategy
of the weak dog: find a weaker dog than yourself, bite him and hope
to climb the social ladder. Only that I am no weak dog. Ever since
he follows me around, commanding a shadow army of braying aliasses.
He attacks also others under different names in the same thread.
One of his pseudonyms had been Der psychopathsiche Entdärmer (sic)
'the psychopathic eviscerator'. Using his real name he wrote that
he has plenty ideas of what he could do to me with a knife, alas,
the law still considers me a human being with rights. He tried and
tries everything to obstruct my work and ruin my threads. About my
brief summary of Homer's Odyssey, work of decades, he bragged that
he could write such a piece within a quarter of an hour - only that
we never see anything like it from him. Once he told me in all earnest
that I can't understand the epic when I read the Greek original,
I must read the Finnish translation! A barren mind paired with
a burning ambition results in craving power. He must govern sci.lang
with a little textbook half-knowledge. He must make the rules.
Unable of arguing on the topic level he operates most of the time
on meta-levels and drops verdicts from above, not even knowing
what meta-level means, claiming that I call my work a meta-level,
proudly parading his exemplary typeryys.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 2:48:28 AM11/13/19
to
On 2019-11-13 07:32:06 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Mścisław
> Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
>
>> one: Cave art gives us no clue>> two: The pictographic symbols in
>> Göbekli Tepe give us no clue
>
> Panu Petteri Höglund of the Slavic alias got no clue but has a long
> history of aggression...

Instead of your endless flood of insults, why don't you try to address
some of Mścisław's arguments logically? Actually I know: you haven't
got any logical arguments, and wouldn't recognize a logical argument if
you saw one.

--
athel

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 3:14:01 AM11/13/19
to
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 8:48:28 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> Instead of your endless flood of insults, why don't you try to address
> some of Mścisław's arguments logically? Actually I know: you haven't
> got any logical arguments, and wouldn't recognize a logical argument if
> you saw one.
>

Sock-puppet of Panui Petteri Höglund the Clueless, the "endless flood
of insults" comes from you, unable of arguing on the topic level, trying
to make the rules with nothing beyond a little textbook half-knowledge.
Also in your last reply only meta-babble, imp-as-otent can be.


Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 3:58:00 AM11/13/19
to
alpha: Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.

beta: The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

gamma: Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

delta: Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.

epsilon: You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.

zeta: On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".

eta: Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.

theta: On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.

iota: To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.

kappa: And your tastes in music still suck.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 3:59:26 AM11/13/19
to
1) Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.

2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

3) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

4) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.

5) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.

6) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".

7) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.

8) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.

9) To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.

10) And your tastes in music still suck.

Dr. HotSalt

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 5:11:49 AM11/13/19
to
I am nobody's sock-puppet Franz, and I recognize your failure to address any of the presented points in favor of desperate raging and abuse of the term "meta".

Calm down and actually defend yourself.


Dr. HotSalt

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 6:37:46 AM11/13/19
to
It is already obvious that Franz has no philosophical or methodological leg to stand on. Even I suck at scientific method and philosophy, and still I am able to say what is wrong about Franz's posture.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 9:57:14 AM11/13/19
to
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-5, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:11:49 PM UTC+2, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:01 AM UTC-8, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 8:48:28 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> > > > [some futile complaint]
> > > Sock-puppet of Panui Petteri Höglund the Clueless, the "endless flood
> > > of insults" comes from you, unable of arguing on the topic level, trying
> > > to make the rules with nothing beyond a little textbook half-knowledge.
> > > Also in your last reply only meta-babble, imp-as-otent can be.
> > I am nobody's sock-puppet Franz, and I recognize your failure to address any of the presented points in favor of desperate raging and abuse of the term "meta".
> > Calm down and actually defend yourself.
>
> It is already obvious that Franz has no philosophical or methodological leg to stand on. Even I suck at scientific method and philosophy, and still I am able to say what is wrong about Franz's posture.

again and again and again and again and again and again, frequently
triggered by postings that have nothing to do with "cave art." (I
have never looked at any of the other continually renumbered lines,
so if any of them applies to anything specific, I don't know it.)

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 13, 2019, 10:00:03 PM11/13/19
to
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:57:14 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-5, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:11:49 PM UTC+2, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:01 AM UTC-8, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 8:48:28 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > > > > [some futile complaint]
> > > > Sock-puppet of Panui Petteri Höglund the Clueless, the "endless flood
> > > > of insults" comes from you, unable of arguing on the topic level, trying
> > > > to make the rules with nothing beyond a little textbook half-knowledge.
> > > > Also in your last reply only meta-babble, imp-as-otent can be.
> > > I am nobody's sock-puppet Franz, and I recognize your failure to address any of the presented points in favor of desperate raging and abuse of the term "meta".
> > > Calm down and actually defend yourself.
> >
> > It is already obvious that Franz has no philosophical or methodological leg to stand on. Even I suck at scientific method and philosophy, and still I am able to say what is wrong about Franz's posture.
>
> again and again and again and again and again and again, frequently
> triggered by postings that have nothing to do with "cave art."

Do you suggest anyone should actually try to engage in conversation with Franz at this stage? Dr HotSalt above says that Franz should "calm down and actually defend himself". The problem is that Franz isn't able to "actually defend himself", the only thing he is capable of is personal attack.

As is obvious, Franz is originally the pet lunatic of some academical institution in Switzerland. This is seen, for instance, in the book "Pi Unleashed" (a popular-science book on maths), where the authors make a reference to Franz as if he was a serious scholar ("Now, Franz Gnädinger is first and foremost an Egyptologist"). We used to have a similar character in Finland, the "orthotopologist" Aapo Heikkilä.

The problem is that Franz needs to fancy himself a real scholar, it is part of his delusion, and if people around him aren't happy to humour him, the violent side of his lunacy comes to the fore.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 14, 2019, 2:10:58 AM11/14/19
to
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 11:11:49 AM UTC+1, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
>
> I am nobody's sock-puppet Franz, and I recognize your failure to address any of the presented points in favor of desperate raging and abuse of the term "meta".
>
> Calm down and actually defend yourself.
>

Those who can't argue on the topic level are the scale invariant fools they
try to make me, always escaping to a meta-level or meta-meta-level or meta-
meta-meta-level, having little to say about language, believing a modicum
of textbook half-knowledge destines them to moderte a global forum of
linguistics. I answered all points raised by the typerys in his endlessly
repeated manifesto, but the clowns in here are not only unable of leading
a topic discussion, they are also unable of reading a topic message.
And the typerissimo, once again trying to obstruct my work, is forcing me
to adopt my posting style. I provide content, which makes them angry,
eclipsing their dim lights. But what is a scientific forum for?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Nov 14, 2019, 2:13:30 AM11/14/19
to
On 2019-11-14 03:00:00 +0000, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski said:

>>>
>>> [ … ]
>>>
> Do you suggest anyone should actually try to engage in conversation
> with Franz at this stage? Dr HotSalt above says that Franz should "calm
> down and actually defend himself". The problem is that Franz isn't able
> to "actually defend himself", the only thing he is capable of is
> personal attack.
>
> As is obvious, Franz is originally the pet lunatic of some academical
> institution in Switzerland. This is seen, for instance, in the book "Pi
> Unleashed" (a popular-science book on maths), where the authors make a
> reference to Franz as if he was a serious scholar ("Now, Franz
> Gnädinger is first and foremost an Egyptologist"). We used to have a
> similar character in Finland, the "orthotopologist" Aapo Heikkilä.
>
> The problem is that Franz needs to fancy himself a real scholar, it is
> part of his delusion, and if people around him aren't happy to humour
> him, the violent side of his lunacy comes to the fore.

Has Franz ever published anything (other than in what he calls his
"publishing thread" in this group)?

I see that the discussion of his work in Pi - Unleashed (pages 210-211)
has a reference to [59], but I can't get to where it says what [59] is.


--
athel

Dr. HotSalt

unread,
Nov 14, 2019, 3:22:51 AM11/14/19
to
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 11:13:30 PM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2019-11-14 03:00:00 +0000, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski said:
>
> >>>
> >>> [ … ]
> >>>
> > Do you suggest anyone should actually try to engage in conversation
> > with Franz at this stage? Dr HotSalt above says that Franz should "calm
> > down and actually defend himself". The problem is that Franz isn't able
> > to "actually defend himself", the only thing he is capable of is
> > personal attack.
> >
> > As is obvious, Franz is originally the pet lunatic of some academical
> > institution in Switzerland. This is seen, for instance, in the book "Pi
> > Unleashed" (a popular-science book on maths), where the authors make a
> > reference to Franz as if he was a serious scholar ("Now, Franz
> > Gnädinger is first and foremost an Egyptologist"). We used to have a
> > similar character in Finland, the "orthotopologist" Aapo Heikkilä.

I remember seeing that word years ago and not investigating it at the
time (I have a fondness for pseudosciences- some are quite attractive until
you find the BS at their cores). I wish I had because there seems to be very
little available on it today (at least not in English, and I'm way too old
to learn Finnish).

> > The problem is that Franz needs to fancy himself a real scholar, it is
> > part of his delusion, and if people around him aren't happy to humour
> > him, the violent side of his lunacy comes to the fore.
>
> Has Franz ever published anything (other than in what he calls his
> "publishing thread" in this group)?

https://books.google.com/books?id=vdgBSQAACAAJ&dq=%22+franz+gnaedinger%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcz_yAmenlAhVHLKwKHRKWAb4Q6AEwAHoECAEQAQ

> I see that the discussion of his work in Pi - Unleashed (pages 210-211)
> has a reference to [59], but I can't get to where it says what [59] is.

Something he wrote called "Primary Hill And Rising Sun" which used to be
online, on a server that doesn't seem to exist any more, but the Wayback
Machine found it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010203070200/http://www.access.ch/circle/text1.html

"PRIMARY HILL AND RISING SUN

"Squaring the Circle Using a Special Kind of Polygon Based on the "Holy Triangle" 3-4-5 and a Sequence of Further So-called Pythagorean Triples - A Method Probably Discovered by Imhotep and Refined by the Unknown Builder of the Great Pyramid at Giza"


Dr. HotSalt

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Nov 14, 2019, 3:33:05 AM11/14/19
to
Thanks. I've said before that Franz's mathematical writing is a lot
more interesting than his linguistic musings. It's essentially
recreational mathematics, but there is nothing necessarily wrong with
that, and some real mathematicians, like G. H. Hardy, have not been
ashamed to indulge in it. In the article you cite Franz does at least
provide references, albeit without page numbers.

--
athel

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 14, 2019, 5:57:51 AM11/14/19
to
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 9:10:58 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 11:11:49 AM UTC+1, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> >
> > I am nobody's sock-puppet Franz, and I recognize your failure to address any of the presented points in favor of desperate raging and abuse of the term "meta".
> >
> > Calm down and actually defend yourself.
> >
>
> Those who can't argue on the topic level are the scale invariant fools they
> try to make me, always escaping to a meta-level or meta-meta-level or meta-
> meta-meta-level, having little to say about language, believing a modicum
> of textbook half-knowledge destines them to moderte a global forum of
> linguistics. I answered all points raised by the typerys in his endlessly
> repeated manifesto

You have never answered them, except with personal abuse. You have actually never addressed the methological issues. Instead, you call them arguing on the "meta level". Other people than myself have already pointed out to you that if your "work" fails on what you call "meta level", no further discussion is needed.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 14, 2019, 6:01:12 AM11/14/19
to
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:22:51 AM UTC+2, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 11:13:30 PM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2019-11-14 03:00:00 +0000, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski said:
> >
> > >>>
> > >>> [ … ]
> > >>>
> > > Do you suggest anyone should actually try to engage in conversation
> > > with Franz at this stage? Dr HotSalt above says that Franz should "calm
> > > down and actually defend himself". The problem is that Franz isn't able
> > > to "actually defend himself", the only thing he is capable of is
> > > personal attack.
> > >
> > > As is obvious, Franz is originally the pet lunatic of some academical
> > > institution in Switzerland. This is seen, for instance, in the book "Pi
> > > Unleashed" (a popular-science book on maths), where the authors make a
> > > reference to Franz as if he was a serious scholar ("Now, Franz
> > > Gnädinger is first and foremost an Egyptologist"). We used to have a
> > > similar character in Finland, the "orthotopologist" Aapo Heikkilä.
>
> I remember seeing that word years ago and not investigating it at the
> time (I have a fondness for pseudosciences- some are quite attractive until
> you find the BS at their cores). I wish I had because there seems to be very
> little available on it today (at least not in English, and I'm way too old
> to learn Finnish).

As far as I know, Aapo Heikkilä's "orthotopology" was never a particularly elaborate pseudoscience - it was never meant to be anything else than a hilarious combination of the mundane with highfalutin' mathematical terms, which turned out to be an exhilarating experience for real mathematicians.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 14, 2019, 8:32:31 AM11/14/19
to
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-5, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:57:14 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-5, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:11:49 PM UTC+2, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:01 AM UTC-8, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 8:48:28 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> > > > > > [some futile complaint]
> > > > > Sock-puppet of Panui Petteri Höglund the Clueless, the "endless flood
> > > > > of insults" comes from you, unable of arguing on the topic level, trying
> > > > > to make the rules with nothing beyond a little textbook half-knowledge.
> > > > > Also in your last reply only meta-babble, imp-as-otent can be.
> > > > I am nobody's sock-puppet Franz, and I recognize your failure to address any of the presented points in favor of desperate raging and abuse of the term "meta".
> > > > Calm down and actually defend yourself.
> > >
> > > It is already obvious that Franz has no philosophical or methodological leg to stand on. Even I suck at scientific method and philosophy, and still I am able to say what is wrong about Franz's posture.
> >
> > again and again and again and again and again and again, frequently
> > triggered by postings that have nothing to do with "cave art."
>
> Do you suggest anyone should actually try to engage in conversation with Franz at this stage?

No. I suggest that you should turn off your Auto-Reply gimmick and stop
spamming the newsgroup with your perpetual repetitions. They're worse
that what Franz used to do, of quoting two entire previous messages
whenever he came up with something new. At least it was something new
to ignore.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 14, 2019, 11:10:42 AM11/14/19
to
There is the issue that he actually fancies himself a scholar due to his exploits as a recreational mathematician. In a way, he reminds me of those engineers who are able to apply mathematics to practical problems and who think that what they are doing is "real science". He has no idea of anything related to linguistics, but because of his modest mathematical capabilities, he thinks he is the bee's knees.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 15, 2019, 2:51:07 AM11/15/19
to
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 11:57:51 AM UTC+1, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
>
> You have never answered them, except with personal abuse. You have actually never addressed the methological issues. Instead, you call them arguing on the "meta level". Other people than myself have already pointed out to you that if your "work" fails on what you call "meta level", no further discussion is needed.

I answered all the points raised in the manigfesto of Panu Petteri Höglund,
but he can't read. Goethe was right when he called reading a highly
demanding art not everyone masters.

Syllogism in sci.lang

Textbooks convey the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

any deviation and alternative claim is wrong a priori

ergo it can be dismissed on the meta-level

The comparative method is the truh, nay, The Truth. Alternative approaches
are eo ipso false and deserve the stake. Alas, we can't burn heretics
anymore, but we can warm hell for them in other ways. And problems of the
comparative method? unanswered questions? will be solved by and by with
an ever more stricter systematization of sound laws. And if we glide into
a collective autism.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 15, 2019, 3:18:19 AM11/15/19
to
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 9:51:07 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 11:57:51 AM UTC+1, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
> >
> > You have never answered them, except with personal abuse. You have actually never addressed the methological issues. Instead, you call them arguing on the "meta level". Other people than myself have already pointed out to you that if your "work" fails on what you call "meta level", no further discussion is needed.
>
> I answered all the points raised in the manigfesto of Panu Petteri Höglund,
> but he can't read.

You have never addressed one single point of them satisfactorily. Being scientifically illiterate, you simply don't know how to, and you resort to personal insults.

Arnaud Fournet

unread,
Nov 15, 2019, 3:50:29 AM11/15/19
to
The only case of autism here is you.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Nov 15, 2019, 4:42:12 AM11/15/19
to
On 2019-11-15 07:51:06 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 11:57:51 AM UTC+1, Mścisław
> Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
>>
>> You have never answered them, except with personal abuse. You have
>> actually never addressed the methological issues. Instead, you call
>> them arguing on the "meta level". Other people than myself have already
>> pointed out to you that if your "work" fails on what you call "meta
>> level", no further discussion is needed.
>
> I answered all the points raised in the manigfesto of Panu Petteri Höglund,
> but he can't read. Goethe was right when he called reading a highly
> demanding art not everyone masters.
> Syllogism in sci.lang
>
> Textbooks convey the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

Nobody that I know says that. Who do you have in mind?
>
> any deviation and alternative claim is wrong a priori

Nobody that I know says that. Who do you have in mind?
>
> ergo it can be dismissed on the meta-level

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


--
athel

Dr. HotSalt

unread,
Nov 15, 2019, 5:17:02 AM11/15/19
to
I beg your fucking pardon. I have Asperger's syndrome.


Dr. HotSalt

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 15, 2019, 8:05:25 AM11/15/19
to
Franz is jealous of me, because I am what he would like to be: an autodidact who is listened to by real experts (as far as the Irish language is concerned - I did study German and Polish at a university). That's why he has this obsession about calling me the slave of textbook truths.

Of course, he himself is a "homo unius libri" who has only read that Ohlenroth or whoever it was, and believes it like God's truth.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 15, 2019, 9:01:15 AM11/15/19
to
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 2:51:07 AM UTC-5, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

> Syllogism in sci.lang
>
> Textbooks convey the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
>
> any deviation and alternative claim is wrong a priori
>
> ergo it can be dismissed on the meta-level
>
> The comparative method is the truh, nay, The Truth. Alternative approaches
> are eo ipso false and deserve the stake.

All you need to do to get an "Alternative approach" accepted and believed
is to show that it is more explanatory than the traditional approach.

Traditionally, the way to do that is to show that it accounts for more
data than the traditional approach.

Unfortunately, proposing "approaches" via "humming" or "dreaming" won't
work, because no one else can "hum" or "dream" the same things, so there's
no way to verify results obtained that way.

Examples of traditional approaches that were ousted by "alternative
approaches" include phlogisthon, phrenology, and aether, because the
discover of oxygen, of neurophysiology, and of electromagnetic radiation
superseded them.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 3:20:21 AM11/16/19
to
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 9:22:51 AM UTC+1, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
>
> Something he wrote called "Primary Hill And Rising Sun" which used to be
> online, on a server that doesn't seem to exist any more, but the Wayback
> Machine found it:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20010203070200/http://www.access.ch/circle/text1.html
>
> "PRIMARY HILL AND RISING SUN
>
> "Squaring the Circle Using a Special Kind of Polygon Based on the "Holy Triangle" 3-4-5 and a Sequence of Further So-called Pythagorean Triples - A Method Probably Discovered by Imhotep and Refined by the Unknown Builder of the Great Pyramid at Giza"
>

The first systematic method of calculating the circle was achieved by
an Egyptian, possibly Hemon. He lived as long before Archimedes than
this one lived before our time. Hemon's method will be of consequence
for the history of mathematics, and my (re)discovery is a contribution
to a fair history of civilization. A colored version here

http://www.seshat.ch/home/mathe.pdf

If I could found a mathematical subdiscipline, then the one of the
simplest method in solving a problem (for example the square roots of
2 and 3 and 5, the cube root of 2, the circle, or Goedel made under-
standable for everybody by discerning between mathematical logic
based on a = a and the wider logic based on equal unequal - something
David Kleinecke never got in his head, and he is not alone). Furthermore
my experience with playful reconstructions of early mathematical methods
was instrumental for Magdalenian.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 3:21:40 AM11/16/19
to
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 9:50:29 AM UTC+1, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> The only case of autism here is you.

You are a typical case of over-systematization that goes along with your
other symptom.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 3:33:17 AM11/16/19
to
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:20:21 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 9:22:51 AM UTC+1, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> >
> > Something he wrote called "Primary Hill And Rising Sun" which used to be
> > online, on a server that doesn't seem to exist any more, but the Wayback
> > Machine found it:
> >
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20010203070200/http://www.access.ch/circle/text1.html
> >
> > "PRIMARY HILL AND RISING SUN
> >
> > "Squaring the Circle Using a Special Kind of Polygon Based on the "Holy Triangle" 3-4-5 and a Sequence of Further So-called Pythagorean Triples - A Method Probably Discovered by Imhotep and Refined by the Unknown Builder of the Great Pyramid at Giza"
> >
>
> The first systematic method of calculating the circle was achieved by
> an Egyptian, possibly Hemon. He lived as long before Archimedes than
> this one lived before our time. Hemon's method will be of consequence
> for the history of mathematics, and my (re)discovery is a contribution
> to a fair history of civilization. A colored version here
>
> http://www.seshat.ch/home/mathe.pdf
>
> If I could found a mathematical subdiscipline

Why could you not, actually? It is obvious you do know something about mathematics, noting that those fools who wrote the book about Pi actually took you seriously. You are completely ignorant about linguistics and should steer clear of it, but it is quite possible you could still achieve something worthwhile in maths.

Arnaud Fournet

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 4:34:52 AM11/16/19
to
LOL.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 8:49:26 AM11/16/19
to
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 3:20:21 AM UTC-5, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

> The first systematic method of calculating the circle was achieved by
> an Egyptian, possibly Hemon. He lived as long before Archimedes than
> this one lived before our time. Hemon's method will be of consequence
> for the history of mathematics,

The name "Hemon" looks a lot more Greek than Egyptian.

Incidentally, no one doubts Egyptian competence in mathematics. It's not
at all clear what bee has gotten into Franz's bonnet about this.

Maybe he's annoyed that it was a bunch of Greeks (such as Euclid and
his successors) who systematized the subject in, moreover, a language
and script that didn't die out shortly after they wrote.

Maybe he can take comfort in the fact that much of their work
took place in Alexandria, which is in Egypt, albeit at the
library established under the Ptolemies, the Greeks who ruled
Egypt for centuries after Alexander.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 9:21:20 AM11/16/19
to
Recreational mathematics, anyway. I doubt whether he has anything to
contribute to category theory, for example. I shall probably provoke a
new outburst of insults if I reveal that I have an Erdős number of 3.


--
athel

DKleinecke

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 12:37:43 PM11/16/19
to
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 12:20:21 AM UTC-8, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

> If I could found a mathematical subdiscipline, then the one of the
> simplest method in solving a problem (for example the square roots of
> 2 and 3 and 5, the cube root of 2, the circle, or Goedel made under-
> standable for everybody by discerning between mathematical logic
> based on a = a and the wider logic based on equal unequal - something
> David Kleinecke never got in his head, and he is not alone). Furthermore
> my experience with playful reconstructions of early mathematical methods
> was instrumental for Magdalenian.

Nothing you do is recognizable as mathematics.

António Marques

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 2:29:15 PM11/16/19
to
That's maybe too harsh. It's not like it's numerology.

DKleinecke

unread,
Nov 16, 2019, 8:12:16 PM11/16/19
to
I was using a tight definition of mathematics. Things like
"recreational mathematics" don't make the cut.

If Franz wants to establish some credibility in mathematics
he should demonstrate some. Perhaps he might show a proof of
some very simple theorem like "the order of a subgroup of a
finite group is a divisor of the order of the group".

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 4:14:04 AM11/18/19
to

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 4:17:03 AM11/18/19
to
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:37:43 PM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> Nothing you do is recognizable as mathematics.

Meta-babble. You can't disprove one of the methods I reconstructed.
And as for my fatal mistakes in linguistics, my felony is that I don't
believe in the autistic version of over-systematized 'hors sol' sound
algebra, nor do I follow your trip of sticking a label to every nuance
of grammar, instead of looking at the basic function of lanuage.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 5:00:01 AM11/18/19
to
On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 2:12:16 AM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> I was using a tight definition of mathematics. Things like
> "recreational mathematics" don't make the cut.
>
> If Franz wants to establish some credibility in mathematics
> he should demonstrate some. Perhaps he might show a proof of
> some very simple theorem like "the order of a subgroup of a
> finite group is a divisor of the order of the group".

An American mathematician said on the radio that the furor axiomaticus
has come to an end (my wording), we should return to Mesopotamian
mathematics that just proposed methods that work, without caring
for proofs in the first line. Mv number columns have been proved
to be correct by a mathematician of the German edition of The
Scientific American. So they are correct, and since someone is
either always right or always wrong (silly hypothesis by a prof)
when my number columns are correct I am right in everything I say.

Arnaud Fournet

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 5:08:21 AM11/18/19
to
If you're good at maths, you're probably in the wrong site.

Arnaud Fournet

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 5:12:44 AM11/18/19
to
Le lundi 18 novembre 2019 10:17:03 UTC+1, Franz Gnaedinger a écrit :
> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:37:43 PM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
> >
> > Nothing you do is recognizable as mathematics.
>
> Meta-babble. You can't disprove one of the methods I reconstructed.
> And as for my fatal mistakes in linguistics, my felony is that I don't
> believe in the autistic version of over-systematized 'hors sol' sound
> algebra,

The problem is that regular sound correspondences is not a matter of belief or non-belief. It's the groundwork of historical linguistics.
Besides, it's not "hors sol" but rooted in lexical comparanda.
Your felony is double: the first is your incompetence, the second is your mischaracterization of competence.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 7:22:00 AM11/18/19
to
On 2019-11-18 09:59:59 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

> On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 2:12:16 AM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
>>
>> I was using a tight definition of mathematics. Things like
>> "recreational mathematics" don't make the cut.
>>
>> If Franz wants to establish some credibility in mathematics
>> he should demonstrate some. Perhaps he might show a proof of
>> some very simple theorem like "the order of a subgroup of a
>> finite group is a divisor of the order of the group".
>
> An American mathematician

Vague as always.

> said on the radio that the furor axiomaticus
> has come to an end (my wording), we should return to Mesopotamian
> mathematics that just proposed methods that work, without caring
> for proofs in the first line. Mv number columns have been proved
> to be correct by a mathematician

Vague as always.

> of the German edition of The
> Scientific American. So they are correct, and since someone is
> either always right or always wrong (silly hypothesis by a prof)
> when my number columns are correct I am right in everything I say.


--
athel

Ruud Harmsen

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 7:44:06 AM11/18/19
to
Mon, 18 Nov 2019 01:59:59 -0800 (PST): Franz Gnaedinger
<fr...@bluemail.ch> scribeva:

>An American mathematician said on the radio that the furor axiomaticus
>has come to an end (my wording), we should return to Mesopotamian
>mathematics that just proposed methods that work, without caring
>for proofs in the first line.

A.k.a. Best Practices.

>Mv number columns have been proved
>to be correct by a mathematician of the German edition of The
>Scientific American. So they are correct, and since someone is
>either always right or always wrong (silly hypothesis by a prof)
>when my number columns are correct I am right in everything I say.

Flawed logic.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 8:00:59 AM11/18/19
to
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 5:00:01 AM UTC-5, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 2:12:16 AM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
> >
> > I was using a tight definition of mathematics. Things like
> > "recreational mathematics" don't make the cut.
> >
> > If Franz wants to establish some credibility in mathematics
> > he should demonstrate some. Perhaps he might show a proof of
> > some very simple theorem like "the order of a subgroup of a
> > finite group is a divisor of the order of the group".
>
> An American mathematician

Who?

> said on the radio

What radio? Which program? When?

> that the furor axiomaticus
> has come to an end (my wording),

Then it's probably not what he said at all.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 8:24:18 AM11/18/19
to
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:17:03 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:37:43 PM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
> >
> > Nothing you do is recognizable as mathematics.
>
> Meta-babble. You can't disprove one of the methods I reconstructed.

We don't need to disprove anything you have "reconstructed". It is YOUR job to show that your ideas disprove previous theories. For this, you need to learn what mainstream theories actually suggest. But that would be actual scholarly work, which is below your dignity.

> And as for my fatal mistakes in linguistics, my felony is that I don't
> believe in the autistic version of over-systematized 'hors sol' sound
> algebra, nor do I follow your trip of sticking a label to every nuance
> of grammar, instead of looking at the basic function of lanuage.

You don't have an idea of the basic function of language either. Oh, now you start to quote your own definition of language, which is only your own definition and thus worthless.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 8:25:04 AM11/18/19
to
Your mathematical accomplishments are irrelevant when it comes to linguistics.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 8:29:33 AM11/18/19
to
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 8:24:18 AM UTC-5, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:

actual scholarly work, which is below your dignity.

beneath

(not really an idiom, but a collocation)

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 8:33:18 AM11/18/19
to
On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 2:12:16 AM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> If Franz wants to establish some credibility in mathematics
> he should demonstrate some. Perhaps he might show a proof of
> some very simple theorem like "the order of a subgroup of a
> finite group is a divisor of the order of the group".

You are an adept of over-systematization which makes mathematics a
H A T E D discipline for M I L L I O N S of children. I can tell,
from my schooldays, and from giving free lessons for two care organizations.
Among the first things I told my tutorees is that mathematics is the logic of building and maintaining based on the formula a = a (my definition from
1974/75) while there is a wider logic of equal unequal - an apple is
an apple, but one apple may be small and green and sour, another apple
big and red and sweet. No two things are exactly identical, and nothing
remains unchanged forever - apart from ideal mathematical entities.
Don't be depressed if you have problems with mathematics, you certainly
can shine with another talent. And I gave my best finding them, for
example a woman with a heavy dyscalculy has a wonderful singing voice.
My lessons were most successful, if I say so myself. And I hope to God
that you don't talk in that way of yours to a child.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 8:35:41 AM11/18/19
to
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:12:44 AM UTC+1, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> The problem is that regular sound correspondences is not a matter of belief or non-belief. It's the groundwork of historical linguistics.
> Besides, it's not "hors sol" but rooted in lexical comparanda.
> Your felony is double: the first is your incompetence, the second is your mischaracterization of competence.

The so-called sound laws retrodict the main sound shifts, not all sound
shifts. You told me yourself that sound laws are actual laws that hold
one hundred per cent. Which is what I call over-systematization.

Arnaud Fournet

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 10:14:34 AM11/18/19
to
I probably never wrote that sound Laws hold 100%,
as we know this is not true.

Anyway, this does not address the issue of your incompetence nor the issue of your mischaracterization of competence.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 11:46:11 AM11/18/19
to
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:33:18 PM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 2:12:16 AM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
> >
> > If Franz wants to establish some credibility in mathematics
> > he should demonstrate some. Perhaps he might show a proof of
> > some very simple theorem like "the order of a subgroup of a
> > finite group is a divisor of the order of the group".
>
> You are an adept of over-systematization which makes mathematics a
> H A T E D discipline for M I L L I O N S of children.

You are a barbarian who actually sees the reading of War and Peace IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION as a great cultural exploit.

DKleinecke

unread,
Nov 18, 2019, 12:25:18 PM11/18/19