Suggesting a Poll
Pubkeybreaker
that we take a poll. :-)
In gratitude for the amusement that they have provided, allow me
to suggest the following 3 categories:
People should vote for 5 choices in each category...
Biggest Kook/Crank
Generally Clueless
Willfully Ignorant
And, at the other end of the scale:
Most Helpful
In the "Biggest Kook" category, there are two very strong contenders
and a bunch of also-rans. I can think of a lot of candidates for
"Generally Clueless", and I have a leading candidate for "Willfully
Ignorant".
I refrain from voting at this time, until others have weighed in.
hagman
Should Kooks/Cranks etc. be preferred who have persued their type of
activity for the whole decade?
Pubkeybreaker
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suggest that it should be up to each voter to select his/her own
criteria.
Aatu Koskensilta
A poll such as this surely benefits from the attention of the good
people of alt.usenet.kooks. They have years of experience, and
administer many relevant awards, and will indubitably provide
invaluable advice on such questions as quoted above. I have kindly
crossposted in said group.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Tim BandTech.com
I elect Vector Mildew for Willfully Ignorant.
victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> I elect Vector Mildew for Willfully Ignorant.
Is there such a word as "willfully"? Anyway I counter-suggest
Tim Goldenballs as Wilfully Ignorant, citing my recent
long correpondence with him where he repeatedly failed to
avail himself of the opportunity to learn some elementary
algebra.
Aatu Koskensilta
writes:
> On 16 Feb, 14:02, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I elect Vector Mildew for Willfully Ignorant.
>
> Is there such a word as "willfully"?
Yes.
Ioannis
I am sure you know that already, but Google keeps a star-rating for all posters.
Google's star-rating should be fairly well correlated with some of the
categories you suggest above. All you've got to do is compile a short list of
sci.math posters and their ratings, by clicking on 'user-profile'.
You can then pick the low/high end of the ratings and sub-categorize these.
Easy as Pi.
--
Ioannis
Frederick Williams
>
> "victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk" <victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk>
> writes:
>
> > On 16 Feb, 14:02, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I elect Vector Mildew for Willfully Ignorant.
> >
> > Is there such a word as "willfully"?
>
> Yes.
'Wilfully' is more usual but 'willfully' exists.
Perhaps Victor doesn't believe it?
--
Science is a differential equation.
Religion is a boundary condition.
--Alan Turing
Aatu Koskensilta
> 'Wilfully' is more usual but 'willfully' exists.
Right.
> Perhaps Victor doesn't believe it?
Perhaps.
David W. Cantrell
> Frederick Williams <frederick...@tesco.net> writes:
>
> > 'Wilfully' is more usual but 'willfully' exists.
>
> Right.
I thought it was primarily a British-American spelling difference, like
"colour"-"color" or "recognise"-"recognize".
David
Aatu Koskensilta
Possibly (ispell with the "british" dictionary recognises both). I
base my impression that "wilfully" is more common than "willfully" on
nothing more respectable than a Google search.
I have added alt.usage.english to the newsgroups line, though, and
trust the knowledgeable pedants frequenting that group will shortly
shed light on this issue.
HVS
> David W. Cantrell <DWCan...@sigmaxi.net> writes:
>
>> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
>>> Frederick Williams <frederick...@tesco.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> 'Wilfully' is more usual but 'willfully' exists.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>
>> I thought it was primarily a British-American spelling
>> difference, like "colour"-"color" or "recognise"-"recognize".
>
> Possibly (ispell with the "british" dictionary recognises both).
> I base my impression that "wilfully" is more common than
> "willfully" on nothing more respectable than a Google search.
Burchfield and Collins agree that it's "wilful" in BrE, but either
"wilful" or "willful" in AmE.
> I have added alt.usage.english to the newsgroups line, though,
> and trust the knowledgeable pedants frequenting that group
"Have reference books, will pontificate" about sums us up...
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Joshua Cranmer
I see "wilfully" as more correct personally, but my spell-checker is
informing me that "willfully" is the correct spelling. Since I get my
news from about equal parts American media and British media, that this
is a British-American spelling difference would make sense.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Aatu Koskensilta
> I see "wilfully" as more correct personally, but my spell-checker is
> informing me that "willfully" is the correct spelling.
I would naturally use the "wilfully" spelling myself, but as noted my
spell-checker (ispell with the "british" dictionary) recognises both
as correct. Given that we've now been informed that according to at
least one reference both "willful" and "wilful" are acceptable in
American English, I wonder what to make of your spell-checker's
opinion...
(I have again added alt.usage.english to the newsgroups line.)
HVS
> Joshua Cranmer <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> writes:
>
>> I see "wilfully" as more correct personally, but my
>> spell-checker is informing me that "willfully" is the correct
>> spelling.
>
> I would naturally use the "wilfully" spelling myself, but as
> noted my spell-checker (ispell with the "british" dictionary)
> recognises both as correct. Given that we've now been informed
> that according to at least one reference
That was two references, actually: "Burchfield" is _The New
Fowler's_, "Collins" is the _Collins English Dictionary_.
(I guess I should have clarified that when I posted; apologies.)
Aatu Koskensilta
> "Have reference books, will pontificate" about sums us up...
Well, you didn't pontificate at all. Life is full of disappointments,
it seems.
Aatu Koskensilta
> That was two references, actually: "Burchfield" is _The New
> Fowler's_, "Collins" is the _Collins English Dictionary_.
Ah, my bewilderment at the baffling behaviour Joshua Cranmer's
spell-checker deepens yet. Your pertinent input was, and is, most
welcome. Thank you.
> (I guess I should have clarified that when I posted; apologies.)
No, no, do not apologise. If we all just strive to insert gratuitous
ambiguity and unclarity in our posts the imminent death of Usenet may
be averted.
hagman
I'm not sure if the google groups users are selected randomly enough
among all posters.
(Which reminds me of the fact that one of my candidates takes pride
in the fact that google web search duefully acknowledges his findings
as
outstandingly important)
Ioannis
[snip]
> I'm not sure if the google groups users are selected randomly enough
> among all posters.
Probably not. Note however, that there's nothing that prevents a _non_-Google
user from voting a Google post. All one has to do is open a Google account and
log-in, access the specific Google post and vote on it.
This likely means that the range of Google voters is not necessarily restricted
to Google _users_ perse, although again, the number of regular sci.math users
who may not _want_ to bother with voting this way, surely biases the randomness
as you say.
> (Which reminds me of the fact that one of my candidates takes pride
> in the fact that google web search duefully acknowledges his findings
> as
> outstandingly important)
How can a Google web search acknowledge any user's findings as "important",
apart from displaying a Page Rank on a relevant web-page?
--
Ioannis
Joshua Cranmer
> How can a Google web search acknowledge any user's findings as "important",
> apart from displaying a Page Rank on a relevant web-page?
His statistics are based on "I'm the top result for <some search
terms>," which is incredibly easy to bias. For example, the top result
for "fakeserver" isn't in the top 100 if you search for "fake server".
quasi
<aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
>Joshua Cranmer <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> writes:
>
>> I see "wilfully" as more correct personally, but my spell-checker is
>> informing me that "willfully" is the correct spelling.
>
>I would naturally use the "wilfully" spelling myself, but as noted my
>spell-checker (ispell with the "british" dictionary) recognises both
>as correct. Given that we've now been informed that according to at
>least one reference both "willful" and "wilful" are acceptable in
>American English, I wonder what to make of your spell-checker's
>opinion...
>
>(I have again added alt.usage.english to the newsgroups line.)
I like consistency.
skillful, skillfully
willful, willfully
quasi
Aatu Koskensilta
> I like consistency.
>
> skillful, skillfully
>
> willful, willfully
My 1996 copy of /Oxford Dictionary of Current English/ lists "willful"
as "US var. of wilful", and similarly for "skillful".
Kali
aatu.kos...@uta.fi says...
Show us your kooks :)
--
Kali
victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> I like consistency.
>
> skillful, skillfully
>
> willful, willfully
Your spelling is not skilful, wilfully so :-(
James Silverton
>> I like consistency.
>>
>> skillful, skillfully
>>
>> willful, willfully
> My 1996 copy of /Oxford Dictionary of Current English/ lists
> "willful" as "US var. of wilful", and similarly for
> "skillful".
The online OED lists skillful as "chiefly US" and "willful" as US, which
is not quite as insular as "US var".
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Cece
wrote:
The American Heritage Dictionary says the spelling is "willful,"
showing "wilful" as a variant. Pick your side of the pond.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> The American Heritage Dictionary says the spelling is "willful,"
> showing "wilful" as a variant. Pick your side of the pond.
I (born in Cleveland, lived in many places in US and one in Canada)
invariably write "willful" and "skullful" with the double "l" (typing
errors aside). In reading most writing, I react to "wilful" and
"skilful" initially as misspellings, then reconsider if the material
is not in American English.
I therefore agree with American Heritage and, by implication, Cece.
--
Bob Lieblich
More willful than skillful
Aratzio
Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> got double secret probation
for writing:
Can you share the funnier bits?
How are the kittens these days?
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> I (born in Cleveland, lived in many places in US and one in Canada)
> invariably write "willful" and "skullful" with the double "l" (typing
> errors aside). In reading most writing, I react to "wilful" and
> "skilful" initially as misspellings, then reconsider if the material
> is not in American English.
>
> I therefore agree with American Heritage and, by implication, Cece.
[--]
Bob Lieblich
More willful than skillful
Just as long as you haven't got a skinnful.
--
Mike.
Bill Dubuque
I doubt Google Groups star ratings are useful since many experts read
sci.math not through Google Groups but rather with real newsreaders.
But someone with some spare time might investigate how Google Groups
star ratings compare to the CRAP scores tabulated below.
Last year [1] I gathered some crude statistics that may be useful
in this regard. I noticed that there is a fairly strong inverse
correlation between the mathematical quality of one's sci.math
posts and the percentage of one's posts that are "crank bashing".
Below are the statistics, gathered crudely by simply computing the
percentage of posts in the Google Groups sci.math archive that
involve telltale crank-bashing keywords (crank, loon, crackpot...).
This CRAP (CRAnk-bashing Percentage) score is tabulated below.
A '*' denotes a known/suspected professional mathematician/PhD.
Notice almost all the professionals/PhDs have less than 0.4% CRAP,
whereas the high-CRAP offenders exceed such by an order of magnitude.
If nothing else, this might prove useful for constructing killfiles,
"scoring" posts in various newsreaders (e.g. Gnus), etc.
[1] http://google.com/groups?selm=y8zwsjtbxmf.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
6.5% 72/1100 Tonico, tonio, Tonicopm (Jose Antonio Perez)
4.4 98/2204 tommy1729, amy666
4.1 202/4910 uncle al
3.8 54/1420 galathaea
3.7 67/1790 Larry Hammick
3.2 214/6670 *Chris Hillman
3.0 126/4240 MoeBlee
2.9 178/6220 *Proginoskes (Christopher Heckman)
2.9 110/3790 Denis Feldmann
2.7 35/1300 Angus Rodgers
2.7 278/10300 Lester Zick
2.1 42/1960 Will Twentyman
2.1 41/1890 Aatu Koskensilta
2.0 99/4910 Mensanator
1.8 85/4710 Ross A. Finlayson
1.5 104/6920 Archimedes Plutonium, Ludwig Plutonium
1.5 13/866 Tim Smith
1.5 15/986 *Chan-Ho Suh
1.4 48/3390 Phil Carmody
1.4 12/877 *Edgar E. Escultura
1.3 46/3630 The Ghost In The Machine
1.2 19/1530 Michael Press
1.2 65/5280 *Pertti Lounesto
0.8 14/2600 *Robert Silverman, Bob Silverman, Pubkeybreaker
0.8 250/29500 Virgil
0.8 59/7790 Dik T. Winter
0.8 24/3050 *Daryl McCullough
0.8 74/9580 Bill Taylor
0.8 22/2870 *Torkel Franzen
0.7 6/822 *Alexander Abian
0.7 23/3070 Dann Corbit
0.6 18/2880 *Dave L. Renfro
0.6 37/5880 quasi
0.6 12/2093 John Ramsden, Owlhoot
0.6 43/7160 *Robin Chapman
0.6 171/29500 *David C. Ullrich
0.5 31/6690 *John Baez
0.5 29/5980 *Gerry Myerson
0.5 16/3030 *Doug Norris
0.4 1/283 *hagen <kn...@itwm.fhg.de>
0.4 8/2010 *Keith Ramsay
0.4 11/2590 *Matthew P Wiener
0.3 51/16400 *Arturo Magidin
0.3 5/1570 *Derek Holt <ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
0.3 7/2280 *Ilias Kastanas
0.3 26/9710 *Peter Nyikos
0.3 3/944 *David Eppstein
0.3 3/1080 *Tal Kubo
0.2 4/1760 *David Bernier
0.2 4/1890 *Bill Dubuque
0.2 9/4160 The World Wide Wade
0.2 9/3690 *Dave Rusin
0.2 11/7050 Dave Seaman
0.2 7/3450 *Lee Rudolph
0.2 6/3310 *Ronald Bruck
0.2 4/2120 *Timothy Murphy
0.2 2/1160 *Ed Hook
0.2 4/1900 *Toby Bartels
0.2 2/1230 *Timothy Y. Chow
0.2 3/1490 *Paul Sperry
0.1 3/5920 *G. A. Edgar
0.1 1/1097 *Mariano Suarez-Alvar
0.1 1/952 *Michael Barr
0.1 5/4800 *Zdislav V. Kovarik
0.1 1/1160 *John Conway
0.1 12/1880 *James Dolan
0.1 1/1210 *Noam Elkies
0.0 0/1180 *Axel Vogt
0.0 0/4860 David Cantrell
0.0 0/1230 *Jannick Asmus
0.0 0/2150 *Peter L. Montgomery
0.0 1/2210 *[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz
0.0 5/13500 *Herman Rubin
0.0 0/1900 Rob Johnson
0.0 1/3070 *William C Waterhouse
0.0 0/2210 *Greg Kuperberg
0.0 0/1090 *Miguel A. Lerma
0.0 0/2190 *D. J. Bernstein
0.0 0/1220 *Edwin Clark
Tim BandTech.com
<victor_meldrew_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 14:02, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I elect Vector Mildew for Willfully Ignorant.
>
> Tim Goldenballs as Wilfully Ignorant, citing my recent
> long correpondence with him where he repeatedly failed to
> avail himself of the opportunity to learn some elementary
> algebra.
Let's try and get to the meat of the matter here so that you may take
your willfully selected place of ignorance along with many others:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/e601dbff280e20ca?q=#c63e55ac3d42eae1
Here is an excerpt that yields the crux:
Again also now from the philosophical stage could you address what you
would tell a ten year old who asks of a third sign?
As I see it there may be many options and I leave you free to code
your own.
I merely present these as reasonable predictions of your own response:
1. No, Johnny, there are only two signs.
2. Well, Johnny, there can be three but first you'll have to get
through group theory.
3. Why, yes, Johnny.
So glad you brought it up.
Yes, you can have three signs and it is what advanced
mathematicians of old called the complex numbers.
These days we just call them polysign and teach you the two-signed
version until grade five, of old called the 'real' numbers.
They did not discover spacetime as emergent until someone like you
Johnny asked that very question.
If you'd like to skip to grade five then you may leave this math
class on occassion and listen in there.
These I see as valid options which you might consider. Certainly we
could call this an open book quiz, so if you want to check your notes
that is fine by me.
Next though from the philisophical point of view we may even
instantiate quite a number of these children in the past and into the
present who have asked this very question. So you see what may start
out as a prank can become quite a serious issue can't it? Have these
children been lied to by mathematicians of your ilk?
- Tim
victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk
> Let's try and get to the meat of the matter here so that you may take
> your willfully
wilfully!
> selected place of ignorance along with many others:
> Again also now from the philosophical stage could you address what you
> would tell a ten year old who asks of a third sign?
As I said already I won't join in with your fantasies
about showing ten-year-old boys your peculiar things.
(Is that sort of behaviour legal in your neck of the woods?)
Aatu Koskensilta
writes:
> wilfully!
"Willfully" is perfectly acceptable, as you'll find should you consult
a dictionary.
Frederick Williams
> That was two references, actually: "Burchfield" is _The New
> Fowler's_,
Like "fifty is the new thirty" as Michelle Pfeiffer would have it? Or
Michele Pfeiffer perhaps.
--
Science is a differential equation.
Religion is a boundary condition.
--Alan Turing
Frederick Williams
>
> Joshua Cranmer <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> writes:
>
> > I see "wilfully" as more correct personally, but my spell-checker is
> > informing me that "willfully" is the correct spelling.
>
> I would naturally use the "wilfully" spelling myself, but as noted my
> spell-checker (ispell with the "british" dictionary) recognises both
> as correct. Given that we've now been informed that according to at
> least one reference both "willful" and "wilful" are acceptable in
> American English, I wonder what to make of your spell-checker's
> opinion...
>
> (I have again added alt.usage.english to the newsgroups line.)
It has long amused me that one of the most noteworthy grammarians of
English (as opposed to English grammarians) was a Dane. (And of course
Denmark is pretty well next door to Finland...)
David Bernier
> "victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk" <victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk>
> writes:
>
>> wilfully!
>
> "Willfully" is perfectly acceptable, as you'll find should you consult
> a dictionary.
>
Surely (or maybe not), the US and the UK must have a convention for spelling
in bi-lateral treaties. But I've never looked.
David Bernier
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> > "victor_meldrew_...@yahoo.co.uk" <victor_meldrew_...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > writes:
>
> >> wilfully!
>
> > "Willfully" is perfectly acceptable, as you'll find should you consult
> > a dictionary.
>
> Surely (or maybe not), the US and the UK must have a convention for spelling
> in bi-lateral treaties. But I've never looked.
Isn't the recent trend that the US write whatever they
feel like and the UK accepts? ;-)
-- m
Frederick Williams
> Surely (or maybe not), the US and the UK must have a convention for spelling
> in bi-lateral treaties. But I've never looked.
The language of international diplomacy used to be French.
victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk
> "victor_meldrew_...@yahoo.co.uk" <victor_meldrew_...@yahoo.co.uk>
> writes:
>
> > wilfully!
>
> "Willfully" is perfectly acceptable, as you'll find should you consult
> a dictionary.
No. My dictionary only has the correct "wilfully". Of course
this is one of the lesser sins in Goldenballs's posting.
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>I doubt Google Groups star ratings are useful since many experts read
>sci.math not through Google Groups but rather with real newsreaders.
>But someone with some spare time might investigate how Google Groups
>star ratings compare to the CRAP scores tabulated below.
>
>Last year [1] I gathered some crude statistics that may be useful
>in this regard. I noticed that there is a fairly strong inverse
>correlation between the mathematical quality of one's sci.math
>posts and the percentage of one's posts that are "crank bashing".
>Below are the statistics, gathered crudely by simply computing the
>percentage of posts in the Google Groups sci.math archive that
>involve telltale crank-bashing keywords (crank, loon, crackpot...).
>This CRAP (CRAnk-bashing Percentage) score is tabulated below.
>A '*' denotes a known/suspected professional mathematician/PhD.
>Notice almost all the professionals/PhDs have less than 0.4% CRAP,
>whereas the high-CRAP offenders exceed such by an order of magnitude.
>If nothing else, this might prove useful for constructing killfiles,
>"scoring" posts in various newsreaders (e.g. Gnus), etc.
>
>[1] http://google.com/groups?selm=y8zwsjtbxmf.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
>
>6.5% 72/1100 Tonico, tonio, Tonicopm (Jose Antonio Perez)
>4.4 98/2204 tommy1729, amy666
>4.1 202/4910 uncle al
>3.8 54/1420 galathaea
But galathaea is a crank un-basher, not a crank basher (or indeed
a crank).
>3.7 67/1790 Larry Hammick
>3.2 214/6670 *Chris Hillman
>3.0 126/4240 MoeBlee
>2.9 178/6220 *Proginoskes (Christopher Heckman)
>2.9 110/3790 Denis Feldmann
>2.7 35/1300 Angus Rodgers
The ignominy! I must look into how you compute this, because I
almost never attack anyone for being a crank. The only crank
I recall really bashing was Mehran Basti, and I used much ruder
words than "crank" when I was bashing him! I also don't get
bashed for being a crank (although I did for a while when I
first came back to sci.math in 2007).
Does your program distinguish between /uses/ of the telltale
words and /quotations/ from posts containing them?! If not,
that's a pretty basic error.
>2.7 278/10300 Lester Zick
>2.1 42/1960 Will Twentyman
>2.1 41/1890 Aatu Koskensilta
Huh? Never was there less of a crank-basher (or crank).
>2.0 99/4910 Mensanator
>1.8 85/4710 Ross A. Finlayson
>1.5 104/6920 Archimedes Plutonium, Ludwig Plutonium
I'm worse than Archimedes Plutonium? You cut me to the quick.
(Where's James Harris in the list, by the way?)
OK, there's a pattern here, I'll grant you that: all good quality
at the bottom of the list, but what's happened at the top bothers
me - there are anomalies. (I know that that's special pleading,
but there are.)
Perhaps, if you can spare the time, you might e-mail me with some
indication of how I came to figure so embarrassingly high in the
list of offenders.
I hate witch hunts of any kind, especially when I am fingered as
one of the witches.
--
Angus Rodgers
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>I doubt Google Groups star ratings are useful since many experts read
>sci.math not through Google Groups but rather with real newsreaders.
>But someone with some spare time might investigate how Google Groups
>star ratings compare to the CRAP scores tabulated below.
>
>[...]
Or, to put my objection another way (and I quote):
"I think I figured out how you "Science Math" guys
manage to fool everyone.
You make up numbers!
You cheat.
You 'science math' guys are just a bunch of cheaters."
:-)
--
Angus Rodgers
Tim BandTech.com
Yes, this is Vector Mildew of the old school speaking.
Where lays his claims of some ultimate representation in copies of R
and C? Yes, this is nearby, but the unquantified should not be used as
a model for the quantified. The polysign numbers are quantified
numbers that build R and C and so your diversion to go and study
copies of R and C is a silly tactic. Polysign numbers are the real
numbers(P2), the complex numbers(P3), even time(P1), and a host of
higher dimensional systems(P4+) all well behaved though peculiar in
their properties. These have never been covered before- I challenge
you to reference their construction in any but current work. The old
school is quite old and it never bothered to go here because it was
too busy preaching up the real number as sacred. So busy preaching it
up that it has been taken as fundamental when it is not. Any
programmer can see the structural makeup of the real number is
s x
where s is sign and x is a magnitude. The gains made are substantial
and yet they are simple too. It is just a slender little gain but look
at what pops out- spacetime correspondence- and from nearly naught.
The human race has been caught up in dualistic thinking. Here is a
smidgen of a way out of that dilemma straight from the math world.
Until you have a true equivalence for P4 in RxC then your argument of
polysign as old hat in the old school is false. Willful Ignorance is
yours. Then after you've done P4 we'll go on to P5. I'll take Most
Arrogant as a concession if it makes you feel better. I try not to be,
but so long as yours is the level of discussion then I'm somewhat
caught there. Generalization of sign is a construction with very
tangible consequences. Return the magnitude to fundamental. That is
the real world, not a two-signed number. Dimension and sign are one
concept, albeit contorted by cartesian thinking. There are large
questions which need to be answered but obfuscating them will not help
the situation.
- Tim
Toni...@yahoo.com
Oh, don't worry: Bill Dubuque loves to do that. Right now., for
example, he made up that list just because he's mad at me for having
stood up against his patronizing and bullying attitude towards me (and
others) in another forum (AA, in fact). That's the reason why, of
course, I lead the list...go figure!
Never mind him: someone that makes up those kinds of lists must be all
the time reading the posts (otherwise how can he know what's what he
calls bashing or whatever?) and that among thousands of posts.
Boring...and sad and pitiful.
Regards
Tonio
-
> Angus Rodgers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frederick Williams
> No. My dictionary only has the correct "wilfully".
Then your dictionary is far from comprehensive: even the Shorter lists
'willfully' of which it says 'now chiefly in the United States'.
Robin Bignall
A skullful is even worse.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Bill Dubuque
As I said, it's based on a crude Google Groups search for telltale
words that appear in cranky threads. If you happen to participate
much in those threads then you will probably have posts that get
scored as containing those words (even if they're quoted in other
posts). This is probably as should be, since one shouldn't be
encouraging those off-topic posts by participating. _Generally_
I find that it provides a good crude indicator of mathematical
quality. Of course there will be a few exceptions since there
are some mathematicians who seem to enjoy crank bashing. But
this is by far the exception rather than the rule.
>>2.7 278/10300 Lester Zick
>>2.1 42/1960 Will Twentyman
>>2.1 41/1890 Aatu Koskensilta
>
> Huh? Never was there less of a crank-basher (or crank).
>
>>2.0 99/4910 Mensanator
>>1.8 85/4710 Ross A. Finlayson
>>1.5 104/6920 Archimedes Plutonium, Ludwig Plutonium
>
> I'm worse than Archimedes Plutonium? You cut me to the quick.
>
> (Where's James Harris in the list, by the way?)
I didn't have the time to search for all his aliases.
That's the point. The pattern is obvious to any long-time reader
of sci.math. I was surprised that it correlates so strongly with
mathematical quality.
> Perhaps, if you can spare the time, you might e-mail me with some
> indication of how I came to figure so embarrassingly high in the
> list of offenders.
Most likely because you participate a lot in such threads.
> I hate witch hunts of any kind, especially when I am fingered as
> one of the witches.
It's certainly no witch hunt. It's one of the variables that
I use to compute a score for posts in my newsreader (gnus).
Bill Dubuque
> stood up against his patronizing and bullying attitude towards me
> (and others) in another forum (AA, in fact). That's the reason why,
> of course, I lead the list...go figure!
Thanks for reminding me: I should add a scoring component for
"paranoid conspiracy theorists" to my Gnus scoring function!
> Never mind him: someone that makes up those kinds of lists must be all
> the time reading the posts (otherwise how can he know what's what he
> calls bashing or whatever?) and that among thousands of posts.
> Boring...and sad and pitiful.
Everyone using a quality newsreader devises analogous scoring functions.
It's the first step in separating the mathematical wheat from the chaff.
Having been an Emacs developer, I can compose such code very quickly.
--BD
Robert Israel
> Last year [1] I gathered some crude statistics that may be useful
> in this regard. I noticed that there is a fairly strong inverse
> correlation between the mathematical quality of one's sci.math
> posts and the percentage of one's posts that are "crank bashing".
> Below are the statistics, gathered crudely by simply computing the
> percentage of posts in the Google Groups sci.math archive that
> involve telltale crank-bashing keywords (crank, loon, crackpot...).
> This CRAP (CRAnk-bashing Percentage) score is tabulated below.
> A '*' denotes a known/suspected professional mathematician/PhD.
> Notice almost all the professionals/PhDs have less than 0.4% CRAP,
> whereas the high-CRAP offenders exceed such by an order of magnitude.
> If nothing else, this might prove useful for constructing killfiles,
> "scoring" posts in various newsreaders (e.g. Gnus), etc.
Just out of curiosity, why am I not on the list?
--
Robert Israel isr...@math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>Of course there will be a few exceptions since there
>are some mathematicians who seem to enjoy crank bashing
... or are drawn into such threads for quite other (and even
completely opposite!) reasons. (Not that I'm classifying myself
as a "mathematician" - I have a good few more years of study to
go, before I begin to qualify for that title, even informally -
but the point is that it isn't sheer mathematical incompetence,
or malicious kookery either, that causes me to be so drawn in.)
>> Perhaps, if you can spare the time, you might e-mail me with some
>> indication of how I came to figure so embarrassingly high in the
>> list of offenders.
>
>Most likely because you participate a lot in such threads.
Not so much at the moment, I think (recently when I haven't done
a lot of studying, I also simply haven't posted much to sci.math
at all), but for quite a long time after coming back to sci.math,
I was uncomfortably aware of a strong tendency to get pulled into
them, which is presumably reflected in my CRAP index (as computed
last year). It was "uncomfortable" insofar as it also tended to
pull me away from doing actual mathematics, a pertinent fact which
I suppose it is quite fair to see reflected in my CRAP index.
<grimace>
>> I hate witch hunts of any kind, especially when I am fingered as
>> one of the witches.
>
>It's certainly no witch hunt. It's one of the variables that
>I use to compute a score for posts in my newsreader (gnus).
Well, you must do as you see fit, but I shall try not to allow
it to dissuade me from defending (or criticising) those accused
of crankery, or even from enjoying the occasional madly off-topic
joust with galathaea. I don't like any pressure to exhibit the
mere surface signs of respectability, whether in mathematics or
in anything else.
These days, I don't have the uncomfortable sense I used to have
that participation in such threads decreases my real mathematical
activity (such as it is!). On the other hand, I also participate
less in them (even as a proportion of my total participation in
sci.math), and my CRAP index will presumably reflect this fact
- which perhaps means that, in spite of my protests, this crude
statistical index does reflect pretty accurately my own intuitive
sense of how well I'm concentrating on mathematics (or not).
If you recompute the numbers, some time, and I'm significantly
lower down the list (without having done anything deliberately
to bring this about - which would be quite pathetic!), I might
be mollified to some extent.
--
Angus Rodgers
Angus Rodgers
<isr...@math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca> wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, why am I not on the list?
As well as such a salient missing name, there are also some
salient missing asterisks against names that aren't missing.
(W^3, to mention but one.)
Also, aren't some of the names on the list people who haven't
posted in sci.math for many years?* Indeed, might not the
"Angus Rodgers" on the list be a younger me, with a different
posting address, at a time when I wasn't studying mathematics,
but was reading sci.math, and quite likely posting less sense
than nonsense to it? (Around 1992--7, I think that might be.)
Just a thought. If it is indeed my current incarnation (so
to speak), then the figure of 1300 posts suggests that you
computed these CRAP indices some time in December 2008 (not
the date of the article whose URL you gave): is that right?
If so, I suppose I'll just have to accept that I got drawn
into an awful lot of threads in which words like "crank"
got bandied about a lot (if not by me). :-(
*D. J. Bernstein, James Dolan [still posts v. occasionally],
John Conway [you must be joking!], Michael Barr [posts once
in a blue moon], Lee Rudolph, Dave Rusin, Tal Kubo, Matthew
P. Wiener, Robin Chapman, Alexander Abian [a different sort
of exception to the rule!], Torkel Franzen, Pertti Lounesto,
Chan-Ho Suh - none of these has posted frequently in recent
years (and there are a couple of other names I've hesitated
over, but I'm not trying to be exhaustive).
This is getting to me a bit too much ...
--
Angus Rodgers
Bill Dubuque
>Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> Last year [1] I gathered some crude statistics that may be useful
>> in this regard. I noticed that there is a fairly strong inverse
>> correlation between the mathematical quality of one's sci.math
>> posts and the percentage of one's posts that are "crank bashing".
>> Below are the statistics, gathered crudely by simply computing the
>> percentage of posts in the Google Groups sci.math archive that
>> involve telltale crank-bashing keywords (crank, loon, crackpot...).
>> This CRAP (CRAnk-bashing Percentage) score is tabulated below.
>> A '*' denotes a known/suspected professional mathematician/PhD.
>> Notice almost all the professionals/PhDs have less than 0.4% CRAP,
>> whereas the high-CRAP offenders exceed such by an order of magnitude.
>> If nothing else, this might prove useful for constructing killfiles,
>> "scoring" posts in various newsreaders (e.g. Gnus), etc.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why am I not on the list?
The list of authors is not meant to be exhaustive. If memory
serves correct it was selected from those posts that happened
to make its way into my various logs (of interesting posts,
erroneous posts, etc). A Google Groups search shows that we
crossed paths in only 8 posts, so that seems to explain it.
It looks like your CRAP is quite minimal, less than 0.1%,
a typical excellent score for professional mathematicians.
Bill Dubuque
The CRAP scores are actual percentages based on the sci.math
posts archived in Google Groups. Any author with a high CRAP
score has an atypically large percentage of posts in such
crank threads. While you may dispute the interpretation of such
a statistic, you cannot dispute the actual count or percentage.
The numbers are not "made up".
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>Robert Israel <isr...@math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca> writes:
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why am I not on the list?
>
>[...]
>It looks like your CRAP is quite minimal, less than 0.1%,
>a typical excellent score for professional mathematicians.
Quick, add this to your CV! :-)
--
Angus Rodgers
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>Angus Rodgers <twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> Or, to put my objection another way (and I quote):
>>
>> "I think I figured out how you "Science Math" guys
>> manage to fool everyone. You make up numbers!
>> You cheat. You 'science math' guys are just a bunch
>> of cheaters." :-)
>
>The CRAP scores are actual percentages based on the sci.math
>posts archived in Google Groups. Any author with a high CRAP
>score has an atypically large percentage of posts in such
>crank threads. While you may dispute the interpretation of such
>a statistic, you cannot dispute the actual count or percentage.
>The numbers are not "made up".
And I suppose if I argued about plutonium atoms or the orbit of
Venus or something, you'd argue seriously with that, regardless
of how many quotation marks or smilies I used. Evidently, we
cranks or crank-busters (or whatever is that I am supposed to
be now) have no sense of humour, and are therefore cranks (or
crank-busters, or whatever). Next it'll be a test to see if I
sink or swim when thrown in the water. Or phrenology, or ...
--
Angus Rodgers
Bill Dubuque
>Robert Israel <isr...@math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why am I not on the list?
>
> As well as such a salient missing name, there are also some
> salient missing asterisks against names that aren't missing.
> (W^3, to mention but one.)
As I said, the asterisks denote suspected/known professional
mathematicans/PhDs. I may have missed one or two but, by
and large, I suspect the list is correct.
> Also, aren't some of the names on the list people who haven't
> posted in sci.math for many years?* Indeed, might not the
> "Angus Rodgers" on the list be a younger me, with a different
> posting address, at a time when I wasn't studying mathematics,
> but was reading sci.math, and quite likely posting less sense
> than nonsense to it? (Around 1992--7, I think that might be.)
> Just a thought. If it is indeed my current incarnation (so
> to speak), then the figure of 1300 posts suggests that you
> computed these CRAP indices some time in December 2008 (not
> the date of the article whose URL you gave): is that right?
>
> If so, I suppose I'll just have to accept that I got drawn
> into an awful lot of threads in which words like "crank"
> got bandied about a lot (if not by me). :-(
>
> *D. J. Bernstein, James Dolan [still posts v. occasionally],
> John Conway [you must be joking!], Michael Barr [posts once
> in a blue moon], Lee Rudolph, Dave Rusin, Tal Kubo, Matthew
> P. Wiener, Robin Chapman, Alexander Abian [a different sort
> of exception to the rule!], Torkel Franzen, Pertti Lounesto,
> Chan-Ho Suh - none of these has posted frequently in recent
> years (and there are a couple of other names I've hesitated
> over, but I'm not trying to be exhaustive).
The list includes names that have made it into my sci.math logs
throughout history. So, e.g. posts by old-timers like John Conway,
Robin Chapman, etc are probably there since they appear frequently
in my log of interesting posts. I want to score such posts highly
since I might actually learn something new from such folks.
> This is getting to me a bit too much ...
I wouldn't worry too much about it. As you said, I think
your participation in such threads has diminished recently
and, as a result, you've got more time to think about real
mathematics. Kudos to you. If only the CRAP scores could
encourage other offenders to do likewise then we'd have
much more interesting mathematics here. Generally, the
higher the signal-to-noise ratio, the higher the number
of experts that will participate. Too much noise and you
end up with mostly the blind-leading-the-blind.
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>I wouldn't worry too much about it. As you said, I think
>your participation in such threads has diminished recently
Nevertheless, I'm tempted to (but probably won't) change my
signature, thus:
--
Angus Rodgers
WARNING: This post contains the word "crank". Participation
in this thread may adversely affect your CRAP index ((c) Bill
Dubuque) - even your professional standing as a mathematician.
Gerry Myerson
Angus Rodgers <twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> *D. J. Bernstein, James Dolan [still posts v. occasionally],
> John Conway [you must be joking!], Michael Barr [posts once
> in a blue moon], Lee Rudolph, Dave Rusin, Tal Kubo, Matthew
> P. Wiener, Robin Chapman, Alexander Abian [a different sort
> of exception to the rule!], Torkel Franzen, Pertti Lounesto,
> Chan-Ho Suh - none of these has posted frequently in recent
> years
I believe that one of the above has posted frequently
in recent weeks, but under another name.
Also, at least three of those listed are dead.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Joshua Cranmer
> The list of authors is not meant to be exhaustive. If memory
> serves correct it was selected from those posts that happened
> to make its way into my various logs (of interesting posts,
> erroneous posts, etc).
I'm guessing the JSH threads are not in those logs? I'm willing to bet
that >~50% of my posts in sci.math are in such threads. I don't quite
know if I'd be a crank-*basher* though...
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Bill Dubuque
>Bill Dubuque wrote:
>> The list of authors is not meant to be exhaustive. If memory
>> serves correct it was selected from those posts that happened
>> to make its way into my various logs (of interesting posts,
>> erroneous posts, etc).
>
> I'm guessing the JSH threads are not in those logs? I'm willing to bet
> that >~50% of my posts in sci.math are in such threads. I don't quite
> know if I'd be a crank-*basher* though...
Perhaps you misunderstand. My logs were only used to select the authors.
The actual score was computed by searching the _entire_ Google Groups
archive - which spans a few decades (1981-2009). I didn't add any further
authors since the trend was already clear from said list, which includes
most of the experts and frequent posters (but certainly not all of them).
David Bernier
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:59:21 -0600, Robert Israel
> <isr...@math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca> wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, why am I not on the list?
>
> As well as such a salient missing name, there are also some
> salient missing asterisks against names that aren't missing.
> (W^3, to mention but one.)
Yeah, I'd call it an omission based on searching on:
ramey Pacific Journal of Mathematics 1986
David Bernier
David Bernier
I do find there's too much about FISON's and other things.
What's the point of getting mad with people who have had
the same wrong-headed ideas for months or years?
David Bernier
Bill Dubuque
The asterisks which denote "professional/Phd" level math knowledge are
based on my recollection of the authors knowledge based on their posts.
Once in a while I check the Mathematics Genealogy Project to dig deeper
but that was not done while computing this list. Thus there may be a
few omissions, but I doubt that the number is large.
Thanks for the info on Wade Ramey. I'll update my list. It only serves
to reinforce the trend. Perhaps everyone below 0.5% has professional/Phd
level mathematical knowledge (there are only two unknowns, namely
Dave Seaman, David Cantrell), or perhaps even everyone below 1.0%,
the additional unknowns being: Virgil, Dik Winter, Bill Taylor,
Dann Corbit, quasi, John Ramsden.
victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> Yes, this is Vector Mildew of the old school speaking.
> Where lays his claims of some ultimate representation in copies of R
> and C?
Another lie; I made no claims of "ultimate representation"
and have no idea what the phrase means.
> These have never been covered before- I challenge
> you to reference their construction in any but current work.
As I pointed out on many occasions, your definition of
"polysign numbers" is a simple variant of the classical
construction of group rings. Have you learnt about those yet?
> Until you have a true equivalence for P4 in RxC
Yes, P_4 and R x C are isomorphic rings.
<repetition of bilge from previous thread excised>
Don't you have anything of mathematical interest to post?
Michael Press
Angus Rodgers <twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
The scale as presented does not resolve Tim Smith
and a notorious usenet personality.
Have I only posted 19 messages that stand up to
net bullies? I must be as cowardly as I think I am.
--
Michael Press
Angus Rodgers
<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Have I only posted 19 messages that stand up to
>net bullies? I must be as cowardly as I think I am.
Indeed, I'm having a bit of a moral struggle with myself over this.
Mathematics is the most important thing, and there is a real value
in just letting the nonsense slide by, as if it didn't exist. But
it is not a virtue to pretend something isn't going on, when it is,
and you might be able to do something about it. Also, I despise the
idea of guilt by association. If I wanted to get quite nauseatingly
sanctimonious, I could even mention a certain personage who wasn't
ashamed to consort with "outcasts, prostitutes, and tax-gatherers".
... Pass the sick bucket, please! <boke> Anyway, I just don't like
the idea of keeping my nose clean in order to /look/ respectable.
Bill, can you at least redefine your Index of Mathematical Wickedness
so that it is based solely on postings in the most recent year? Then
some of us apparently damned souls might still have a chance of being
saved, after all! Thank you. (Can you tell I'm hedging my bets here?)
I really hope this naming and shaming won't make me think twice before
taking a stand when it's actually needed. Also, I respect galathaea
and Aatu, who are both near me on the list. (N.B. of the thirty or so
others who are at the top of the list, I only really disrespect about
half a dozen, so I don't mean to insult anybody merely by not naming
them!) So perhaps I can respect myself as well. Finally, thanks to
the guy who just sent me a supportive e-mail, when I really needed it.
Damn, I just wish I could forget this! It's every bit as much a part
of the nonsense as the nonsense it purports to deal with. But having
your name up their on a List, in public, is very, very hard to ignore.
--
Angus Rodgers
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>[...]
>
>Last year [1] I gathered some crude statistics that may be useful
>in this regard. I noticed that there is a fairly strong inverse
>correlation between the mathematical quality of one's sci.math
>posts and the percentage of one's posts that are "crank bashing".
>Below are the statistics, gathered crudely by simply computing the
>percentage of posts in the Google Groups sci.math archive that
>involve telltale crank-bashing keywords (crank, loon, crackpot...).
>This CRAP (CRAnk-bashing Percentage) score is tabulated below.
>A '*' denotes a known/suspected professional mathematician/PhD.
>Notice almost all the professionals/PhDs have less than 0.4% CRAP,
>whereas the high-CRAP offenders exceed such by an order of magnitude.
>If nothing else, this might prove useful for constructing killfiles,
>"scoring" posts in various newsreaders (e.g. Gnus), etc.
>
>[1] http://google.com/groups?selm=y8zwsjtbxmf.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
>
>[...]
>0.6 171/29500 *David C. Ullrich
That's all, less than one friggin percent? I'm so
disappointed - I'll try to do better.
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
Tim BandTech.com
Is emergent spacetime interesting? From pure math?
Sure I have read about rings. Yes, they are right near by.
But they are not polysign numbers.
You have chosen to be ignorant of the generalization of sign,
even when it is put right under your nose.
You are willfully ignorant
1. Of the fact that the real numbers and the complex numbers can be
constructed from identical rules.
2. Of the fact that these same rules construct a one-signed number
system that is consistent with time as a unidirectional and zero
dimensional phenomenon.
3. That due to product behavior these three systems P1, P2, P3 are the
only members of the polysign family to obey distance conservation,
allowing the claim for emergent spacetime from mathematics itself.
This is a leading proposition and suggests that physics will follow
and that the product will be of importance in such a physical theory.
This last point goes on farther but you will snivel and sneeze at
physics on sci.math.
You are a fine instance of the sort of impedance that I anticipate
polysign math will encounter. Yet already your arguments have changed
tone and you've withdrawn a fair amount of the vinegar. There is no
longer any troubling or quibbling over the simplex geometry is there?
You've dropped isometry from the claim on equivalence between P4 and
RxC, relegating your claims to mere isomorphism which isn't so
difficult given that both systems are three dimensional. This covers
many of the details that I have argued with you upon Cheng's thread.
Your old tools do not construct P4. Sending a polysigner that way is a
long way around to what is really a very simplistic theory. Rather,
because the polysign construction carries so many challenges to
existing math it will not be accepted without a large struggle. This
lacking of acceptance of the true form of generalized sign fits the
department of willfull ingorance that the o.p. of this thread has
suggested we submit candidates for. You whom I likingly call Vector
Mildew for obvious reasons are a perfect puppet figure whose format is
text stream. You wiggle and wriggle your way out of the corner that
you entered from on the assumption of MarianosaNan's perfect
performance.
As further literal evidence I quote
"In a certain sense, isomorphic structures are structurally
identical, if you choose to ignore finer-grained differences that may
arise from how they are defined."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
and so you see that isomorphism is inherently tied to ignorance.
Thusly I have formed a loose proof of your willful ingorance. Hah!!!
- Tim
victor_me...@yahoo.co.uk
> Is emergent spacetime interesting?
That must be impressive, whatever that is. I can't see
how Goldenballs's P_n are relevant to space time;
as far as I see none has a natural indefinite quadratic
form defined on it.
> Sure I have read about rings. Yes, they are right near by.
> But they are not polysign numbers.
They are: each of your P_n is a ring.
> 1. Of the fact that the real numbers and the complex numbers can be
> constructed from identical rules.
That's clever. Then the reals and complexes are isomorphic,
and so x^2 = -1 is soluble in R. Well I never!
> This last point goes on farther but you will snivel and sneeze at
> physics on sci.math.
Too right I will; did you tell the fizzisists this?
What do they make of it?
> You've dropped isometry from the claim on equivalence between P4 and
> RxC,
I pointed out which inner product on R x C is isometric to yours on
P_4,
that's all.
> because the polysign construction carries so many challenges to
> existing math it will not be accepted
Because it's a construction which achieves nothing
that cannot be done more simply without it.
> Thusly I have formed a loose proof
Oops! for a moment I thought you said "loose stool".
Jesse F. Hughes
> Damn, I just wish I could forget this! It's every bit as much a part
> of the nonsense as the nonsense it purports to deal with. But having
> your name up their on a List, in public, is very, very hard to
> ignore.
Try harder.
Now, *not* having your name on the list... well, that's just hurtful.
--
"There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There
are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things
we don't know we don't know." -- Donald Rumsfield, Epistemologist
Jesse F. Hughes
> Indeed, I'm having a bit of a moral struggle with myself over this.
>
> Mathematics is the most important thing, and there is a real value
> in just letting the nonsense slide by, as if it didn't exist. But
> it is not a virtue to pretend something isn't going on, when it is,
> and you might be able to do something about it. Also, I despise the
> idea of guilt by association. If I wanted to get quite nauseatingly
> sanctimonious, I could even mention a certain personage who wasn't
> ashamed to consort with "outcasts, prostitutes, and tax-gatherers".
> ... Pass the sick bucket, please! <boke> Anyway, I just don't like
> the idea of keeping my nose clean in order to /look/ respectable.
Look, the right way to look at it is this: if one tends to post in
crank threads, then Bill believes that he has a reason not to read
that person's posts.
Why get upset about that conclusion? As it turns out, some of us are
drawn to sci.math for the crank threads and some of us abhor them.
Those in the latter group have reason to avoid the posts of those in
the former group, since such posts are more likely to be in crank
threads.
I imagine that Bill avoids my posts, but I'm so far beneath his radar
that I didn't even make the list. The shame!
--
"Am I am [sic] misanthrope? I would say no, for honestly I never heard
of this word until about 1994 or thereabouts on the Internet reading a
post from someone who called someone a misanthrope."
-- Archimedes Plutonium
Jesse F. Hughes
> I do find there's too much about FISON's and other things.
> What's the point of getting mad with people who have had
> the same wrong-headed ideas for months or years?
To be perfectly fair, the fact that WM has a teaching position that is
evidently relevant to his crankery is good reason to be upset.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Run mathematicians, RUN!!! I'm coming for you. It may take a few
months, but I'll get [computer verification of my proof] and then your
lives will be ended as you previously knew it." -- JSH meets PVS
Han de Bruijn
> David Bernier <davi...@videotron.ca> writes:
>
>>I do find there's too much about FISON's and other things.
>>What's the point of getting mad with people who have had
>>the same wrong-headed ideas for months or years?
>
> To be perfectly fair, the fact that WM has a teaching position that is
> evidently relevant to his crankery is good reason to be upset.
Why should only hanger-on's have teaching positions ?
Han de Bruijn
Tim BandTech.com
<victor_meldrew_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 13:56, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Is emergent spacetime interesting?
>
> That must be impressive, whatever that is. I can't see
> how Goldenballs's P_n are relevant to space time;
> as far as I see none has a natural indefinite quadratic
> form defined on it.
>
> > Sure I have read about rings. Yes, they are right near by.
> > But they are not polysign numbers.
>
> They are: each of your P_n is a ring.
>
> > 1. Of the fact that the real numbers and the complex numbers can be
> > constructed from identical rules.
>
> That's clever. Then the reals and complexes are isomorphic,
> and so x^2 = -1 is soluble in R. Well I never!
>
> > This last point goes on farther but you will snivel and sneeze at
> > physics on sci.math.
>
> Too right I will; did you tell the fizzisists this?
> What do they make of it?
>
> > You've dropped isometry from the claim on equivalence between P4 and
> > RxC,
>
> I pointed out which inner product on R x C is isometric to yours on
> P_4,
> that's all.
Ah, but you did not! Tell me what is this thing which you declare
above? Which inner product? Math, please.
As further literal evidence of your willful ignorance I again quote
"In a certain sense, isomorphic structures are structurally
identical, if you choose to ignore finer-grained differences that may
arise from how they are defined."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
and so you see that isomorphism is inherently tied to ignorance.
Thusly I have formed a loose proof of your willful ingorance. Hah!!!
You snip and and dodge the point.
This seems about to degenerate into one of those
"I know you are but what am I?"
types of discussions since your avoidance machanism is still in place.
Ah, but here you are proving it. Good enough.
I've used my polyphaser
So you pull out your taser
Warning: mine is only set to stun.
You see, as you go toward rings it would be quite nice if you just put
the real number's signature into the ring format, which is a mod-2
behavior under arithmetic product. Then you would arrive in polysign.
However, instead you deny this because the real number has been
hardwired into your mind as fundamental. Upon rising to the mod-3
situation the symmetry which preserves the real number behavior of
mod-2 follows from extending the real number's behavior
- 1 + 1 = 0 (P2)
to
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 (P3)
where * is the new third sign, this being a mnemonic sign system where
the number of pen strokes in the symbol is of numerical significance
and consistent with the real valued sign behaviors of old.
Then you'd be performing your ring manipulations in the proper
location, but instead you are in denial of the most simplistic
mechanism which builds the complex numbers at n=3 from the same laws
that built the real numbers at n=2. As far as simplicity goes, here is
an opportunity to introduce your ring mentality at a much earlier age
than college mathematics, with the benefit of complex numbers being
introduced in their proper native format of P3. How many sign errors
occur in the current system? If children were taught this logical sign
method would there be as many sign errors?
I do not believe that polysign numbers are the end-all and be-all of
mathematics. But I do believe that they are the next step, and
strangely enough they are really back at a primitive level. Somehow
we've contorted dimension and sign. Of course the prevalent concept of
dimension is in terms of the real number. You do seem to have let go
of your refusal to admit the simplex coordinate system, so I hope that
I will likewise weaken your other points here. The metric seems to be
a matter of what you delete and refuse to discuss rather than any
direct head-on informational communication. This I have labelled
'anticoncessionary' and is fairly par for the course here on usenet.
Your puppet form is exposing a more universal problem, Vector. The
mildew is thick on the real number and as much as it is preached as
bullet proof in its seven or so constructions here is a new
construction which implies a very different approach to mathematics.
This new approach is a leading approach with much work left to be
done.
I'm sort of tired of you snipping my strongest content to match your
own needs so I think I'll reintroduce it in the places where you've
deleted it. Hence above the repeat of the isomorphic quality which
seals your fate as willfully ignorant. Until you substantiate an
isometric form there is no equivalence beyond the dimensional content
of the two systems. It doesn't matter if you turn an orange into a
teacup in your claim so long as you turn it back into an orange again.
What value is your claim of understanding of P4 through RxC? This is
an avoidance mechanism more than it is a path to understanding.
Particularly when we have the native product and are curious about its
behavior and we see for instance that the square of the sphere is a
cone then this is an instance of a gain in understanding. Your focus
seems to be more on obscuring the understanding rather than furthering
it, for upon squaring the sphere what shape will you have? You do not
know, for you have never even bothered to fill out your own claim.
Good luck computing that isometric 'distance function' that you claim
fixes things up. The $50 prize still holds deliverable as a money
order to anywhere possible, or if you prefer a personal trophy check
then that is fine. This offer stands to anyone who can instantiate an
isometric isomorphism between P4 and RxC which is consistent under
product.
The layout of this construction should include a transformation such
that
y(P4) <--> x(R),z(C)
e.g. T(y1) = x1,z1, T(y2) = x2,z2
such that
y1 y2 = (x1,z1)(x2,z2)
The RHS arithmetic product should be clearly defined on RxC which as
far as I can tell is the part of the puzzle that remains troubling.
The product y1y2 is clearly defined and extends from the usual
properties of the real numbers but in a more general form called
polysign. P4 is the four-signed numbers, which are three-dimensional
in ordinary spatial terms.
- Tim
Jesse F. Hughes
Does this mean that you agree with WM's argument that there is a
maximal (but unspecifiable) natural number? That is, do you agree
that WM's "formal" argument is correct?
Because I believe that it is a plainly silly argument, one that is
obviously invalid. And I also believe that a person who makes
obviously invalid mathematical arguments should not teach mathematics.
I would say the same of any "hanger-on" who makes obviously invalid
mathematical argument.
I suppose that it is somewhat preferable for a mathematics lecturer to
also contribute original arguments, but it is not essential. I'm sure
that some of the best mathematics teachers are those who focus on
teaching existing mathematics, to the neglect of original research.
I'm also sure that no one incapable of recognizing mathematical proofs
should be teaching mathematics courses involving proofs.
--
"All intelligent men are cowards. The Chinese are the world's worst
fighters because they are an intelligent race[...] An average Chinese
child knows what the European gray-haired statesmen do not know, that
by fighting one gets killed or maimed." -- Lin Yutang
Angus Rodgers
<je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>Look, the right way to look at it is this: if one tends to post in
>crank threads, then Bill believes that he has a reason not to read
>that person's posts.
He can do what he likes with his own newsreader. If he wants he
can program it to filter out all posters with a Q in their name,
I don't care.
>Why get upset about that conclusion?
I just don't like being named and shamed in public, especially
when my motive for (apparently) being drawn into so many crank-
related threads is not at all that I want to "bash" anybody.
As Bill's own post states, this started because he felt he was
being persecuted by Tonico (I have no idea what that was about),
and he found this was a good way of hitting back - effective
especially because it has an appearance of objectivity. While
it does have some objectivity and genuine interest, when used
as a weapon like this it also causes some collateral damage.
>As it turns out, some of us are
>drawn to sci.math for the crank threads and some of us abhor them.
I find them largely unpleasant and pointless, I largely (and
increasingly) avoid them, but I recognise that they sometimes
address real issues, even if "only" psychological ones. I do
not totally abhor them, I do not wish to deny their existence,
and I do not see any good reason to remain totally aloof from
them, unless (as was indeed true in my case) participation in
them drains scarce energy which could have been used for doing
mathematics. (Whether it still does I don't know, because I
haven't participated in any recently - except for this one,
which has indeed given me a night of poor sleep and, so far,
a rotten day with no work done whatsoever.)
The only value of this exercise, for me, is that it might help
(and force!) me to understand better exactly why I have tended
to get drawn (often with conscious reluctance) into such threads.
At the moment I only know that it has something to do both with
long-standing philosophical doubts about foundations, and with
long-standing and severe emotional (and intellectual) problems.
That philosophical doubts and psychological problems can (and
do) interfere with one's capacity to work productively at
mathematics is not in question. But being lumped by a crude
statistical index into the same category as both "cranks" and
"crank-bashers" is a very regressive way of identifying the
problem, and moreover having it done in the glare of publicity
like this is positively harmful.
>Those in the latter group have reason to avoid the posts of those in
>the former group, since such posts are more likely to be in crank
>threads.
That just seems to be another way of reinforcing an unproductive
split into two mutually hostile mindsets.
>I imagine that Bill avoids my posts, but I'm so far beneath his radar
>that I didn't even make the list. The shame!
Swop? :-)
--
Angus Rodgers
Angus Rodgers
<je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>Does this mean that you agree with WM's argument that there is a
>maximal (but unspecifiable) natural number?
Here we go ...
Let me just say once again that it is a great pity that Doron
Zeilberger does not post to sci.math.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doron_Zeilberger>
"Zeilberger has made numerous important contributions ...
Zeilberger considers himself a ultrafinitist."
--
Angus Rodgers
David Bernier
> David Bernier <davi...@videotron.ca> writes:
>
>> I do find there's too much about FISON's and other things.
>> What's the point of getting mad with people who have had
>> the same wrong-headed ideas for months or years?
>
> To be perfectly fair, the fact that WM has a teaching position that is
> evidently relevant to his crankery is good reason to be upset.
>
So he's still teaching. Also, it's on-topic. I expressed my view, and others
have somewhat different views. So I'll continue reading ...
David Bernier
Bill Dubuque
>"Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>>
>>Look, the right way to look at it is this: if one tends to post in
>>crank threads, then Bill believes that he has a reason not to read
>>that person's posts.
>
> He can do what he likes with his own newsreader. If he wants he
> can program it to filter out all posters with a Q in their name,
> I don't care.
>
>>Why get upset about that conclusion?
>
> I just don't like being named and shamed in public, especially
> when my motive for (apparently) being drawn into so many crank-
> related threads is not at all that I want to "bash" anybody.
Nobody but you has interpreted the list as implying any shame.
> As Bill's own post states, this started because he felt he was
> being persecuted by Tonico (I have no idea what that was about),
> and he found this was a good way of hitting back - effective
> especially because it has an appearance of objectivity. While
> it does have some objectivity and genuine interest, when used
> as a weapon like this it also causes some collateral damage.
Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said that
I found that the list "was a good way of hitting back" at anyone.
The list was composed in order to provide further data to enhance
my newsreader scoring function. It was never intended to "shame"
anyone, "hit back" at anyone, or "use as a weapon". I have no
clue where you got those mistaken ideas from.
--Bill Dubuque
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>Angus Rodgers <twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>"Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Look, the right way to look at it is this: if one tends to post in
>>>crank threads, then Bill believes that he has a reason not to read
>>>that person's posts.
>>
>> He can do what he likes with his own newsreader. If he wants he
>> can program it to filter out all posters with a Q in their name,
>> I don't care.
>>
>>>Why get upset about that conclusion?
>>
>> I just don't like being named and shamed in public, especially
>> when my motive for (apparently) being drawn into so many crank-
>> related threads is not at all that I want to "bash" anybody.
>
>Nobody but you has interpreted the list as implying any shame.
I will feel a lot better if I can believe that.
>> As Bill's own post states, this started because he felt he was
>> being persecuted by Tonico (I have no idea what that was about),
>> and he found this was a good way of hitting back - effective
>> especially because it has an appearance of objectivity. While
>> it does have some objectivity and genuine interest, when used
>> as a weapon like this it also causes some collateral damage.
>
>Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said that
>I found that the list "was a good way of hitting back" at anyone.
>The list was composed in order to provide further data to enhance
>my newsreader scoring function. It was never intended to "shame"
>anyone, "hit back" at anyone, or "use as a weapon". I have no
>clue where you got those mistaken ideas from.
From the URL you gave:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/d54f1e7979a211db>
"I also collected some interesting statistics while I was
attempting to determine what could possibly be motivating
the loon Tonico to stalk me. I noticed that he spends an
unusually high percentage of his time bashing cranks,
at least 10% of his posts if not more. The only other
person that exceeds that is Uncle Al, at about 22%.
So I decided to examine the percentage of crank-bashing
posts for many frequent posters."
I see no room for misinterpretation. Of course, we can waste
even more of our time and energy quibbling about whether your
posting a list of names of people who, you insinuate, have an
interest in "crank-bashing", is or is not your own way of
"bashing" someone back. I can only say that, having never,
as far as I can recall, "bashed" anybody (except for Mehran
Basti), I feel quite badly "bashed" by having my name listed
in public in this way.
To what extent my sense of being "bashed" is subjective and
illusory is something I am quite willing to consider. It
is obviously in my own interest not to feel that I am being
"bashed", if in fact I am not. But the very best I can say
at the moment is that the jury is still out on that question.
--
Angus Rodgers
Mike Lyle
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:48:55 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I (born in Cleveland, lived in many places in US and one in Canada)
>>> invariably write "willful" and "skullful" with the double "l"
>>> (typing errors aside). In reading most writing, I react to
>>> "wilful" and "skilful" initially as misspellings, then reconsider
>>> if the material is not in American English.
>>>
>>> I therefore agree with American Heritage and, by implication, Cece.
>> [--]
>> Bob Lieblich
>> More willful than skillful
>>
>> Just as long as you haven't got a skinnful.
>
> A skullful is even worse.
But we have it on excellent authority that we shouldn't put new wine in
our old skins.
--
Mike.
Phil Carmody
> "Ioannis" <morp...@olympus.mons> wrote:
>>Pubkeybreaker wrote:
>>> Now that we are nearing the end of the decade, allow me to suggest
>>> that we take a poll. :-)
...
> I doubt Google Groups star ratings are useful since many experts read
> sci.math not through Google Groups but rather with real newsreaders.
> But someone with some spare time might investigate how Google Groups
> star ratings compare to the CRAP scores tabulated below.
>
> Last year [1] I gathered some crude statistics that may be useful
> in this regard. I noticed that there is a fairly strong inverse
> correlation between the mathematical quality of one's sci.math
> posts and the percentage of one's posts that are "crank bashing".
> Below are the statistics, gathered crudely by simply computing the
> percentage of posts in the Google Groups sci.math archive that
> involve telltale crank-bashing keywords (crank, loon, crackpot...).
> 1.4 48/3390 Phil Carmody
I can be sure that I've bashed sci.math's longest running crank
way more times than 48. I can also be sure that there were about
zero in the last 5 years.
Perhaps you'd like to make your statistics reflect current reality
with a tad more accuracy rather than being some historical relic?
> 0.8 14/2600 *Robert Silverman, Bob Silverman, Pubkeybreaker
Now that's guaranteed nonsense. 14? I've toasted more than 2
packs of marshmallows on Robert's flames just in the last year.
He's the mathematian's Arnie.
Get a better regexp.
Phil
--
I tried the Vista speech recognition by running the tutorial. I was
amazed, it was awesome, recognised every word I said. Then I said the
wrong word ... and it typed the right one. It was actually just
detecting a sound and printing the expected word! -- pbhj on /.
je...@alesia.dk
wrote:
> It has long amused me that one of the most noteworthy grammarians of
> English (as opposed to English grammarians) was a Dane. (And of course
> Denmark is pretty well next door to Finland...)
Denmark is more or less half way from England to Finland. Mostly less
than half way. Geographically, that is. I seem to have misplaced my
cultural tape measure.
Angus Rodgers
<thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> writes:
>> "Ioannis" <morp...@olympus.mons> wrote:
>>>Pubkeybreaker wrote:
>>>> Now that we are nearing the end of the decade, allow me to suggest
>>>> that we take a poll. :-)
>...
>
>Perhaps you'd like to make your statistics reflect current reality
>with a tad more accuracy rather than being some historical relic?
Hear, hear. I'd feel a lot (OK, a bit) less aggrieved if the
computation were based only on a year's worth of recent posts.
>> 0.8 14/2600 *Robert Silverman, Bob Silverman, Pubkeybreaker
>
>Now that's guaranteed nonsense. 14? I've toasted more than 2
>packs of marshmallows on Robert's flames just in the last year.
>He's the mathematian's Arnie.
I hesitated to ask a possibly* stupid question about this, but,
now that you've brought it up: is our Pubkeybreaker actually
Bob "You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't
make him think" Silverman?
Hi! <waves nervously>
*OK, definitely. OK, OK. So I'm clueless.
--
Angus Rodgers
Robin Bignall
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Except for Beaujolais Nouveau.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Jesse F. Hughes
Whether there are legitimate ultrafinitists or not is not the
question.
I asked specifically about *WM's argument*. Perhaps I should have
stressed this.
I have no opinion on whether a consistent ultrafinitist theory is
possible nor on whether Zeilberger's writing on this matter is
sensible. I'm only asking whether Han thinks that WM's argument
is an example of good mathematical reasoning.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You may not realize it but THOUSANDS of people read my posts.
You are putting your stupidity on wide display."
-- James S. Harris knows about wide displays of stupidity.
Bill Dubuque
It's a huge misinterpretation. Nowhere above did I say (or even
imply) that I intended to use the list as a "weapon" to "hit back"
or to "shame" someone. Instead, I explicitly stated here on many
occasions that the purpose of collecting such crude statistics was
merely to collect data in order to enhance my newsreader scoring.
I've collected many such statistics over a couple decades in order
to iteratively refine my scoring functions. This is only one very
small component of the total score assigned to posts. It is simply
a very crude measure of the amount one participates in "cranky"
threads. Combining this with my other scoring components suffices
to close a gap in my scoring function. I'd been aware of such a
gap for quite some time. Said incident rudely reminded me of this
gap and provided the motivation to close the gap once and for all.
That alone was the true motivation for collecting such statistics.
--BD
James Dolan
david c. ullrich <dull...@sprynet.com> wrote:
|0.6 171/29500 *David C. Ullrich
|
|That's all, less than one friggin percent? I'm so
|disappointed - I'll try to do better.
what are _you_ complaining about? i got 12/1880 which was higher than
you but somehow got rounded down to 0.1; how did _that_ happen?
--
Bill Dubuque
>david c. ullrich <dull...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
>> 0.6 171/29500 *David C. Ullrich
>>
>> That's all, less than one friggin percent?
It's only a crude lower bound. The real percentages are probably
much higher for all authors. But for scoring purposes I need only
crude relative estimates and these seem to work ok for now.
> what are _you_ complaining about? i got 12/1880 which was higher
> than you but somehow got rounded down to 0.1; how did _that_ happen?
Probably a typo during transcription. Of course 0.6% is correct.
A couple names (including yours) were later added by hand, as
opposed to algorithmically. I double-checked and the only other
error is in the counts for Pubkeybreaker/RS/BS (error due to
the multiple aliases). This score should in fact be a bit higher,
around 1.0%. Alas, I can't duplicate these older results now
because Google Groups has gotten flakier and cannot reliably
reproduce this older data.
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>That alone was the true motivation for collecting such statistics.
And your motivation for posting them in public was what? Pure
disinterested scientific curiosity, and a desire to share your
interesting data with others? Especially Tonico, perhaps? Do
I have to remind you of the exact wording of your first post in
this thread, which clearly implies that (a) those who rank high
in your (so neutrally and disinterestedly named!) "CRAP index"
do so necessarily because they are interested in "crank-bashing",
and (b) those who are interested in "crank-bashing" tend to post
low quality articles? You didn't insert any disclaimers or words
of caution. You subsequently made very clear the origins of your
data-collecting activity in a personal conflict. I am not taking
sides in that conflict, and not defending Tonico. It's none of
my business. I am also not suggesting that anything you did was
irrational or unfair, /except/ for posting a list of names like
this. I really thought I had made this clear already, but I'm
sorry if I seemed inadvertently to be implying that the whole
exercise was a waste of time. It isn't, and the correlation
is quite interesting, as I have already said. Also, all of us
know the difference between a mere statistical correlation and
an invariable association. However, when posting data on such
a sensitive topic as this, you need to do more than just rely on
such a generally taken-for-granted understanding. You need to
do something to soften the impact of your words, which have a
very clear rhetorical purpose.
--
Angus Rodgers
Han de Bruijn
> Angus Rodgers <twi...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:49:48 -0500, "Jesse F. Hughes"
>><je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Does this mean that you agree with WM's argument that there is a
>>>maximal (but unspecifiable) natural number?
>>
>>Here we go ...
>>
>>Let me just say once again that it is a great pity that Doron
>>Zeilberger does not post to sci.math.
>>
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doron_Zeilberger>
>>
>>"Zeilberger has made numerous important contributions ...
>>Zeilberger considers himself a ultrafinitist."
>
> Whether there are legitimate ultrafinitists or not is not the
> question.
>
> I asked specifically about *WM's argument*. Perhaps I should have
> stressed this.
>
> I have no opinion on whether a consistent ultrafinitist theory is
> possible nor on whether Zeilberger's writing on this matter is
> sensible. I'm only asking whether Han thinks that WM's argument
> is an example of good mathematical reasoning.
Most of the time, I have little trouble with WM's theories. Apart from
this, I don't think that students should be "protected" from receiving
lessons from a supposed "crank". Students are capable enough to decide
for themselves what to accept and what not as being of value. A problem
may be, though, that some of them only hear that everything in science
and mathematics is just fine and there's no trouble in any place.
And no, I'm not going to answer a question from someone who is really an
expert in distorting someone else's arguments.
Han de Bruijn
Angus Rodgers
<Han.de...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>Most of the time, I have little trouble with WM's theories. Apart from
>this, I don't think that students should be "protected" from receiving
>lessons from a supposed "crank".
I strongly disagree (although I have no idea how I shall support
my opinion). If the term "crank" means anything, it means someone
who has isolated himself (or been isolated - the responsibility is
not the issue) from the mainstream of inquiry, in some field. It
can be argued that an entire field can itself be taken over by an
irrational dogma, in which case it is the supposed "crank" who is
rational. I won't attempt to convince you that that is not the
case in mathematics. (I don't think it is, even though I have a
lot of difficulty in seeing the "real" mathematics, so to speak,
behind ZF fundamentalism. I still haven't worked out how much of
this problem is a personal mental glitch of my own.) But I want
you to see that there can be such a thing as a mainstream of free
enquiry, and that it is a sin to isolate students from such a life-
giving intellectual source because of some cranky dogma. That is,
put aside particular opinions about mathematics (where I myself
have difficulty in seeing the wood for the trees) and about WM
(about whom I know next to nothing), and just consider whether
/in principle/ there can be such a thing as rational freedom of
enquiry, and a "crank" who, rather than opening access to that
field of enquiry for his students, purposely denies it to them
for reasons of his own selfish blindness. (I don't know how to
put this very clearly, but it's just a rough initial stab.) It
is already hard enough for a student to orientate him/herself
in such a vast field as mathematics; how much worse if the one
supposed to be making that orientation more possible is in fact
engaged only in further disorienting his students and rendering
them unfit to pursue the careers for which they might have been
well suited! Even if you don't think that this is anything like
what is happening in the case of this WM character, can't you at
least agree that it is a /possible/ state of affairs for /some/
teacher, in some field, and that it is what WM is being accused
of, even if that accusation might be false?
>Students are capable enough to decide
>for themselves what to accept and what not as being of value.
I think you greatly overestimate the extent to which human
beings are already free and rational, and underestimate the
gravity and responsibility of the task of educating human
beings to make the most of that potential for freedom and
rationality which we all undoubtedly possess.
>A problem
>may be, though, that some of them only hear that everything in science
>and mathematics is just fine and there's no trouble in any place.
Well, there you go: you're admitting that students can indeed
be harmfully indoctrinated with some false dogma, but you only
seem to be willing to see this even as a possibility when the
dogma in question is one you are aware of and disagree with.
>And no, I'm not going to answer a question from someone who is really an
>expert in distorting someone else's arguments.
(Well, I hope you can answer me, because I don't think I go in
for much deliberate distortion, even if I sometimes do have a
lot of difficulty in seeing what people are getting at, and
even if that difficulty may sometimes be wilful and culpable.)
--
Angus Rodgers
David C. Ullrich
<twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Jesse F. Hughes"
><je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>
>>Look, the right way to look at it is this: if one tends to post in
>>crank threads, then Bill believes that he has a reason not to read
>>that person's posts.
>
>He can do what he likes with his own newsreader. If he wants he
>can program it to filter out all posters with a Q in their name,
>I don't care.
>
>>Why get upset about that conclusion?
>
>I just don't like being named and shamed in public,
Nobody's been doing that to you. Get a grip...
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
David C. Ullrich
Probably a class-action suit would be cheaper than if everyone hired
their own lawyer?
(That was a _joke_, guys...)
Jesse F. Hughes
> Most of the time, I have little trouble with WM's theories.
Let me be even more explicit.
Consider the following argument.
,----
| 1) I consider FISON {1, 2, 3, ..., n} and all smaller FISONs {1, 2,
| 3, ..., k} for k < n.
|
| 2) The union of these FISONs is FISON {1, 2, 3, ..., n}. This is so
| for every union of finitely many FISONs.
|
| 3) And in fact there are not infinitely many FISONs for any n.
|
| 4) But of course I consider every n in N, and there is always the
| same
| result:
|
| 5) The union of all these FISONs U[k =< n] {1, 2, 3, ..., k} is one
| FISON, namley FISON {1, 2, 3, ..., n}.
`----
From this, WM concludes that there is a single FISON F such that F =
N.
Now, let's be explicit. Which of the following most clearly expresses
your view?
(a) This argument (and its conclusion) is an example of good
mathematical reasoning.
(b) This argument is plainly fallacious; its conclusion is unrelated
to the steps (1) - (5).
(c) I do not feel competent to judge the quality of this argument.
My view is clearly (b) and, furthermore, the fact that WM mistakenly
believes that this argument proves that N is finite, it is clear that
he is incompetent at mathematical reasoning.
It's not merely that he's wrong about this claim, mind you. It is
that he is incapable of distinguishing good mathematical reasoning
from bad. Thus, he is incapable of teaching students to do the same.
I firmly believe that he is wasting the time and money of his students
because he is unqualified to teach even the simplest mathematical
proofs.
> Apart from this, I don't think that students should be "protected"
> from receiving lessons from a supposed "crank". Students are capable
> enough to decide for themselves what to accept and what not as being
> of value.
I agree. In fact, I am quite upset that I have not been allowed to
teach a course in neuroscience. Sure, some of the traditional
neuroscientists claim that my ideas have no merit and that it is clear
I am incompetent, but I say let the students decide for themselves.
What is the point, after all, in trying to prevent incompetent
professors from teaching students?
> A problem may be, though, that some of them only hear that
> everything in science and mathematics is just fine and there's no
> trouble in any place.
That might be a problem, but only if the person who claims to see
trouble has shown a basic ability to reason.
> And no, I'm not going to answer a question from someone who is really an
> expert in distorting someone else's arguments.
--
"I've noticed [...] I routinely have been putting up flawed equations
with my surrogate factoring work. My take on it is that I have some
deep fear that the work is too dangerous and am sabotaging myself."
-- James S. Harris
Han de Bruijn
Due to the fact than English is not my mother tongue, I'm most of the
time more concise in my responses than would be desirable eventually.
Often resulting in a picture which is black and white rather than grey
on a continuous scale. What I meant, of course, is that students should
be exposed to MORE than ONE kind of indoctrination, the mainstream one
NOT excluded in the first place. Then and only then, it will do no harm
if education is augmented with alternative viewpoints. But I think it's
also harmful if education is totally VOID of alternative viewpoints.
>>Students are capable enough to decide
>>for themselves what to accept and what not as being of value.
Under circumstances as sketched above, having absorbed influences from
quite different sources, I think, yes, that they are able to make those
kind of decisions for themselves.
> I think you greatly overestimate the extent to which human
> beings are already free and rational, and underestimate the
> gravity and responsibility of the task of educating human
> beings to make the most of that potential for freedom and
> rationality which we all undoubtedly possess.
That's why it's important that teachers are of different signature.
Thus preventing that one of them becomes too dominant and does not allow
students to form an opinion, freely, out of various available sources.
>>A problem
>>may be, though, that some of them only hear that everything in science
>>and mathematics is just fine and there's no trouble in any place.
>
> Well, there you go: you're admitting that students can indeed
> be harmfully indoctrinated with some false dogma, but you only
> seem to be willing to see this even as a possibility when the
> dogma in question is one you are aware of and disagree with.
I've corrected myself. See above. In response to Jesse F. Hughes I said:
>>And no, I'm not going to answer a question from someone who is really an
>>expert in distorting someone else's arguments.
>
> (Well, I hope you can answer me, because I don't think I go in
> for much deliberate distortion, even if I sometimes do have a
> lot of difficulty in seeing what people are getting at, and
> even if that difficulty may sometimes be wilful and culpable.)
You're quite welcome.
Han de Bruijn
Angus Rodgers
<dull...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:33:49 +0000, Angus Rodgers
><twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>I just don't like being named and shamed in public,
>
>Nobody's been doing that to you. Get a grip...
Not me particularly, of course, but I'm feeling it particularly.
--
Angus Rodgers
Aatu Koskensilta
> On 17 Feb 2009 03:18:46 -0500, Bill Dubuque
> <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>2.1 41/1890 Aatu Koskensilta
>
> Huh? Never was there less of a crank-basher (or crank).
My news habits have changed over the years. I used to indulge in
"crank bashing" to a much larger extent some years ago. I've since
come to the view that such an activity is utterly pointless. My high
score may also be partly explained by my interest in the philosophy of
mathematics and mathematical logic. Philosophical and logical
questions naturally arise in the course of the crank debates.
I'm surprised at the absence of Virgil on the list, as well as the
presence of at least two posters who on longer post at all, owing to
their having died.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta
> Not me particularly, of course, but I'm feeling it particularly.
For what it's worth, you are certainly not a crank basher. Perhaps
this affectionate reassurance makes you feel slightly better?
Angus Rodgers
<Han.de...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>Due to the fact than English is not my mother tongue, I'm most of the
>time more concise in my responses than would be desirable eventually.
I have the opposite fault. :-)
>Often resulting in a picture which is black and white rather than grey
>on a continuous scale. What I meant, of course, is that students should
>be exposed to MORE than ONE kind of indoctrination, the mainstream one
>NOT excluded in the first place. Then and only then, it will do no harm
>if education is augmented with alternative viewpoints. But I think it's
>also harmful if education is totally VOID of alternative viewpoints.
Ah! OK. I agree. However, there must be some common culture of
rational debate, not a sterile Babel of mutually uncomprehending
monologues. (Thinks: I must read David Bohm's book /On Dialogue/.)
>> I think you greatly overestimate the extent to which human
>> beings are already free and rational, and underestimate the
>> gravity and responsibility of the task of educating human
>> beings to make the most of that potential for freedom and
>> rationality which we all undoubtedly possess.
>
>That's why it's important that teachers are of different signature.
>Thus preventing that one of them becomes too dominant and does not allow
>students to form an opinion, freely, out of various available sources.
Good, but note that it is quite possible (and it often seems to
happen in practice) that a healthy culture of rational debate
becomes mistaken (in some presumably Freudian way - although
there are also sound political reasons for being sceptical of
all claims of scientific neutrality and rationality) for some
evil dominant bully.
--
Angus Rodgers