MathForum
Phil Carmody
(minus about 5 individuals who are the exception to the rule)
I'm just wondering if I'd lose anyone useful if I killfiled
MathForum too. It appears practically nothing of worth emanates
from there, have I overlooked anyone?
Phil
--
Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug.
It causes governments to wage war against their own people.
-- Dave Seaman (sci.math, 19 Mar 2009)
William Elliot
> I've had huge success with killfiling the whole of googlegroups,
> (minus about 5 individuals who are the exception to the rule)
> I'm just wondering if I'd lose anyone useful if I killfiled
> MathForum too. It appears practically nothing of worth emanates
> from there, have I overlooked anyone?
>
Being the moderator of a moderated math newsgroup,
sci.math.mod which you've set up.
> Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug.
> It causes governments to wage war against their own people.
OPM, other peoples' money, is a more dangerous drug.
What is my extra multi-million dollar bonus
doing in your social security fund?
Don Stockbauer
Why don't you put yourself on your killfile list? Then send a note to
Hofstadter about self-reference.
Don Stockbauer
Being funny money, as all money is.
Han de Bruijn
Have _fun_ in telling _that_ to people who have experienced foreclosing
their home and selling their properties to the highest bidder @ 400 USD.
Han de Bruijn
Don Stockbauer
I can have fun saying that to these people all day long because this
is just usenet, just words, and besides, with no homes, no internet
access anymore, living under freeway bridges they'll never see this
post, just as Phil Carmody wont , since he's restricted communication
for himself and killfiled all google group users.
Boy, things are sure getting complex, aren't they? Anything anyone
says anymore can have some sort of smart-ass reply generated against
it. But then, it's just words, and words will never hurt me.
Have a nice day. Eat more pecans. That's an order.
William Elliot
Here, foreclosures are becoming slowing becoming more difficult.
To toss somebody out, the mortgage has to be presented.
Those who buy the bundled debt packages, do not have the mortgage,
but only the promise of mortgage payments. Thus, even UBS has been
unable to toss an "owner" resident out, for lack of proper documents.
The jokes on them, they've out smarted themselves. The jokes on them,
that is if they can keep it a secrete that bundled mortgages
In some places that are hard hit by foreclosures with all of the problems
caused by lots of vacant houses, local enforcement of a foreclosure has
ceased.
It's not a joke. It's the truth. It's the attitude of the divine CEO
owners of the world have about people and it's high time the people
recognize who their most dangerous enemy is. The expression is a rerun of
"What is our US oil doing under Iraqi sands?" Don't you forget, the world
owners the masters have the notion that they own the world. This is most
apparent in US foreign policy: if you won't give it to US corporate
world masters, we'll take if from you.
Attacks upon social security, retirement funds, wages and anything else
that may be of worth, are constant, persistent and pernicious. It's simple,
don't you know, the extra multi-million dollar CEO bonus shouldn't be
wasting away in social security funds. It's taken from RayGun to now
to ruin the wealth of the people, but now they've succeeded and are
getting away with it along with trillions of tax payers' money and
workers retirement funds. It's the biggest robbery of all time.
We the people have met the enemy and it is Republican.
> Han de Bruijn
>
>
Han de Bruijn
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Han de Bruijn wrote:
>
>> Don Stockbauer wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 2, 5:28 am, William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Phil Carmody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug.
>>>>> It causes governments to wage war against their own people.
>>>>
>>>> OPM, other peoples' money, is a more dangerous drug.
>>>>
>>>> What is my extra multi-million dollar bonus
>>>> doing in your social security fund?
>>>
>>> Being funny money, as all money is.
>>
>> Have _fun_ in telling _that_ to people who have experienced foreclosing
>> their home and selling their properties to the highest bidder @ 400 USD.
>>
> $400 in Holland. Oh oh, that's much worse than foreclosures in USA.
>
> Here, foreclosures are becoming slowing becoming more difficult.
Sorry, I have this from an article (yes, in a _Dutch_ newspaper) about
foreclosures and selling of households in _America_, _not_ in Holland.
(I'm not quite sure how <NL>inboedel</NL> is translated in English)
I only hope we in Europe will NOT continue to copy the "American dream"
with all of its consequences. (BTW, did you meanwhile recover from Rod
Speed's attacks in that other group ?)
Han de Bruijn
William Elliot
>>
>> Here, foreclosures are becoming slowing becoming more difficult.
>
> Sorry, I have this from an article (yes, in a _Dutch_ newspaper) about
> foreclosures and selling of households in _America_, _not_ in Holland.
> (I'm not quite sure how <NL>inboedel</NL> is translated in English)
>
I've never heard of a $400 foreclosure.
If I did, I'd try to snap it up before all the others could.
>> We the people have met the enemy and it is Republican.
>
> I only hope we in Europe will NOT continue to copy the "American dream"
> with all of its consequences. (BTW, did you meanwhile recover from Rod
> Speed's attacks in that other group ?)
>
Were I younger, I'd leave this viciously insane country.
I ignore Rod Speed.
Dave L. Renfro
> I've had huge success with killfiling the whole of googlegroups,
> (minus about 5 individuals who are the exception to the rule)
> I'm just wondering if I'd lose anyone useful if I killfiled
> MathForum too. It appears practically nothing of worth emanates
> from there, have I overlooked anyone?
I sometimes post from Math Forum, when google groups is not
working correctly or sometimes just for a change.
Dave L. Renfro
achille
>
> > Have _fun_ in telling _that_ to people who have experienced foreclosing
> > their home and selling their properties to the highest bidder @ 400 USD.
>
> $400 in Holland. Oh oh, that's much worse than foreclosures in USA.
>
> Here, foreclosures are becoming slowing becoming more difficult.
>
Two or three weeks ago, one can buy a foreclosed home
in Destroit as low as $1. A week ago, you can buy a bank
owned home for around $40.
Han de Bruijn
>>> $400 in Holland. Oh oh, that's much worse than foreclosures in USA.
>>>
>>> Here, foreclosures are becoming slowing becoming more difficult.
>>
>> Sorry, I have this from an article (yes, in a _Dutch_ newspaper) about
>> foreclosures and selling of households in _America_, _not_ in Holland.
>> (I'm not quite sure how <NL>inboedel</NL> is translated in English)
>>
> Mass foreclosures aren't happening in Holland?
> I've never heard of a $400 foreclosure.
Sorry. Misunderstanding: it's what the <NL>inboedel</NL> was sold for.
> If I did, I'd try to snap it up before all the others could.
>
>>> We the people have met the enemy and it is Republican.
>>
>> I only hope we in Europe will NOT continue to copy the "American dream"
>> with all of its consequences. (BTW, did you meanwhile recover from Rod
>> Speed's attacks in that other group ?)
>>
> Were I younger, I'd leave this viciously insane country.
>
> I ignore Rod Speed.
Yes: Abort, Retry, Ignore. Have a nice weekend, later:
Han de Bruijn
Tim BandTech.com
Nice post Han.
Organizationally I know for sure that my own experience is that when
someone pays me to do a job I do a decent job. Not so for my own work
so much. This somewhat explains the corporatization effect if we
place the self as the civilian world minus paid entities which are the
corporate faction. We needn't take anything terribly personally to see
the natural accumulation- the existing system is proof and a very
rapid proof, too. The deregulation of the Reagan/Bush era has already
caused this result in a pittance of time as far as economic
infrastructure is concerned.
This coupled with the technology paradigm which I believe shines the
light for future economic systems where the worker may hardly need to
exist.
I am not an organized person and this was the effect I tried to start
out on. Whereas the profitable corporation has resources to hire
servants to its cause then its organized power is stronger. So the tit
for tat begins and as a tit for tat match the tit-tat period of this
last swing could be argued at twenty years. Whether Obama is a full
recoil of a repeating cycle or whether he can pogo over to another
operating point is sort of the stability crisis. The competing
interests attempt their influence and really the system can be
declared lawless so long as mistruth rules. Under a truthfull
capitalism corporations will operate openly which essentially exposes
what have been private operations. This is exactly what we'd like to
have seen of the lending and spending crisis. Where did all that money
that doesn't exist go to?
In that tracking money is the issue at hand then open banks could
provide an answer. What any man gets paid for any job is accounted for
via transactions through the open bank. A fair price could be
established by studying such information. The computerized band with
zero human interventions might be worth a try. This sector would be
given credit much as a nonprofit organization is. Yet profit could
still be a motive.
We are disorganized and generally lazy sloths and to the capitalist
there is no problem taking advantage of lazy sloths; it is in their
ethic to compete on any principle, as a farmer takes eggs from a hen.
Such trickery is arguably unnatural yet what human will declare it
unjust? And when a man comes to offer his services to your household,
say to fix a broken roof, for a small amount of money then you have
used that man. Under such a chain of thought which might seem
tangential at first the question becomes how to properly use men well.
One way out of the chains is to take your independence as much as
possible. This requires a self sufficient attitude. My hen just
started laying eggs and it is quite a charm.
- Tim
amy666
lol
hahahaha
amy666
> William Elliot wrote:
>
> >>> $400 in Holland. Oh oh, that's much worse than
> foreclosures in USA.
> >>>
> >>> Here, foreclosures are becoming slowing becoming
> more difficult.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I have this from an article (yes, in a
> _Dutch_ newspaper) about
> >> foreclosures and selling of households in
> _America_, _not_ in Holland.
> >> (I'm not quite sure how <NL>inboedel</NL> is
> translated in English)
i believe it is translated as " furnishings "
> >>
> > Mass foreclosures aren't happening in Holland?
> > I've never heard of a $400 foreclosure.
>
> Sorry. Misunderstanding: it's what the
> <NL>inboedel</NL> was sold for.
>
> > If I did, I'd try to snap it up before all the
> others could.
> >
> >>> We the people have met the enemy and it is
> Republican.
> >>
> >> I only hope we in Europe will NOT continue to copy
> the "American dream"
> >> with all of its consequences. (BTW, did you
> meanwhile recover from Rod
> >> Speed's attacks in that other group ?)
> >>
> > Were I younger, I'd leave this viciously insane
> country.
> >
> > I ignore Rod Speed.
>
> Yes: Abort, Retry, Ignore. Have a nice weekend,
> later:
>
> Han de Bruijn
>
regards
tommy1729
amy666
>
> One way out of the chains is to take your
> independence as much as
> possible. This requires a self sufficient attitude.
> My hen just
> started laying eggs and it is quite a charm.
>
> - Tim
but economics depends on dependence.
if everyone is independant there is not much reason to buy services in general.
but we cannot be totally independant either.
and its noble to help eachother out for free , but that doesnt pay the bills.
so either way , the system crashes.
error 1729 economics
system failure plz reboot.
religion warned us about this !
regards
tommy1729
Ken Pledger
Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> ....
> I'm just wondering if I'd lose anyone useful if I killfiled
> MathForum too. It appears practically nothing of worth emanates
> from there ....
Depending on your news server, you may have difficulty getting
access to the groups <geometry.college>, <geometry.pre-college>,
<geometry.puzzles> and <geometry.research>. I find it necessary to use
MathForum for those.
Ken Pledger.
Mensanator
> In article <87wsa3fsnv....@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ....
> > I'm just wondering if I'd lose anyone useful if I killfiled
> > MathForum too. It appears practically nothing of worth emanates
> > from there ....
>
> Depending on your news server, you may have difficulty getting
> access to the groups <geometry.college>, <geometry.pre-college>,
> <geometry.puzzles> and <geometry.research>. I find it necessary to use
> MathForum for those.
Can you get to them from Google?
>
> Ken Pledger.
Ken Pledger
<ab0bd1cc-7d71-48f9...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Mensanator <mensa...@aol.com> wrote:
> Can you get to them from Google? ....
Yes, but I'd rather not. ;-(
Ken Pledger.
lwa...@lausd.net
Here we go again with another blanket killfile of the free
news access sites.
Notice that no one ever says: "I'm wondering if I'd lose
anyone useful if I killfiled full-priced newsreaders. It
appears practically nothing of worth emanates from the
full-priced newsreaders."
So there is a positive correlation between how much money
one pays to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
Mensanator
That can't be right. According to JSH, only
the math matters.
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Apr 2, 7:24 am, "Dave L. Renfro" <renfr...@cmich.edu> wrote:
>> Phil Carmody wrote:
>> > I've had huge success with killfiling the whole of googlegroups,
>> > (minus about 5 individuals who are the exception to the rule)
>> > I'm just wondering if I'd lose anyone useful if I killfiled
>> > MathForum too. It appears practically nothing of worth emanates
>> > from there, have I overlooked anyone?
>> I sometimes post from Math Forum, when google groups is not
>> working correctly or sometimes just for a change.
>
> Here we go again with another blanket killfile of the free
> news access sites.
So the fuck what?
If Phil finds that his time is better served this way, let him.
> Notice that no one ever says: "I'm wondering if I'd lose
> anyone useful if I killfiled full-priced newsreaders. It
> appears practically nothing of worth emanates from the
> full-priced newsreaders."
Posting quality is not well correlated to the newsreader used, but
many people believe that the news server can sometimes be a good
predictor of post quality. Google groups has a bad reputation, though
it seems to me that while most of the truly moronic posts come from
Google, it's not the case that most Google posts are truly moronic.
Before Google, AOL had a similar reputation. I don't like aoie.org
because they seem to have a skewed view of free speech rights and as a
result, they are the news server of choice for many vandals and other
assholes.
I'm sure that I lose some posts from worthwhile contributors by
killfiling aoie.org. But the only loss is my own. I do no one any
harm by killfiling them.
> So there is a positive correlation between how much money
> one pays to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
Why are you so fucking stupid? You've been told time and again that
it's got not a goddamned thing to do with money. I use a free
newsreader and a free news server.
Why is it that you willingly persist in being stupid? Why do you
pretend that Google is the only free means to Usenet? Just as you
pretend that one is called a crank according to the mathematical
claims he believes, rather than his reasoning.
I must say that I reluctantly agree with cbrown. The term metacrank
is apt. Every correction to certain of your misconceptions is
forgotten within seconds, if not ignored altogether.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Penguins are so sensitive to my needs." --Lyle Lovett
Aatu Koskensilta
> So there is a positive correlation between how much money one pays
> to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
Why do you value posters based on how much money they paid for their
newsreaders? It seems like a rather petty thing to do.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Jesse F. Hughes
> lwa...@lausd.net writes:
>
>> So there is a positive correlation between how much money one pays
>> to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
>
> Why do you value posters based on how much money they paid for their
> newsreaders? It seems like a rather petty thing to do.
You just say so because you're one of the oppressed and downtrodden
using a free (Ptui!) newsreader.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
Playin' dismal hollers for abysmal dollars,
Those were the days, best I can recall.
-- Austin Lounge Lizards, "Rocky Byways"
James Burns
> On Apr 2, 7:24 am, "Dave L. Renfro" <renfr...@cmich.edu> wrote:
>
>>Phil Carmody wrote:
>>
>>>I've had huge success with killfiling the whole of googlegroups,
>>>(minus about 5 individuals who are the exception to the rule)
>>>I'm just wondering if I'd lose anyone useful if I killfiled
>>>MathForum too. It appears practically nothing of worth emanates
>>>from there, have I overlooked anyone?
>>
>>I sometimes post from Math Forum, when google groups is not
>>working correctly or sometimes just for a change.
>
> Here we go again with another blanket killfile of the free
> news access sites.
>
> Notice that no one ever says: "I'm wondering if I'd lose
> anyone useful if I killfiled full-priced newsreaders. It
> appears practically nothing of worth emanates from the
> full-priced newsreaders."
"Full-priced newsreaders" apparently includes those costing $0.00,
such as Mozilla Thunderbird, as I distinctly remember being
pointed out to you.
> So there is a positive correlation between how much money
> one pays to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
Perhaps there is, but it's not clear to me that you've shown that.
Say you have, though. There is also a positive correlation
between the consumption of ice cream and crime. Shall we then
conclude that eating ice cream causes crime?
Jim Burns
Tim Little
> So there is a positive correlation between how much money one pays
> to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you: what you call "full-priced
newsreaders" have a full price of $0.00. How thick are you that you
still don't understand that?
- Tim
lwa...@lausd.net
> lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
> > So there is a positive correlation between how much money
> > one pays to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
> between the consumption of ice cream and crime. Shall we then
> conclude that eating ice cream causes crime?
Oh yeah, the famous hidden variable example, where there's
a hidden third variable, such as warmer weather (since
people are more likely to eat ice cream when it's not
freezing out, people are more likely to go outside and
commit crimes when it's not freezing out).
I believe that in this case, there may be a hidden third
variable at work too. In this case, it's professorship --
professors, due to having a steady income, are more likely
to afford full-priced newsreaders, and professors, having
earned Ph.D.'s, have taken classes in standard analysis,
so are less likely to post so-called "crank" theories.
But still, Carmody has already killfiled one free Usenet
access and is on the verge of killfiling another. Indeed,
Carmody can't even read this post, since it's killfiled.
Continuing Burns's analogy, Carmody's killfiling of free
Usenet access is like arresting everyone who eats ice
cream due to the perceived crime risk. So if anyone is
guilty of making the correlation vs. causation fallacy,
it's Carmody, through his blanket killfiling.
lwa...@lausd.net
> lwal...@lausd.net writes:
> > So there is a positive correlation between how much money one pays
> > to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
> Why do you value posters based on how much money they paid for their
> newsreaders? It seems like a rather petty thing to do.
_I_ don't, but _Carmody_ does.
So the real question is, why does Carmody value posters based on
how much money they paid for their newsreaders? It seems like a
rather petty thing to do.
Of course, Carmody can't answer, since he has already killfiled
this post.
Aatu Koskensilta
> So the real question is, why does Carmody value posters based on how
> much money they paid for their newsreaders? It seems like a rather
> petty thing to do.
A petty thing indeed. Why do you insist on doing so?
Jesse F. Hughes
> But still, Carmody has already killfiled one free Usenet
> access and is on the verge of killfiling another. Indeed,
> Carmody can't even read this post, since it's killfiled.
It is a tragedy, I'm sure.
But it's Carmody's loss, not yours. Why lose sleep over it?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"If anything is true in general about Usenet, it's that people can go
on and on about just about anything." -- James Harris speaks the
truth.
Tim Little
> lwa...@lausd.net writes:
>> So the real question is, why does Carmody value posters based on how
>> much money they paid for their newsreaders? It seems like a rather
>> petty thing to do.
>
> A petty thing indeed. Why do you insist on doing so?
I really don't think LW can see the point about himself that your
posts illustrate.
- Tim
Phil Carmody
> lwa...@lausd.net writes:
>
>> So the real question is, why does Carmody value posters based on how
>> much money they paid for their newsreaders? It seems like a rather
>> petty thing to do.
>
> A petty thing indeed. Why do you insist on doing so?
Does he? Not that I care. I know that I don't, though. I also know that
lwalke3 is heavily burried in my killfile because of his propensity to
spout crap, so the above BS is hardly unexpected.
Phil
--
Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug.
It causes governments to wage war against their own people.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> writes:
> > lwa...@lausd.net writes:
> >
> >> So the real question is, why does Carmody value posters based on
> >> how much money they paid for their newsreaders? It seems like a
> >> rather petty thing to do.
> >
> > A petty thing indeed. Why do you insist on doing so?
>
> Does he?
Lwalke's thought processes are erudite and transcend ordinary
categories, but I can't think of any other reason for his endless and
bizarre chatter about the prices of newsreaders.
Jim Burns
> On Apr 3, 6:52 am, James Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
>> lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
>>>
>>> So there is a positive correlation between how much money
>>> one pays to post and how much respect they get on sci.math.
>>
>> Say you have, though. There is also a positive correlation
>> between the consumption of ice cream and crime. Shall we then
>> conclude that eating ice cream causes crime?
>
> Oh yeah, the famous hidden variable example, where there's
> a hidden third variable, such as warmer weather (since
> people are more likely to eat ice cream when it's not
> freezing out, people are more likely to go outside and
> commit crimes when it's not freezing out).
I'll mention again that you have not shown there is any
such correlation between money and respect in sci.math.
Still, you do admit that turning your imagined
correlation into a causal relationship was a fallacy
on your part.
Wait. Maybe you don't admit that. I mean, sure, it's
a fallacy and all, but do you admit your error below
or back off your claim in any way? No, you just find
a new way to "explain" the group-wide relationship
that you "support" by pointing to /one/ poster.
Classic crankishness, that: Don't change the result,
change the argument.
(I expect that last comment might bother you, anger
you or even have you kill-file me. If so, so be it.
One last point, then: Physician, heal thyself.)
(One irony here is that Phil Carmody probably has
more evidence (crank posters posting from
google and similar places) than you do (one poster
kill-filing based on the origins of posts).)
(My own philosophy: I don't agree with Phil, but neither
do I think Phil should care about that. I don't
read everything in sci.math, but I wouldn't make a big
announcement of what I'm not reading. Except if
someone well and truly pissed me off, and even then
probably not -- that probably would please my
correspondent too much.)
> I believe that in this case, there may be a hidden third
> variable at work too. In this case, it's professorship --
> professors, due to having a steady income, are more likely
> to afford full-priced newsreaders, and professors, having
> earned Ph.D.'s, have taken classes in standard analysis,
> so are less likely to post so-called "crank" theories.
You are working very hard to maintain the idea that
which newsreader someone uses adds or subtracts from
their "crank" score. You have only a smattering of
of evidence, only anecdote, really, but if you're right,
you should rejoice.
This is what you've been looking for. Just get the cranks
to change their newsreaders and they'll stop being
regarded as cranks, right? That is what it comes down
to, right? And it should be vastly easier for you to
harangue them into using a different newsreader than
to change their methods of argumentation.
> But still, Carmody has already killfiled one free Usenet
> access and is on the verge of killfiling another. Indeed,
> Carmody can't even read this post, since it's killfiled.
>
> Continuing Burns's analogy, Carmody's killfiling of free
> Usenet access is like arresting everyone who eats ice
> cream due to the perceived crime risk. So if anyone is
> guilty of making the correlation vs. causation fallacy,
> it's Carmody, through his blanket killfiling.
Well, Carmody *and you*, of course.
But, I see above, "Spending money gets you respect"
is your /old/ theory. Your /new/ theory is "Taking
advanced math classes gets you respect."
May I suggest a /new/ new theory? "Knowing what you
are talking about gets you respect."
Even so amended, I'm not sure I agree with you. It depends
on what you mean by "respect".
If by "respect", you mean "having one's assertions
about mathematics given weight in a discussion",
then I agree with you. Is this, then, what you're
complaining about, that those who know what they're
talking about are treated like they know what they're
they're talking about?
However, if by "respect', you mean "having vast
attention paid to one's least utterance, in
hopes of finding understanding", then I'm afraid
I have to disagree. It looks to me as though
cranks receive much more respect than anyone else
does on sci.math.
Jim Burns
Don Stockbauer
Well, at least all this helps create the global brain.
amy666
btw mathforum works perfectly well.
you can follow all threads , search threads , watch topics , watch users etc , see the dates of the posts , send them an email etc
you cannot killfile , but you can ignore to read it.
but hey , maybe they arent man enough to resist the curiousity ?
like , say , despite all those killfiles and newsreaders , it seems NOBODY KILLFILED JSH ???
because , JSH always gets a lot of replies.
and if you arent man enought to resist JSH , what is the use of killfiles anyways ?
silly attitude , really.
its not just about the money of newsreaders or killfiles , its like
with those shoes , you dont fit in.
even if the shoes are for free, and you dress quite nice apart from the wrong shoes and they cant stop you from going in.
aristrocates ....
amy666
sigh ...
that doesnt make any sense.
you want proofs ?
ok
1) Dave L Renfro posts from MathForum.
is Dave a crank ?
should you killfile Dave ?
2) secondly , are you telling us there are no cranks with newsreaders !?!?
those two arguments constitute 2 proofs.
and they were not even hard to find.
regards
tommy1729
amy666
Marijuana is a dangerous drug.
it makes you buy newsreaders and killfile others.
btw making a new nickname and new profile will avoid the killfile bwahahahahaha hanson thanks for the laughs ;)
amy666
the reverse psychology and reverse logic and projection on sci.math has no limits.
lwa...@lausd.net
> On 2009-04-04, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
> > A petty thing indeed. Why do you insist on doing so?
> I really don't think LW can see the point about himself that your
> posts illustrate.
If I had to take a guess what point Aatu is making here, it's
that, in trying to avoid judging posters based on the cost of
their Usenet access like Carmody, I've overcorrected. Whereas
Carmody favors full-priced newsreaders over free access, I've
made the _opposite_ mistake, and started favoring free access
over full-priced newsreaders.
My goal is to be neutral with regards to how much money is
spent on Usenet access. I want to judge posters on what is
posted, not how much money is spent.
So how can I achieve my goal, then? Certainly not by trying
to killfile free access, as Carmody is about to do. And if I
had a newsreader with killfiling powers, then I wouldn't
killfile based on the price of the access. Instead, I'd
killfile based on the use of those two annoying words,
"crank" and "troll," designed to belittle the opposition.
But what can I do _now_ to avoid making the opposite mistake
from Carmody and favor free access? I don't know what I can
do now -- especially since I can't distinguish those who
use free access from those who pay to post. Not all
standard analysts pay to post and not all so-called "cranks"
use free access, so I can't reliably distinguish between the
two based on that. (Of course, neither can Carmody.) All I
know is that _Carmody_ obviously has a full newsreader with
killfiling ability.
I want to be neutral towards how one posts on Usenet, unlike
Carmody who killfiles based on where one posts from. I don't
know what I can do to convince Aatu or Little of this.
lwa...@lausd.net
> lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
> > Oh yeah, the famous hidden variable example, where there's
> > a hidden third variable, such as warmer weather (since
> > people are more likely to eat ice cream when it's not
> > freezing out, people are more likely to go outside and
> > commit crimes when it's not freezing out).
> I'll mention again that you have not shown there is any
> such correlation between money and respect in sci.math.
> Still, you do admit that turning your imagined
> correlation into a causal relationship was a fallacy
> on your part.
And yet, it's not a fallacy when Carmody makes the _exact
same_ assumption? Carmody killfiles based on where posts
come from.
> (One irony here is that Phil Carmody probably has
> more evidence (crank posters posting from
> google and _similar_ places)
(emphasis mine)
And how are those places similar, besides the obvious
fact that they are free? If Burns believes that I'm wrong
that price is the common factor, then let Burns state
what the real similarity is.
> > I believe that in this case, there may be a hidden third
> > variable at work too. In this case, it's professorship --
> > professors, due to having a steady income, are more likely
> > to afford full-priced newsreaders, and professors, having
> > earned Ph.D.'s, have taken classes in standard analysis,
> > so are less likely to post so-called "crank" theories.
> You are working very hard to maintain the idea that
> which newsreader someone uses adds or subtracts from
> their "crank" score. You have only a smattering of
> of evidence, only anecdote, really, but if you're right,
> you should rejoice.
To Carmody, which newsreader someone uses adds or subtracts
from their "crank" score -- otherwise he wouldn't killfile
based on which newsreader someone uses.
> This is what you've been looking for. Just get the cranks
> to change their newsreaders and they'll stop being
> regarded as cranks, right?
Possibly -- but not for me. Even if I were to change _my_
own newsreader, I'll still be in Carmody's killfile. Even
though Carmody can't read what I write, I can read what
he writes. And this is what he said:
"I also know that
lwalke3 is heavily burried in my killfile because of his propensity
to
spout crap, so the above BS is hardly unexpected."
And therefore I'm in Carmody's killfile _separately_ from
the Google killfile, because I post "crap." So even if I
bought a newsreader, I'd still be killfiled.
What do I post that Carmody considers "crap"? Perhaps
it's because I defend theories other than ZFC (but this
may set off yet another argument that one isn't called a
"crank" merely due to opposition to ZFC). But it is
sufficient to say that if I, from the day I first started
posting to sci.math, had always sided with the standard
analysts and agreed with them that WM, etc., are "cranks"
and spent all my time telling WM, etc., how they are 100%
wrong in their beliefs, I wouldn't be in Carmody's
killfile today separately from the Google killfile.
> That is what it comes down
> to, right? And it should be vastly easier for you to
> harangue them into using a different newsreader than
> to change their methods of argumentation.
Newsreaders cost money. It's difficult to harangue anyone
into spending money as many a salesperson has learned. So
actually it would be easier to change their methods of
argumentation, as long as buying a book isn't necessary
(or else it would come down to the cost of the book vs.
the cost of the newsreader).
> Even so amended, I'm not sure I agree with you. It depends
> on what you mean by "respect".
> However, if by "respect', you mean "having vast
> attention paid to one's least utterance, in
> hopes of finding understanding",
In this context, by "respect" I mean not being killfiled. So
with Carmody at least, being killfiled depends at least on
what newsreader one uses due to the blanket killfilings. I'm
killfiled separately not based on a newsreader, so Carmody
obviously doesn't look _only_ at the newsreader.
When one is killfiled, there's no chance for redemption. So
even if I bought a newsreader and agreed with the majority
of the standard analysts that the "crank" label is deserved,
and posted nothing but ZFC from now on, I'd still be sitting
in Carmody's killfile.
Many mention zuhair as an example of a reformed crank. At
least to Carmody, I can never be reformed.
lwa...@lausd.net
> jim wrote :
> > However, if by "respect', you mean "having vast
> > attention paid to one's least utterance, in
> > hopes of finding understanding", then I'm afraid
> > I have to disagree. It looks to me as though
> > cranks receive much more respect than anyone else
> > does on sci.math.
> you want proofs ?
> ok
> 1) Dave L Renfro posts from MathForum.
> is Dave a crank ?
> should you killfile Dave ?
Renfro is the exception to Carmody's blanket killfile. In fact,
this is the reason that Carmody started this thread in the
first place. He wanted to know whether there ought to be any
exceptions to his blanket killfile of mathforum. And so, Renfro
will apparently be the only exception.
Is Renfro a so-called "crank"? Interesting question. Obviously
he isn't considered a "crank," otherwise he wouldn't be the
exception to the mathforum killfile.
Yet, as I've pointed out before, Renfro once made a post in
which he makes errors confusing cardinality and ordinality
and presents as true certain statements whose negations are
true in every model of ZFC (including some models in which
CH is false). I've shown this to tommy1729 before, but
I repeat that post here. The post is nearly a decade old, so
I doubt that Renfro has repeated the error since.
The context: Renfro was trying to explain CH to a layperson
who might not be familiar with ZFC.
"NOTATION: Let N* be the cardinality of the natural
numbers and R* be the cardinality of the reals."
First problem -- nonstandard notation. It's been mentioned
that "cranks" often use nonstandard notation. Instead of
saying card(N) or, better yet, aleph_0, Renfro invents the
new notation N*.
"Let N** be the smallest uncountable
cardinal number (i.e. the next largest infinity after N*)."
In other words, N** is aleph_1.
"If CH fails, the situation becomes more complicated.
For instance, it is possible for there to be more than
N*, more than R*, or even more than 2^R* many
distinct cardinal numbers lying between N* and R*,
and also between R* and 2^R*."
This is invalid in ZFC+~CH. There can't possibly be
more than R*, and especially not more than 2^R*,
cardinals between N* and R*. Notice that there are
only R* _ordinals_ between N* and R*, and most of
those ordinals aren't cardinals.
What Renfro probably meant was something like:
"If CH fails, the situation becomes more complicated.
For instance, it is possible for c to be greater than
aleph_omega, greater than aleph_aleph_1, even greater
than aleph_aleph_omega, and the same is true for 2^c."
But in his zeal to avoid mentioning alephs, Renfro had
made statements that are _false_ in every model of ZFC.
Then Renfro wrote:
"However, it
is known that there cannot be exactly N* distinct
cardinals lying between N* and R*."
Also invalid in ZFC+~CH. Renfro was trying to state
the cofinality rule with the cardinality of the
continuum, but since N* means the _cardinal_ aleph_0,
what he ended up writing is that c can't equal
aleph_alpha for _any_ countably infinite alpha!
What Renfro probably meant to write was:
"However, it is known that c can't be aleph_omega."
but in his zeal to avoid mentioning standard terms
such as "aleph" and "omega," Renfro wrote something
that is _false_ in some models of ZFC+~CH.
If anyone else started making errors of this type,
they'd be labeled "crank" faster than anyone can
blink an eye. Inventing nonstandard terminology is
considered one sign of being a "crank," especially
if one misuses that terminology, as Renfro did.
So to answer tommy1729's question, no, Renfro isn't
really considered to be a "crank."
[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz
<big snip>
It baffles me why you care who or what news server is in someone's
killfile. If they don't publicly announce it, how would you even know?
What business is it of yours? I have hundreds of entries in my
killfile to obliterate spam and anything else that annoys me. I only
wish my newsreader had the capability of zapping not only its direct
targets but any thread started by them. The targets of my killfile
don't know they are in it and my usenet browsing is much the more
pleasant for it. If someone puts you specifically in their killfile it
just means they don't want to talk to you. That's their prerogrative.
Much like hanging up on unwanted soliciters on the telephone.
--Lynn
Aatu Koskensilta
> If I had to take a guess what point Aatu is making here, it's that,
> in trying to avoid judging posters based on the cost of their Usenet
> access like Carmody, I've overcorrected.
What is objectionable is that you judge posters based on the thickness
of their Cockney.
> Whereas Carmody favors full-priced newsreaders over free access,
> I've made the _opposite_ mistake, and started favoring free access
> over full-priced newsreaders.
Why do you favour full-priced newsreaders over free ones? There are
many fine free newsreaders, such as Gnus.
Brian Chandler
<snip>
> Newsreaders cost money.
And you know this how? Can you mention the price of a "newsreader" you
have found (and perhaps are unable to afford)?
Brian Chandler
Jesse F. Hughes
> If I had to take a guess what point Aatu is making here, it's
> that, in trying to avoid judging posters based on the cost of
> their Usenet access like Carmody, I've overcorrected. Whereas
> Carmody favors full-priced newsreaders over free access, I've
> made the _opposite_ mistake, and started favoring free access
> over full-priced newsreaders.
You're purposely stupid, aren't you?
This nonsense about "full-priced newsreaders" might be ever so
slightly more plausible, if only Phil Carmody didn't use a free
newsreader.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Depression hits more people than thought."
--headline in Lexington, KY newspaper, as reported on
NPR's Morning Edition
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Apr 4, 5:02 am, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
>> lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
>> > Oh yeah, the famous hidden variable example, where there's
>> > a hidden third variable, such as warmer weather (since
>> > people are more likely to eat ice cream when it's not
>> > freezing out, people are more likely to go outside and
>> > commit crimes when it's not freezing out).
>> I'll mention again that you have not shown there is any
>> such correlation between money and respect in sci.math.
>> Still, you do admit that turning your imagined
>> correlation into a causal relationship was a fallacy
>> on your part.
>
> And yet, it's not a fallacy when Carmody makes the _exact
> same_ assumption? Carmody killfiles based on where posts
> come from.
Not the same assumption at all.
Does Phil killfile all free news servers? No. Does he killfile all
free news readers? Certainly not, or he would have to killfile
himself.
You can't really be so stupid that you fail to see the difference
between your description and Phil's real behavior. I think you're
being deliberately dishonest here.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Would you please stop talking and start talking?"
-- Vincent Price as the Saint
Jesse F. Hughes
> Is Renfro a so-called "crank"? Interesting question. Obviously
> he isn't considered a "crank," otherwise he wouldn't be the
> exception to the mathforum killfile.
>
> Yet, as I've pointed out before, Renfro once made a post in
> which he makes errors confusing cardinality and ordinality
> and presents as true certain statements whose negations are
> true in every model of ZFC (including some models in which
> CH is false). I've shown this to tommy1729 before, but
> I repeat that post here. The post is nearly a decade old, so
> I doubt that Renfro has repeated the error since.
Making an error does not make one a crank.
Repeated, obvious errors despite clear corrections and an insistence
that one is right and his errors are in fact revolutionary insights.
>
> The context: Renfro was trying to explain CH to a layperson
> who might not be familiar with ZFC.
>
> "NOTATION: Let N* be the cardinality of the natural
> numbers and R* be the cardinality of the reals."
>
> First problem -- nonstandard notation. It's been mentioned
> that "cranks" often use nonstandard notation. Instead of
> saying card(N) or, better yet, aleph_0, Renfro invents the
> new notation N*.
Using N* instead of |N| is perhaps mildly regrettable, but not
particularly crankish. (You do know the fallacy of affirming the
consequent, don't you? Sometimes, mathematicians use non-standard
notation for convenience sake. As long as the notation is explained
clearly, no harm is done.)
>
> "Let N** be the smallest uncountable
> cardinal number (i.e. the next largest infinity after N*)."
>
> In other words, N** is aleph_1.
>
> "If CH fails, the situation becomes more complicated.
> For instance, it is possible for there to be more than
> N*, more than R*, or even more than 2^R* many
> distinct cardinal numbers lying between N* and R*,
> and also between R* and 2^R*."
>
> This is invalid in ZFC+~CH. There can't possibly be
> more than R*, and especially not more than 2^R*,
> cardinals between N* and R*. Notice that there are
> only R* _ordinals_ between N* and R*, and most of
> those ordinals aren't cardinals.
Okay, so he made a mistake. You've shown that. So what? Did he
persist in his error when corrected and claim that the error showed in
fact more mathematical insight than the bulk of living mathematicians?
Oh, bullshit. Everyone makes mistakes. A mistake made once is no
sign at all that one is a crank.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
" ... And I'm Michele Norris."
-- Quincy P. Hughes
Jesse F. Hughes
> Repeated, obvious errors despite clear corrections and an insistence
> that one is right and his errors are in fact revolutionary
> insights[...]
... make one a crank.
--
"Yup, you guessed it. If worse comes to worse, I *will* turn to the
Army to help me with mathematicians. And then mathematicians don't
think the NSA or CIA can save your asses, as generals LIKE me."
-- James Harris's latest foray into mathematical logic.
Jim Burns
>> (One irony here is that Phil Carmody probably has
>> more evidence (crank posters posting from
>> google and _similar_ places)
> (emphasis mine)
>
> And how are those places similar, besides the obvious
> fact that they are free? If Burns believes that I'm wrong
> that price is the common factor, then let Burns state
> what the real similarity is.
Since Walker has asked so nicely, Burns will tell Walker:
The real similarity is ...
Phil Carmody does not want to read the vast majority of
posts from those sites!!!!
If Walker really wants to change this dreadful situation,
Walker would do better spending Walker's time on Walker's
project of reforming the cranks, so that Phil will want
to read those posts.
The only other option I see is for you to harangue Phil
into reading those posts, even though he doesn't want to.
As slight as the chances are for you to succeed in that,
I still think you should hope that you fail. Whatever
patience is shown cranks in sci.math has its origins in
the ability of readers to walk away whenever their
individual patience (however stout or feeble) has been
exhausted. Do you really think cranks are not shown
respect now? Imagine what they will be shown if we /must/
read them.
[...]
>> That is what it comes down
>> to, right? And it should be vastly easier for you to
>> harangue them into using a different newsreader than
>> to change their methods of argumentation.
>
> Newsreaders cost money.
And how do you know this? You've looked, have you?
You must have paid the teensiest bit of attention
to what others have *told* you, gone and looked,
but (alas!) they were wrong. Hee hee. Of course,
you did.
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/
Thunderbird 2
* Free Download
2.0.0.21 for Windows,
English (US) (6.4MB)
You are impervious to reason. *That* is why you
are in Phil Carmody's kill-file.
Jim Burns
Rotwang
>
> > I'll mention again that you have not shown there is any
> > such correlation between money and respect in sci.math.
> > Still, you do admit that turning your imagined
> > correlation into a causal relationship was a fallacy
> > on your part.
>
> And yet, it's not a fallacy when Carmody makes the _exact
> same_ assumption? Carmody killfiles based on where posts
> come from.
So? How does it follow that Carmody is turning a correlation into a
causal relationship? Correlation is a perfectly adequate reason for
him to killfile posts from GG if he thinks the correlation is strong
enough that killfiling GG is in his best interest.
> > (One irony here is that Phil Carmody probably has
> > more evidence (crank posters posting from
> > google and _similar_ places)
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
> And how are those places similar, besides the obvious
> fact that they are free? If Burns believes that I'm wrong
> that price is the common factor, then let Burns state
> what the real similarity is.
Both of them are web interfaces, rather than traditional news servers.
Since most newsreaders are free and many news servers are too, price
obviously has little to do with it.
> [...]
What is your evidence for this?
> > That is what it comes down
> > to, right? And it should be vastly easier for you to
> > harangue them into using a different newsreader than
> > to change their methods of argumentation.
>
> Newsreaders cost money.
No, they don't. How many times will you continue to say this after
people have pointed out that they don't, even providing examples of
free newsreaders and free servers? What on Earth is wrong with you
anyway?
> It's difficult to harangue anyone
> into spending money as many a salesperson has learned. So
> actually it would be easier to change their methods of
> argumentation, as long as buying a book isn't necessary
> (or else it would come down to the cost of the book vs.
> the cost of the newsreader).
>
> > Even so amended, I'm not sure I agree with you. It depends
> > on what you mean by "respect".
> > However, if by "respect', you mean "having vast
> > attention paid to one's least utterance, in
> > hopes of finding understanding",
>
> In this context, by "respect" I mean not being killfiled. So
> with Carmody at least, being killfiled depends at least on
> what newsreader one uses due to the blanket killfilings. I'm
> killfiled separately not based on a newsreader, so Carmody
> obviously doesn't look _only_ at the newsreader.
>
> When one is killfiled, there's no chance for redemption. So
> even if I bought a newsreader and agreed with the majority
> of the standard analysts that the "crank" label is deserved,
> and posted nothing but ZFC from now on, I'd still be sitting
> in Carmody's killfile.
>
> Many mention zuhair as an example of a reformed crank. At
> least to Carmody, I can never be reformed.
Unless you change your "from" header. Though I suspect you'd also have
to change your personality, if you wanted to stay out of Phil's
killfile for long.
(As it happens I'm also in Phil's killfile, since I usually post from
GG and am not one of his exceptions. But I don't give a shit, because
Phil has never answered any question I've asked and I don't have the
expertise to answer any question he is likely to ask. I imagine the
same applies to you, so why does it bother you that you're in his
killfile?)
amy666
but he posts from mathforum on occasion
qed
Phil Carmody
>
>> On Apr 4, 5:02 am, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
>>> lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
>>> > Oh yeah, the famous hidden variable example, where there's
>>> > a hidden third variable, such as warmer weather (since
>>> > people are more likely to eat ice cream when it's not
>>> > freezing out, people are more likely to go outside and
>>> > commit crimes when it's not freezing out).
>>> I'll mention again that you have not shown there is any
>>> such correlation between money and respect in sci.math.
>>> Still, you do admit that turning your imagined
>>> correlation into a causal relationship was a fallacy
>>> on your part.
>>
>> And yet, it's not a fallacy when Carmody makes the _exact
>> same_ assumption? Carmody killfiles based on where posts
>> come from.
>
> Not the same assumption at all.
>
> Does Phil killfile all free news servers? No. Does he killfile all
> free news readers? Certainly not, or he would have to killfile
> himself.
I did killfile myself once at work. Set what should have been an
'AND' filter to 'OR', and magically stopped receiving everything!
> You can't really be so stupid that you fail to see the difference
> between your description and Phil's real behavior. I think you're
> being deliberately dishonest here.
We've just seen him be that stupid about a dozen times, I can
only conclude that in fact he is that stupid.
Anyway, the filter's enabled, I'll see who I need to pluck
out of it.
riderofgiraffes
you if you'd lose anyone you'd care about.
Michael Press
<4cbf0434-ff6f-489a...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
lwa...@lausd.net wrote:
> Newsreaders cost money.
Challenge:
* Players take turns.
* You show us a newsreader and its price.
* I show you a free newsreader.
* Bundled newsreaders do not qualify for either category;
only a newsreader obtainable on its own.
* If you pass on a turn, I must show one more free newsreader.
* Last man standing wins.
--
Michael Press
Dave L. Renfro
> Yet, as I've pointed out before, Renfro once made a post in
> which he makes errors confusing cardinality and ordinality
> and presents as true certain statements whose negations are
> true in every model of ZFC (including some models in which
> CH is false). I've shown this to tommy1729 before, but
> I repeat that post here. The post is nearly a decade old,
> so I doubt that Renfro has repeated the error since.
This got me curious, because I don't recall using the notation
in the parts you quoted, so I looked up the original post:
sci.math -- combinatorial set theory question (4 August 1999)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/daf3e182424897c7
I suspect the reason I was using "nonstandard terminology"
is because at the time I didn't know the convention for
using underlines for subscripts. This was one of my earliest
usenet posts, as I think I only began posting a week or two
before this. At the time I didn't have internet access at
home, so my posts during that period (July-August 1999) were
sometimes written at home using Notepad or MicroSoft Word,
saved on floppy's, and then posted at a library computer that
I later drove to. Short posts were written on the spot, in
the library, but for replies that were longer, I took a copy
of the post home with me and composed a reply on my computer
at home.
I note that in this thread (from 1999) there are several posts
that use w_1 and/or omega_1, but it's possible that I didn't
see those. (I didn't drive the 15 miles to the library every
day.) I also note that I didn't copy the relevant part of the
post I was replying to, but that was because at the time I
thought these posts were all through Math Forum, and so anyone
reading a post could clearly see the posting-history tree
(which I think Math Forum used to do a better job with back
then than now). Shortly after this post (2 weeks? 3 weeks?)
I began not only citing the relvant parts of the post I was
replying to, but I developed a standard that I used for the
next 6 or 7 years, where I included the date of the post
and its Math Forum URL, so that anyone coming across the
post from a search could easily see the previous post by
clicking on the URL. But then a funny thing began happening.
Every 2 or 3 years all the Math Forum URLs would be changed,
with no redirecting to the changed URLs. I believe this has
happend 3 times since I began posting. I've now pretty much
discontinued this practice of including the replied-to post's
URL, but when I do include it, I use a google groups URL,
because while google groups has also gone through at least
a couple of URL changes, at least links using their old URLs
get redirected to the correct place.
The errors mentioned all seem to be correctly identified
as errors, for what it's worth. They occur in one paragraph
of a somewhat tangential remark, but the remark is sufficiently
long that this wasn't a case of my quickly adding a few poorly
edited sentences and overlooking some things. On the other
hand, it seems to me that much of what I did write in that
post is correct and correctly written, unlike the case with
most crank posts.
Dave L. Renfro
lwa...@lausd.net
> lwal...@lausd.net wrote (in part):
> > Yet, as I've pointed out before, Renfro once made a post in
> > which he makes errors confusing cardinality and ordinality
> > and presents as true certain statements whose negations are
> > true in every model of ZFC (including some models in which
> > CH is false). I've shown this to tommy1729 before, but
> > I repeat that post here. The post is nearly a decade old,
> > so I doubt that Renfro has repeated the error since.
> This got me curious, because I don't recall using the notation
> in the parts you quoted, so I looked up the original post:
> sci.math -- combinatorial set theory question (4 August 1999)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/daf3e182424897c7
BTW, I discovered that old post only because I had been
looking for information on the Continuum Hypothesis a
while back, and a Google search revealed your (Renfro's)
old post.
> I suspect the reason I was using "nonstandard terminology"
> is because at the time I didn't know the convention for
> using underlines for subscripts. This was one of my earliest
> usenet posts, as I think I only began posting a week or two
> before this. At the time I didn't have internet access at
> home, so my posts during that period (July-August 1999) were
> sometimes written at home using Notepad or MicroSoft Word,
> saved on floppy's, and then posted at a library computer that
> I later drove to. Short posts were written on the spot, in
> the library, but for replies that were longer, I took a copy
> of the post home with me and composed a reply on my computer
> at home.
That's OK. Originally, I thought it was because you (Renfro)
were trying to explain CH to some unfamiliar with ZFC. But
this explanation makes sense as well.
> The errors mentioned all seem to be correctly identified
> as errors, for what it's worth. They occur in one paragraph
> of a somewhat tangential remark, but the remark is sufficiently
> long that this wasn't a case of my quickly adding a few poorly
> edited sentences and overlooking some things. On the other
> hand, it seems to me that much of what I did write in that
> post is correct and correctly written, unlike the case with
> most crank posts.
Don't worry. I give you (Renfro) the benefit of the doubt
that the errors from this post were not repeated in the
near-decade since this was posted. The only reason I even
brought it up now was because Renfro's name was connected
to the so-called "cranks" in this thread, only because
both post via mathforum.
Therefore, I'll never dig up this old post again in the
"crank" threads.
lwa...@lausd.net
> In article
> <4cbf0434-ff6f-489a-b0e5-9beb9e879...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
A game? OK.
> * You show us a newsreader and its price.
OK. I decided to type in "newsreader" into the Google search
engine and see what would come up. The right side of the
page gives "sponsored links," which is convenient because
the price is listed right on the link.
The first result given is NewsRazor:
http://www.newsrazor.net/?gclid=CJXnycfQ3ZkCFRwwawodjSVyWA
with a monthly fee of $10.95. Your turn.
> * I show you a free newsreader.
> * Bundled newsreaders do not qualify for either category;
> only a newsreader obtainable on its own.
I assume that the newsreader I gave isn't "bundled," or
otherwise I'll take my turn again with a different one.
When Press takes his turn, hopefully he'll give a free
newsreader that's not known to be killfiled by Carmody,
and hopefully with killfiling powers as well. If Press
can provide such a newsreader, I'll probably just quit
the game and let Press give the second free newsreader
and win the game.
> * If you pass on a turn, I must show one more free newsreader.
> * Last man standing wins.
Notice that even if Press wins the game and provides
the free newsreaders, I most likely won't actually
switch to the free newsreader, at least not at first. As
many others have pointed out, Carmody is just one poster
and so there's no need for me to yield to the desires of
just one guy. But if many other posters start killfiling
Google, then I'd have no choice but to switch to one of
Press's free newsreaders.
Michael Press
<1c12e666-09ef-4d59...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
lwa...@lausd.net wrote:
> On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4cbf0434-ff6f-489a-b0e5-9beb9e879...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> > lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
> > > Newsreaders cost money.
> > Challenge:
> > * Players take turns.
>
> A game? OK.
>
> > * You show us a newsreader and its price.
>
> OK. I decided to type in "newsreader" into the Google search
> engine and see what would come up. The right side of the
> page gives "sponsored links," which is convenient because
> the price is listed right on the link.
>
> The first result given is NewsRazor:
>
> http://www.newsrazor.net/?gclid=CJXnycfQ3ZkCFRwwawodjSVyWA
That is not a news reader. That is a news server.
> with a monthly fee of $10.95. Your turn.
It remains your turn.
>
> > * I show you a free newsreader.
> > * Bundled newsreaders do not qualify for either category;
> > only a newsreader obtainable on its own.
>
> I assume that the newsreader I gave isn't "bundled," or
> otherwise I'll take my turn again with a different one.
>
> When Press takes his turn, hopefully he'll give a free
> newsreader that's not known to be killfiled by Carmody,
> and hopefully with killfiling powers as well. If Press
> can provide such a newsreader, I'll probably just quit
> the game and let Press give the second free newsreader
> and win the game.
>
> > * If you pass on a turn, I must show one more free newsreader.
Here is MT-NewsWatcher, a free news reader.
<http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/>
> > * Last man standing wins.
>
> Notice that even if Press wins the game and provides
> the free newsreaders, I most likely won't actually
> switch to the free newsreader, at least not at first. As
> many others have pointed out, Carmody is just one poster
> and so there's no need for me to yield to the desires of
> just one guy. But if many other posters start killfiling
> Google, then I'd have no choice but to switch to one of
> Press's free newsreaders.
It appears that you confuse a news reader and a news server.
--
Michael Press
lwa...@lausd.net
> lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
> > The first result given is NewsRazor:
> >http://www.newsrazor.net/?gclid=CJXnycfQ3ZkCFRwwawodjSVyWA
> That is not a news reader. That is a news server.
But yet, typing in "newsreader" into a search engine gives
NewsRazor as a result.
Is it possible that all of my confusion in the free Usenet
access debate goes back to newsreader vs. newsserver? This
is similar to the common trick where retailers offer a
free cellphone. They make their profits not from the phone
itself, but from the monthly service fee one incurs by
using the phone each month.
And so the newsreader is free, but not the newsserver. And
so I've already lost the game with Press.
But this thread is originally about Carmody and his
killfiling habits. What I was trying to figure out is what
is the key distinguishing feature between those posts that
Carmody killfiles and those he doesn't. It can't be the
price of the newsreader, since news_readers_ are free.
So perhaps it's more accurate to state that Carmody
killfiles those who pay no monthly service fee, and keeps
those who pay a monthly service fee for the news_server_.
The important part is that those who pay to post aren't
being killfiled, while those who don't pay are.
Tim Little
> So perhaps it's more accurate to state that Carmody killfiles those
> who pay no monthly service fee, and keeps those who pay a monthly
> service fee for the news_server_.
It's still not accurate. He killfiles those who post using MathForum
or Google Groups, as far as I can tell. The distinguishing
characteristic there is that both are web gateways that mangle Usenet
posting conventions, and also happen to have large numbers of spammers
and idiots.
> The important part is that those who pay to post aren't being
> killfiled, while those who don't pay are.
It can't be the important part, because it's not true. I don't pay to
post, and never have. I have (so far) used seven different servers,
unless I've forgotten one or more.
It is not at all difficult to find free servers that allow reading and
posting to text-only groups. E.g. try browsing
http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Usenet/Public_News_Servers/
At least four of those are active, free, allow posting, and carry
sci.math and similar newsgroups. Some of the others may also; I
didn't check any further. There are even websites devoted to nothing
but searchable databases of free news servers.
Did you even *try* looking before you claimed that there aren't any?
Given what I was able to find in the first 5 minutes, I'm guessing you
didn't even start.
- Tim
Jesse F. Hughes
> So perhaps it's more accurate to state that Carmody
> killfiles those who pay no monthly service fee, and keeps
> those who pay a monthly service fee for the news_server_.
No.
He killfiles two servers (that we know of).
As it happens, those two servers are free.
There are many other free servers that Phil has never mentioned (and
many people get access to a newsserver free with their ISP, but this
practice is dwindling).
--
"When you go to class today, if your professor talks about algebraic
number theory, or misuses Galois Theory[,] I want you to carefully
notice how you feel. Hold on to that feeling so that you never forget
it." --James S. Harris, on channeling rage via Galois theory.
Jesse F. Hughes
> When Press takes his turn, hopefully he'll give a free
> newsreader that's not known to be killfiled by Carmody,
> and hopefully with killfiling powers as well.
Phil doesn't killfile based on newsreader used.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I may have invented it, but Bill [Gates] made it famous."
-- David Bradley, inventor of the Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot sequence
Richard Tobin
<lwa...@lausd.net> wrote:
>It can't be the
>price of the newsreader, since news_readers_ are free.
Some news readers are free, some aren't. Some news servers are
free, some aren't.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Dave L. Renfro
> BTW, I discovered that old post only because I had been
> looking for information on the Continuum Hypothesis a
> while back, and a Google search revealed your (Renfro's)
> old post.
I dug up some other posts that should be more useful,
especially [3] below, which gives a fairly detailed
history of which aleph's the cardinal 2^(aleph_0) can be.
(In a sense, [3] "answers" the questions I raised in the
first post in the thread [1].) You'll also want to look at
the thread [1], which started my interest in this topic.
I'd known that 2^(aleph_0) "can be anything it ought to be"
for quite some time, early 1980s I think and certainly by 1985,
but I had never carefully looked into the matter until around
April or May of 2001. I intended to write an expository paper
on the subject, including the little known results I posted
in [2] ([2] gives, among other things, a topological proof
that 2^(aleph_0) doesn't have countable cofinality), and I
now have a fairly large folder of relevant literature on the
topic, but it's something I haven't gotten around to doing
yet (although parts of the paper have already been written,
and other parts are in outline form). Finally, [4] is a more
recent post that gives an idea of my perspective on these
matters, which is a bit removed from the usual sci.math
discussions that tend to focus on definability and logical
issues.
[1] sci.math -- "How bad can 2^(Aleph_0) be?" history question
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/deb3966b411d05c0
[2] sci.math -- uncountability of the reals (2 July 2001)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/86ef3b7928eff8e9
[3] sci.math -- a < b implies 2^a < 2^b (9 January 2008)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/33f6e6c88d50123f
[4] sci.math -- perfect powers !! (13 February 2009)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/826a3bc466b1cf60
Dave L. Renfro
Aatu Koskensilta
> The important part is that those who pay to post aren't being
> killfiled, while those who don't pay are.
You're hallucinating. But why do you care about who Phil killfiles or
does not killfile, and for what reason, at all?
Michael Stemper
>On Apr 6, 7:57=A0pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article <1c12e666-09ef-4d59-a8a1-5cc324044...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
>> > The first result given is NewsRazor:
>> >http://www.newsrazor.net/?gclid=3DCJXnycfQ3ZkCFRwwawodjSVyWA
>> That is not a news reader. That is a news server.
>> It appears that you confuse a news reader and a news server.
>
>But yet, typing in "newsreader" into a search engine gives
>NewsRazor as a result.
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q="Free Newsreader"
>Is it possible that all of my confusion in the free Usenet
>access debate goes back to newsreader vs. newsserver? This
You've certainly ignored the attempts of multiple posters to point out
to you that those are two different things, yes.
For instance, my news reader is xrn:
walkabout:mstemper$ ll `which xrn`
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 920299 May 11 2000 /usr/local/bin/xrn*
walkabout:mstemper$
It's a piece of software. It's also free.
I have used five different new servers over the last seventeen years.
I've never had to pay for access to any of them.
A news server is a host or group of hosts which is configured to respond
to NNTP requests, which can come from any news reader. That's why, except
for versions, I've used the same news reader that entire time.
>is similar to the common trick where retailers offer a
>free cellphone. They make their profits not from the phone
>itself, but from the monthly service fee one incurs by
>using the phone each month.
Since you can get free newsreaders and then connect them to free
news servers, it's kind of hard to figure out where the profit is.
>And so the newsreader is free, but not the newsserver. And
False.
<http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q="Free News Server">
>But this thread is originally about Carmody and his
>killfiling habits. What I was trying to figure out is what
>is the key distinguishing feature between those posts that
>Carmody killfiles and those he doesn't. It can't be the
>price of the newsreader, since news_readers_ are free.
>
>So perhaps it's more accurate to state that Carmody
>killfiles those who pay no monthly service fee, and keeps
>those who pay a monthly service fee for the news_server_.
My understanding was that he was kill-filing posts originating from
Giggle Groups and Math Forum.
>The important part is that those who pay to post aren't
>being killfiled, while those who don't pay are.
No, since there are lots of free news readers and lots of free news
servers.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
There is three erors in this sentence.
lwa...@lausd.net
> lwal...@lausd.net wrote (in part):
> > BTW, I discovered that old post only because I had been
> > looking for information on the Continuum Hypothesis a
> > while back, and a Google search revealed your (Renfro's)
> > old post.
> [2] sci.math -- uncountability of the reals (2 July 2001)
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/86ef3b7928eff8e9
> [3] sci.math -- a < b implies 2^a < 2^b (9 January 2008)
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/33f6e6c88d50123f
> [4] sci.math -- perfect powers !! (13 February 2009)
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/826a3bc466b1cf60
Thanks for the links. I do see some interesting information
in those links, including [3], which shows how the function
kappa -> 2^kappa is monotonic, but not necessarily strictly
monotonic, and so on.
But actually, the threads I found especially interesting
were [1] and [2]. It's not because of Renfro's discussions
of CH per se -- but the fact that both discussions arose as
a result of what we'd now call so-called "crank" threads.
After Renfro started the thread entitled "How bad can
2^aleph_0 be," the very first response was from someone
named Nico Benschop. He gave a link (now long-since dead)
to a paper entitled, "Fatal Mistake of Cantor." As the
title implies, Benschop is opposed to standard set theory
and especially Cantor's theorem.
Suprisingly, no one called Benschop a "crank," but I bet
it's because the word was far less likely to be thrown
around in 2001 as it is now in 2009. If Benschop were to
post today, the standard set theorists wouldn't hesitate
to call him a "crank."
Also, in that thread, another poster named John Sullivan
started making the common "crank" assumption that aleph_1
is _defined_ as 2^aleph_0, and even claimed that this was
how his textbook defined it. I often point out how many
_read_ that aleph_1 =def 2^aleph_0, and in the thread,
Keith Ramsay mentioned how a book written by George Gamow
contributes to the confusion. David Ullrich was the one
who had to explain the Sullivan's mistake. After the
error was corrected, Ullrich wrote:
"Yes you conceded that, and everyone was impressed. Seriously - when
someone comes along and starts saying a lot of stuff that's just not
so people wonder whether he's (i) simple mistaken but susceptible to
rational argument or (ii) convinced that he's right and everyone's
wrong no matter _what_ anyone says.
"So when you say what you said people wonder - then when you show
that you satisfy (i) that's a pleasant surprise."
And in the long debate about who's called a "crank," it's
safe to assume that those who satisfy (ii) are far more
likely to be called "cranks" than those who satisfy (i),
and therefore Sullivan escapes being called a "crank."
Link [2], meanwhile, is in the thread whose title is,
"uncountability of the reals." This thread is also
dominated by a "crank," in this case Ross Finlayson, who
still occasionally posts on sci.math in 2009, but far
less often than he did in 2001, judging by the number of
posts I see in thread [2]. Apparently RF was the "crank"
du jour back then, but he isn't anymore.
What's interesting about RF back then is how he claimed
that the standard real numbers were the ratios of two of
what he called "hyperintegers." Yes -- he actually used
the words "hyperintegers" and "hyperreals." But even so,
no one, neither RF nor the standard analysts, even
bothered to mention Robinson, the original inventor of
the hyperreals. Later on in the thread, RF also used the
word "surreal," but no one mentioned Conway.
Like in 2009, the standard analysts belittled RF's ideas
even though there's definitely a rigorous theory in
which RF's claims can be true. Notice that Robert Glass
wrote the following:
"The square root of two is not the ratio of two hyper-integers. The
proof has been
known since the time of Pythagoras (Pythagoras just wasn't aware that
the proof
worked for hyper-integers as well as integers.)"
This hints at a proof in Robinson's hyperreals, applying
the Transfer Principle to Pythagoras's proof. But Glass
mentions neither Robinson nor the Transfer Principle.
Notice that, even with RF's claim failing in Robinson's
hyperreals, it works in Conway's surreals. Indeed, in
the surreals, _every_ number is rational, even sqrt(2).
Had I been posting to sci.math back in 2001, I would've
mentioned Robinson and Conway the moment RF used the
words "hyperinteger" and "surreal," respectively.
Later on in the thread, RF cites a paper from someone
named Katz. The link is dead (and probably wouldn't
have been free even if still active), but Katz was
describing a theory in which proper subsets have
strictly smaller set size than the sets themselves. I
have also been discussing this concept in yet another
current thread.
All in all, thanks for the links, Renfro! I'll be
sure to refer to this links in other current threads
discussing nonstandard analysis and cardinality.
lwa...@lausd.net
> lwal...@lausd.net writes:
> > The important part is that those who pay to post aren't being
> > killfiled, while those who don't pay are.
> You're hallucinating. But why do you care about who Phil killfiles or
> does not killfile, and for what reason, at all?
The reason I care so much is my fear that Carmody's acts of
killfiling may lead to a trend, and several posters might
start killfiling free web-based Usenet access. If that
happens, I'll have no choice but to switch to a full
newsreader plus newsserver, but until then, I'll stick to
posting via Google.
Gerry Myerson
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> For instance, my news reader is xrn:
>
> walkabout:mstemper$ ll `which xrn`
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 920299 May 11 2000 /usr/local/bin/xrn*
> walkabout:mstemper$
>
> It's a piece of software. It's also free.
If it's free, what are all those dollar signs doing there?
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
David Bernier
To have meaningful mathematical discussions, there has to
be an adequate description of the things discussed.
Robinson's hyperreals can be constructed using
ultraproducts :
"The hyperreal numbers, an ultrapower of the real numbers,
are a special case of this." [ Wikipedia]
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraproduct >
It matters little if RF mentioned "hyperreals", if
he didn't refer to Robinson's work.
The question before us is whether RF gave
an "adequate description" of his system of numbers.
Say I invent the True Numbers. Later, I say the
True Numbers are like this and like that.
If others say they don't understand, how are
they to know what I mean?
Would it change anything if the True Numbers were
described by Grigori Perelman?
Probably, but his ideas would also get
scrutinized.
So questions over someone's ideas, arguments or
proposed proofs get tested over time.
Another question about RF's hyperreals is what
problems did he solve using them?
David Bernier
David Bernier
> On Apr 7, 7:32 am, "Dave L. Renfro" <renfr...@cmich.edu> wrote:
>> lwal...@lausd.net wrote (in part):
>>> BTW, I discovered that old post only because I had been
>>> looking for information on the Continuum Hypothesis a
>>> while back, and a Google search revealed your (Renfro's)
>>> old post.
>> [1] sci.math -- "How bad can 2^(Aleph_0) be?" history question
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/deb3966b...
>> [2] sci.math -- uncountability of the reals (2 July 2001)
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/86ef3b7928eff8e9
>> [3] sci.math -- a < b implies 2^a < 2^b (9 January 2008)
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/33f6e6c88d50123f
>> [4] sci.math -- perfect powers !! (13 February 2009)
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/826a3bc466b1cf60
>
> What's interesting about RF back then is how he claimed
> that the standard real numbers were the ratios of two of
> what he called "hyperintegers." Yes -- he actually used
> the words "hyperintegers" and "hyperreals." But even so,
> no one, neither RF nor the standard analysts, even
> bothered to mention Robinson, the original inventor of
> the hyperreals. Later on in the thread, RF also used the
> word "surreal," but no one mentioned Conway.
>
> Like in 2009, the standard analysts belittled RF's ideas
> even though there's definitely a rigorous theory in
> which RF's claims can be true. Notice that Robert Glass
> wrote the following:
>
> "The square root of two is not the ratio of two hyper-integers. The
> proof has been
> known since the time of Pythagoras (Pythagoras just wasn't aware that
> the proof
> worked for hyper-integers as well as integers.)"
>
> This hints at a proof in Robinson's hyperreals, applying
> the Transfer Principle to Pythagoras's proof. But Glass
> mentions neither Robinson nor the Transfer Principle.
>
> Notice that, even with RF's claim failing in Robinson's
> hyperreals, it works in Conway's surreals. Indeed, in
> the surreals, _every_ number is rational, even sqrt(2).
If you can explain this post of Ross Finlayson, please do.
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/964c3f5fcd5335da >
David Bernier
Tim Little
> killfiling may lead to a trend, and several posters might
> start killfiling free web-based Usenet access.
For a while I did killfile Google as a general rule, but whitelisted
everyone (including you) who actually posted on-topic messages. It
did reduce the incidence of outright spam by a huge factor and was
well worthwhile. Occasionally new valid posters would post from
Google, and when I saw them quoted in replies by other posters I would
whitelist them too.
- Tim
Tim Little
> assume that those who satisfy (ii) are far more likely to be called
> "cranks" than those who satisfy (i)
I do not call anyone a crank who does not satisfy (ii), and I am not
aware of anyone else(*) who does so either. Yes, that is indeed "far
more likely". Infinitely more likely, even.
(*) Anyone who is not a crank themselves, that is. It is no great
surprise that some cranks fail just as badly at using that term as any
of the others they abuse.
- Tim
Phil Carmody
> I post from MathForum, but that doesn't tell
> you if you'd lose anyone you'd care about.
I remember your fun contributions to a thread containing
gibberings from a few senile old loons from a.f.c, if you
do more of that, you're well worth un-filtering!
Nimo
> >So perhaps it's more accurate to state that Carmody
> >killfiles those who pay no monthly service fee, and keeps
> >those who pay a monthly service fee for the news_server_.
>
> My understanding was that he was kill-filing posts originating from
> Giggle Groups and Math Forum.
then, its not a fair game;
what's reason to do that ?
________
"Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là",
=> " I had no need of that hypothesis "
as a reply to Napoleon, who had asked why
he hadn't mentioned God in his book on astronomy
Pierre-Simon Laplace
riderofgiraffes
> I remember your fun contributions to a thread
> containing gibberings from a few senile old
> loons from a.f.c,
<fx: looks thoughtful> Which one is a.f.c?
> if you do more of that, you're well worth
> un-filtering!
That's cool - thanks.
MoeBlee
> There are
> many fine free newsreaders, such as Gnus.
But doesn't one still need to have an Internet account that includes
access to a news server? If one's Internet access doesn't include a
username and password for a news server then is there any option other
than the web interfaces?
MoeBlee
Jesse F. Hughes
A free news server, perhaps?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Right now I'm above the margin of error. I do exist."
-- Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, Sept. 2007
A N Niel
<e37cadc6-6a5d-418a...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
MoeBlee <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There are free news servers (at least for non-binary posts).
amy666
>
> Another question about RF's hyperreals is what
> problems did he solve using them?
>
> David Bernier
>
>
lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
regards
tommy1729
amy666
hahahaha
good one.
amy666
mathforum is a forum project by a respected university.
a university !
and google is a well-respected world leading company.
but still not good enough !?!
right , it doesnt mean you have a phd.
but neither does having a newsreader / server ( free or not )
David C. Ullrich
>MoeBlee
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.)
MoeBlee
> David Bernier wrote :
> > Another question about RF's hyperreals is what
> > problems did he solve using them?
> lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
I guess you don't see the failure of your analogy.
MoeBlee
amy666
no i dont.
maybe you dont see the analogy ?
( btw moeblee / jack markan has posted from mathforum a few times too ! )
regards
tommy1729
MoeBlee
> Moeblee wrote :
>
> > On Apr 9, 2:54 pm, amy666 <tommy1...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > David Bernier wrote :
>
> > > > Another question about RF's hyperreals is what
> > > > problems did he solve using them?
>
> > > lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
>
> > I guess you don't see the failure of your analogy.
> no i dont.
> maybe you dont see the analogy ?
I see it and see why it fails. Or, you're welcome to more directly
state whatever mathematical/philosophical point you think you make
with the analogy.
MoeBlee
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
This has already been explained to you at least once.
Regardless of whether aleph_aleph_71 itself solves
any specific problem, standard set theory does do a
lot of useful things, and aleph_aleph_71 is an
unavoidable part of standard set theory.
It's like asking what problem some incredibly huge
natural number solves. Even _if_ were true that a
number that huge could never actually come up
in an actual problem it wouldn't follow that we
should for some reason restrict our natural numbers
to those that are small enough to actually come
up in actual problems. Because if we did that the
theory would become much more complicated
(for example we couldn't use basic facts like
"every natural number has a successor".)
>
>regards
>
>tommy1729
Tim Little
> lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
What problems does 639440311978126899241330827730328802113400919649814
solve? Nothing, as far as I know, but its existence is a consequence
of basic arithmetic which *does* solve a large number of problems.
Likewise aleph_aleph_71 doesn't solve any problems that I know of, but
its existence is a consequence of ZF which *does* solve a large number
of problems.
- Tim
Mensanator
> On 2009-04-09, amy666 <tommy1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
>
> What problems does 639440311978126899241330827730328802113400919649814
> solve? Nothing, as far as I know,
## I got one!
##
## Because it's even, it can't be a proper seed in
## the Collatz Conjecture. So first, we find what
## the stem is of the branch it's located on.
##
## We do this by removing factors of 2.
##
## c:\python26\user>factor!
639440311978126899241330827730328802113400919649814
## PRIME_FACTOR 2
## PRIME_FACTOR 3
## PRIME_FACTOR 7
## PRIME_FACTOR 7
## PRIME_FACTOR 13
## PRIME_FACTOR 31
## PRIME_FACTOR 37
## PRIME_FACTOR 211
## PRIME_FACTOR 11131
## PRIME_FACTOR 44664779
## PRIME_FACTOR 1390477877811012995655722246789
##
## Only one, that'll be easy.
##
## >>> import collatz_functions as cf
## >>> m = 639440311978126899241330827730328802113400919649814
## >>> n = m/2
##
## Now, we find the Sequence Vector from n to 1.
##
## >>> sv = cf.build_sv(n,1,1000000,1)
##
## Next, we need to know the X,Y,Z constants of the
## Hailstone Function g = (Xa-Z)/Y.
##
## >>> xyz = cf.calc_xyz(sv)
##
## >>> print xyz[0] # X
## 1930258305619341071629479853810475416656080720559521850
## 1749168207877191502379927338787115450042450379866321360
## 0460826789274033295999330021731389427128542432710187362
## 9346526731152218892498905337726972271713950586972827982
## 7444524068700609527172962146410065656329379918055756894
## 5517759802372156455525060659659679134121984
##
## >>> print xyz[1] # Y
## 5137849614839225689556152378107005461398532765195032301
## 1769205668827764241395550444640454764308543384781763851
## 4698572238371306871673203549972137711201134828919467391
## 2798292418952585447274095247070270773015584691696196911
## 08907177934111402518055902976176086076774681067
##
## >>> print xyz[2] # Z
## 2875842253145942703995132357055101477414714522561356863
## 3686400702711546862056772208142821086751231636254424975
## 7571600853578980803733166066103944042037641560889767699
## 0197711712467355628033272792961933079297881612334531223
## 5776413248302263256440758441123098580646929207891050392
## 051771602471522925482844499248197546186215
##
## With a Hailsone of 1, which is a tad smaller that Y,
## it must be index 0 (a0) of the infinite set of solutions
## to the Hailstone Function associated with that Sequence
## Vector.
##
## So n must be index 0 of the Seeds (g0).
##
## That makes index 1 (a1) of the Hailstones:
##
## >>> a1=cf.geni(1,2,xyz)
##
## >>> print a1
## 5137849614839225689556152378107005461398532765195032301
## 1769205668827764241395550444640454764308543384781763851
## 4698572238371306871673203549972137711201134828919467391
## 2798292418952585447274095247070270773015584691696196911
## 08907177934111402518055902976176086076774681068
##
## From which we determine that index 1 (g1) of the Seeds is:
##
## >>> g1 = cf.seed(a1,xyz)
## >>> print g1
## 1930258305619341071629479853810475416656080720559521850
## 1749168207877191502379927338787115450042450379866321360
## 0460826789274033295999330021731389427128542432710187362
## 9346526731152218892498905337726972271713950586972827982
## 7444524068700609527172962146410065656329379918087728910
## 1506823251992821869390225060716379593946891
##
## which, being a tad larger than our original number m,
## implies that m is, in fact, the SECOND number whose Collatz
## Sequence Vector is:
##
## >>> sv
## [1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
## 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1,
## 2, 6, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1,
## 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 4, 3, 1, 2, 5, 1, 2,
## 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 4, 1,
## 3, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1,
## 1, 3, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 3, 1, 4, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2,
## 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1,
## 1, 5, 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1,
## 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1,
## 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 5, 1, 3,
## 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 1,
## 3, 6, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1,
## 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1,
## 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 4, 2,
## 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1,
## 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2,
## 4, 4, 5, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1,
## 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1,
## 1, 5, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2,
## 1, 2, 2, 1, 7, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1,
## 1, 1, 3, 5, 3, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 1, 2, 4, 3, 2, 3, 1,
## 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2,
## 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2,
## 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1,
## 2, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2,
## 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4,
## 1, 2, 1, 7, 3, 1, 3, 9, 4, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2,
## 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3, 6, 6, 5, 1, 8, 1, 1,
## 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1,
## 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 1, 1, 5, 4]
amy666
now your speaking in riddles.
MoeBlee
> now your speaking in riddles.
Not at all.
MoeBlee
amy666
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:54:26 EDT, amy666
> <tomm...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >David Bernier wrote :
> >
> >>
> >> Another question about RF's hyperreals is what
> >> problems did he solve using them?
> >>
> >> David Bernier
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
>
> This has already been explained to you at least once.
> Regardless of whether aleph_aleph_71 itself solves
> any specific problem, standard set theory does do a
> lot of useful things, and aleph_aleph_71 is an
> unavoidable part of standard set theory.
its funny :
david said :
" it has been explained at least once " and you continue with " regardless of whether it solves any specific problem "
you contradict yourself david.
>
> It's like asking what problem some incredibly huge
> natural number solves. Even _if_ were true that a
> number that huge could never actually come up
> in an actual problem it wouldn't follow that we
> should for some reason restrict our natural numbers
> to those that are small enough to actually come
> up in actual problems. Because if we did that the
> theory would become much more complicated
> (for example we couldn't use basic facts like
> "every natural number has a successor".)
and here we go again comparing other opinions about infinity to assumed analogues of doubting 2 + 2 = 4 and other irrelevant finite analogues of the infinite...
regards
tommy1729
>
> 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.)
" ahaahahahahahahahaha " hanson
lwa...@lausd.net
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:54:26 EDT, amy666 <tommy1...@hotmail.com>
> >lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
> This has already been explained to you at least once.
> Regardless of whether aleph_aleph_71 itself solves
> any specific problem, standard set theory does do a
> lot of useful things, and aleph_aleph_71 is an
> unavoidable part of standard set theory.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who
doesn't accept the existence of aleph_aleph_71 must
be considered a so-called "crank," nor does it
preclude the existence of a theory T that does prove
the existence of all the "useful" cardinals, but not
the existence of aleph_aleph_71 (and is still
relatively consistent to ZFC).
> It's like asking what problem some incredibly huge
> natural number solves. Even _if_ were true that a
> number that huge could never actually come up
> in an actual problem it wouldn't follow that we
> should for some reason restrict our natural numbers
> to those that are small enough to actually come
> up in actual problems.
But that doesn't preclude the existence of a theory T
which proves the existence of numbers that are small
enough to appear in actual problems, yet not the
existence of larger numbers (and still be relatively
consistent to PA).
> Because if we did that the
> theory would become much more complicated
> (for example we couldn't use basic facts like
> "every natural number has a successor".)
Yet ultrafinitists, even those who aren't considered
to be "cranks," do so all the time. Thus they don't
mind that their theory is much more complicated than
PA, nor that there exists a natural number without a
successor in their theory. That doesn't stop them
from being ultrafinitists.
MoeBlee
> On Apr 11, 3:53 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:54:26 EDT, amy666 <tommy1...@hotmail.com>
> > >lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
> > This has already been explained to you at least once.
> > Regardless of whether aleph_aleph_71 itself solves
> > any specific problem, standard set theory does do a
> > lot of useful things, and aleph_aleph_71 is an
> > unavoidable part of standard set theory.
>
> But that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who
> doesn't accept the existence of aleph_aleph_71 must
> be considered a so-called "crank,"
So, who said otherwise?
> nor does it
> preclude the existence of a theory T that does prove
> the existence of all the "useful" cardinals, but not
> the existence of aleph_aleph_71 (and is still
> relatively consistent to ZFC).
So, who said otherwise?
What David's comment DOES do though is undercut amy666's remark.
> > It's like asking what problem some incredibly huge
> > natural number solves. Even _if_ were true that a
> > number that huge could never actually come up
> > in an actual problem it wouldn't follow that we
> > should for some reason restrict our natural numbers
> > to those that are small enough to actually come
> > up in actual problems.
>
> But that doesn't preclude the existence of a theory T
> which proves the existence of numbers that are small
> enough to appear in actual problems, yet not the
> existence of larger numbers (and still be relatively
> consistent to PA).
So, who said otherwise?
> > Because if we did that the
> > theory would become much more complicated
> > (for example we couldn't use basic facts like
> > "every natural number has a successor".)
>
> Yet ultrafinitists, even those who aren't considered
> to be "cranks," do so all the time. Thus they don't
> mind that their theory is much more complicated than
> PA, nor that there exists a natural number without a
> successor in their theory. That doesn't stop them
> from being ultrafinitists.
So, who said otherwise?
Ullrich's remarks undercut amy666's remark; that was the point. But
none of of these other side points you mention in response undercut
Ullrich's point.
MoeBlee
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>David wrote :
>
>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:54:26 EDT, amy666
>> <tomm...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >David Bernier wrote :
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Another question about RF's hyperreals is what
>> >> problems did he solve using them?
>> >>
>> >> David Bernier
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >lol , what problems does aleph_aleph_71 solve ?
>>
>> This has already been explained to you at least once.
>> Regardless of whether aleph_aleph_71 itself solves
>> any specific problem, standard set theory does do a
>> lot of useful things, and aleph_aleph_71 is an
>> unavoidable part of standard set theory.
>
>its funny :
>
>david said :
>
>
>" it has been explained at least once " and you continue with " regardless of whether it solves any specific problem "
>
>
>
>you contradict yourself david.
Huh? You have a curious notion of what a contradiction is.
I guess that should be no surprise.
amy666
┗┫━━ ┃ ━━┣┛ ┣┫
┃ ━━━━━ ┃ ┏┳┫┣┳┓
┗━━┳━┳━━┛ ┃ ┃
━━━━┃ ┃ ┗━┳┳━
regards
tommy1729
" statisticly , i dont exist " tommy1729
riderofgiraffes
> containing gibberings from a few senile old
Hi Phil,
Assuming you've unkillfiled me, I'm still interested
in finding out/remembering which group is a.f.c.
I honestly can't remember, and occasionally find it
fun to re-read old contributions that I can't remember
writing.
Let me know ...
Phil Carmody
>> I remember your fun contributions to a thread
>> containing gibberings from a few senile old
>> loons from a.f.c ...
>
> in finding out/remembering which group is a.f.c.
> I honestly can't remember, and occasionally find it
> fun to re-read old contributions that I can't remember
> writing.
>
> Let me know ...
I presumed some weirdos headed over from alt.folklore.computing,
and you gave them a ribbing (maybe not noticing the x-post).
I'm not 100% sure it was you, but there was definitely a 'uk'
connection in the posting address, and an animal reference.
riderofgiraffes
>>> I remember your fun contributions to a thread
>>> containing gibberings from a few senile old
>>> loons from a.f.c ...
>> I'm still interested in finding out/remembering
>> which group is a.f.c.
> I presumed some weirdos headed over from
> alt.folklore.computing, and you gave them a
> ribbing (maybe not noticing the x-post).
> I'm not 100% sure it was you, but there was
> definitely a 'uk' connection in the posting
> address, and an animal reference.
Hmm. I don't think that was me. Maybe you could do
a quick search for things I've said and see if I'm
worth "anti-killfiling". Or just anti-killfile me
anyway.
Or not bother. Your call.
bst rgds