Solving the crank problem

[Samuel Allan]

I am very new to this group (sci.math), but from observing the last
several threads, it appears that similarly to what used to be the issue
with sci.crypt, there is a problem with certain controversial figures
filling up the newsgroup completely.

I propose a solution which has worked very well on sci.crypt - simply
ignore totally & collectively any posts about idiotic concepts. This
coping mechanism seems to be extremely effective (as it is the attention
that these individuals desire), but *ONLY* if the posts are *completely*
ignored, and if *nobody* responds.

This is why I urge those present to:
(a) Not respond to threads that are clearly written by such an
individual, no matter how tempting
(b) Start posting actual interesting material

P.S.
I apologize if you are such an individual and are offended by being
labeled a 'crank' - I am convinced that with enough effort your creative
spirit can be redirected into actual useful mathematics, perhaps you
could even discover something great. To be taken seriously by others,
however, you need to learn and accept basic concepts that we use.

It is very difficult to take this to heart (as it would be for anyone),
but changing now (vs never) could result in something truly significant,
whereas continuing on (getting stuck in stupid assertions) will result
in being remembered for a few weeks after your death as "the biggest
crank on sci.math that ever was".

It is true that some discoveries go contrary to what was known before,
but these are most certainly not things like 'limits are stupid',
'infinity doesn't exist', e.t.c.

I again challenge you to try and accept the concepts of
academically-accepted math - maybe just for 2 months. Try (honestly and
with all ability) to accept and understand limits, e.t.c. for 2 months
(in an honest and true attempt). If you conclude, after this, that it is
bullocks, you are most welcome to return to your ranting.

I hope that this suggestion will be taken to heart and will result in
the eventual healing of this group.

TL;DR: The most important thing to do now is collectively *NOT* respond
to any cranky threads, no matter the temptation.

[Eram semper recta]

Begin by ignoring your drivel?

There are those on this site who are labeled cranks by the Church Of Academia (of which you are no doubt a member), but that does not mean they are cranks. Those doing the labeling are more cranky in most cases.

[Jens Stuckelberger]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:46:03 +0000, Samuel Allan wrote:

> I am very new to this group (sci.math), but from observing the last
> several threads, it appears that similarly to what used to be the issue
> with sci.crypt, there is a problem with certain controversial figures
> filling up the newsgroup completely.

Your initiative is praiseworthy, but probably not very practical.
Two reasons:

One, new people come to forums all the time. They will not be
familiar with such rules, and honest attempts to educate the cranks will
be made.

Two, the cranks actually serve a social purpose. When you are
home after a long, possiby frustrating day at work, the cranks are useful
as virtual punching bags - you can make fun of them, insult them and
otherwise demean them while, at the same time, feeling quite good about
it.

[Samuel Allan]

Jens Stuckelberger wrote:
> One, new people come to forums all the time. They will not be
> familiar with such rules, and honest attempts to educate the cranks will
> be made.

True, but often there are two factors which make it easier in this case
(at least they worked on sci.crypt):

1. New people still come (relatively) rarely

2. I was such an example of a new person on sci.crypt and I was quickly
informed that it is wise to ignore the individual in question and this
was effective

> Two, the cranks actually serve a social purpose. When you are
> home after a long, possiby frustrating day at work, the cranks are useful
> as virtual punching bags - you can make fun of them, insult them and
> otherwise demean them while, at the same time, feeling quite good about
> it.

This is a very real reason, and this is almost exactly the same as what
I recall somebody on sci.crypt quoting, but I still urge you to give up
this (albeit tempting) punching bag.

At first the group becomes sort of quiet, but after a little while,
interesting entries begin to appear (at least this is what happened over
at sci.crypt, excuse me for the constant exemplification of the group,
this is not an ad campaign).

After the interesting things appear, activity within the group becomes
intense and very interesting, and ultimately, far more entertaining than
the crank-centric activity.

On the other hand, multiple cranky posts quickly discourage any advanced
and interesting individuals from joining the group, ultimately turning
it into 'sci.{insert crank name}' vs 'sci.math'.

[graham...@gmail.com]

so on the contrary, you then have to:

challenge yourself to hold all acadamia in contempt

> with all ability) to accept and understand limits, e.t.c. for 2 months
> (in an honest and true attempt). If you conclude, after this, that it is
> bullocks, you are most welcome to return to your ranting.
>
> I hope that this suggestion will be taken to heart and will result in
> the eventual healing of this group.
>
> TL;DR: The most important thing to do now is collectively *NOT* respond
> to any cranky threads, no matter the temptation.

none of you respond to cranks PROPERLY to begin with


non-computable functions
>oo
proof-of-non-provable
|monte-carlo|=|computer|



all ABSTRACT NONSENSE taking up 99% of logic literature

[graham...@gmail.com]

perhaps you work for the maths establishment
all abstract counter-factual 0-utility nonsense
re-naming computer science progress into abstract topics (COPYING)
stick to matlab


its not about correctness or utility, its about closed minded lies, stealing literature, labelling all computing topics with contempt, and the staff room & publishing MONNNNNEYYYYY!

[Samuel Allan]

> so on the contrary, you then have to:
>
> challenge yourself to hold all acadamia in contempt

Deal. I hold all academia in contempt for the next 2 months and you
don't. As soon as you post anything contrary to our agreement here you
are labeled a dishonest liar. You must also put real honest effort into
trying to understand the academic definitions and must leave every
possibility that you are completely wrong fully open.

Agreed?

[graham...@gmail.com]

OK, enjoy your John Gabriel youtube channel!


Really, mathematics (5-10 algorithms) is just a topic of computer science (100-200 algorithms). But the acadamia lives on!

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 10:54:11 UTC-5, Samuel Allan wrote:
> > so on the contrary, you then have to:
> >
> > challenge yourself to hold all acadamia in contempt
>
> Deal. I hold all academia in contempt for the next 2 months and you
> don't. As soon as you post anything contrary to our agreement here you

> are labeled a dishonest liar. You must also put real **honest** effort

Reworded:

You MUST study our views and concept definitions without asking any questions.

> into trying to understand the academic definitions

He is insulting you here. Tsk, tsk. Only mainstream academics "understand".

> and must leave every possibility that you are completely wrong fully open.

Read as: You are wrong in any event, but we will allow you to think otherwise until we correct you. Chuckle.

Oh the irony!


>
> Agreed?

Do as we say!!!

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 11:12:17 UTC-5, graham...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 1:54:11 AM UTC+10, Samuel Allan wrote:
> > > so on the contrary, you then have to:
> > >
> > > challenge yourself to hold all acadamia in contempt
> >
> > Deal. I hold all academia in contempt for the next 2 months and you
> > don't. As soon as you post anything contrary to our agreement here you
> > are labeled a dishonest liar. You must also put real honest effort into
> > trying to understand the academic definitions and must leave every
> > possibility that you are completely wrong fully open.
> >
> > Agreed?
>
>
>
> OK, enjoy your John Gabriel youtube channel!

My channel will be too advanced for these monkeys. LMAO

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 10:27:22 UTC-5, Stupid Jew Jens Stuckelberger driveled:


> Your initiative is pissworthy, but probably not very practical.

Yep.

[Samuel Allan]

I wasn't aware you had a Youtube channel.
In order to fulfill the deal you must abstain from posting anything
going 'against academia' anywhere (youtube, sci.math, any online forums,
e.t.c.) Which is only reasonable, because if you are truly contemplating
on whether it is actually correct, you will of course abstain from
rejecting it

[Samuel Allan]

I would like to reiterate the importance of not responding. Previous
discussion on the thread 'Solving the crank problem' has shown (an
expected) lack of desire for change from the side of the individual.

It has also shown a strategic move by the individual to try and get in
an argument in order to gain attention. I have (reluctantly) ceased to
respond and urge everybody else to do so as well.

[Python]

Well apart that there as most cranks as decent poster here, there
is one very peculiar specificity of sci.math and sci.logic: one of
the regular crank here and there, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, is actually
teaching a course based on his dementia in a German Academic
Institution. This is quite a good reason for not letting his
sophistries unanswered.

[Mike Hart]

I'll try for two months. Let's hope everybody follow these guidelines :)

[Samuel Allan]

Python wrote:
> Well apart that there as most cranks as decent poster here, there
> is one very peculiar specificity of sci.math and sci.logic: one of
> the regular crank here and there, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, is actually
> teaching a course based on his dementia in a German Academic
> Institution. This is quite a good reason for not letting his
> sophistries unanswered.
>

The problem with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that
responding is going to either (a) change Wolfgang Mueckenheim's position
(b) prevent naive people from following W.M.'s ideas

(a) is clearly not pursuing, but in reality is so is (b). It is very
unlikely that anybody with trivial mathematical background is going to
listen to anything W.M. writes and this takes care of 99% of visitors in
this group, for the remaining 1% who have no idea what a derivative is,
I think 'forsaking' them is beneficial for the greater good for the
following reasons:

1) If they themselves are not cranks, they will eventually learn the
truth when they actually start to study calculus

2) Someone unacquainted with calculus is quite hard to convince with
arguments based on an understanding of calculus

3) If this crank is of the same type as those on sci.crypt (and many
other groups), which I am sure of - he will eventually stop writing if
he is completely ignored

It is crucial to stress that 3) will only work if there is absolutely 0
attention towards his posting.

To understand why this will work (and has worked before) it is crucial
to understand why these cranks post these things - they are lonely
people who do not have any normal/standard source of attention. Because
they cannot (or haven't tried to) get attention by legitimate means
(such as posting something interesting), they instead resort to getting
attention by producing extremely triggering / controversial threads.

If they continue to get replies on these threads they are achieving
their original goal (receiving attention). Even negative attention is a
form of attention and psychology has consistently demonstrated examples
of this type of behavior.

And finally, it definitely doesn't hurt to try (for say a month) and see
whether this reduces the number of posts. Possibly we can all
collectively set a filter to automatically remove his postings.

[Samuel Allan]

Mike Hart wrote:
> I'll try for two months. Let's hope everybody follow these guidelines :)
>

Way to go! I will be joining you :)

[Python]

Samuel Allan wrote:
> Python wrote:
>> Well apart that there as most cranks as decent poster here, there
>> is one very peculiar specificity of sci.math and sci.logic: one of
>> the regular crank here and there, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, is actually
>> teaching a course based on his dementia in a German Academic
>> Institution. This is quite a good reason for not letting his
>> sophistries unanswered.
>>
>
> The problem with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that
> responding is going to either (a) change Wolfgang Mueckenheim's position
> (b) prevent naive people from following W.M.'s ideas

(c) the point is for his students to have a chance to confirm what
they already guessed from attending his silly course: he is a crank,
and they are not alone.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 11:42:22 UTC-5, Samuel Allan wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 11:12:17 UTC-5, graham...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 1:54:11 AM UTC+10, Samuel Allan wrote:
> >>>> so on the contrary, you then have to:
> >>>>
> >>>> challenge yourself to hold all acadamia in contempt
> >>>
> >>> Deal. I hold all academia in contempt for the next 2 months and you
> >>> don't. As soon as you post anything contrary to our agreement here you
> >>> are labeled a dishonest liar. You must also put real honest effort into
> >>> trying to understand the academic definitions and must leave every
> >>> possibility that you are completely wrong fully open.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> OK, enjoy your John Gabriel youtube channel!
> >
> > My channel will be too advanced for these monkeys. LMAO
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Really, mathematics (5-10 algorithms) is just a topic of computer science (100-200 algorithms). But the acadamia lives on!
> >
>
> I wasn't aware you had a Youtube channel.
> In order to fulfill the deal

I don't make deals with fools.

> you must abstain from posting anything going 'against academia' anywhere (youtube, sci.math, any online forums, > e.t.c.)

You mean allow you to run amok?

> Which is only reasonable, because if you are truly contemplating
> on whether it is actually correct,

Oh dear! I have long ago proved that your theory is incorrect. There is nothing more to comtemplate.

> you will of course abstain from rejecting it

All ill-formed concepts should be rejected without any further consideration.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 12:05:47 UTC-5, crank jean pierre messager aka Python wrote:
> Samuel Allan wrote:
> > Python wrote:
> >> Well apart that there as most cranks as decent poster here, there
> >> is one very peculiar specificity of sci.math and sci.logic: one of
> >> the regular crank here and there, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, is actually
> >> teaching a course based on his dementia in a German Academic
> >> Institution. This is quite a good reason for not letting his
> >> sophistries unanswered.

I congratulate Wolfgang Mueckenheim. What I don't understand is the patience he exhibits when dealing with psychopath fools like you!

[Roy Masters]

What courses does Wolfgang Mueckenheim teach, and at what education
level would his students be?

[John]

Realistically, how many Willy Muckybrain students read sci.math? How
many will even know of the existence of Usenet? And if any actually
do, how many are going to believe *you* when their *professor* is
telling them that you are an idiot?

The argument that correcting a crank is worthwhile because it
protects the innocent is specious.

It just does not hold up to critical thinking.

One may as well say that arguing about Evolution as a fact in a
church on Sunday is a worthwhile occupation.

Worse, responding to the cranks to protect the innocent is arguing in
an *empty* church.

Even worse, as is constantly seen by the spew from Archaic Poo, any
dissension is seen as Ultimate Betrayal and Treason and F.B.I. and
Police entrapment by the insane lunatic making the original posts. No
rational discussion is *possible* and the loon does not respond to
reasoned arguments, he just reposts the same shite at the top of a new
thread when "spies" and "liars" try to downplay his genius.

So all the innocent new reader or student will see is a post and a
refutation, no Science, no to-and-fro between reasonable people, just
nasty people being mean to a heroic genius standing up for innovation
and being beaten down by The Establishment.

Indeed, by attacking cloddies like Archie one can easily be seen as
being little, tiny intellects who are jealous of his genius and
original thinking, an accusation Archaic Poo himself levies at us.

Archie spews *hundreds* of new threads every day. Attacking them is
*futile*. Ignoring them is futile. The only response is to kill-file,
to filter him and to hope that the silence will drive him away.

It won't but responding hasn't so why not try it?


If silence works then we *have* protected the innocent.
J.
>

[Python]

John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 12:05:47 UTC-5, crank jean pierre messager aka Python wrote:
>> Samuel Allan wrote:
>>> Python wrote:
>>>> Well apart that there as most cranks as decent poster here, there
>>>> is one very peculiar specificity of sci.math and sci.logic: one of
>>>> the regular crank here and there, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, is actually
>>>> teaching a course based on his dementia in a German Academic
>>>> Institution. This is quite a good reason for not letting his
>>>> sophistries unanswered.
>
> I congratulate Wolfgang Mueckenheim.

Not a big surprise that a demented crank (you) is congratulating
a scam abusing students.

[Mostowski Collapse]

What do you want to feed these bird brains
otherwise, sunflower seeds?

Keep up the good work folks, and contra
all bird brains their fake math.

[Python]

Roy Masters wrote:
...

> What courses does Wolfgang Mueckenheim teach, and at what education
> level would his students be?

Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim teaches "Geschichte des

Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.

[Python]

John wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 18:05:36 +0100, Python <python@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Samuel Allan wrote:
>>> Python wrote:
>>>> Well apart that there as most cranks as decent poster here, there
>>>> is one very peculiar specificity of sci.math and sci.logic: one of
>>>> the regular crank here and there, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, is actually
>>>> teaching a course based on his dementia in a German Academic
>>>> Institution. This is quite a good reason for not letting his
>>>> sophistries unanswered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that
>>> responding is going to either (a) change Wolfgang Mueckenheim's position
>>> (b) prevent naive people from following W.M.'s ideas
>>
>> (c) the point is for his students to have a chance to confirm what
>> they already guessed from attending his silly course: he is a crank,
>> and they are not alone.
>
> Realistically, how many Willy Muckybrain students read sci.math? How
> many will even know of the existence of Usenet? And if any actually
> do, how many are going to believe *you* when their *professor* is
> telling them that you are an idiot?

Only one student, once would be something. As a matter of fact
it happened. Other professor at Hochschule Augsburg or Augsburg
University may happen to read it too (by NNTP or through Google
Groups).

It is 100% certain that a proportion of students of this infamous
course can guess how it is 100% crankery, the problem is that
they are trapped in a relation of authority with Wolgang Mueckenheim,
and he is abusing this position.

There is strong evidence that the board of director at Hochschule
Augsburg has at least some concerns about how it could damage the
reputation of the school. They'd better care FIRST about the fact
of not letting a charlatan teaching crankeries.

[Mostowski Collapse]

I guess his students are enjoying his
Gobbledygook and Argumentum ex culo.

Wouldn't it be fun to once have a teacher
that is a total nut head, and argues

S=Lim S, and therefore 0.999... =\= 1.

[j4n bur53]

For a fee, you can get published here:

Article Processing Charges (APC) $699

Sequences and Limits - Wolfgang Mueckenheim - 2015
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/APM_2015012614584080.pdf

You might even find another crank (or did somebody
from Department of Psychiatry make a joke),
refering to you:

A Refutation of the Diagonal Argument - Kazuhiko Kotani - 2016
https://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJPP_2016083016514850.pdf

Why doesn't John Gabbermonkey use this channels
for his inventions? Problems with page numbers
in his documents?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb:

[FredJeffries]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 9:48:22 AM UTC-8, John wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 18:05:36 +0100, Python <python@invalid> wrote:
>
> >Samuel Allan wrote:
> >> Python wrote:
> >>> Well apart that there as most cranks as decent poster here, there
> >>> is one very peculiar specificity of sci.math and sci.logic: one of
> >>> the regular crank here and there, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, is actually
> >>> teaching a course based on his dementia in a German Academic
> >>> Institution. This is quite a good reason for not letting his
> >>> sophistries unanswered.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The problem with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that
> >> responding is going to either (a) change Wolfgang Mueckenheim's position
> >> (b) prevent naive people from following W.M.'s ideas
> >
> >(c) the point is for his students to have a chance to confirm what
> >they already guessed from attending his silly course: he is a crank,
> >and they are not alone.
>
> Realistically, how many Willy Muckybrain students read sci.math? How
> many will even know of the existence of Usenet? And if any actually
> do, how many are going to believe *you* when their *professor* is
> telling them that you are an idiot?
>
> The argument that correcting a crank is worthwhile because it
> protects the innocent is specious.
>
> It just does not hold up to critical thinking.

No to mention the arrogance of thinking that those students are so stupid that they will be 'led astray' by the propounded crack-pottery and that YOU are so much smarter than they are and only YOU can save them.

Give students SOME credit.

In the case of our beloved Professor (who has been spouting his nonsense for over 20 years), there is no evidence that even ONE of his students has EVER fallen for his games. In this age of open internet and discussion groups and ANYONE can post ANYTHING he pleases, NOT ONE of his students has EVER posted ANYTHING indication acceptance of his nonsense.

NOT ONE.

NOWHERE.

NOT EVER.

As an alternative activity, I might suggest that we bullies here might find it more profitable to examine the errors and hidden assumptions in what WE put forward as arguments, rather that continue to post the same, tired messages.

Or build a robot that can copy and paste, because that's all we are doing.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 12:52:02 UTC-5, jean pierre messager aka python wrote:

Why is it you don't use your real name jean?

> > I congratulate Wolfgang Mueckenheim.
>
> Not a big surprise that a demented crank (you) is congratulating
> a scam abusing students.

Awww! Still upset you couldn't produce a counter-example to back up your drivel eh?

A high school student can prove the same without too much trouble, but somehow you CANNOT! Because you are a pscyhotic moron.

Proof:

We can prove that f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) as follows.

Let t(x) be the equation of the tangent line which we don't yet know.

Then [t(x+h)-t(x)]/h = f2/h = f'(x) from the geometry theorem.

This means that f'(x) contains no terms in h because t(x) is a straight line.

But f1/h = [f(x+h)-f(x)-f2]/h and so f2/h = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - f1/h

Thus, f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - f1/h which implies that f1/h = Q(x,h).

So, Q(x,h)=[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - f'(x).

Since the secant line slope [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h contains the sum of f'(x) and Q(x,h), it follows that Q(x,h) has terms with factors of h because f'(x) consists of terms that don't contain h.


Gee, you couldn't do this on your own? Instead you kept talking shit about
sin x + 2x + h - sin x NOT being equal to 2x + h and crap about being able to choose f1/h and f2/h. In any case, you have not been able to produce even ONE counter-example.

You filthy dog! I am lambasting you because you are a psychotic, dishonest and vile piece of shit.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 13:04:56 UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Wouldn't it be fun to once have a teacher that is a total nut head, and argues S=Lim S, and therefore 0.999... =\= 1.

A very valid argument. S = Lim S is the psychotic definition you inherited from Swiss moron Leonhard Euler:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel/

[Samuel Allan]

Python wrote:
> (c) the point is for his students to have a chance to confirm what
> they already guessed from attending his silly course: he is a crank,
> and they are not alone.
>
>

True, but responding does not solve problem (c) because:
1. These students are *extremely* unlikely to see these forums
2. His real name doesn't appear anywhere here, consequently there is no
way they could find it without a great deal of digging

It is difficult to admit, but I think the real reason that many people
are tempted into replying is for one of the following:

1. He uses very aggressive language specifically to offend people, so
that they feel obliged to respond (and thus he gets his attention).
Notice he has become quite a bit more agitated now that the attention is
under threat
2. Possibly after many instance of (1) or for its own reason, as a very
honest fellow here has pointed out - it is a type of pleasure to be able
to do this (in other words he serves as a punching bag)

[Ben Bacarisse]

It's easy to get irate about it, but his course is an optional history
course in the general studies faculty. The school does not even offer a
mathematics degree. Obviously no student should be lied to, but if you
read his notes you will see that almost everything is just about what X
said about the infinite and what Y said about it some time later.

For years I've had a rule that I won't reply on sci.maths in the hope
that the group can recover so I support the OPs plan. I do reply on
sci.logic because I think Usenet is so thinly populated that there is
unlikely to a sustainable body of non-crank posts about logic. And if
sci.maths recovers, logic questions are on-topic here anyway.

So I support the plan and offer a refinement: keep your baiting of
cranks to sci.logic, and let's see if we can get a maths group back!

--
Ben.

[Ben Bacarisse]

Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuc...@nowhere.net> writes:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:46:03 +0000, Samuel Allan wrote:
>
>> I am very new to this group (sci.math), but from observing the last
>> several threads, it appears that similarly to what used to be the issue
>> with sci.crypt, there is a problem with certain controversial figures
>> filling up the newsgroup completely.
>

> Your initiative is praiseworthy, but probably not very practical.
> Two reasons:
>
> One, new people come to forums all the time. They will not be
> familiar with such rules, and honest attempts to educate the cranks will
> be made.

A quick "please, try not to respond" will work if the attempt was
honest. And if it fails, there will be just one thread to kill rather
than 1000.

> Two, the cranks actually serve a social purpose. When you are
> home after a long, possiby frustrating day at work, the cranks are useful
> as virtual punching bags - you can make fun of them, insult them and
> otherwise demean them while, at the same time, feeling quite good about
> it.

I propose sci.logic for that. Logic questions can be asked here, and
there are a fine selection of cranks to choose from other there. I
regret suggesting we throw sci.logic under the bus but I think is the
least worse option.

We also need real maths questions and topics to be posted here though.
That may take a while as any "drive by" readers will currently see only
dreck.

In case it's not clear, I am 100% on-board (and I have been for some time).

--
Ben.

[Eram semper recta]

Morons like you and Stuckelberger will not be missed. Let the door slam your back on your way out.

[Me]

On-board too.

Actually, we might even discuss certain believes of certain cranks. But just not with THEM. For example, Mr. Mückenheim has written a textbook which is full of errors and nonsense. (...)

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 26 February 2020 11:59:54 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> On-board too.
>
> Actually, we might even discuss certain believes of certain cranks. But just not with THEM. For example, Mr. Mückenheim has written a textbook which is full of errors and nonsense. (...)

Chuckle. It would please me very much if you never wrote another comment addressed to me again.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-8, Samuel Allan wrote:
> I am very new to this group (sci.math), but from observing the last
> several threads, it appears that similarly to what used to be the issue
> with sci.crypt, there is a problem with certain controversial figures
> filling up the newsgroup completely.
>

It's agreeable that it's not cool that
there are retro-finitist crankety trolls
as what infest the sci.math.

Our AP posts spontaneously, more or less,
while WM is more a turtle and is always caving.

"Don't feed the ducks" <-> because they'll eat anything
"Don't feed the trolls" <-> because that's feeding the ducks.

Let's keep in mind that sufficiently high technology
might seem indistinguishable from magic, while,
getting all the points on the Baez usenet crackpot
scale, makes for a very large crackpot, or, genius.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

(And almost certainly not some garage-band genius.)

"On the idiot scale, even D.F's an idiot."
"And he's not an idiot."

I agree that such a forum with such wide distribution
and distributed retention, has that sci.math is a
valuable corner of the Internet that many know
nothing about.

Some people appreciate forums with essentially no
commercial content and a dedicated infrastructure,
others fabricate fake sock-puppet trolls to try
and destroy it.

I.e., "a Beowulf cluster imagines a troll" is
cheaper to cheapen a commons than natural volunteers.

(Cf. "grass-roots" versus "astro-turfing".)

Welcome to the Internet: don't feed the trolls.


Thanks!

[Zelos Malum]

Den tisdag 25 februari 2020 kl. 16:21:17 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:

> Begin by ignoring your drivel?
>
> There are those on this site who are labeled cranks by the Church Of Academia (of which you are no doubt a member), but that does not mean they are cranks. Those doing the labeling are more cranky in most cases.

Actually, that is exactly what it does mean.

[John]

Print off Willy Muckybrain's posts and some archived corrections to a
huge PDF file, send copies to the Dean of Students and the various
Deans and Arch-Deans of various departments of his college.

Send a copy to local, regional and national news outlets, paper, TV
and radio, too and perhaps a copy to whatever board certifies the
accreditations of the college.

Copies - with the CC-fields conspicuously made bold and italic and
carrying the addresses of the media outlets - to the governors or
other civilian oversight committee of the college would be neat, too.

In short, dox the lunatic. Kill his career.

Yes, it is drastic but in this one case it may be a viable
alternative to an endless screed of lunacy in Usenet.

Unfair? No. He started it. He perpetuates it. He insists that he is a
genius and a great mathematician so *publish* the moron. Attention is,
after all, his greatest wish so you would be doing him a great favour.
And, if he is a danger to students you would be doing *them* a great
favour, too.

Now, how do we "death-by-brown-envelope" Archaic Poo and Mr. Gabby?

J.
>

[Mostowski Collapse]

Oho, Ross A. Finlayson is a crank de luxe:

40. 100 points for space filling curves

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F41JVG

[Ben Bacarisse]

John <M...@the.keyboard> writes:

> Print off Willy Muckybrain's posts and some archived corrections to a
> huge PDF file, send copies to the Dean of Students and the various
> Deans and Arch-Deans of various departments of his college.
>
> Send a copy to local, regional and national news outlets, paper, TV
> and radio, too and perhaps a copy to whatever board certifies the
> accreditations of the college.
>
> Copies - with the CC-fields conspicuously made bold and italic and
> carrying the addresses of the media outlets - to the governors or
> other civilian oversight committee of the college would be neat, too.
>
> In short, dox the lunatic. Kill his career.

I think he is effectively retired. They let him teach an optional

history course in the general studies faculty.

--
Ben.

[FromTheRafters]

on 2/27/2020, Ben Bacarisse supposed :

Optional History sounds a lot like Alternative Facts.

[Python]

Once "they" will be taken accountable for having allowing "teaching"
full time all these years, and still allowing him to "teach" when
retired, optional history course or not, it is still a SHAME.

[Sergio]

On 2/26/2020 10:59 AM, Me wrote:
> On-board too.
>
> Actually, we might even discuss certain believes of certain cranks. But just not with THEM. For example, Mr. Mückenheim has written a textbook which is full of errors and nonsense. (...)
>

his book is that way ?

[Sergio]

On 2/25/2020 12:14 PM, j4n bur53 wrote:
> For a fee, you can get published here:
>
> Article Processing Charges (APC) $699
>
> Sequences and Limits - Wolfgang Mueckenheim - 2015
> https://www.scirp.org/pdf/APM_2015012614584080.pdf

wow, 3page, references are himself and Cantor, and no one else.

this does not seem to be a peer reviewed publication, but publish
yourself... (HEY JG !!!)


AND it is FOS.

It is just nomenclature BS. (he dosen't understand it, or he likes to
fool people)

the paper establishes WM as Ko0k !

[Ben Bacarisse]

Oh I agree, but it's not clear if he taught any nonsense at all when he
was properly employed. It's a technical college, and his expertise is in
physics. He may well have been teaching calculus or linear algebra, and
he might have been able to do that without lying to the class.

I once tried to find out how such courses are vetted in Germany, but no
one seemed to know. I don't think even his elective course on the
history of the infinite would fail to be accepted by the external
examiner if this were a UK university.

--
Ben.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

... "spiral" space-filling curve.

The spiral space-filling curve is interesting
for being a singularity and having curvature 1/R
which is an important feature in some objects of
mathematics important to physics.

DesCartes' vortices is an example of historically
consideration of such things. (Besides that Rene's
distantly related.)

It's described also as an Archimedean spiral with
the distance between shells going to zero.

Now, we know that it's "not a real function",
similarly to how line-drawing or ran(EF) is
where EF is "not-a-real-function", standardly,
but is standardly modeled by real functions,
like other interesting (and special) functions
like Dirac's delta or Heaviside's step.

Which I formalize readily....

[Eram semper recta]

You and all mainstream morons should be hanged for all the bullshit you have been spreading. Better yet, incinerate all demented fundamentalist psychos like you.

[Dr. Mike Ecker]

Excellent analysis with suggestion by Samuel Allan. Thanks, Sam!

[Julio Di Egidio]

Do not feed the trolls (spammers, nut cases, etc.) is a best practice on
Usenet since it became available to the general public.

That said, his "analysis" is completely beside the point, since for every
crank there are 10 insane vile stupid incorrigible *anti-cranks* who are
the ones actually flooding all channels, totally adamant to the damage they
are doing (just see up-thread for some pearls), and making a shithole of
every public and free space in the process... and nobody will convince these
utter morons that *they* should behave, i.e. not just out of reasoning and
good faith, both of which they simply lack. Some of them are paid to do so.

TL;DR: Yes, just kill-file (i.e. ignore) the fuckers, all of them...

Julio

[Haydon Berrow]

On 25/02/20 14:46, Samuel Allan wrote:
> I am very new to this group (sci.math), but from observing the last
> several threads, it appears that similarly to what used to be the issue
> with sci.crypt, there is a problem with certain controversial figures
> filling up the newsgroup completely.
>
> I propose a solution which has worked very well on sci.crypt - simply
> ignore totally & collectively any posts about idiotic concepts. This
> coping mechanism seems to be extremely effective (as it is the attention
> that these individuals desire), but *ONLY* if the posts are *completely*
> ignored, and if *nobody* responds.
>
> This is why I urge those present to:
> (a) Not respond to threads that are clearly written by such an
> individual, no matter how tempting
> (b) Start posting actual interesting material
>

> <snip>

>
> TL;DR: The most important thing to do now is collectively *NOT* respond
> to any cranky threads, no matter the temptation.

I applaud your efforts. For some time now I have been kill-filing the
cranks and anyone who responds to them. This means that I don't see
their twaddle, even by reflection. I expect I'm missing some interesting
material but it makes the newsgroup manageable.

I've put some simplistic statistics on posting at
<https://web.archive.org/web/20200228130304/https://www.ambridgefarmmachinery.uk/sci.math/>

--
I apologise if I don't answer you. I automatically killfile anyone,
except for a few exceptions, who replies to a troll. It's the only
way I have found to keep the volume down.

[John]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:20:14 -0500, FromTheRafters
<err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>on 2/27/2020, Ben Bacarisse supposed :
>> John <M...@the.keyboard> writes:
>>
>>> Print off Willy Muckybrain's posts and some archived corrections to a
>>> huge PDF file, send copies to the Dean of Students and the various
>>> Deans and Arch-Deans of various departments of his college.
>>>
>>> Send a copy to local, regional and national news outlets, paper, TV
>>> and radio, too and perhaps a copy to whatever board certifies the
>>> accreditations of the college.
>>>
>>> Copies - with the CC-fields conspicuously made bold and italic and
>>> carrying the addresses of the media outlets - to the governors or
>>> other civilian oversight committee of the college would be neat, too.
>>>
>>> In short, dox the lunatic. Kill his career.
>>
>> I think he is effectively retired.

Oh.

Oh, well, forget I mentioned it. Indeed, I should be ashamed of even
thinking such thoughts as they are very evil and not nice.

Bad John, no hot chocolate!

>> They let him teach an optional
>> history course in the general studies faculty.
>
>Optional History sounds a lot like Alternative Facts.

The *course* would be optional and its subject matter would be
"history", the *title* would not be "Optional History".

Though I did like the small jest.

It *was* a jest, yes?
J.

[John]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 03:10:53 -0800 (PST), Eram semper recta
<thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote:

<<snipped>>

>
>You and all mainstream morons should be hanged for all the
>bullshit you have been spreading. Better yet, incinerate
>all demented fundamentalist psychos like you.

A very calmly reasoned, wise, gentle, practical, humane and
intelligently considered suggestion, my young instructor, and ever so
very much more civilised than mine.

I applaud your kindness and loveable generosity of spirit. Truly you
are a humanitarian of the finest sort.

J.

[Ben Bacarisse]

John <M...@the.keyboard> writes:

> On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:20:14 -0500, FromTheRafters
> <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>on 2/27/2020, Ben Bacarisse supposed :
>>> John <M...@the.keyboard> writes:
>>>
>>>> Print off Willy Muckybrain's posts and some archived corrections to a
>>>> huge PDF file, send copies to the Dean of Students and the various
>>>> Deans and Arch-Deans of various departments of his college.
>>>>
>>>> Send a copy to local, regional and national news outlets, paper, TV
>>>> and radio, too and perhaps a copy to whatever board certifies the
>>>> accreditations of the college.
>>>>
>>>> Copies - with the CC-fields conspicuously made bold and italic and
>>>> carrying the addresses of the media outlets - to the governors or
>>>> other civilian oversight committee of the college would be neat, too.
>>>>
>>>> In short, dox the lunatic. Kill his career.
>>>
>>> I think he is effectively retired.
>
> Oh.
>
> Oh, well, forget I mentioned it. Indeed, I should be ashamed of even
> thinking such thoughts as they are very evil and not nice.
>
> Bad John, no hot chocolate!

Pick your battles. I have no objection to your doing what you say (do
you plan to?), but professors teach nonsense all the time. With luck,
it's a small minority, and it's often explicit, as at a Christian
college for example.

That said, I've have written a Very Stiff Letter to someone if this had
been in the UK (because I understand the system here).

--
Ben.

[FromTheRafters]

John laid this down on his screen :

Yes. :)

[John]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 23:14:16 +0000, Ben Bacarisse
<ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

>John <M...@the.keyboard> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:20:14 -0500, FromTheRafters
>> <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>on 2/27/2020, Ben Bacarisse supposed :
>>>> John <M...@the.keyboard> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Print off Willy Muckybrain's posts and some archived corrections to a
>>>>> huge PDF file, send copies to the Dean of Students and the various
>>>>> Deans and Arch-Deans of various departments of his college.
>>>>>
>>>>> Send a copy to local, regional and national news outlets, paper, TV
>>>>> and radio, too and perhaps a copy to whatever board certifies the
>>>>> accreditations of the college.
>>>>>
>>>>> Copies - with the CC-fields conspicuously made bold and italic and
>>>>> carrying the addresses of the media outlets - to the governors or
>>>>> other civilian oversight committee of the college would be neat, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, dox the lunatic. Kill his career.
>>>>
>>>> I think he is effectively retired.
>>
>> Oh.
>>
>> Oh, well, forget I mentioned it. Indeed, I should be ashamed of even
>> thinking such thoughts as they are very evil and not nice.
>>
>> Bad John, no hot chocolate!
>
>Pick your battles.

Nope, not me, not in the last few decades. I'm all fluffy, warm
cuddly and pacific, I am. I've been *socialised*.

I leave all that warrior stuff to you lot out there in the cold, wet,
windy world.

> I have no objection to your doing what you say (do
>you plan to?),

Not likely but I'll smile indulgently should anyone else feel the
urge. I'll even make cute, funny suggestions as to how better to rile
the Straights but raising any of my anatomy over the parapet is just
not happening.

More dog than honey badger these days.

> but professors teach nonsense all the time.

I know. I used to argue even with priests in their churches [fuck,
but I was *nuts*!] but then I got tired, got a job, got married and
got very, very old. Needing to feed another set of beings can be a
really good calming tool.

John likes hot chocolate so John not bite. Much. Often. Maybe more
*cat* than dog?

> With luck,
>it's a small minority, and it's often explicit, as at a Christian
>college for example.

Those can be ignored. We know Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh,
Zoroastrian and Wiccan Sectarian schools are all a little lacking in
the sensibleness field. Some more so than others, some more dogmatic
about it than others but all can be dismissed as outliers, little
swampy bits we need to build around when advancing the Light of
Reason.

City Hall can be fought successfully, religion less so. Also, City
Hall only has bailiffs and bulldozers, religions have *pitchforks*.

>
>That said, I've have written a Very Stiff Letter to someone if this had
>been in the UK (because I understand the system here).

I might have in the middle to late Last Century. Or maybe not. I was
rather tactless at times but rarely suicidally so.

Today, I just wait to outlive them all. It seems to be working.

J.

[John]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:28:23 -0500, FromTheRafters
<err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>John laid this down on his screen :

<<snippedy>>

>>
>> It *was* a jest, yes?
>> J.
>
>Yes. :)

Oh, cool, I can read and interpret English!

I'm doing ever so well.

So far.
J.

[Dan Christensen]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 9:46:10 AM UTC-5, Samuel Allan wrote:

>

> TL;DR: The most important thing to do now is collectively *NOT* respond
> to any cranky threads, no matter the temptation.

That is fondest wish the particular breed of cranks and trolls that currently infests sci.math. Being the only remaining unmoderated online math forum, this is the only public outlet left to them. The trouble is, these cranks (actually trolls) seem to be setting to out deliberately mislead, confuse and discourage vulnerable youth struggling with math in school. These trolls failed math, so they are in someway getting their revenge against their teachers by, they hope, making the teaching of math impossible. Or so it would seem to me.

I have no illusions that these cranks and trolls want to educate themselves. They couldn't care less about about mathematics. They want only to disrupt the education of others.

I respond to these cranks and trolls as a kind of public service. Silence may well be seen as consent in this case.


Dan

[Eram semper recta]

LMAO. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the king troll of sci.math - Dan Christensen!

>
>
> Dan

Oh? What happened to your signature about DCSpoof.com ? I suppose you thought it wiser to leave it out so as not to arouse suspicion of the high priests.

You pathetic, stupid crank!

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

Not to worry dumbo... in times gone by they would call those with different ideas witches. Today they call us cranks. "Crank" is the pejorative used by the Church of Academia for all those excommunicated from the mainstream pile of shit.

[Dan Christensen]

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 12:41:21 PM UTC-5, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Lover") wrote:

> On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 9:46:10 AM UTC-5, Samuel Allan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > TL;DR: The most important thing to do now is collectively *NOT* respond
> > > to any cranky threads, no matter the temptation.
> >
> > That is fondest wish the particular breed of cranks and trolls that currently infests sci.math. Being the only remaining unmoderated online math forum, this is the only public outlet left to them. The trouble is, these cranks (actually trolls) seem to be setting to out deliberately mislead, confuse and discourage vulnerable youth struggling with math in school. These trolls failed math, so they are in someway getting their revenge against their teachers by, they hope, making the teaching of math impossible. Or so it would seem to me.
> >
> > I have no illusions that these cranks and trolls want to educate themselves. They couldn't care less about about mathematics. They want only to disrupt the education of others.
> >
> > I respond to these cranks and trolls as a kind of public service. Silence may well be seen as consent in this case.
>
>

> LMAO. Ladies and gentlemen...


Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel here is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. An obvious math failure himself, as he has repeatedly posted here:

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Really! How pathetic is that?


Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated December 2019) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Zelos Malum]

Boy, as conspiratorial as Gabriel now!

[Peter Percival]

Your intentions are commendable, but the situation is hopeless. Cranks
are both ignorant and stupid. Their stupidity is such that they see no
need to fix their ignorance (for they don't know that they're ignorant).
Their inability to understand limits (and it is an inability not just
an unwillingness) is like our inability to understand that the earth is
flat. Imagine a flat-earther saying to you "Try (honestly and with all
ability) to accept and understand that the earth is flat". Could you?

[graham...@gmail.com]

Mathematics is a VIEW of things!

Can you formulate HYPOTHESIS |- idea ?


For example, we all know 0.999.. = 1

But mathematics can be formulated with APPROACHES --> |N|

So, if you insist 0.999... =/= 1

then you must believe that there are 2 ADJACENT REALS!




EVERYONE KNOWS THERE'S NO 2 ADJACENT REALS! BUT WHY NOT? On the surface of it there is 0 utility, but it's still a strict 'mathematics' with more compatibility to -->oo ONLY!


so don't call them silly! Formulate {R} with adjacent Reals!

[FromTheRafters]

After serious thinking graham...@gmail.com wrote :

Since 0.999... is a repeating decimal expansion it would also mean they
are both rational numbers. So we must accept that at least some
distinct rational numbers do not have any reals between them.

Rabbit hole anyone?

> EVERYONE KNOWS THERE'S NO 2 ADJACENT REALS! BUT WHY NOT? On the surface of
> it there is 0 utility, but it's still a strict 'mathematics' with more
> compatibility to -->oo ONLY!
>
>
> so don't call them silly! Formulate {R} with adjacent Reals!

That should keep 'em busy.

[graham...@gmail.com]

don't ACCEPT IT! LABEL IT with a Theory name!


2 Adjacent Reals


TAR |- <----- theory name / label
l/n AS n-->oo > 0


(from Mitch's thread)

[Eram semper recta]

You don't know anything, moron.

S = Lim S is a very bad definition.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel

[graham...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 1:57:32 AM UTC+10, Peter Percival wrote:
>
>

> an unwillingness) is like our inability to understand that the earth is
> flat. Imagine a flat-earther saying to you "Try (honestly and with all
> ability) to accept and understand that the earth is flat". Could you?

so you admit your BELIEF in Cantors Paradise is merely that, like a Religion with Faith!

Abstract Mathematics will get you no-where |R|>|N|

|R|>oo




.
.
.
.
.
there is your religion as you described it yourself, something you have to convince yourself of or the faith fades...

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 02:25:24 UTC-5, graham...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 1:57:32 AM UTC+10, Peter Percival wrote:
> >
> >
> > an unwillingness) is like our inability to understand that the earth is
> > flat. Imagine a flat-earther saying to you "Try (honestly and with all
> > ability) to accept and understand that the earth is flat". Could you?
>
>
> so you admit your BELIEF in Cantors Paradise is merely that, like a Religion with Faith!

Hate to break it to you, but if you believe that 0.999... = 1 is a valid definition, then you ought to believe in Cantor's bullshit, because it inspires fallacies such as S = lim S.

[Ganzhinterseher]

Am Dienstag, 3. März 2020 23:03:14 UTC+1 schrieb FromTheRafters:

> Since 0.999... is a repeating decimal expansion it would also mean they
> are both rational numbers.

No. 0.999... is an infinite sequence of terms of the form 9/10^n added and written in an abbreviated form by the usual notation where the 10^n are indicated by the position of the digit,

> So we must accept that at least some
> distinct rational numbers do not have any reals between them.
>
> Rabbit hole anyone?

Infinite sequences are not numbers but their limits are numbers. That is true in every case, even for 1.000... .

Regards, WM

[Peter Percival]

Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 02:25:24 UTC-5, graham...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 1:57:32 AM UTC+10, Peter Percival wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> an unwillingness) is like our inability to understand that the earth is
>>> flat. Imagine a flat-earther saying to you "Try (honestly and with all
>>> ability) to accept and understand that the earth is flat". Could you?
>>
>>
>> so you admit your BELIEF in Cantors Paradise is merely that, like a Religion with Faith!
>
> Hate to break it to you, but if you believe that 0.999... = 1 is a valid definition,

0.999... = 1 isn't a definition at all. It states what the sum of a
certain geometric series is. The series being 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 +...

[Peter Percival]

Eram semper recta wrote:

>
> S = Lim S is a very bad definition.
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel

S = Lim S isn't a definition of Euler. It's something of your own devising.

[Eram semper recta]

Bad news for you moron: S = Lim S is CLASSIC Euler and the evidence of this is in the above link.

Go fuck yourself you ignorant cunt.

[Eram semper recta]

Nope. Still wrong! We all know that the series 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 +... has a limit of 1. Nothing ever remarkable here.

What is truly pathetic is to assign the limit of this series to mean its SUM which is not possible. Grow a brain.

[Dan Christensen]

You defaced an online copy of Euler's original article on the topic of limits. The only place we see "S = Lim S" theree is in the text that YOU inserted in big red letters, John. Perhaps you didn't realize that the limit notation was not invented until several decades after Euler's death. Didn't count on that, did you? (HA, HA, HA!!!) What a goof.


Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

[Ganzhinterseher]

Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020 17:27:49 UTC+1 schrieb Peter Percival:

>
> 0.999... = 1 isn't a definition at all. It states what the sum of a
> certain geometric series is. The series being 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 +...

There is no sum but a limit.

0.999... is an infinite sequence of terms of the form 9/10^n added and written in an abbreviated form by the usual notation where the 10^n are indicated by the position of the digit.

Infinite sequences are not numbers but their limits are numbers. That is true in every case, even for 1.000... .

Whenever it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum, I am of the opinion that all that is being said is that any finite series with the same rule has a sum, and that the error always diminishes as the series increases, so that it becomes as small as we would like. For numbers do not in themselves go absolutely to infinity, since then there would be a
greatest number. [G. W. Leibniz: "Numeri Infiniti" (1676) A VI 3, p. 503]

Therefore the limit is needed.

Regards, WM

[Jim Burns]

On 3/4/2020 12:08 PM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020 17:27:49 UTC+1
> schrieb Peter Percival:

>> 0.999... = 1 isn't a definition at all. It states what the
>> sum of a certain geometric series is. The series being
>> 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 +...
>
> There is no sum but a limit.

An infinite sum is not a sum in the binary-operator sense of
"sum". Any finite number of binary additions ends with a final
sum. Infinitely many additions do not end, because infinite.

The argument for the least-upper-bound sense of sum (that is,
of _infinite_ sum) is that _it CAN'T BE any number OTHER THAN_
_the LUB_

For example, the distance between the set of numbers
for which one of these is true
<3, <3.1, <3.14, <3.141, <3.1415, <3.14159, <3.141592, ...

and the set of numbers for which one of these is true
>4, >3.2, >3.15, >3.142, >3.1416, >3.14160, >3.141593, ...

is smaller than any positive number.

It's essential to this argument that one understands the
difference between
"forall d > 0, exists k e N, d > 1/10^k"
and
"exists k e N, forall d > 0, d > 1/10^k"

The first is true, the second is false.
The first is how we justify saying that, because for any two
distinct numbers x and y, |x - y| > 0, x and y cannot both
be between all of the increasing series 3, 3.1, 4.14, ... and
all of the decreasing series 4, 3.2, 3.15, ...

There cannot be two numbers between those series.
So, there could be one, or there could be none.
If there is one number the value of the infinite sum
could be, we define it to be that one number.
(Yes, we need to define it. Our other definition of "sum"
does not apply here.)

----
That leaves the question of whether there is one or no number
in the gap between the two series. One way to address this is
to treat the _one-point gap itself_ as a point. Conceptually,
we're taking a photographic negative of the number line.
Instead of referring to the point _pi_ , we refer to _all the_
_points which are not pi_ . That would be all the points
<3, <3.1, <3.14, <3.141, <3.1415, <3.14159, <3.141592, or ...
and
>4, >3.2, >3.15, >3.142, >3.1416, >3.14160, >3.141593, or ...

We can define operations on all the points not in the gap
so that, when the point in the gap is rational, the operations
agree.

We can define a least-upper-bound for an arbitrary non-empty
bounded collection of sets-of-points-not-in-the-gap (Dedekind cuts).
This is one of the easier parts of all this: the lower cut
of the LUB is the set union of the lower cuts in the collection.

There is no number less than the LUB which can be the
infinite sum.
There is no number greater than the LUB which can be the
infinite sum.

Whether we agree that the LUB exists or we don't, we agree
(I hope) that _all the other numbers_ on the number line exist.
The behavior of _all the other numbers_ is what we ask for
from the LUB, which is what we ask for from the infinite sum.

[FredJeffries]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 9:08:40 AM UTC-8, Ganzhinterseher misquoted:

Another hilarious instance of our beloved Professor's misquotation saying the exact opposite of what he claims it to say.

Leibniz clearly states that "it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum".

He nowhere says that it is improper to say such a thing or that 'there is no sum'.

He then goes on to say what it MEANS when it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum. I.e. he gives a DEFINITION.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 12:08:40 UTC-5, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020 17:27:49 UTC+1 schrieb Peter Percival:
>
> >
> > 0.999... = 1 isn't a definition at all. It states what the sum of a
> > certain geometric series is. The series being 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 +...
>
> There is no sum but a limit.

Right. One can also say "no sequence but a limit".

>
> 0.999... is an infinite sequence of terms of the form 9/10^n added and written in an abbreviated form by the usual notation where the 10^n are indicated by the position of the digit.

Actually 0.999... is nothing more than a partial sum followed by "...". There is no "infinite" anything.

>
> Infinite sequences are not numbers but their limits are numbers. That is true in every case, even for 1.000... .
>
> Whenever it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum, I am of the opinion that all that is being said is that any finite series with the same rule has a sum, and that the error always diminishes as the series increases, so that it becomes as small as we would like. For numbers do not in themselves go absolutely to infinity, since then there would be a
> greatest number. [G. W. Leibniz: "Numeri Infiniti" (1676) A VI 3, p. 503]
>
> Therefore the limit is needed.

Needed for what? It is not needed for anything. It's just a conclusion from analysis of the partial sums.

>
> Regards, WM

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 18:54:06 UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 9:08:40 AM UTC-8, Ganzhinterseher misquoted:
> > Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020 17:27:49 UTC+1 schrieb Peter Percival:
> >
> > >
> > > 0.999... = 1 isn't a definition at all. It states what the sum of a
> > > certain geometric series is. The series being 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 +...
> >
> > There is no sum but a limit.
> >
> > 0.999... is an infinite sequence of terms of the form 9/10^n added and written in an abbreviated form by the usual notation where the 10^n are indicated by the position of the digit.
> >
> > Infinite sequences are not numbers but their limits are numbers. That is true in every case, even for 1.000... .
> >
> > Whenever it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum, I am of the opinion that all that is being said is that any finite series with the same rule has a sum, and that the error always diminishes as the series increases, so that it becomes as small as we would like. For numbers do not in themselves go absolutely to infinity, since then there would be a
> > greatest number. [G. W. Leibniz: "Numeri Infiniti" (1676) A VI 3, p. 503]
>
> Another hilarious instance of our beloved Professor's misquotation saying the exact opposite of what he claims it to say.

No. I think in this case, he states how Leibniz interpreted 0.xxx... when 0.x + 0.0x + 0.00x + ... converges. Nothing more, nothing less.

>
> Leibniz clearly states that "it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum".
>
> He nowhere says that it is improper to say such a thing or that 'there is no sum'.

Good thing Leibniz is not the ultimate authority on anything eh? Chuckle. I mean who really cares what Newton or Leibniz thought - they were both in the dark about many things. Their methods were flawed and there was no rigorous calculus before the New Calculus.

"I am of the opinion that all that is being said is that any finite series with the same rule has a sum, and that the error always diminishes as the series increases, so that it becomes as small as we would like" - Leibniz

The foundations of your bogus limit theory right there in that paragraph. You can't make the error as small as you wish, because if you wish to make it 0, it's simply not possible. This is why mainstream "hole theory" (multiplying functions by (x-k)/(x-k) so as to introduce a hole at k) was introduced in order to attempt a cover up for your bogus epsilon-delta limit verinifition which proves nothing and states a completely unremarkable fact assuming that the limit is known. The cover up involved requires that "as small as you wish" means there can be a hole at k and a limit at the same time. Utter rubbish. Then a rule is added to your derivative definition so that f is also defined at the hole. FACEPALM. The one contradicts the other because delta>0 and f defined at k are mutually exclusive. Tsk, tsk. This will be too complicated for you no doubt.

You can't use 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon unless you already know L! But L is the very thing you are trying to find with your bogus first principles method. Pretty circular because L is assumed in its very own definition: L=f'(x)=Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h.

>
> He then goes on to say what it MEANS when it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum. I.e. he gives a DEFINITION.

Yes. The definition is the forerunner of Euclid's S = Lim S.

[Eram semper recta]

For crying out loud, the limit does not give a damn if all the terms are there or there at all. The limit has NOTHING to do with the imaginary infinite sum.

>
> >
> > Regards, WM

[Me]

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 2:53:03 AM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

> <bla and bla>

Please go away, you psychotic asshole.

[Zelos Malum]

Yet it has gotten us so far in the world.

[Zelos Malum]

> There is no sum but a limit.

Wanna bet on that I can make infinite sum definition that does not use the limit operator?

[Ganzhinterseher]

Am Donnerstag, 5. März 2020 02:38:36 UTC+1 schrieb Eram semper recta:


> > Whenever it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum, I am of the opinion that all that is being said is that any finite series with the same rule has a sum, and that the error always diminishes as the series increases, so that it becomes as small as we would like. For numbers do not in themselves go absolutely to infinity, since then there would be a
> > greatest number. [G. W. Leibniz: "Numeri Infiniti" (1676) A VI 3, p. 503]
> >
> > Therefore the limit is needed.
>
> Needed for what?

For determining the real number which is meant when people write 0.333... or 3.14... . They don't do so for determining sequences only.

Regards, WM

[Ganzhinterseher]

Am Donnerstag, 5. März 2020 00:54:06 UTC+1 schrieb FredJeffries:


> > Whenever it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum, I am of the opinion that all that is being said is that any finite series with the same rule has a sum, and that the error always diminishes as the series increases, so that it becomes as small as we would like. For numbers do not in themselves go absolutely to infinity, since then there would be a
> > greatest number. [G. W. Leibniz: "Numeri Infiniti" (1676) A VI 3, p. 503]
>

> Leibniz clearly states that "it is said that a certain infinite series of numbers has a sum".

*Whenever* that is said, then there is no sum but only the limit.

Regards, WM

[Ganzhinterseher]

Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020 20:30:16 UTC+1 schrieb Jim Burns:


> It's essential to this argument that one understands the
> difference between
> "forall d > 0, exists k e N, d > 1/10^k"
> and
> "exists k e N, forall d > 0, d > 1/10^k"
>
> The first is true, the second is false.
> The first is how we justify saying that, because for any two
> distinct numbers x and y, |x - y| > 0, x and y cannot both

> be between all of the increasing series 3, 3.1, 3.14, ... and

> all of the decreasing series 4, 3.2, 3.15, ...
>
> There cannot be two numbers between those series.

That is true also for the sequences

0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...
and
1, 1, 1, ...

Nevertheless the former sequence does not contain 1.

> So, there could be one, or there could be none.
> If there is one number the value of the infinite sum
> could be, we define it to be that one number.

Yes, that is the definition of the limit. But the sequences *have* or approach this limit. It is wrong to say that they reach this limit "in the infinite" or that infinitely many failing digits would not fail.

> (Yes, we need to define it. Our other definition of "sum"
> does not apply here.)

So it is!

>
>
> Whether we agree that the LUB exists or we don't, we agree
> (I hope) that _all the other numbers_ on the number line exist.
> The behavior of _all the other numbers_ is what we ask for
> from the LUB, which is what we ask for from the infinite sum.

We agree that there are irrational real numbers (more careful people call them irrationalities) which cannot be represented by fractions but which can be used for calculations rather like fractions. Cp. "What is a real number?" in https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Transfinity/pdf, p. 260.

Regards, WM

[Ross A. Finlayson]

But, binary is both pair-wise and associative.

[Eram semper recta]

One look at you and that claim is instantly dismissed.

[Eram semper recta]

But you NEVER "determine" any "real" number because said real number does NOT exist.


>
> Regards, WM

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 14:30:16 UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote:

> There cannot be two numbers between those series.

Series are not *numbers*. One can find a rational number between TWO RATIONAL numbers. There aren't any other kinds of number.

[Jim Burns]

Maybe what you are saying is
"But, for finite sums, we can add them up in any order and
still get the same answer. We would like the same for these
infinite sums."

That's not true for _all_ infinite sums, but it is true for
those for which the corresponding sum of absolute values
converge (converge absolutely). If the sum
|b[0]| + |b[1]| + |b[2]| + |b[3]| + ...
converges, then the sum
b[0] + b[1] + b[2] + b[3] + ...
converges to the same value, no matter what order the
terms b[k] are added in.

In particular, the infinite sums we're talking about here,
such as 3 + 1/10 + 4/100 + 1/1000 + 5/10000 + ...
converge absolutely -- because all the terms are positive,
thus, in this case, converging and converging absolutely is
the same.

So, for these infinite-decimal sums, we can add them up in
any order.

[Peter Percival]

The above link is to a post by one John Gabriel, halfwit. I have been
unable to find Euler on Linkedin.

[Jim Burns]

On 3/5/2020 5:03 AM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020 20:30:16 UTC+1
> schrieb Jim Burns:

>> It's essential to this argument that one understands the
>> difference between
>> "forall d > 0, exists k e N, d > 1/10^k"
>> and
>> "exists k e N, forall d > 0, d > 1/10^k"
>>
>> The first is true, the second is false.
>> The first is how we justify saying that, because for any two
>> distinct numbers x and y, |x - y| > 0, x and y cannot both
>> be between all of the increasing series 3, 3.1, 3.14, ... and
>> all of the decreasing series 4, 3.2, 3.15, ...
>>
>> There cannot be two numbers between those series.
>
> That is true also for the sequences
>
> 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...
> and
> 1, 1, 1, ...
>
> Nevertheless the former sequence does not contain 1.

That's right, 1 does not occur in 0.9,0.99, 0.999, ...

Also, 1 does not occur in 1.1, 1.01, 1.001, ...

Between 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... and 1.1, 1.01, 1.001, ...
there is only room for one point. The one point between
the lower and upper sequences is what we define the value
of the infinite decimal to be.

Each finite sum says something about where the point is NOT.
All of the finite sums together say that the point is NOT
anywhere that is NOT that one place. We define the one point
that is not eliminated to be the value of the infinite decimal.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 5 March 2020 12:49:54 UTC-5, Peter Percival wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 11:29:09 UTC-5, Peter Percival wrote:
> >> Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> S = Lim S is a very bad definition.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> >>
> >> S = Lim S isn't a definition of Euler. It's something of your own devising.
> >
> > Bad news for you moron: S = Lim S is CLASSIC Euler and the evidence of this is in the above link.
>
> The above link is to a post by one John Gabriel, halfwit. I have been
> unable to find Euler on Linkedin.

Chuckle. The halfwit is YOU! That graphic at the top of my article comes directly from Euler's Elements of Gibberish (Algebra?).

Since you don't understand German, I'll translate:

Daher ist unser Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a +a^2 - a^3 + ...

Translation (word for word):

Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) equal this unending Series 1 - a +a^2 - a^3 + ....

Let S = 1 - a +a^2 - a^3 + ...

Then it follows to anyone with half a brain that Lim S = 1/(1+a).

The mighty Euler claims S and Lim S are equal.

[Zelos Malum]

Do you understand a sequence does not need to contain its limit, to be in the same equivalence class as the limit?

[Ganzhinterseher]

Am Freitag, 6. März 2020 07:26:18 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum:


> > We agree that there are irrational real numbers (more careful people call them irrationalities) which cannot be represented by fractions but which can be used for calculations rather like fractions. Cp. "What is a real number?" in https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Transfinity/pdf, p. 260.

>

> Do you understand a sequence does not need to contain its limit, to be in the same equivalence class as the limit?

Of course. Why do you doubt? The sequence (1/n) is in the same equivalence class as the sequence (-1/n^3) or the sequence 0, 0, 0, ... .

Similarly the sequence

3/10, 33/100, 333/1000, ... abbreviated by 0.333...

which does not contain its limit, is in the same equivalence class as the sequence

1/3, 1/3, 1/3, ...

which contains its limit.

Regards, WM

[Ganzhinterseher]

John, you are right. An irrational number x is not determined by its digits, but all other numbers which can be determined by their fractions can clearly be divided into two sets, (a) those smaller than x and (b) those larger than x. No single exception on the number line can be found. Therefore x must be an interval on the number line that is smaller than every difference between any b and any a that can be found. This interval of length b - a is potentially infinitely small. Like 1/n it is never 0.

Regards, WM

[Ganzhinterseher]

Am Donnerstag, 5. März 2020 18:32:46 UTC+1 schrieb Jim Burns:


> "But, for finite sums, we can add them up in any order and
> still get the same answer. We would like the same for these
> infinite sums."
>
> That's not true for _all_ infinite sums,

Why do you think that it is not true for non-absolutely converging series?

> but it is true for
> those for which the corresponding sum of absolute values

No, it is as wrong for those. There is no sum. There is a limit only. I just confirmed John's onjection. In classical mathematics we have the following situation:

An irrational number x is not determined by its digits, but all other numbers which can be determined by their fractions can clearly be divided into two sets, (a) those smaller than x and (b) those larger than x. No single exception on the number line can be found. Therefore x must be an interval on the number line that is smaller than every difference between any b and any a that can be determined. This interval of length b - a is potentially infinitely small. Like 1/n it is never 0.

Regards, WM