mm-1269 === Subject: Re: More on the State-of-the-Art in Physics >1)/.../ calculated that 95% of our universe is dark matter. You probably meen dark energy? As far as I know 20% is dark matter. >2) /.../The discovery of the basic constituent of dark matter, the superstrings. Where can you \[CapitalThorn]nd this? To my knowledge this question is still highly open to debate and has been set to one of the 25 agendas to be set during the coming 25 years by KITP. joccis === Subject: Re: More on the State-of-the-Art in Physics >>1)/.../ calculated that 95% of our universe is dark matter. >You probably meen dark energy? As far as I know 20% is dark matter. So 115% of our universe is dark? Lee Rudolph === Subject: Re: More on the State-of-the-Art in Physics >1)/.../ calculated that 95% of our universe is dark matter. >>You probably meen dark energy? As far as I know 20% is dark matter. > So 115% of our universe is dark? > Lee Rudolph Its only 115% dark if youre a \ mathematician. If youre a physicist its 100% dark. If youre an engineer its 99.99% dark +/- 5% \ dark. -- Replace Roman numerals with digits to reply by email === Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders 1.9 primary) id iBGIRse25855; >> against me, by never telling the full story. >This old stuff James? BORING. More operators and objects please! If you >need inspiration, just get drunk and sing to the walls. It always >worked before, didnt it? All hail Operator Ambiguity. Ad Hominem === Subject: plane curve animations posting-account=OIaTGwwAAABntbwd95_ohTn1wTSa5sqo some 80 famous plane curves animations for didactic and esthetic purposes are available here: http://xahlee.org/SpecialPlaneCurves_dir/ specialPlaneCurves.html Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html === Subject: Positive functionals Hello. Let M denote the set of nxn-matrices with complex entries, and let f:M->C be a linear functional. It is not hard to prove that there is a matrix h such that f(m)=trace(hm) for all m in M. If f(m^*m) is real and positive for all m in M, why must h be self-adjoint? That is, h^*=h. I dont ask for a complete solution, only a hint :-) -- Michael Knudsen === Subject: Re: Positive functionals > Hello. > Let M denote the set of nxn-matrices with complex entries, and let f:M->C > be a linear functional. It is not hard to prove that there is a matrix h > such that f(m)=trace(hm) for all m in M. > If f(m^*m) is real and positive for all m in M, why must h be > self-adjoint? That is, h^*=h. I dont ask for a complete solution, only a > hint :-) Hint: whats the complex conjugate of f(m^*m) ? Igor === Subject: nth term of the series Can anybody \[CapitalThorn]nd the general term of the following set series: (1) 1, 4, 10, 20, 35, 56, 84, ... (2) 4, 15, 36, 70, 120, 189, 280, ... (3) 6, 20, 45, 84, 140, 216, 315, ... satya === Subject: Re: nth term of the series posting-account=MBy-nwwAAABSLrU8FTk1qCyZnmAKo5_H > Can anybody \[CapitalThorn]nd the general term of the following set series: > (1) 1, 4, 10, 20, 35, 56, 84, ... > (2) 4, 15, 36, 70, 120, 189, 280, ... > (3) 6, 20, 45, 84, 140, 216, 315, ... > satya Look up the sequences on the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. === Subject: Re: nth term of the series > Can anybody \[CapitalThorn]nd the general term of the following set series: > (1) 1, 4, 10, 20, 35, 56, 84, ... > (2) 4, 15, 36, 70, 120, 189, 280, ... > (3) 6, 20, 45, 84, 140, 216, 315, ... Form sequences from the difference. For \[CapitalThorn]rst sequence: 3 6 10 15 21 Now repeat: 2, 4, 5, 6 And again: 1,1,1,1 Sequence is cubic. You can form 4 simultaineous equations, as cubic sequence are all of the form: An^3 + Bn^2 + Cn + D and solve but that is pain. Another approach is to think in algebra. Cubic sequences are of the form An^3 + Bn^2 + Cn + D Use this to generate the nth terms for the sequences of differences you have above: First difference sequence is: [A(n+1)^3+B(n+1)^2+C(n+1)+D] - [An^3+Bn^2+Cn+D] = A(3n^2+3n+1) + B (2n+1) + C Notice, that weve Ôlost D. Repeat this process, using A(3n^2+3n+1) + B (2n+1) + C, to get the nth term for the second difference: A (6n+6) + 2B Notice weve lost C And again: Third difference is the sequence: 6A (The above are good for all cubic sequences.) Now, work back: For our sequence, 6A = 1 , so A =1/6 Sub in A(6n+6) + 2B = 3 (\[CapitalThorn]rst term in sequence of 2nd differences) B = 1/2 Sub for A and B in A(3n^2+3n+1) + B (2n+1) + C = 3 (\[CapitalThorn]rst term in sequence of 1st differences) C = 1/3 Now look at original sequence to get D, which is 0. So: T(n) = (n^3)/6 + (n^2)/2 + n/3 Check for n=1, 2, 3 against original sequence. -- Brian Reay www.g8osn.org.uk www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk FP#898 === Subject: Re: nth term of the series > Can anybody \[CapitalThorn]nd the general term of the following set series: > (1) 1, 4, 10, 20, 35, 56, 84, ... > (2) 4, 15, 36, 70, 120, 189, 280, ... > (3) 6, 20, 45, 84, 140, 216, 315, ... Hint: take \[CapitalThorn]rst differences, second difference etc until you get a constant. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Santa Claus is the god of math !!!! 1.9 primary) id iBGKBUw03032; >>There is NOTHING that Santa cannot prove !!!! >>Wish for a proof for Christmas and youll get it! >Can he solve the Continuum hypothesis? >[In the sense that Paul Erdos said that Christs answer to >the question Can we solve the CH? was Paul Cohen gave all you >can know.] Oh. This didnt make sense, I think. I read that Erdos said that maybe, maybe the CH can be solved, our brains being the reason we cant solve it. (i.e., Some creature might have a brain who can say if its true or not.) So the question is, does He have such \ an intelligence? delta01211 === Subject: Re: Which do you prefer? 1.9 primary) id iBGKBUB03024; >For abb. of physics courses, which of PHSX and PHYX do you prefer? >I personally prefer the former. The latter makes me feel that its >too soft; the Y makes me feel that way. S, on S, on the other hand, is sharp. I was talking with a friend of mine, and so clicked the Send Message button without thought. delta01211 === Subject: Good intro statistics good? posting-account=PdOU8Q0AAAA6zo4zvKJ1KNRCbY5ITBWM I did a quick search of good statistics books and came across the following: * Problem Solving: A Statisticians Guide by \ Chat\[CapitalThorn]eld, Christopher * Statistics a New Approach [Hardcover] by Wallis, Wilson Allen * Introduction to Probability Theory & Statistical Inference by Harold J. Larson However, Im not sure if these are at the right level and/or cover the topics Im interested in. The level needs to be at the AP statistics exam level (which although HS is probably more advanced \[CapitalThorn]rst year undergrad), and should give a good discussion of sample design and experiments (and also regression and statistical inference). Also, Im not really looking for an AP exam review book (but of course, suggestions are welcome). What Im mainly looking for is a book that gives a good, yet accessible discussion of whats going on under the hood in the AP topics (sample design, experiments, regression, statistical inference), If any one knows of any books like this or close to this... === Subject: Re: Good intro statistics good? > I did a quick search of good statistics books and came across the > following: > * Problem Solving: A Statisticians Guide by \ Chat\[CapitalThorn]eld, Christopher Based on Amazon, this may \[CapitalThorn]t your bill. > * Statistics a New Approach [Hardcover] by Wallis, Wilson Allen Amazon offered no info on this. > * Introduction to Probability Theory & Statistical Inference by Harold > J. Larson Calculus. Its probably not what youre \ looking for. > However, Im not sure if these are at the right level and/or cover the > topics Im interested in. The level needs to be at the AP statistics > exam level (which although HS is probably more advanced \[CapitalThorn]rst year > undergrad), and should give a good discussion of sample design and > experiments (and also regression and statistical inference). Also, Im > not really looking for an AP exam review book (but of course, > suggestions are welcome). What Im mainly looking for is a book that > gives a good, yet accessible discussion of whats going on under the > hood in the AP topics (sample design, experiments, regression, > statistical inference), If any one knows of any books like this or > close to this... -- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net === Subject: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? posting-account=4za6cQwAAACWvvpq0N1XsH01GJ8y5PED By Bertrands Postulate there is at least one prime number \ in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1. Now the following question: Is there at least two prime number in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? Alireza Abdollahi === Subject: Re: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? > By Bertrands Postulate there is at least one prime number in the > closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1. Now the following question: There is at least one prime in the interval [N, 1.4*N] for large enough N. This is enough to solve your problem for large N. Then check by hand the small cases. === Subject: Re: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? posting-account=YEgZ2gwAAABJXWwDrJ38p9qyq9A1Zi2G Yes. Because the Bertrand-Chevishev theorem says that there is, at least, one prime in the OPEN interval [N,2N] from N>1 === Subject: Re: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? > Yes. Because the Bertrand-Chevishev theorem says that there is, at > least, one prime in the OPEN interval [N,2N] from N>1 Erdos proved that there exist at least one prime of the form 4k + 1 and at least one prime of the form 4k + 3 between n and 2n for all n > 6. Erdos, P. A Theorem of Sylvester and Schur. J. London Math. Soc. 9, 282-288, 1934. === Subject: Re: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? >Yes. Because the Bertrand-Chevishev theorem says that there is, at >least, one prime in the OPEN interval [N,2N] from N>1 Well, that would do it if N happened to be prime. What if it isnt? Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada === Subject: Re: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? posting-account=YEgZ2gwAAABJXWwDrJ38p9qyq9A1Zi2G Yes. Because the Bertrand-Chevishev theorem says that there is, at least, one prime in the OPEN interval [N,2N] from N>1 === Subject: Re: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? posting-account=YEgZ2gwAAABJXWwDrJ38p9qyq9A1Zi2G > By Bertrands Postulate there is at least one prime number in the > closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1. Now the following question: > Is there at least two prime number in the closed interval [N,2N] for > all N>1? Much more than 2 primes. The two theorems of Dusart(1998) permits to demonstrate it. Calling Pi(x) = Number of primes <= x 1.- Pi(x) > x / (Log(x) - 1) x > 5392 2.- Pi(x) < x / (Log(x) - 1.12) x > 7 Ludovicus === Subject: Re: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? > By Bertrands Postulate there is at least one prime number in the > closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1. Now the following question: > Is there at least two prime number in the closed interval [N,2N] for > all N>1? Based on the commentary in http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BertrandsPostulate.html the answer would be yes. Assuming Im reading it right. -- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net === Subject: Re: Is there at least two primes in the closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1? <41c1fc31$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> posting-account=4za6cQwAAACWvvpq0N1XsH01GJ8y5PED Sorry, I do not see an answer to my question over there. Alireza Abdollahi > By Bertrands Postulate there is at least one prime number in the > closed interval [N,2N] for all N>1. Now the following question: > Is there at least two prime number in the closed interval [N,2N] for > all N>1? > Based on the commentary in > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BertrandsPostulate.html the answer would be > yes. Assuming Im reading it right. > -- > Will Twentyman > email: wtwentyman at copper dot net === Subject: Submitting a paper posting-account=uLDeKgwAAADCrJpczE-sPlRuCEKmJQCc My last post was probably lost in some server... My simple question is: Is it possible to submit a paper to one journal even if my e-mail address doesnt end with .edu? Is there some of you who have post some any paper and is not a professor or a teacher, but is only a simple math graduated ? Piero Giacomelli === Subject: Re: Submitting a paper > My last post was probably lost in some server... > My simple question is: Is it possible to submit a paper to one journal > even if my e-mail address doesnt end with .edu? > Is there some of you who have post some any paper and is not a > professor or a teacher, but is only a simple math graduated ? > Piero Giacomelli Nope, sorry, you need an impressive email address, like hardy@oxford.edu. Otherwise your paper goes right in the bin. === Subject: Re: Submitting a paper >My last post was probably lost in some server... No, it wasnt. And there was a reply the same day. See Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada === Subject: Re: Submitting a paper > My last post was probably lost in some server... > My simple question is: Is it possible to submit a paper to one journal > even if my e-mail address doesnt end with .edu? Yes, it is: for instance, my e-mail address ends with .fr :-) (Besides, having an e-mail address isnt (yet?) mandatory to submit papers, AFAIK.) LD === Subject: Re: Submitting a paper > My last post was probably lost in some server... > My simple question is: Is it possible to submit a paper to one journal > even if my e-mail address doesnt end with .edu? Yes. Ive published lots of papers, and my email \ doesnt end in edu. Email suf\[CapitalThorn]xes are not used to judge mathematical papers, \ their mathematical content is. -- Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html Lacan, Jacques, 79, 91-92; mistakes his penis for a square root, 88-9 Francis Wheen, _How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World_ === Subject: In what space a pentagram... posting-account=yKf8UwwAAABFL8I0LVVxaqT3lOBPEWSq ...would have all lines orthogonal (or nearly so)? The usual pentagram, with circle and all. Our drwng would be a plane representation (shadow) of some object in a higer dimension space. Is there any space where it would be a cube, a pyramid, other regular polyhedra? Can somebody imagine a `translation` where angles are chemical links, like saying it is the ßat representation of a protein? What (known) molecules would be equivalent to a pentagram under some transformation (or projection too)? What if we add two circles around? And if we consider different colors as representative of a dimension (not geometrical, maybe interpreted as electromagnetism)? Say, the star one color, the circles other colors... The goal is to \[CapitalThorn]nd equivalent regular polyhedra in high dim spaces, though it would be interesting to \[CapitalThorn]nd \ \[CapitalThorn]gures with known mechanical properties in higher spaces equivalent to a pentagram embedded on a 2-plane. Can you think of other religious symbolisms interpreted this way? Like the maltese cross or the swastika. It would also be interesting to try to interpret them as electrical circuits deployed in higher dimensions, again with known properties as a key to do a search... Another idea, ritual movements might spell the vertices of other \[CapitalThorn]gures having direct interpretations in higher dimensional spaces. Danilo, the Forgotten, the Forsaken, the Ignored, the Wanderer, the Seeker, the Unnamed, the Misconceived, the Karmik, the Betrayed... === Subject: In what space a pentagram... posting-account=yKf8UwwAAABFL8I0LVVxaqT3lOBPEWSq Got inserted in another thread... > ...would have all lines orthogonal (or nearly so)? The usual pentagram, > with circle and all. Our drwng would be a plane representation (shadow) > of some object in a higer dimension space. Is there any space where it > would be a cube, a pyramid, other regular polyhedra? Can somebody > imagine a `translation` where angles are chemical links, like saying it > is the ßat representation of a protein? What (known) molecules would > be equivalent to a pentagram under some transformation (or projection > too)? What if we add two circles around? And if we consider different > colors as representative of a dimension (not geometrical, maybe > interpreted as electromagnetism)? Say, the star one color, the circles > other colors... The goal is to \[CapitalThorn]nd equivalent regular polyhedra in > high dim spaces, though it would be interesting to \[CapitalThorn]nd \[CapitalThorn]gures with > known mechanical properties in higher spaces equivalent to a pentagram > embedded on a 2-plane. Can you think of other religious symbolisms > interpreted this way? Like the maltese cross or the swastika. It would > also be interesting to try to interpret them as electrical circuits > deployed in higher dimensions, again with known properties as a key to > do a search... > Another idea, ritual movements might spell the vertices of other > \[CapitalThorn]gures having direct interpretations in higher dimensional spaces. Danilo, the Forgotten, the Forsaken, the Ignored, the Wanderer, the Seeker, the Unnamed, the Misconceived, the Karmik, the Betrayed... === Subject: Who won this competition? In his Cantorian set theory and limitation of size Michael Hallett quotes this: The usefulness of mathematics, the esteem in which it is held, and the honourable name of Ôexact science par \ excellence rightly given it are all due to the clarity of its principles, the rigour of its proofs and the precision of its theorems. In order to ensure the perpetuation of these precious merits in so beautiful a part of our knowledge, we seek a clear precise theory of what is called In\[CapitalThorn]nite in mathematics. Competition announcement of the Berlin Academy of Science for 1786 Who won, and with what? === Subject: Existence of countable Hamel basis 1.9 primary) id iBGLYee10428; All normed spaces as vector spaces have basis,so called Hamel basis. Hamel bases in in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional Banach spaces are uncountable.This follows from Baire category theorem. What if the in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional space isnt \ complete? Does it always contain countable Hamel basis? The space d={(x_n):only \[CapitalThorn]nitely many x_n =/=0} has e_n=(0,..,0,1,0,...0) as Hamel basis. I would like to see other examples as this is the only one I can think of in the moment. === Subject: Re: Existence of countable Hamel basis at 09:34 PM, anonymous@mathforum.org (Felix) said: >All normed spaces as vector spaces have basis,so called >Hamel basis. >Hamel bases in in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional Banach spaces >are uncountable.This follows from Baire category theorem. What if the >in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional space isnt complete? >Does it always contain countable Hamel basis? No. >The space d={(x_n):only \[CapitalThorn]nitely many x_n =/=0} has >e_n=(0,..,0,1,0,...0) as Hamel basis. Make a slight change; index the elements on an uncountable set. That is, instead of {x in R^I| all but \[CapitalThorn]nitely many X_i are zero} use {x in R^U, U uncountable| all but \[CapitalThorn]nitely many X_i are zero}. That gives you an example of an incomplete space with no countable Hamel basis. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Existence of countable Hamel basis >All normed spaces as vector spaces have basis,so called >Hamel basis. >Hamel bases in in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional Banach spaces >are uncountable.This follows from Baire category theorem. >What if the in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional space isnt \ complete? >Does it always contain countable Hamel basis? Of course not; it might, for instance, contain a complete in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional subspace even though it itself \ isnt complete. Lee Rudolph === Subject: Re: nth term of the series 1.9 primary) id iBGLkGk11443; >Can anybody \[CapitalThorn]nd the general term of the following set \ series: Use difference tables. >(1) 1, 4, 10, 20, 35, 56, 84, ... (n 3) [n choose 3], n = 3, 4, 5, ... >(2) 4, 15, 36, 70, 120, 189, 280, ... 11, 21, 34, 50, 69, 91, ... 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, ... 3, 3, 3, 3, ... 4 + 11(n 1) + 10(n 2) + 3(n 3) n = 0, 1, 2, ... >(3) 6, 20, 45, 84, 140, 216, 315, ... 14, 25, 39, 56, 76, 99, ... 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, ... 3, 3, 3, 3, ... 6 + 14(n 1) + 11(n 2) + 3(n 3) n = 0, 1, 2, ... Key fact is that for \[CapitalThorn]xed k, the successive differences of (n k) are given by (n k-1). Cf. \[CapitalThorn]nite difference calculus (e.g. in Graham, Knuth, Patashniks _Concrete Mathematics_). Todd Trimble === Subject: Re: Existence of countable Hamel basis 1.9 primary) id iBGMAHx14180; >All normed spaces as vector spaces have basis,so called >Hamel basis. >Hamel bases in in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional Banach spaces >are uncountable.This follows from Baire category theorem. >What if the in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional space isnt \ complete? >Does it always contain countable Hamel basis? Of course not. For instance, given a maximal orthonormal set in l_2 and a line which passes through no member of the set, there exist linear complements of the line containing every member of the set. Obviously the complement cant be closed (hence is not complete under the induced norm), but the complement has uncountable linear dimension. Todd Trimble === Subject: How to visualize limits in category theory I came late to this discussion and, for some reason, Google no longer allows me to post follow-ups, so I have to start a new thread. But let me add my 2c. The original limits were actually colimits along directed sets. In this, they very much resembled limits along nets and were doubtless named by analogy. So suppose D is a directed set (a partially ordered set in which for every x and y, there is a z with x < z and y < z (for our purposes, < will stand for less than or equal)). Assume for each d in D, you are given a group (say, other models of \[CapitalThorn]nitary \[CapitalThorn]rst order theories, such as \[CapitalThorn]elds, will do) G_d and whenever d < e a homomorphism f_{ed}: G_d --> G_e such that G_{dd} is the identity and whenever c < d < e, f_{ed}.f_{dc} = f_{ec}. This is called a directed system of groups. Then its (co)limit is constructed by taking the union of the G_d, identifying each element of G_d with its image under f_{ed} in G_e and de\[CapitalThorn]ning the group operations on that set. It is easy and I leave the details to the reader. The dual notion was developed and it was shown that the Pontrjagin dual of a colimit of abelian groups was the limit of the dual groups (carried out in the category--the concept was very new--of compact abelian groups). Anyway, calling the limits was very natural. Why limits and colimits were named as they were is not clear to me, but I remember Eilenberg saying once that product was rarely misused (but cf. free product). Bourbaki generalized it to \[CapitalThorn]ltered limits and colimits and eventually Eilenberg and others realized that even that was unnecessary and that any functor could be said to have a limit or colimit. Actually, you dont even need a functor; it is quite natural to use a \ graph and a graph morphism to a category. By this time, the original connection to Moore-Smith convergence of nets had been left behind, like the Cheshire cat. When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory Discussion, linux) > When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize limits. -- Eventually the truth will come out, and you know what Ill \ do then? Probably go to the beach. Ill also hang out in some bars. Yup, Ill de\[CapitalThorn]nitely hang out in some bars, preferably near a beach. -- JSH on the rewards of winning a mathematical revolution === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory >> When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. >complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is >relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize >limits. I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used into think about, and Im distressed to see you return to visualize. Nothing Ive read in this thread, from the beginning on, has seemed to *me* to have anything at all to do with visualization (except, maybe, the occasional post referring to pentagons). Probably the original poster didnt mean what I mean by visualization either, but if he did, he hasnt been replied to. Lee Rudolph === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory |>> When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. |>complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is |>relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize |>limits. | |I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used |into think about, and Im distressed to see you return to |visualize. When I visualize products, I often visualize them as boxes. When I visualize subobjects, I often visualize them as amorphous shapes inside the boxes. :-) Actually, I tend to keep a picture in mind of the diagram used to de\[CapitalThorn]ne the limit object, picturing the object itself as the result of a compromise between two forces. The de\[CapitalThorn]nition can be considered in two parts; on the one hand the object has to be large enough (it has supporting struts inside...) and on the other hand it cant be excessively big (it has a tight covering surrounding it). Keith Ramsay === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory posting-account=tdYrvA0AAACTm02P3kgbrEwRzJI8b08S Oh come on, just admit it! Youre thinking in terms of venn diagrams like the rest of us ;) Rudolph) > |> > |>> When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. > |> > |>complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is > |>relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize > |>limits. > |I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used > |into think about, and Im distressed to see you return to > |visualize. > When I visualize products, I often visualize them as boxes. When > I visualize subobjects, I often visualize them as amorphous shapes > inside the boxes. :-) > Actually, I tend to keep a picture in mind of the diagram used to > de\[CapitalThorn]ne the limit object, picturing the object itself as the result of > a compromise between two forces. The de\[CapitalThorn]nition can be considered > in two parts; on the one hand the object has to be large enough > (it has supporting struts inside...) and on the other hand it cant > be excessively big (it has a tight covering surrounding it). > Keith Ramsay === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory > I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used > into think about, and Im distressed to see you return to > visualize. Nothing Ive read in this thread, from the > beginning on, has seemed to *me* to have anything at all to > do with visualization (except, maybe, the occasional post > referring to pentagons). Probably the original poster \ didnt > mean what I mean by visualization either, but if he did, he > hasnt been replied to. How about visualizing a rising line | split into two rays / | and then each ray split into two rays / / / | and so on, ad in\[CapitalThorn]nitum. And then think of this as a great candle holder (I am inspired here by Wolfs Menorah, although actually a different object, communicated to me by my friend Bob Wolf, the logician). Then one can visualize the inverse limit as the set of candles. -- Allan Adler * Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and * comments do not reßect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston. === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory Discussion, linux) > When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. >>complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is >>relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize >>limits. > I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used > into think about, and Im distressed to see you return to > visualize. Sorry. I got it from the subject header. No excuse, I know. Youre right, though. Think about is better than visualize here (except maybe for the diagrammatic tips, which are reasonably visual). I hate to cause distress. Wish I could offer you a Pepto or something. -- Jesse F. Hughes Well, you know as soon as you have a new number I will be happy to add it to the list. Dont try those childish tit-for-tat games with me. -- Ross Finlayson on Cantors theorem. === Subject: Re: Implicit Function Theorem 1.9 primary) id iBGMqWo17652; >> Let (x*,y*) in S be a vector such h(x*,y*) = 0 and the matrix nabla_y >> h(x*,y*) is nonsingular, the implicit function states that >> there exist (x,y) in the neigborhood of (x*,y*) such that y = f(x) and >> h(x,f(x)) = 0. >Youve badly mangled the IFT, omitting hypotheses, misstating the >conclusion, ... sorry. >.... h is C^1, so because det[dh/dy](x*,y*) is nonzero, det[dh/dy] >is nonzero in a neighborhood of (x*,y*) by continuity; your >conclusion follows. Any easy way to show this? === Subject: Re: Implicit Function Theorem >> Let (x*,y*) in S be a vector such h(x*,y*) = 0 and the matrix nabla_y >> h(x*,y*) is nonsingular, the implicit function states that >> there exist (x,y) in the neigborhood of (x*,y*) such that y = f(x) and >> h(x,f(x)) = 0. >Youve badly mangled the IFT, omitting hypotheses, misstating the >conclusion, ... > sorry. >.... h is C^1, so because det[dh/dy](x*,y*) is nonzero, det[dh/dy] >is nonzero in a neighborhood of (x*,y*) by continuity; your >conclusion follows. > Any easy way to show this? Im not sure how someone could miss it. Why not state the \ IFT precisely and completely? Then state your question precisely and completely. If youre still having trouble, we can try to sort it out. === Subject: Re: Existence of countable Hamel basis 1.9 primary) id iBGNSFm20668; >>All normed spaces as vector spaces have basis,so called >>Hamel basis. >>Hamel bases in in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional Banach spaces >>are uncountable.This follows from Baire category theorem. >>What if the in\[CapitalThorn]nite dimensional space isnt \ complete? >>Does it always contain countable Hamel basis? >Of course not. For instance, given a maximal orthonormal >set in l_2 and a line which passes through no member of the >set, there exist linear complements of the line containing >every member of the set. Obviously the complement cant be >closed (hence is not complete under the induced norm), but >the complement has uncountable linear dimension. >Todd Trimble Obviously I should have said given... a line not in the linear span of the [maximal orthonormal] set, .... === Subject: Re: logic is innate? >> >>> >> >> >>>The term Paradox of Material Implication refers to the fact >> These arent paradoxes of material implication. They are problems >> of natural language, relevance, and so on. > They are called Paradoxes of Material Implication for historical > reasons. Note that these arent problems for natural language > *speakers*, just people who wish to translate a natural language > into the FOL. >>If theyre relevant at all in >> the current discussion, then they cast doubt on the claim that logic >> is innate. How does one claim that logic is part of the fundamental >> features of the human brain, when natural language conditionals are so >> obviously not truth-functional? > Because there are different natural language conditionals, some of > which are truth functional. > I still stand by my Eat veggies, get ice cream example, since in my > experience, if the father gives the kid ice cream without him having > eaten his vegetables, people would say that the caved. Of course, > your experience could be different. Assuming that this reaction is > universal is too far out. > Granting this, your example of the non-monotonicity of this > conversational conditional doesnt really show what you think it does. > It shows that the context generated (this may not be the best phrase > for what I mean, but...) by the sentences Eat veggies, get ice cream > and Eat veggies and kill sis, get ice cream are different -- very > different. In short, youve shown the existence of two classes of > conversational conditionals. This isnt new -- we should not forget > that logical english, like what a mathematician would use when > stating a theorem, is a fragment of the whole of english. > For what its worth, my view is that our natural language abilities > combined with rough, though strong intuitions of truth and falsity > constitute most peoples logic abilities. Conversational implicatures > can lead people to stray from classical logic because they cannot > differentiate between a truth functional and a non-truth functional > conditional. > Ôcid Ôooh hoo hoo for ooh. Some philosophers believe that symbolic logic can reveal the structure of all possible good inference, and so reveal the common skeletal structure that underlies all reasonable thought processes. Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and other philosophers have argued that there is an intimate connection among these three things: predicate logic (which is the main kind of symbolic logic studied in this course), the human mind, and the deep structure of the physical world. SH: Since our brains --> minds receive have perceptions of the physical world, and our brains evolved in the physical world notions of time and motion appear to be inherent; these notions lead to survival strategies. Our minds interpret the universe in terms of causality. So logic is innate to the degree that it matches our perception of present events and then intuits or rehearses future event scenarios, counterfactuals. Natural language represents these abstract ideas, concretely. I found the following musing on the web. http://www.ebtx.com/ntx/ntx14.htm Existence consists of logic embodying itself, interacting with itself, and validating itself by in\[CapitalThorn]nite causal demonstration. Conversely, acausality would consist of logic invalidating itself by acausal demonstration. And what of randomness, Stephen === Subject: Re: logic is innate? ------ > hoo hoo for ooh. > Some philosophers believe that symbolic logic can reveal the > structure of all possible good inference, and so reveal the common > skeletal structure that underlies all reasonable thought processes. Whether on not that is so, it is certainly true that in the 19th century, George Boole (and others) made progress by proposing a neat _algebra_ which may be used to show rules of inference in the neatest form so far proposed. Certainly that is so much clearer, at least to a modern mind, than all those Gr.beko-Latin (Aristotelian) syllogisms (/modus ponens/, /modus tollens/, /modus tollendo-tollens/ and so on) - but it doesnt mean that way back when, people were incapable of what we might loosely describe as logical thought: drawing the correct conclusions from the given assumptions. > Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and other philosophers have Russell may have _hinted_ about this, as may some of his (more) atomistic followers. (He had antecedents, of course.) But Wittgenstein? Whose leg are you pulling? LJJW spent most of his time reminding people of things which their various philosophical peregrinations had allowed them to forget - for example, that the properties of Logic as (seemingly) the lowest level in Mathematics are not _deduced_ from the overall structure of Mathematics, but are a *fundamental requirement*: and that logic is /displayed/ in language(s), but that languages are a manifest outcome of human modes of communication, and reßect logical principles only insofar as humans need logic (in whatever form) to live their lives as they do. (BTW, Martin Heidegger, from a completely different standpoint, and for utterly different purposes, was saying just about the same thing about language, at about the same time. Some people may even \[CapitalThorn]nd Heidegger more accessible in this connexion.) > argued that there is an intimate connection among these three things: > predicate logic (which is the main kind of symbolic logic studied in > this course), the human mind, and the deep structure of the physical > world. > SH: Since our brains --> minds receive have perceptions of the > physical world, and our brains evolved in the physical world notions > of time and motion appear to be inherent; these notions lead to > survival strategies. Our minds interpret the universe in terms of > causality. So logic is innate to the degree that it matches our > perception of present events and then intuits or rehearses future > event scenarios, counterfactuals. There is _one_ particular thing which seems to be built-in to our brains: the notion that the world is somehow independent of the individual: the picture of the world that the individual has visually is one of \[CapitalThorn]xed external objects - spin yourself round and see if this is not so (unless you overdo it and become giddy). I might therefore try to argue (but will not be fool enough to do so here) that solipsism is somehow impossible, given the physical constitution of human beings. > Natural language represents these abstract ideas, concretely. I > found the following musing on the web. > http://www.ebtx.com/ntx/ntx14.htm Existence consists of logic > embodying itself, interacting with itself, and validating itself by > in\[CapitalThorn]nite causal demonstration. Conversely, acausality would consist > of logic invalidating itself by acausal demonstration. > And what of randomness, Stephen One day, when I have a little more time, I might just try to look this one up ... Best wishes, John johnDOTmorrisonATtescoDOTnet -- One should try everything once, except incest and folk dancing. - Sir Arnold Bax (1883-1953) === Subject: Re: logic is innate? <30hnelF2vr3i3U1@uni-berlin.de> <310mqkF35dgm5U1@uni-berlin.de> <87u0r73f4i.fsf@phiwumbda.org> <313slaF34ah79U1@uni-berlin.de> <314djvF377aqnU1@individual.net> <871xeasayt.fsf@phiwumbda.org> posting-account=_-j7cgwAAADnQK9-r68QgRsgfV-jhA3A >> >> >>> >> >> >>>The term Paradox of Material Implication refers to the fact >> These arent paradoxes of material implication. They are problems >> of natural language, relevance, and so on. > They are called Paradoxes of Material Implication for historical > reasons. Note that these arent problems for natural language > *speakers*, just people who wish to translate a natural language > into the FOL. >>If theyre relevant at all in >> the current discussion, then they cast doubt on the claim that logic >> is innate. How does one claim that logic is part of the fundamental >> features of the human brain, when natural language conditionals are so >> obviously not truth-functional? > Because there are different natural language conditionals, some of > which are truth functional. > I still stand by my Eat veggies, get ice cream example, since in my > experience, if the father gives the kid ice cream without him having > eaten his vegetables, people would say that the caved. Of course, > your experience could be different. Assuming that this reaction is > universal is too far out. > Granting this, your example of the non-monotonicity of this > conversational conditional doesnt really show what you think it does. > It shows that the context generated (this may not be the best phrase > for what I mean, but...) by the sentences Eat veggies, get ice cream > and Eat veggies and kill sis, get ice cream are different -- very > different. In short, youve shown the existence of two classes of > conversational conditionals. This isnt new -- we should \ not forget > that logical english, like what a mathematician would use when > stating a theorem, is a fragment of the whole of english. > For what its worth, my view is that our natural language abilities > combined with rough, though strong intuitions of truth and falsity > constitute most peoples logic abilities. Conversational implicatures > can lead people to stray from classical logic because they cannot > differentiate between a truth functional and a non-truth functional > conditional. > Ôcid Ôooh > hoo hoo for ooh. > Some philosophers believe that symbolic logic can reveal the structure of > all possible good inference, and so reveal the common skeletal structure > that underlies all reasonable thought processes. Bertrand Russell, Ludwig > Wittgenstein, and other philosophers have argued that there is an intimate > connection among these three things: predicate logic (which is the main kind > of symbolic logic studied in this course), the human mind, and the deep > structure of the physical world. Wittgenstein eventually came to his senses. > SH: Since our brains --> minds receive have perceptions of the physical > world, and our brains evolved in the physical world notions of time and > motion appear to be inherent; these notions lead to survival strategies. Our > minds interpret the universe in terms of causality. So logic is innate to > the degree that it matches our perception of present events and then intuits > or rehearses future event scenarios, counterfactuals. > Natural language represents these abstract ideas, concretely. I found the > following musing on the web. > http://www.ebtx.com/ntx/ntx14.htm Existence consists of logic embodying > itself, interacting with itself, and validating itself by in\[CapitalThorn]nite causal > demonstration. Conversely, acausality would consist of logic invalidating > itself by acausal demonstration. That looks like an indecipherable string of words. (I dont deny the possibility that it could make sense in context -- any string can be given meaning by explication) What sense of consistence, interaction, and validation are meant? Given that Id like to keep my ontology austere, do I even want to know? Ôcid Ôooh === Subject: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy posting-account=Q2zO6wwAAABSLuGzZIjG0efOtB9n8fUY I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate being reminded of that fact. They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another dimension! But the reality is that much of a state universitys funding comes from tax dollars. David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? Hes tax payer supported. Now if he doesnt want to live by rules of basic conduct \ then he needs to get a job where he doesnt get funds from taxpayers. Now the nice way to handle this situation is to let it die down. I made my complaint, Oklahoma State University heard it, did whatever (basically nothing), Ullrich whined on the newsgroup, played the victim and got his attention from it. Let it die. Now I do understand that some of you keep bringing it up, like the yahoo who got me discussing this again, because you LIKE controversy, and wish to keep raking over old wounds. However, Im not going to let you knuckleheads make up your own twisted history, just to make me look bad, where you leave out pertinent facts. Reality is David Ullrich is the one who brought up race in a negative context by talking abotu racial slurs. David Ullrich is the one who did so more than a year after comments which most people might \[CapitalThorn]nd hard to get \[CapitalThorn]ghting mad over as I said he acted as my lapdog in an instance, and apologized soon after. David Ullrich is the one who made a point of coming on the newsgroup to say that Id contacted his school. David Ullrich is the one who probably loved the attention when hordes of you rushed to his defense, said the usual nonsense about minorities just trying race to screw over white people, and acted like a big happy family defending yourselves from me. He used you, worked you like a pack of lab animals, and probably just thought itd die. But some of you like to keep bringing it up, and I dont mind telling the full story. To me, your behavior is typical of people who prefer to be used in such a way, versus dealing with the real world. You like your fantasy world so youre easily used. Get over it. And dont worry. Youll be used again. And \ probably again, and again and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, and your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for an instance. James Harris === Subject: Re: Funding, real world, not fantasy > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? > Hes tax payer supported. And only those who agree with James Harris should be tax payer supported... right... I was just thinkng making a racial slur........ but nope..... not today..... === Subject: Re: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate > being reminded of that fact. > They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another > dimension! > But the reality is that much of a state universitys funding comes from > tax dollars. > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? > Hes tax payer supported. Being unemployed, so are you. Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [snip inaccurate diatribe against Prof. Ullrich] > Let it die. OK. Your move. [snip continuation of above] -- There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious. -- Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle. -- http://www.crbond.com === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) > And dont worry. Youll be used again. And \ probably again, and again > and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, and > your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for an > instance. Whoa. David Ullrich has graduated from lapdog to lapdog master? And he uses his skills against his old master? I think some accolades are in order here. How about an award for Most Improved? But this plot sounds a little familiar: Pupil uses skills against his master. Say, have you been watching kung fu movies or something? -- If you like high adventure, come with me. If you like the stealth of intrigue, come with me. If you like blood and thunder, come with me. But \[CapitalThorn]rst listen to a word from our sponsor. -- Adventures by Morse === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <871xdp4drl.fsf@phiwumbda.org> posting-account=XHGPzAwAAACBzDwz8l_9KYOmofDRUylj > And dont worry. Youll be used again. And \ probably again, and again > and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, and > your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for an > instance. > Whoa. > David Ullrich has graduated from lapdog to lapdog master? And he uses > his skills against his old master? I want to be a lapdog master. Are there any courses I can take? How does one know, when one is a lapdog master. Are there of\[CapitalThorn]cial lists. For all I know I might not even have made it as far as lapdog yet. > I think some accolades are in order here. How about an award for > Most Improved? > But this plot sounds a little familiar: Pupil uses skills against his > master. Say, have you been watching kung fu movies or something? > -- > If you like high adventure, come with me. > If you like the stealth of intrigue, come with me. > If you like blood and thunder, come with me. > But \[CapitalThorn]rst listen to a word from our sponsor. -- Adventures by Morse === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I want to be a lapdog master. Are there any courses I can take? How > does one know, when one is a lapdog master. Are there of\[CapitalThorn]cial lists. > For all I know I might not even have made it as far as lapdog yet. A lapdog is just a dog small and tame enough to be held on ones lap. So a lapdog master is one who owns and controls, and perhaps trains a lagdog, I would think. In any case, good luck in your lapdog mastering plan, and please keep us updated from time to time. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) >> And dont worry. Youll be used again. And \ probably again, and > again >> and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, > and >> your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for > an >> instance. >> Whoa. >> David Ullrich has graduated from lapdog to lapdog master? And he > uses >> his skills against his old master? > I want to be a lapdog master. Are there any courses I can take? First, you must \[CapitalThorn]nd a master who makes you his lapdog. Then, when the time is ready, you must defeat your master and gather lapdogs of your own. Typically, this involves considering a racial epithet and then thinking better of it. > How does one know, when one is a lapdog master. Are there of\[CapitalThorn]cial > lists. For all I know I might not even have made it as far as > lapdog yet. Never mind. You are not lapdog master material. -- A recruitment consultant I know thinks the most important quality in a winner is to be lucky. To avoid wasting his time with unlucky applicants, he takes half the resumes piled on his desk and throws them straight in the bin. -- John Ramsden === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <871xdp4drl.fsf@phiwumbda.org> <87k6rg6f6x.fsf@phiwumbda.org> posting-account=XHGPzAwAAACBzDwz8l_9KYOmofDRUylj > I want to be a lapdog master. Are there any courses I can take? > First, you must \[CapitalThorn]nd a master who makes you his lapdog. Then, when > the time is ready, you must defeat your master and gather lapdogs of > your own. Typically, this involves considering a racial epithet and > then thinking better of it. > How does one know, when one is a lapdog master. Are there of\[CapitalThorn]cial > lists. For all I know I might not even have made it as far as > lapdog yet. > Never mind. You are not lapdog master material. === Subject: Re: Funding, real world, not fantasy >I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate > being reminded of that fact. Really? Whered you get that idea? > They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another > dimension! Tuition, endowments, and corporate grants are not outer space, yet they provide far more funding for Professors at many universities than Federal funds. > But the reality is that much of a state universitys funding comes from > tax dollars. > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? In 2002, Oklahoma State University received a grand total of $8,773,000 in Federal funding. Thats for every person in every \ department. They have 33 people on the faculty right now just in the mathematics department there. They have hundreds of people getting that money. Lets be generous and say there are only 450 or so people receiving that money. Thats under $20,000 each (which is too high by far, but were being generous). Lets say David receives $20,000 from the Federal government each year. Only about 80% of Federal tax receipts are from taxpayers (as opposed to corporations etc), so say $16,000 from taxes. The government took in about 80% of $1.9 trillion in personal taxes, so about $1.5 trillion. Lets assume youre better than average in the \ money department. So you paid, say, $45,000 in taxes last year. Thats quite a bit. That equals about 1/33,333,333 of Federal personal tax receipts. So, on average, if David received $16,000 from personal tax receipts, 1/33,333,333 of that $16,000, or $0.00048 came from you. Thats less than 1/2000 of a dollar. I think David couldnt care less what your 1/20 of a cent thinks of him. > Hes tax payer supported. > Now if he doesnt want to live by rules of basic conduct then he needs > to get a job where he doesnt get funds from taxpayers. He hasnt lives by rules of basic conduct? Good Heavens. \ What did he do? Oh, thats right, he didnt do anything. > Now the nice way to handle this situation is to let it die down. But, of course, you didnt, instead: > I > made my complaint, Oklahoma State University heard it, did whatever > (basically nothing), Ullrich whined on the newsgroup, played the > victim and got his attention from it. So, in other words, rather than letting it die down, you did everything you could to get him \[CapitalThorn]red. You failed abjectly. As a result, you say: > Let it die. Thats awfully generous of you. Try your best to get someone \[CapitalThorn]red, and then when you fail, say Gee, whats wrong with you people? *I* let it die down. Why dont you? Hypocritical jerk. > Now I do understand that some of you keep bringing it up, like the > yahoo who got me discussing this again, because you LIKE controversy, > and wish to keep raking over old wounds. Some of *us* keep bringing it up? How many threads have you started about the subject recently? How about other people? Geez. One would think youd be embarassed to see this in print over and over. Michael === Subject: Re: Funding, real world, not fantasy >I think David couldnt care less what your 1/20 of a cent thinks of him. A mil here, a mil there, pretty soon your talking real money. Rich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy posting-account=a35wGg0AAACOWUi67S1IGDnAcxMVzE0y impressive. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy posting-account=UtgH7gwAAACpBhTelVPOXNP7RAfbtQrK > I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate > being reminded of that fact. > They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another > dimension! > But the reality is that much of a state universitys funding comes from > tax dollars. > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? > Hes tax payer supported. > Now if he doesnt want to live by rules of basic conduct then he needs > to get a job where he doesnt get funds from taxpayers. > Now the nice way to handle this situation is to let it die down. I > made my complaint, Oklahoma State University heard it, did whatever > (basically nothing), Ullrich whined on the newsgroup, played the > victim and got his attention from it. > Let it die. > Now I do understand that some of you keep bringing it up, like the > yahoo who got me discussing this again, because you LIKE controversy, > and wish to keep raking over old wounds. > However, Im not going to let you knuckleheads make up \ your own twisted > history, just to make me look bad, where you leave out pertinent facts. > Reality is David Ullrich is the one who brought up race in a negative > context by talking abotu racial slurs. David Ullrich is the one who > did so more than a year after comments which most people might \[CapitalThorn]nd > hard to get \[CapitalThorn]ghting mad over as I said he acted as my lapdog in an > instance, and apologized soon after. > David Ullrich is the one who made a point of coming on the newsgroup to > say that Id contacted his school. > David Ullrich is the one who probably loved the attention when hordes > of you rushed to his defense, said the usual nonsense about minorities > just trying race to screw over white people, and acted like a big > happy family defending yourselves from me. David Ullrich is the one who knows math! > He used you, worked you like a pack of lab animals, and probably just > thought itd die. But some of you like to keep bringing it up, and I > dont mind telling the full story. > To me, your behavior is typical of people who prefer to be used in such > a way, versus dealing with the real world. You like your fantasy world > so youre easily used. > Get over it. > And dont worry. Youll be used again. And \ probably again, and again > and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, and > your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for an > instance. > James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate > being reminded of that fact. > They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another > dimension! > But the reality is that much of a state universitys funding comes from > tax dollars. How much of that is state vs federal money? > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? > Hes tax payer supported. > Now if he doesnt want to live by rules of basic conduct then he needs > to get a job where he doesnt get funds from taxpayers. > Now the nice way to handle this situation is to let it die down. I > made my complaint, Oklahoma State University heard it, did whatever > (basically nothing), Ullrich whined on the newsgroup, played the > victim and got his attention from it. > Let it die. Thats why you started *another* thread on it? > Now I do understand that some of you keep bringing it up, like the > yahoo who got me discussing this again, because you LIKE controversy, > and wish to keep raking over old wounds. > However, Im not going to let you knuckleheads make up \ your own twisted > history, just to make me look bad, where you leave out pertinent facts. facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about matters of (recent) history. -- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich rant] ... [Will Twentyman] > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about > matters of (recent) history. Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c as it ever got) would be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other people the way JSH did. But he didnt do \ so. He said he thought it would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the extent of it. I dont agree it would have been appropriate, but \ theres nothing objectionable about discussing its appropriateness. Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course theres no shortage of people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. He doesnt rant about them. I view this as another manifestation of his extraordinary talent for deftly avoiding pesky facts to cut straight to the heart of a fantasy . === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> posting-account=Q2zO6wwAAABSLuGzZIjG0efOtB9n8fUY > [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] > ... This reply is distinctive in that David Ullrich replied to it claiming it represented his actual thinking. So, I think it worthy to step out whats being said. > [Will Twentyman] the > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about > matters of (recent) history. > Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to was in > early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David Ullrich was truly > pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, and a lapdog at one > point. JSH even apologized for that. As David has explained endlessly ever > since, he thought that delivering some sort of racial slur (thats as > speci\[CapitalThorn]c as it ever got) would be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt > talk about other people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he > thought it would have been appropriate to do so, and \ thats the extent of > it. So, according to Tim Peters, David Ullrich justi\[CapitalThorn]ably introduced race, in a context where he noted he was angry, to try and explain to me how NOT to talk to people! But, why pick a racial slur? Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking of the word nigger. Now then, his claim is that he wanted to teach me a lesson, and now in context his full claim then is that he thought that using the racial slur nigger would teach me a lesson. How is that better? > I dont agree it would have been appropriate, but \ theres nothing > objectionable about discussing its appropriateness. However, why does race matter? And why is it so important to teach me a lesson, when race hadnt been the subject at hand? After all, Id said that David Ullrich had *acted* as my lapdog in an instance, which is a far cry from a demeaning racial insult meant to indicate that someone is some degraded thing. My comment was graded, and indicated that Ullrich was acting in a particular way, in an instance, while he thought it \[CapitalThorn]t to hurl a racial epithet in reply, by his own words. Later he claims it was to teach me a lesson? And remember, David Ullrich is an actual professor at a state school. He *does* in fact teach students there lessons. His judgement is clearly questionable, at a minimum. > Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course theres no shortage of people > who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. He doesnt rant about them. I > view this as another manifestation of his extraordinary talent for deftly > avoiding pesky facts to cut straight to the heart of a fantasy . Now theres a paternalistic nature to the comments here, and theres also a paternalistic slant to the idea that Ullrich wished to teach me a lesson. However, the reality is that others hurling racial insults is not an excuse for Ullrichs own comments. And its \ worth noting that NO ONE did ever call me nigger on the newsgroup until David Ullrich came here posting about my *private* communication to Oklahoma State University when I made my complaint. So, he actually created the very situation that he talked about, by proxy, as other posters chose to use the racial slur that hed talked of thinking appropriate. I challenge you to \[CapitalThorn]nd any response from David Ullrich to those people. As why *should* he challenge them, when he himself said he thought a racial slur the appropriate reply? Now then, others did for Ullrich what he was too afraid to do himself, though he tried in a backhanded manner. Ullrich introduced the subject of racial slurs. Ullrich whined on the newsgroup about my private complaint. Ullrich is the one who ßeshed out his thinking with another post talking about when he felt racial slurs would be appropriate. His example was of someone breaking into his house to rape his daughter! Now as an American citizen, I have the right to complain about some professor at a state university publicly posting such things on Usenet. I think that David Ullrich reßects badly not only on his school, but on Americans in general, as I doubt anyone who looks at this objectively, can \[CapitalThorn]gure out how a professor at a state university could behave in such a way, and get away with breaking so many rules--like publicizing my private complaint. Then again, I fear that many will just say, yes, thats \ those Americans. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > But, why pick a racial slur? > Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, > as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South > African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking > of the word nigger. Im a South African you insensitive clod!! Not all non-black South Africans are racists, ing idiot. BTW, we hardly know the word n*gg*r. This reverse racism is getting me down. Its ok for \ non-white people to bring up race in a conversation, but as soon as a white man says anything about race, hes considered a racist. Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, were proud of what we achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add to the few problems we still have. People like you! Bringing up the issue of South Africa and racism just shows how racist your thoughts really are. Prick. kalix === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > But, why pick a racial slur? > Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be > applied to me, as in another post some time before, in a > discussion with a South African, I pointed out that I was black. > So he probably was thinking of the word nigger. > Im a South African you insensitive clod!! Not all non-black South > Africans are racists, ing idiot. BTW, we hardly know the word > n*gg*r. This is a natural point of confusion. With a South African accent, that sounds like Kaf\[CapitalThorn]r. > This reverse racism is getting me down. Its ok for non-white > people to bring up race in a conversation, but as soon as a > white man says anything about race, hes considered a racist. Even writing as an American white, I think I can say that \ its a tricky situation for American blacks (and, presumably, South African blacks). As a group, they remember a time when solidarity was close to the only weapon they had. It would be dif\[CapitalThorn]cult to give that \ up by refusing to back an individuals complaint, even if they realize that individual is abusing that solidarity, playing the race card for non-race reasons (like trying to get a critic to go away). I think thats a big mistake. Recognition of the legitimacy \ of their complaints was slowly won, at great cost, but it can be quickly piddled away again if they dont police their own ranks. But, then, its not my decision, is it? > Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, were proud of what we > achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add to the few > problems we still have. People like you! Bringing up the issue of > South Africa and racism just shows how racist your thoughts > really are. Prick. Even from half-way around the world, I was and am proud of South Africa (as a human being). Its because of you all (and \ other stories in the same vein) that I sometimes think were going to get out of the 21st century alive. However, many as the sins are that I would accuse Harris of, I have not seen him accuse any individual South African of racism, justly or otherwise. He did say he told a South African he was black. It looks to me like you just did what you just complained about, only with the name-plates of the positions reversed. Double-reverse racism? Jim Burns === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> <41C58D35.2E458A78@osu.edu> posting-account=Q2zO6wwAAABSLuGzZIjG0efOtB9n8fUY > Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, were proud of what we > achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add to the few > problems we still have. People like you! Bringing up the issue of > South Africa and racism just shows how racist your thoughts > really are. Prick. > Even from half-way around the world, I was and am proud of South > Africa (as a human being). Its because of you all (and other > stories in the same vein) that I sometimes think were \ going > to get out of the 21st century alive. > However, many as the sins are that I would accuse Harris of, I > have not seen him accuse any individual South African of racism, > justly or otherwise. He did say he told a South African he was black. > It looks to me like you just did what you just complained about, > only with the name-plates of the positions reversed. > Double-reverse racism? > Jim Burns Yup. I wasnt accusing South Africans of racism. I was \ giving information relevant to context, like how it turns out that I ended up mentioning my race on the newsgroup. It was not an angry conversation, and I dont think there \ was much of a stir on the newsgroup at the time. We just chatted about a few things--that ended up being racially related--and went on our separate ways. However, David Ullrich probably pulled from that discussion that I am what Americans typically call black, as I cant think of any other way that he got the information, and he used that information later, when he posted talking about the apropriateness of racial slurs, and remember he was replying to me. So he posted in reply to me that hed been angry at my talking of him acting as my lapdog in an instance, and had thought the appropriate reply would have been a racial slur, but he says he was talked out of it. The blatancy of the statement makes it indefensible, as most of you are adults, and even a kid couldnt get away with, say, telling his father that he thought to disparage him with some insult about his anatomy but a school friend talked him out of it! Its not even vague what Ullrich was doing. And, after I communicated with his school--a private communication--he broke the rules by posting about it on the newsgroup, and in response there were posters who did then use racial slurs against me. How dumb do those of you who defend Ullrich really believe everyone else is? Ullrich introduced race, in a context of anger, and talked of the appropriateness of racial slurs. Ullrich came whining on the newsgroup about my *private* complaint to Oklahoma State University, and got a lot of sympathy as an outpouring of hatred went against me, where some posters actually used racial slurs. Ullrichs supporters keep bringing this issue up, repeatedly making posts saying that I tried to get him \[CapitalThorn]red, or that I contact peoples employers, or other statements of that effect, not giving the full story, as they wage a campaign of disinformation. In response Ive been posting the full story. Now theres a problem I think with people who \ dont like the truth, but believe that all that matters is what the majority presents as the truth, and Ullrich has a lot of people with him, while Im basically by myself. So to you people, its perfectly fair that Ullrich \ introduced race, used the newsgroup, talked of private communications with his school, and did whatever--as long as hes part of the majority! And he knows that, Im sure. Why else did he use you as he did? He does have tenure at Oklahoma State University. His job was never threatened. He couldnt have worried too much about sneakily introducing race--as long as he didnt actually hurl a \ racial slur. He used you. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > Its not even vague what Ullrich was doing. And, after I communicated > with his school--a private communication--he broke the rules by posting > about it on the newsgroup, and in response there were posters who did > then use racial slurs against me. He broke the rules? What rules are you talking about? === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> > >> Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, were proud \ of what we >> achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add to the few >> problems we still have. People like you! Bringing up the issue of >> South Africa and racism just shows how racist your thoughts >> really are. Prick. >> Even from half-way around the world, I was and am proud of South >> Africa (as a human being). Its because of you all (and other >> stories in the same vein) that I sometimes think were going >> to get out of the 21st century alive. >> However, many as the sins are that I would accuse Harris of, I >> have not seen him accuse any individual South African of racism, >> justly or otherwise. He did say he told a South African he was black. >> It looks to me like you just did what you just complained about, >> only with the name-plates of the positions reversed. >> Double-reverse racism? >> Jim Burns >Yup. I wasnt accusing South Africans of racism. I was \ giving >information relevant to context, like how it turns out that I ended up >mentioning my race on the newsgroup. >It was not an angry conversation, and I dont think there was much of a >stir on the newsgroup at the time. We just chatted about a few >things--that ended up being racially related--and went on our separate >ways. >However, David Ullrich probably pulled from that discussion that I am >what Americans typically call black, as I cant think of \ any other way >that he got the information, and he used that information later, when >he posted talking about the apropriateness of racial slurs, and >remember he was replying to me. >So he posted in reply to me that hed been angry at my talking of him >acting as my lapdog in an instance, and had thought the appropriate >reply would have been a racial slur, but he says he was talked out of >it. >The blatancy of the statement makes it indefensible, as most of you are >adults, and even a kid couldnt get away with, say, telling his father >that he thought to disparage him with some insult about his anatomy but >a school friend talked him out of it! >Its not even vague what Ullrich was doing. And, after I communicated >with his school--a private communication--he broke the rules by posting >about it on the newsgroup, and in response there were posters who did >then use racial slurs against me. >How dumb do those of you who defend Ullrich really believe everyone >else is? >Ullrich introduced race, in a context of anger, and talked of the >appropriateness of racial slurs. >Ullrich came whining on the newsgroup about my *private* complaint to >Oklahoma State University, and got a lot of sympathy as an outpouring >of hatred went against me, where some posters actually used racial >slurs. >Ullrichs supporters keep bringing this issue up, \ repeatedly making >posts saying that I tried to get him \[CapitalThorn]red, or that I contact peoples >employers, or other statements of that effect, not giving the full >story, as they wage a campaign of disinformation. >In response Ive been posting the full story. >Now theres a problem I think with people who \ dont like the truth, but >believe that all that matters is what the majority presents as the >truth, and Ullrich has a lot of people with him, while Im basically by >myself. >So to you people, its perfectly fair that Ullrich introduced race, >used the newsgroup, talked of private communications with his school, >and did whatever--as long as hes part of the majority! >And he knows that, Im sure. Why else did he use you as he did? >He does have tenure at Oklahoma State University. His job was never >threatened. He couldnt have worried too much about \ sneakily >introducing race--as long as he didnt actually hurl a racial slur. >He used you. So you knew he had tenure and you knew his job was never in danger? Is that your story? So how does the call to the Attorney General \[CapitalThorn]t into this scenario? How dumb do you think we are? One of these days youre going to pull a stunt like this on the wrong person. Every time you disappear I always wonder if youve \[CapitalThorn]nally ed with someone who \ doesnt take lightly your interfering with their job. Consider yourself lucky that you just get called a nigger. >James Harris -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >He does have tenure at Oklahoma State University. His job was never >threatened. He couldnt have worried too much about \ sneakily >introducing race--as long as he didnt actually hurl a racial slur. >He used you. > So you knew he had tenure and you knew his job was never in > danger? Is that your story? So how does the call to the > Attorney General \[CapitalThorn]t into this scenario? How dumb do you > think we are? > One of these days youre going to pull a stunt like this \ on > the wrong person. Every time you disappear I always wonder > if youve \[CapitalThorn]nally ed with someone who \ doesnt take lightly > your interfering with their job. > Consider yourself lucky that you just get called a nigger. Go back to sleep, M. Ullrich never called Harris a nigger. You, however, are coming disgustingly close to threatening Harris. I would appreciate it if you didnt make Harris look good (in contrast to your incomparable self). I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. Jim Burns === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > Ullrich never called Harris a nigger. When did Jim Burns say that Ullrich called Harris a nigger? I missed that. > You, however, are coming disgustingly close to threatening > Harris. When did Jim Burns come close to threatening Harris? He was talking about what someone he referes to as the wrong person might do. > I would appreciate it if you didnt make Harris look good I cannot see how Jim Burns makes Harris look good. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41C5ED2E.A50C9F19@osu.edu> <6JidncokWvyG7VvcRVn-gg@whidbeytel.com> Discussion, linux) >> Ullrich never called Harris a nigger. > When did Jim Burns say that Ullrich called Harris a nigger? I missed that. >> You, however, are coming disgustingly close to threatening >> Harris. > When did Jim Burns come close to threatening Harris? He was talking about > what someone he referes to as the wrong person might do. >> I would appreciate it if you didnt make Harris look good > I cannot see how Jim Burns makes Harris look good. I think you need to check the program. Youre mixing up the characters. -- Jesse F. Hughes Usenet is demonstrably dangerous. It needs to be regulated. --James S. Harris, voice of reason and moderation === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <41C5ED2E.A50C9F19@osu.edu> === >>Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> >>He does have tenure at Oklahoma State University. His job was never >>threatened. He couldnt have worried too much about \ sneakily >>introducing race--as long as he didnt actually hurl a racial slur. >>He used you. >> So you knew he had tenure and you knew his job was never in >> danger? Is that your story? So how does the call to the >> Attorney General \[CapitalThorn]t into this scenario? How dumb do you >> think we are? >> One of these days youre going to pull a stunt like this \ on >> the wrong person. Every time you disappear I always wonder >> if youve \[CapitalThorn]nally ed with someone who \ doesnt take lightly >> your interfering with their job. >> Consider yourself lucky that you just get called a nigger. > Go back to sleep, M. >Ullrich never called Harris a nigger. I never said he called Harris a nigger. If youll wake up \ and actually read whats been said, youll see the part \ where Harris claims that Ullrich supporters have called him a nigger. >You, however, are coming disgustingly close to threatening >Harris. How did I threaten him? I realize that a word to the wise is wasted on Harris, but warning him that invading someones personal space isnt a smart course of action is the right thing to do. >I would appreciate it if you didnt make Harris look >good (in contrast to your incomparable self). So you think right and wrong are relative? Sorry, but I believe that wrong is absolute and that NOTHING I say can ever make Harris look good. >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless clown? >Jim Burns -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) >>I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. > So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris > never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless \ clown? Damn near harmless, perhaps? Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? Harriss behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any obvious way since. I dont think the JSH threat requires any stand from Jim Burns or you. Or me. -- Jesse F. Hughes All Chinese are Confucianists when successful, and Taoists when they are failures. -- Lin Yutang, /My Country and My People/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >>So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >>never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless \ clown? > Damn near harmless, perhaps? > Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? > Harriss behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not > particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any > obvious way since. Thats not entirely accurate. He tried the same stunt with \ me in February of this year. Or so he claimed. Rick === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> Discussion, linux) >>I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless \ clown? >> Damn near harmless, perhaps? >> Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >> Harriss behavior in the OkState affair was \ reprehensible, but (1) not >> particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >> obvious way since. > Thats not entirely accurate. He tried the same stunt with me > in February of this year. Or so he claimed. Yes, another poster emailed me to remind me about that. Or so he claimed? Does that mean youre not sure whether he complained to Hamilton College? -- Jesse F. Hughes What you call reasonable is suspect since youve proven yourself to be an enemy of mathematics. -- James S. Harris defends the cause. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >> >>So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >>never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless \ clown? >Damn near harmless, perhaps? >Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >Harriss behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >obvious way since. >>Thats not entirely accurate. He tried the same stunt with me >>in February of this year. Or so he claimed. > Yes, another poster emailed me to remind me about that. > Or so he claimed? Does that mean youre not sure whether \ he > complained to Hamilton College? Thats right. On or about February 10 of this year James posted, I hereby charge Rick Decker with academic fraud and note that his college is responsible for this rogue professor. Ive deliberately involved an of\[CapitalThorn]cial at his \ college to take away plausible deniability for his school in a phone call I made months ago. His college has been made aware of his behavior. I havent heard gales of laughter from the \ Deans of\[CapitalThorn]ce, so I cant say for sure whether James actually contacted Hamilton or was simply blowing smoke. In either case, I really like the title rogue professor. Id put it on my vita, but I cant \[CapitalThorn]gure where it belongs. Rick, Rogue Professor === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> <87pt15iuvv.fsf@phiwumbda.org> Discussion, linux) > Rick, Rogue Professor You will always be Rick Decker of Hamilton College for me. But even that has a bit of roguishness about it. Like Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest, say. -- Jesse F. Hughes You shouldnt hate Mother Mathematics. -- James S. Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >> So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >> never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless clown? >Damn near harmless, perhaps? >Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >Harriss behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >obvious way since. I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that Harris contacted their employer. And Harris still claims that he was within his rights in doing what he did. If you try to murder someone and fail to pull it off, you still go to jail, dont you? > I dont think the JSH threat requires any stand >from Jim Burns or you. Or me. Yeah, what do I care, I dont even put my name on these posts. Let Harris with someone elses life. No skin off my nose. >-- >Jesse F. Hughes >All Chinese are Confucianists when successful, and Taoists when they >are failures. > -- Lin Yutang, /My Country and My People/ -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >>Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >>Message-id: <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >>I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. > So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris > never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless \ clown? >>Damn near harmless, perhaps? >>Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >>Harriss behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >>particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >>obvious way since. >I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that >Harris contacted their employer. Thats correct. >And Harris still claims that he was >within his rights in doing what he did. Of course he was within his rights! >If you try to murder someone and >fail to pull it off, you still go to jail, dont you? What planet are you from? Murder is illegal. Making bogus complaints is not. >> I dont think the JSH threat requires any stand >>from Jim Burns or you. Or me. >Yeah, what do I care, I dont even put my name on these posts. Let Harris > with someone elses life. No skin off my nose. >>-- >>Jesse F. Hughes >>All Chinese are Confucianists when successful, and Taoists when they >>are failures. >> -- Lin Yutang, /My Country and My People/ ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) === >>Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >>Message-id: <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >>I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. > So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris > never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless \ clown? >>Damn near harmless, perhaps? >>Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >>Harriss behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >>particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >>obvious way since. > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > Harris contacted their employer. And Harris still claims that he was > within his rights in doing what he did. Id say he was within his rights as well, depending on what you mean there. Are you suggesting he broke some law or something? > If you try to murder someone and fail to pull it off, you still go > to jail, dont you? >> I dont think the JSH threat requires any stand >>from Jim Burns or you. Or me. > Yeah, what do I care, I dont even put my name on these posts. Let Harris > with someone elses life. No skin off my nose. Very dramatic. -- One these mornings gonna wake | Aint nobodys \ doggone business how up crazy, | my baby treats me, Gonna grab my gun, kill my baby. | Nobodys business but \ mine. Nobodys business by mine. | -- Mississippi John Hurt === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <87mzw9iusb.fsf@phiwumbda.org> === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >> >> So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >> never intrudes into _your_ life, hes just a harmless clown? >Damn near harmless, perhaps? >Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >Harriss behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >obvious way since. >> I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that >> Harris contacted their employer. And Harris still claims that he was >> within his rights in doing what he did. >Id say he was within his rights as well, That explains a lot. >depending on what you mean >there. Are you suggesting he broke some law or something? Arent there laws about making false and frivolous charges against someone? >> If you try to murder someone and fail to pull it off, you still go >> to jail, dont you? > I dont think the JSH threat requires any stand >from Jim Burns or you. Or me. >> Yeah, what do I care, I dont even put my name on these posts. Let Harris >> with someone elses life. No skin off my nose. >Very dramatic. >-- >One these mornings gonna wake | Aint \ nobodys doggone business how > up crazy, | my baby treats me, >Gonna grab my gun, kill my baby. | Nobodys business but mine. >Nobodys business by mine. | -- Mississippi John Hurt -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) >>Id say he was within his rights as well, > That explains a lot. >>depending on what you mean >>there. Are you suggesting he broke some law or something? > Arent there laws about making false and frivolous charges against > someone? What does the word charges mean here? Id guess that JSHs complaint to Oklahoma \ State wouldnt be illegal. Id guess that even his complaint to the Attorney General is likely not illegal, but who knows? Were not sure what it contains. But its hard to prove that JSH was knowingly lying in his complaints. This is a dif\[CapitalThorn]cult fact to prove in a situation which allows for different interpretations. JSH behaved badly -- very badly -- throughout the episode, but Id be surprised if he broke the law in any obvious way. -- This confused and outraged many Matrix fans, whod already spent hours on the web explaining that man and computers could never really live in such a state of harmony and mutual bene\[CapitalThorn]t. -- http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > Harris contacted their employer. Actually it indeed happened twice. And one occurrence was successful. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) > > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > > Harris contacted their employer. > Actually it indeed happened twice. And one occurrence was > successful. Successful? Come on, details! Evidently, I dont know so much about these matters. It apparently happened three times. (1) Ullrich (2) Rick (who is apparently not positive that James did anything) (3) Your successful time (which must not be Rick) -- Not all features that are found on the Security tab are designed to help make your documents and \[CapitalThorn]les more secure. --Microsoft on Of\[CapitalThorn]ce security features (after it was pointed out by a third party that a certain password setting is easily bypassed.) === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > > Harris contacted their employer. > > Actually it indeed happened twice. And one occurrence was > successful. > Successful? Come on, details! > Evidently, I dont know so much about these matters. It apparently > happened three times. > (1) Ullrich > (2) Rick (who is apparently not positive that James did anything) > (3) Your successful time (which must not be Rick) Michael Varney, around 2000. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Mensanator] > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > Harris contacted their employer. [Dik T. Winter] >> Actually it indeed happened twice. And one occurrence was >> successful. [Jesse F. Hughes] > Successful? Come on, details! > Evidently, I dont know so much about these matters. It apparently > happened three times. > (1) Ullrich > (2) Rick (who is apparently not positive that James did anything) > (3) Your successful time (which must not be Rick) Be truthful now: have you personally seen Wiles cash a paycheck since JSH announced that his proof is most easily seen to be false by noting that the entire approach is logically fallacious ? === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> > > > Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, were proud of > what we achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add > to the few problems we still have. People like you! Bringing > up the issue of South Africa and racism just shows how racist > your thoughts really are. Prick. > Even from half-way around the world, I was and am proud of South > Africa (as a human being). Its because of you all (and other > stories in the same vein) that I sometimes think were \ going > to get out of the 21st century alive. > However, many as the sins are that I would accuse Harris of, I > have not seen him accuse any individual South African of racism, > justly or otherwise. He did say he told a South African he was black. > It looks to me like you just did what you just complained about, > only with the name-plates of the positions reversed. > Double-reverse racism? > Jim Burns > Yup. I wasnt accusing South Africans of racism. I was giving > information relevant to context, like how it turns out that I > ended up mentioning my race on the newsgroup. > It was not an angry conversation, and I dont think there was > much of a stir on the newsgroup at the time. We just chatted > about a few things--that ended up being racially related--and went > on our separate ways. > However, David Ullrich [snip Harris-crap] I dont need it explained to me. I saw it, before you \ deleted various parts of the story. [un-snip Harris-slap] : Even writing as an American white, I think I can say that its : a tricky situation for American blacks (and, presumably, South : African blacks). : : As a group, they remember a time when solidarity was close to : the only weapon they had. It would be dif\[CapitalThorn]cult to give that up : by refusing to back an individuals complaint, even if \ they : realize that individual is abusing that solidarity, playing the : race card for non-race reasons (like trying to get a critic to : go away). : : I think thats a big mistake. Recognition of the \ legitimacy of : their complaints was slowly won, at great cost, but it can be : quickly piddled away again if they dont police their own ranks. : But, then, its not my decision, is it? Just to make sure you get the point, Harris: when you accused David Ullrich of racism in order to get him to stop criticizing your (alleged) mathematics, you were pissing on Martin Luther King Jrs grave. Just imagine whatever you would say to someone else who would do that, double it, and apply it to yourself. TIA. Jim Burns === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) >> But, why pick a racial slur? >> Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, >> as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South >> African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking >> of the word nigger. > Im a South African you insensitive clod!! Not all non-black South > Africans are racists, ing idiot. BTW, we hardly know the word > n*gg*r. I think theres pronoun confusion here. The he in \ JSHs last sentence refers to David Ullrich, not the South African (whoever he was -- I dont know what conversation James is talking \ about). -- Jesse F. Hughes Would you please stop talking and start talking? -- Vincent Price as the Saint === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >But, why pick a racial slur? >Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, >as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South >African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking >of the word nigger. >>Im a South African you insensitive clod!! Not all non-black South >>Africans are racists, ing idiot. BTW, we hardly know the word >>n*gg*r. > I think theres pronoun confusion here. The he in \ JSHs last > sentence refers to David Ullrich, not the South African (whoever he > was -- I dont know what conversation James is talking about). In which case, my sincerest appologies. Kinda a touchy feely subject these days ;) kalix === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [JSH] ... > So, according to Tim Peters, David Ullrich justi\[CapitalThorn]ably introduced race, Youve misrepresented my position here, and badly. Waste \ your own time \[CapitalThorn]guring out how (hint: its obvious). > in a context where he noted he was angry, to try and explain to me how > NOT to talk to people! > But, why pick a racial slur? > Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, > as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South > African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking > of the word nigger. I dont know. Its plausible, but \ Id expect David to be more imaginative than that. > Now then, his claim is that he wanted to teach me a lesson, and now in > context his full claim then is that he thought that using the racial > slur nigger would teach me a lesson. Youre speculating. I dont know what he might \ have said, and neither do you. > How is that better? How is that better than what? ... > However, why does race matter? And why is it so important to teach me > a lesson, when race hadnt been the subject at hand? You hurt people with your ceaseless insults, accusations, disrespect, and even threats. People have tried to explain that to you more times than I could keep track of. Perhaps he thought that a stupid racial insult would make a point to you about your stupid insults that all attempts at rational explanation had failed to get across to you. Race doesnt matter at all. If you were a 500 pound slob and sensitive about that, then a stupid insult about your bulk would have been the same kind of thing. Accusing an academic of incompetence in their \[CapitalThorn]eld, and of lying about work in their \[CapitalThorn]eld, can be deeply offensive, and you do that routinely with seeming joy at the thought you might be causing pain. Its despicable behavior. But he didnt reply in kind to you, despite that \ youre still wishing he would. Tough luck for you. > After all, Id said that David Ullrich had *acted* as my lapdog in an > instance, which is a far cry from a demeaning racial insult meant to > indicate that someone is some degraded thing. You forget that I read your messages from that time. Your abusiveness toward David was prolonged, and ugly even to observe. Your lapdog insult appeared much more to be the last straw than something unbearable on its own. Poor James, typed one harmless word, and suffered mass persecution as a result? Dream on -- youre just reaping what you sowed. Oh well. You cant let it die, but I dont \ have to play along. You can easily enough keep this alive for another decade on your own. [snipped yet another repetition of the same rant] === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~( 5eZ41to5f%E@ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+(Ô>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw > [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] > ... > [Will Twentyman] >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about >> matters of (recent) history. > Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) would > be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought it > would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the \ extent of it. You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. Here is the sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he said that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: and this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you should be ashamed to even think of it. > I dont agree it would have been appropriate, Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? > but theres nothing objectionable about discussing its > appropriateness. > Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course theres no shortage of > people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has ßung at others. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Tim Peters] >> [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] >> ... >> [Will Twentyman] > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible > about matters of (recent) history. [Tim] >> Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to >> was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David >> Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, >> and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As >> David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering >> some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) would >> be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other >> people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought it >> would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the extent of it. [David Kastrup] > You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. It seems to me that when I was younger, people generally showed more skill in applying Occams Razor . > Here is the sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing > was such that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be > some sort of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that > Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, > he said that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: > and this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. As you just quoted, some sort of racial slur seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply. Unless you attach surprising meaning to the difference between a and some sort of here, Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way just doesnt jibe with the quote calling some sort of racial slur a perfectly appropriate reply. I understand and appreciate the different contexts in which appropriate can be applied here, and I *believe* I understand what David meant at the time: that responding to JSHs baseless hurtful insults with some sort of racial slur would be a reply-in-kind that perhaps JSH could understand -- not speci\[CapitalThorn]cally to hurt him, but as a way to get him to understand how his hurtful words sometimes made others feel. Thats arguably appropriate so far as it goes. I happen to believe its always wrong to use such speech in public, and from that more-distant view it would have been inappropriate to my eyes had he done so. Since he didnt so, I \ \[CapitalThorn]gure to his eyes too. > And even in this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. And I accept that he decided against it on his own (as he says). > And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting > his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you > should be ashamed to even think of it. >> I dont agree it would have been appropriate, > Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would > claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? I dont want to repeat the perfectly appropriate quote \ again. >> but theres nothing objectionable about discussing its >> appropriateness. >> Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course theres no shortage of >> people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. > There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has ßung at > others. Or of insults of other kinds. But I dont expect civil behavior from JSH. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >[Tim Peters] > [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] > ... > [Will Twentyman] >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible >> about matters of (recent) history. >[Tim] > Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) would > be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought it > would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the \ extent of it. >[David Kastrup] >> You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. >It seems to me that when I was younger, people generally showed more skill >in applying Occams Razor . >> Here is the sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing >> was such that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be >> some sort of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that >> Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, >> he said that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: >> and this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. >As you just quoted, some sort of racial slur seemed to me a perfectly >appropriate reply. Unless you attach surprising meaning to the difference >between a and some sort of here, Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial >slur was appropriate in any way just doesnt jibe with the quote calling >some sort of racial slur a perfectly appropriate reply. >I understand and appreciate the different contexts in which appropriate >can be applied here, and I *believe* I understand what David meant at the >time: that responding to JSHs baseless hurtful insults \ with some sort of >racial slur would be a reply-in-kind that perhaps JSH could understand -- >not speci\[CapitalThorn]cally to hurt him, but as a way to get him to understand how his >hurtful words sometimes made others feel. Thats arguably appropriate so >far as it goes. I happen to believe its always wrong to \ use such speech in >public, and from that more-distant view it would have been inappropriate to >my eyes had he done so. Since he didnt so, I \ \[CapitalThorn]gure to his eyes too. Congratulations, you got it. Of course, some might say that you dont really deserve a \ lot of smartness points for having \[CapitalThorn]gured out something that \ Ive explicitly stated several times. But considering the dif\[CapitalThorn]culty some others (well, one other) seems to have here... ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Tim Peters] ... >> I understand and appreciate the different contexts in which appropriate >> can be applied here, and I *believe* I understand what David meant at the >> time: that responding to JSHs baseless hurtful insults with some sort >> of racial slur would be a reply-in-kind that perhaps JSH could >> understand -- not speci\[CapitalThorn]cally to hurt him, but as a way to get him to >> understand how his hurtful words sometimes made others feel. Thats >> arguably appropriate so far as it goes. I happen to believe its always >> wrong to use such speech in public, and from that more-distant view it >> would have been inappropriate to my eyes had he done so. Since he didnt >> [do] so, I \[CapitalThorn]gure to his eyes too. [David C. Ullrich] > Congratulations, you got it. Yet for some reason I dont feel like celebrating <0.9 \ wink>. > Of course, some might say that you dont really deserve a lot of > smartness points for having \[CapitalThorn]gured out something that \ Ive explicitly > stated several times. Nope, no smartness points at all. I would claim minimal points for reading comprehension and archive searching skills, but then Im afraid Id have to accept demerits too for actually spending the time to \[CapitalThorn]nd and read all that stuff <0.9 wink>. > But considering the dif\[CapitalThorn]culty some others (well, one other) seems to > have here... Yup, another repetition sure does seem pointless. While I dont think your original post was entirely prudent, on an offensiveness scale from 1 to 10 I rate it near 0. I would have apologized for it anyway -- but thats easy to say given that I havent been subjected to endless abuse \ from JSH myself. In all, I admire your restraint. just-another-ing-idiot-defending-your-immoral-ass-ly \ yrs - tim === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >[Tim Peters] > [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] > > ... > > [Will Twentyman] >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible >> about matters of (recent) history. >[Tim] > > Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) would > be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought it > would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the \ extent of it. >[David Kastrup] >> You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. >It seems to me that when I was younger, people generally showed more skill >in applying Occams Razor . >> Here is the sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing >> was such that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be >> some sort of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that >> Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, >> he said that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: >> and this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. >As you just quoted, some sort of racial slur seemed to me a perfectly >appropriate reply. Unless you attach surprising meaning to the difference >between a and some sort of here, Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial >slur was appropriate in any way just doesnt jibe with the quote calling >some sort of racial slur a perfectly appropriate reply. >I understand and appreciate the different contexts in which appropriate >can be applied here, and I *believe* I understand what David meant at the >time: that responding to JSHs baseless hurtful insults \ with some sort of >racial slur would be a reply-in-kind that perhaps JSH could understand -- >not speci\[CapitalThorn]cally to hurt him, but as a way to get him to understand how his >hurtful words sometimes made others feel. Thats arguably appropriate so >far as it goes. I happen to believe its always wrong to \ use such speech in >public, and from that more-distant view it would have been inappropriate to >my eyes had he done so. Since he didnt so, I \ \[CapitalThorn]gure to his eyes too. > Congratulations, you got it. > Of course, some might say that you dont really deserve a lot of > smartness points for having \[CapitalThorn]gured out something that \ Ive explicitly > stated several times. But considering the dif\[CapitalThorn]culty some others > (well, one other) seems to have here... David, you are the one who evidently brought race into the conversation ... in a sly, backhanded way. You should apologize and move on. JSH is right on this one. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> posting-account=Q2zO6wwAAABSLuGzZIjG0efOtB9n8fUY > [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] > ... > [Will Twentyman] the >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about >> matters of (recent) history. > Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) would > be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought it > would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the \ extent of it. Notice the twisting and rationalization here. Supposedly I am to blame for David Ullrich talking about a racial slur being the appropriate reply. And remember, Ullrich made his comments MORE THAN A YEAR after I said hed acted as my lapdog in an instance, and more than a year after Id apologized for those comments, as I noticed afterwards that his posts were...strange. I thought I was being nice by apologizing then, but with people like Ullrich, thats not enough. > You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. Here \ is the > sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such > that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort > of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich Notice that this poster has removed the part where Ullrich speaks of being angry. > _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he said > that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: and > this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in > this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. The fact is that Ullrich is TELLING me in a reply that he thought it appropriate to use some racial slur in reply to me on the newsgroup. Thats a public post as Usenet is quite public. Like, lets say he wanted to call me a chink, or a jew-bastard. His own words are that hes thinking this is an appropriate reply but was talked out of it, but he wishes to share this information WITH THE NEWSGROUP, in reply to me, as posts here are quite public. > And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting > his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you > should be ashamed to even think of it. But if that were the case, why would he publicize it? Lets say you talk to a friend about ing a goat, saying you were thinking it would be an appropriate way to let out your sexual frustrations. Your friend tells you that its a bad idea. You come on Usenet, and point out that you thought it a great idea to a goat, but were talked out of it!!! It makes no sense. Ullrich clearly wanted to use the power of racial slurs without having to suffer the consequences. If he came out and poster that I was a nigger or something like that, theres no way he could escape the consequences, so instead he just talked about WANTING to post a racial slur. Its not even vague. > I dont agree it would have been appropriate, > Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would > claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? Because thats what he said. > but theres nothing objectionable about discussing its > appropriateness. > Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course theres no shortage of > people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. Actually, the racial insults came *after* Ullrich came on the newsgroup talking about my private communication with his school (yet another ethics violation), and then there were posters who just started slinging the word nigger around. And remember, David Ullrich is the one who brought up racial slurs!!! Hes the one who defended his comments. Hes the one who publicized my complaint on the newsgroup. Hes the one lapping up the attention, probably feeling \ quite proud of himself...at least for a while. > There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has ßung at > others. Name one. > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Oh yeah, David Kastrup is one of the people who likes to keep bringing this topic up. And remember, I didnt start this, as yet again some poster put up something that shorted the story. Facts: David Ullrich introduced the subject of racial slurs. David Ullrich was reacting more than a year after I said hed \ acted as my lapdog in an instance. David Ullrich is the one who came on the newsgroup to publicize my complaint. One of the odder posts from Ullrich came a little bit after his post talking about the appropriateness of a racial slur when he was defending his statement, and he argued about why a racial slur could be an appropriate reply. His example was of someone breaking into his house to rape his daughter. I assume he does in fact have a daughter. Why did he assume that a racial slur would apply in such a case? And for the record, I dont say you hurl a racial slur at someone breaking into your house to rape your daughter. You shoot the er. Shoot \[CapitalThorn]rst. Talk later. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] >> >> ... >> >> [Will Twentyman] >the >>> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than >credible about >>> matters of (recent) history. >> >> >> Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to >> was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David >> Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, >> and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As >> David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that >delivering >> some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) >would >> be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other >> people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought >> would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the extent of it. >Notice the twisting and rationalization here. Supposedly I am to blame >for David Ullrich talking about a racial slur being the appropriate >reply. >And remember, Ullrich made his comments MORE THAN A YEAR after I said >hed acted as my lapdog in an instance, and more than a \ year after Id >apologized for those comments, as I noticed afterwards that his posts >were...strange. >I thought I was being nice by apologizing then, but with people like >Ullrich, thats not enough. >> You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. Here is the >> sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such >> that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort >> of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich >Notice that this poster has removed the part where Ullrich speaks of >being angry. >> _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he >said >> that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: and >> this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in >> this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. >The fact is that Ullrich is TELLING me in a reply that he thought it >appropriate to use some racial slur in reply to me on the newsgroup. >Thats a public post as Usenet is quite public. >Like, lets say he wanted to call me a chink, or a jew-bastard. >His own words are that hes thinking this is an appropriate reply but >was talked out of it, but he wishes to share this information WITH THE >NEWSGROUP, in reply to me, as posts here are quite public. >> And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting >> his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you >> should be ashamed to even think of it. >But if that were the case, why would he publicize it? >Lets say you talk to a friend about ing a goat, saying you were >thinking it would be an appropriate way to let out your sexual >frustrations. >Your friend tells you that its a bad idea. >You come on Usenet, and point out that you thought it a great idea to > a goat, but were talked out of it!!! >It makes no sense. Ullrich clearly wanted to use the power of racial >slurs without having to suffer the consequences. >If he came out and poster that I was a nigger or something like that, >theres no way he could escape the consequences, so instead he just >talked about WANTING to post a racial slur. >Its not even vague. >> I dont agree it would have been appropriate, >> Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would >> claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? >Because thats what he said. >> but theres nothing objectionable about discussing its >> appropriateness. >> >> Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course theres no shortage of >> people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. >Actually, the racial insults came *after* Ullrich came on the newsgroup >talking about my private communication with his school (yet another >ethics violation), and then there were posters who just started >slinging the word nigger around. >And remember, David Ullrich is the one who brought up racial slurs!!! >Hes the one who defended his comments. >Hes the one who publicized my complaint on the newsgroup. >Hes the one lapping up the attention, probably feeling quite proud of >himself...at least for a while. >> There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has ßung at >> others. >Name one. >> -- >> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum >Oh yeah, David Kastrup is one of the people who likes to keep bringing >this topic up. And remember, I didnt start this, as yet again some >poster put up something that shorted the story. >Facts: David Ullrich introduced the subject of racial slurs. David >Ullrich was reacting more than a year after I said hed acted as my >lapdog in an instance. David Ullrich is the one who came on the >newsgroup to publicize my complaint. >One of the odder posts from Ullrich came a little bit after his post >talking about the appropriateness of a racial slur when he was >defending his statement, and he argued about why a racial slur could be >an appropriate reply. >His example was of someone breaking into his house to rape his >daughter. >I assume he does in fact have a daughter. >Why did he assume that a racial slur would apply in such a case? >And for the record, I dont say you hurl a racial slur at someone >breaking into your house to rape your daughter. >You shoot the er. Shoot \[CapitalThorn]rst. Talk later. >James Harris Undeniably the nut makes a certain amount of sense here. A greater mystery is why the other nut (Ullrich) cant leave the poor guy alone. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~( 5eZ41to5f%E@ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+(Ô>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw >> There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has ßung at >> others. > Name one. I quote two in -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) James, speaking of distractions... I notice that youre not posting on factoring any more and youve deleted at least one of your posts from sci.crypt. I know that the issue may be sensitive, but just between pals... You can tell me... Your method works so well that youre trying to avoid the topic and erase traces just in the interest of preserving international commerce, right? Is this on your own initiative, or did MJ-12 ask you to take these steps? -- And yes, I will be darkening the doors of some of you, sooner than you think, even if it is going to be a couple of years, and when you look in my eyes on that last day of work at your school, then maybe youll understand mathematics. -- James S. Harris on Judgment Day === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <87sm643rcf.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >James, speaking of distractions... >I notice that youre not posting on factoring any more and youve >deleted at least one of your posts from sci.crypt. >I know that the issue may be sensitive, but just between pals... You >can tell me... >Your method works so well that youre trying to avoid the topic and >erase traces just in the interest of preserving international >commerce, right? Is this on your own initiative, or did MJ-12 ask you >to take these steps? Gosh, do you think so? Hes obviously still alive, so maybe they just paid him off to stop development of his baby idea? So maybe I could make some quick holiday cash by merely _suggesting_ a novel approach to factoring? That would be great. I \ wouldnt have to actually make it work, just scare them into thinking BUT WHAT IF IT WORKS? Such as factoring by the Collatz Conjecture. In the regular 3x+1 system there are no known non-trivial loops. When generalizing that to 3x+C, the conjecture fails whenever C is not a power of 3. That failure is related to the factors of C, so if I started with 3x+RSA640 I could make the factors of RSA640 pop out of the appropriate Collatz sequence. I dont want to say any more at this time. \ Ill be waiting for a phone call. So, if you never hear me speak of this again... >-- >And yes, I will be darkening the doors of some of you, sooner than you >think, even if it is going to be a couple of years, and when you look >in my eyes on that last day of work at your school, then maybe youll >understand mathematics. -- James S. Harris on Judgment Day -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Tim Peters] > [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] > ... > [Will Twentyman] >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than >> credible about matters of (recent) history. [Tim] > Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) > would be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought > it would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the extent of it. [JSH] > Notice the twisting and rationalization here. Speci\[CapitalThorn]cally where? I pointed to the precise message in question, and stand by my summary as accurate. > Supposedly I am to blame for David Ullrich talking about a racial > slur being the appropriate reply. No, but you are to blame for your bad behavior in response to Davids message. Youre also responsible for keeping this going for years. > And remember, Ullrich made his comments MORE THAN A YEAR after I said > hed acted as my lapdog in an instance, and more than a year after Id > apologized for those comments, as I noticed afterwards that his posts > were...strange. > I thought I was being nice by apologizing then, I dont know your motives, but David was clearly \ appreciative of the apology at the time. > but with people like Ullrich, thats not enough. He accepted your apology, and quite graciously: Its your subsequent bad behavior that kept you in low \ esteem. [David Kastrup] >> You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. Here is the >> sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such >> that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort >> of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich [JSH] > Notice that this poster has removed the part where Ullrich speaks of > being angry. He didnt remove anything. Boy was I mad about that is a sentence from the original message linked to above that nobody bothered quoting in this thread. What of it? He _was_ angry. Thats why you \ apologized to begin with (which, as far as I can tell, was your last honorable action in this affair). [David Kastrup] >> _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he >> said that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: and >> this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in >> this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. [JSH] > The fact is that Ullrich is TELLING me in a reply that he thought it > appropriate to use some racial slur in reply to me on the newsgroup. In response to the things you were calling him a year earlier, he showed laudable restraint in not doing so. > Thats a public post as Usenet is quite public. > Like, lets say he wanted to call me a chink, or a jew-bastard. So you apparently believe its OK for you to spout racial epithets. I \[CapitalThorn]nd them offensive regardless of context. > His own words are that hes thinking this is an \ appropriate reply but > was talked out of it, but he wishes to share this information WITH THE > NEWSGROUP, in reply to me, as posts here are quite public. I read his reply. Your paranoid tendencies dont help you in social interactions. If you were able to read it as a reply to you, in context, it would have been clear. [David Kastrup] >> And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting >> his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you >> should be ashamed to even think of it. [JSH] > But if that were the case, why would he publicize it? Apparently because you made a point of publicizing how you hurt his feelings a year earlier, as part of a goofy speculation that Ullrich was posting under the name Wilma in an attempt to sucker you. Of course you see no connection between the abusive things you say and the responses you get. > Lets say you talk to a friend about ing a goat, \ saying you were > thinking it would be an appropriate way to let out your sexual > frustrations. > Your friend tells you that its a bad idea. > You come on Usenet, and point out that you thought it a great idea to > a goat, but were talked out of it!!! > It makes no sense. Ullrich clearly wanted to use the power of racial > slurs without having to suffer the consequences. He quite clearly did not. If you honestly believe this, hire a lawyer and sue him. Your own motives are also clear, which is why Im sure you wont. [snipped the rest -- just another repeition of the same rant] === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~( 5eZ41to5f%E@ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+(Ô>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw > [Tim Peters] >> It makes no sense. Ullrich clearly wanted to use the power of >> racial slurs without having to suffer the consequences. > He quite clearly did not. If you honestly believe this, hire a > lawyer and sue him. Your own motives are also clear, which is why > Im sure you wont. He indeed contacted the Oklahama State Attorney and made a big Brouhaha from that until he was told that there was nothing there to prosecute. So he clearly managed to immerse himself suf\[CapitalThorn]ciently in that delusion to actually try something absurd like that: thats one thing you cant accuse him of. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy days. My association with the Department is that of an alumnus. >> [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] >> ... >> [Will Twentyman] > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about > matters of (recent) history. >> Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to >> was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David >> Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, >> and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As >> David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering >> some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) would >> be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other >> people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought it >> would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the extent of it. >You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. Here is the >sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such >that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort >of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich >_never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he said >that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: and >this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in >this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. And as I recall, that was itself a poor choice of wording on Davids part. He later expanded on his comments: it wasnt that somebody talked him out of it, but he decided on his own that of course it wouldnt do, then told someone else about his impulse, and that person said You cant do that!, which of course he \ hadnt. complaint. A bit hard, given the pruning that has been done. It seems to me that James had spent about a month talking himself into calling OSU, originally on incompetence and ethics grounds (David had said he didnt know how to prove some algebra thing or other, and James took it as an admission of incompetence or as lying, hence the ethics claim). Then he argued that his complaint would be because David had claimed that racial slurs are appropriate, when they are never appropriate. Finally, he admitted that his complaint had been an attempt to get him to stop posting, and that the claim of racism was pretextual, not germane. The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case occurred in October 2002, message though it is gone from Google. I tried \[CapitalThorn]nding it on mathforum, but couldnt. The subject of the thread was Current discussion \ on short FLT Proof in case anyone who knows how to search mathforum better than I do cares to look for it. -- Its not denial. Im just very selective \ about what I accept as reality. --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) Arturo Magidin magidin@math.berkeley.edu === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Arturo Magidin] > ... > complaint. A bit hard, given the pruning that has been done. It seems > to me that James had spent about a month talking himself into calling > OSU, originally on incompetence and ethics grounds (David had said > he didnt know how to prove some algebra thing or other, and James > took it as an admission of incompetence or as lying, hence the > ethics claim). Then he argued that his complaint would be because > David had claimed that racial slurs are appropriate, when they are > never appropriate. Finally, he admitted that his complaint had been > an attempt to get him to stop posting, and that the claim of racism > was pretextual, not germane. > The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case > occurred in October 2002, message > though it is gone from Google. I tried \[CapitalThorn]nding it on mathforum, but > couldnt. The subject of the thread was Current discussion on short > FLT Proof in case anyone who knows how to search mathforum better > than I do cares to look for it. Is this it? http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 (I couldnt do anything with Diks djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) Anyway, I dont really see James admit to anything there. Instead he appears to be giving David a lesson in appropriate posting behavior: ... > Youre a disgrace to professors in general. > I never tried to get you \[CapitalThorn]red. I never tried to get you to stop > posting. > I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! > Youre a ing newsgroup stalker who has no morals who keeps getting > these ing idiots to defend your immoral ass and Im sick of > it!!!!! > LEAVE ME THE ALONE YOU PIECE OF !!!!!!!! Interstingly enough, the number of exclamation points at the ends of the last three sentences is a segment of the Fibonacci sequence -- James does deep math even when seemingly just blowing a gasket . === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [...] >> I never tried to get you \[CapitalThorn]red. I never tried to get you to stop >> posting. >> I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! >> Youre a ing newsgroup stalker[...] He very de\[CapitalThorn]nitely has a point here. I know it is a rather dreadful condition to have to teach math at places like Oklahoma State - but this doesnt excuse responding to every single message from JSH. Just ignore Harris and he will disappear. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >[...] > I never tried to get you \[CapitalThorn]red. I never tried to get you to stop > posting. > I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! > Youre a ing newsgroup stalker[...] >He very de\[CapitalThorn]nitely has a point here. I know it is a rather dreadful >condition to have to teach math at places like Oklahoma State Huh? Have you ever taught math at Oklahoma State? >- but >this doesnt excuse responding to every single message from JSH. Huh? excuse what, exactly? I dont have the right to reply \ to the posts I feel like replying to? You think it would be a good thing if he got the idea that making bogus complaints to peoples employers about racism was an effective way to get people to stop replying to his posts? >Just ignore Harris and he will disappear. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > Just ignore Harris and he will disappear. Yes, but some of us are addicts.... It makes life hard, but it is not easy to quite. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy ... > (I couldnt do anything with Diks > djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com > reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) Although I have not yet found a way to see the complete message in or something like that.) -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> posting-account=jj3O3QwAAABZLagqq9jnjQLaOd53yftT > [Arturo Magidin] > The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case > occurred in October 2002, message > though it is gone from Google. I tried \[CapitalThorn]nding it on mathforum, but > couldnt. The subject of the thread was Current discussion on short > FLT Proof in case anyone who knows how to search mathforum better > than I do cares to look for it. > Is this it? > http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 > (I couldnt do anything with Diks > djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com > reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) > Anyway, I dont really see James admit to anything there. I never tried to get you \[CapitalThorn]red. I never tried to get you to stop posting. I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! (I believe he had said something along these lines before, because around this time I had already said something about his express purpose; but I have been unable to substantiate my memory on this by \[CapitalThorn]nding his posts, possibly since so many of them have been removed) Note what he is saying: contrary to claims that he did so because he felt this behavior was inappropriate for a professor at a public university, or because he felt a sense of indignation, or because he felt insulted, he is saying that the reason he made the complaint was as an attempt to get David to stop replying to his posts; he had hoped that Davids superiors would suggest, pressure, or order him to stop replying. If he did not realize that his actions were a possible threat to Davids job, then he was being negligently careless; the fact that he used a very serious subject (racial discrimination and hate speech) as a ->pretext<- to get someones actions in a public forum curtailed is what I \[CapitalThorn]nd reprehensible. Even if the activity in question had actually taken place (which it did not, at least not the way James claimed it did at the time or since), using it as a ->pretext<- seems to me morally reprehensible. It is a serious enough issue that it should be pursued on its merits, not as a club to wield against someone you might not care to listen to. Arturo Magidin, sans .sig === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Arturo Magidin] > The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case > occurred in October 2002, message > though it is gone from Google. I tried \[CapitalThorn]nding it on mathforum, > but couldnt. The subject of the thread was Current discussion on > short FLT Proof in case anyone who knows how to search mathforum > better than I do cares to look for it. [Tim Peters] >> Is this it? >> http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 >> (I couldnt do anything with Diks >> djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com >> reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) >> Anyway, I dont really see James admit to anything there. [Arturo] > I never tried to get you \[CapitalThorn]red. I never tried to get you to stop > posting. > I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! > (I believe he had said something along these lines before, because > around this time I had already said something about his express > purpose; but I have been unable to substantiate my memory on this by > \[CapitalThorn]nding his posts, possibly since so many of them have been removed) > Note what he is saying: contrary to claims that he did so because he > felt this behavior was inappropriate for a professor at a public > university, or because he felt a sense of indignation, or because he > felt insulted, he is saying that the reason he made the complaint was > as an attempt to get David to stop replying to his posts; he had hoped > that Davids superiors would suggest, pressure, or order him to stop > replying. It could be consistent to hold all of these simultaneously: 1. James wanted David to stop replying. 3. James thought the comment was especially inappropriate given Davids position at a public institution. Putting an ALL CAPS emphasis on #1 doesnt really preclude \ #2 and #3. When a person talks about their motivations, and even when \ theyre trying to be truthful, what they say is usually just part of the story -- even if they go on for pages. If you get them to do it twice, theyll rarely say exactly the same things either. Motivations are usually complex. Its convenient for James that his original post vanished from most archives, and obviously self-serving to hold now that his only motivation was \[CapitalThorn]ghting the evils of racism. Its still \ possible that there was an element of the latter at the start, despite that he only mentioned #1 above. Its even possible that James claimed that to be the case so often later that now he really believes it was always so. Who knows? \ Its not even clear that James does. It appears to me that he truly wanted #1, and for a long time, and then tried to milk Davids obscure remark for about a million times what it was worth. Hes still trying, despite that it doesnt work. Remind you of any other JSH behaviors youve seen ? > If he did not realize that his actions were a possible threat > to Davids job, then he was being negligently careless; I expect that he hoped they were, despite his disclaimer above (I didnt succeed, therefore thats not what I wanted <0.5 wink>). \ Hes certainly ranted often enough later that David shouldnt receive \ public funds, and posted fantasies about mathematicians who criticize his work getting \[CapitalThorn]red and disgraced (even jailed ...), so, overall, I simply dont believe his I never tried to get you \[CapitalThorn]red claim above. > the fact that he used a very serious subject (racial discrimination and > hate speech) as a ->pretext<- to get someones actions in \ a public forum > curtailed is what I \[CapitalThorn]nd reprehensible. As above, I cant conclude it was entirely pretext at the time. Occams Razor suggests it was, but people are complicated. > Even if the activity in question had actually taken place (which it did > not, at least not the way James claimed it did at the time or since), > using it as a ->pretext<- seems to me morally reprehensible. It is a > serious enough issue that it should be pursued on its merits, not as a > club to wield against someone you might not care to listen to. It requires a determined imagination to \[CapitalThorn]nd racism in \ Davids remark, and by all accounts JSH got nowhere trying to convince Davids employer or the state attorney general that the remark was actionable in any way. Score one for sanity. But what does it matter now, given that it failed? Ive seen the claim that its important to keep rehashing this because it reveals something important about JSHs character. I have a hard time believing that \ this piece of history is necessary toward that end, though. I saw my \[CapitalThorn]rst JSH post several months ago -- had never heard of him before then. Going from this guy is confused to and seems invincibly ignorant, manipulative, hostile and unstable didnt take a week. Its not like \ he did something dubious once years ago then learned to project a convincing illusion of saintliness -- to the contrary, having looked up the history, he hasnt changed his posting behaviors in positive ways at all. If someone here thought of him as morally beyond reproach before the trumped-up racism claim, and thats what opened their eyes, then \ Ill stand corrected on this point. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >[Arturo Magidin] >> [...] >It could be consistent to hold all of these simultaneously: >1. James wanted David to stop replying. >3. James thought the comment was especially inappropriate given > Davids position at a public institution. >[...] It appears to me that he truly wanted #1, and for a >long time, and then tried to milk Davids obscure remark \ for about a million >times what it was worth. Hes still trying, despite that it doesnt work. >Remind you of any other JSH behaviors youve seen ? Giggle. >> If he did not realize that his actions were a possible threat >> to Davids job, then he was being negligently careless; >[...] >It requires a determined imagination to \[CapitalThorn]nd racism in Davids remark, and >by all accounts JSH got nowhere trying to convince Davids employer or the >state attorney general that the remark was actionable in any way. Score one >for sanity. Indeed. >But what does it matter now, given that it failed? Ive \ seen the claim that >its important to keep rehashing this because it reveals something important >about JSHs character. _My_ view is not that its important to keep rehashing this. But I do, reasonably or not, feel its important to make sure he doesnt get the idea that his behavior has succeeded in getting me to shut up. Important because that sanity we celebrate above is not universal in a world where people get in trouble for using the word niggardly. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> posting-account=Q2zO6wwAAABSLuGzZIjG0efOtB9n8fUY > [Arturo Magidin] > Even if the activity in question had actually taken place (which it did > not, at least not the way James claimed it did at the time or since), > using it as a ->pretext<- seems to me morally reprehensible. It is a > serious enough issue that it should be pursued on its merits, not as a > club to wield against someone you might not care to listen to. > It requires a determined imagination to \[CapitalThorn]nd racism in Davids remark, and > by all accounts JSH got nowhere trying to convince Davids employer or the > state attorney general that the remark was actionable in any way. Score one > for sanity. I complained. I have a right to complain and in fact the newsgroup wouldnt have known about the complaint if David Ullrich hadnt come back on the newsgroup to complain himself. I acted well within my rights as a citizen. Now some of you may not believe that a citizen in this country should ever voice a complaint or you may believe that Ullrichs introduction of racial slurs in to the discusion didnt merit a \ complaint. But it was my decision. Now some of you may go on and on as if the discussion matters, but it doesnt change my rights, and I can assure you that I have \ no problem with registering complaints when people who work for taxpayers step over the line. I dont care what world you think you live in, but if \ youre representing a government agency in America, and I catch you stepping over the line, then Im going to push you back, or at least try. It was part of my training as an Army of\[CapitalThorn]cer. > But what does it matter now, given that it failed? Ive seen the claim that > its important to keep rehashing this because it reveals something important > about JSHs character. I have a hard time believing that this piece of It amazes me how often some of you attempt to rewrite history. Posters keep bringing it up, accusing me of various things, and at times I will give the full story. The full story is that David Ullrich brought up racial slurs. David Ullrich replied to me talking about racial slurs more than a year after a comment when I said hed acted as my lapdog in an instance, and more than a year after Id apologized. All of that gets lost in posts like yours which end up being rants against me, with little real detail, or any actual facts, and then Im supposed to be the bad guy? I was an Army of\[CapitalThorn]cer. I dont know what makes \ you people think that you can blabber on Usenet and change anything. David Ullrich needed correction. I gave the correction. > history is necessary toward that end, though. I saw my \[CapitalThorn]rst JSH post > several months ago -- had never heard of him before then. Going from this > guy is confused to and seems invincibly ignorant, manipulative, hostile > and unstable didnt take a week. Its not \ like he did something dubious > once years ago then learned to project a convincing illusion of > saintliness -- to the contrary, having looked up the history, he hasnt > changed his posting behaviors in positive ways at all. If someone here > thought of him as morally beyond reproach before the trumped-up racism > claim, and thats what opened their eyes, then \ Ill stand corrected on this > point. LOL. I wonder if some of you even take yourselves seriously. This is Usenet. I mainly use this forum to air out various ideas. There are posters like David Ullrich who obsessively reply to my posts, even though I mostly ignore them. You wish to join that club? Ok. But dont pretend to think that others on the newsgroup dont realize what you are. After all, Ive been posting for years here. People like you have come and gone, over, and over, and over again. Its still my newsgroup. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> [Arturo Magidin] >[...] >I complained. I have a right to complain and in fact the newsgroup >wouldnt have known about the complaint if David Ullrich hadnt come >back on the newsgroup to complain himself. >I acted well within my rights as a citizen. Whoops. Hoist by your own petard again - you want to be careful about that! Hint: Nobody has ever disputed that making that complaint was within your rights as a citizen. It was a despicable thing to do regardless. You seem to be arguing that the fact that it was withing your rights means its ok, but this is grossly inconsistent with the idea that you made the complaint in the \[CapitalThorn]rst place! Whatever I said, I was within my rights as a citizen saying it. >Now some of you may not believe that a citizen in this country should >ever voice a complaint or you may believe that Ullrichs introduction >of racial slurs in to the discusion didnt merit a \ complaint. >But it was my decision. >Now some of you may go on and on as if the discussion matters, but it >doesnt change my rights, and I can assure you that I have no problem >with registering complaints when people who work for taxpayers step >over the line. The fact that I work for taxpayers does not change my rights as a citizen. >I dont care what world you think you live in, but if \ youre >representing a government agency in America, and I catch you stepping >over the line, then Im going to push you back, or at least try. And Im not representing a government agency here. >It was part of my training as an Army of\[CapitalThorn]cer. >> [...] >David Ullrich needed correction. I gave the correction. You did, eh? Your attempts at giving correction seem to be about as effective as your attempts at proving theorems. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) > Hint: Nobody has ever disputed that making that complaint was > within your rights as a citizen. Well, lately Mensanator has disputed that. I think. -- Jesse F. Hughes But nothings being Dr. Ullrich is a particular case of somethings being such that nothing is it: (Ex)~(Ey)(y = x) -- John Correy on the failings of \[CapitalThorn]rst order logic === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~( 5eZ41to5f%E@ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+(Ô>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw > I complained. I have a right to complain and in fact the newsgroup > wouldnt have known about the complaint if David Ullrich hadnt come > back on the newsgroup to complain himself. It wasnt Ullrich that told us that you have contacted the Oklahoma State Attorney about this issue. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I was an Army of\[CapitalThorn]cer. And this is interesting? I do not give a crap what you were in the army. It means nothing here. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > Its still my newsgroup. > James Harris I did not know that. I suspect you believe it, though. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [JSH] ... > I complained. I think everyone knew that already. > I have a right to complain Yes. It doesnt make it a sensible or honorable thing to do, but you have the right. > and in fact the newsgroup wouldnt have known about the complaint if > David Ullrich hadnt come back on the newsgroup to \ complain himself. Thats because the complaint had no merit and so failed (twice, right? when it failed to interest anyone at the University, you went on to complain to the Oklahoma attorney general too?). If it had succeeded, I bet sci.math would have heard about it with or without David exercising his rights. > I acted well within my rights as a citizen. So did David, of course. > Now some of you may not believe that a citizen in this country should > ever voice a complaint or you may believe that Ullrichs introduction > of racial slurs in to the discusion didnt merit a complaint. I dont believe Ullrich introduced racial slurs. You keep claiming it, but I actually read his message, and the messages leading up to it. So no, I dont believe it merited a complaint either. Correct me if Im wrong, but the university and state of\[CapitalThorn]cials you contacted also found no merit in your complaint. > But it was my decision. I really didnt think it was Davids decision \ -- unless you were just acting as his lapdog . > Now some of you may go on and on as if the discussion matters, but it > doesnt change my rights, and I can assure you that I have no problem > with registering complaints when people who work for taxpayers step > over the line. > I dont care what world you think you live in, but if \ youre > representing a government agency in America, and I catch you stepping > over the line, then Im going to push you back, or at \ least try. > It was part of my training as an Army of\[CapitalThorn]cer. What was? Complaining about professors replying to you on Usenet? Its unclear. [Tim, oddly snipped by JSH] >> But what does it matter now, given that it failed? Ive seen the >> claim that its important to keep rehashing this because it reveals >> something important about JSHs character. I have a hard time >> believing that this piece of > It amazes me how often some of you attempt to rewrite history. What, it didnt fail? > Posters keep bringing it up, accusing me of various things, and at > times I will give the full story. > The full story is that David Ullrich brought up racial slurs. That again. No, he didnt. He *mentioned* racial slurs. Your version of the full story is a transparently self-serving gross caricature. [another repetition of the self-serving gross caricature snipped] >> history is necessary toward that end, though. I saw my \[CapitalThorn]rst JSH >> post several months ago -- had never heard of him before then. Going >> from this guy is confused to and seems invincibly ignorant, >> manipulative, hostile and unstable didnt take a week. Its not like >> he did something dubious once years ago then learned to project a >> convincing illusion of saintliness -- to the contrary, having looked up >> the history, he hasnt changed his posting behaviors in positive ways at >> all. If someone here thought of him as morally beyond reproach before >> the trumped-up racism claim, and thats what opened their eyes, then Ill >> stand corrected on this point. > LOL. I wonder if some of you even take yourselves seriously. > This is Usenet. I mainly use this forum to air out various ideas. > There are posters like David Ullrich who obsessively reply to my posts, > even though I mostly ignore them. Thats a shame too, because it does real damage to your occassional claim to be interested in truth. David always strives to be accurate in his mathematical writing, is a highly competent mathematician, and has given you innumerable valid corrections to your work. If you paid attention to his criticims (instead of, say, ignoring them and calling him a liar by reßex), your work could improve rapidly. > You wish to join that club? Nope -- I dont see any point at all in talking math with \ you. > Ok. But dont pretend to think that others on the \ newsgroup dont > realize what you are. My reputation stands on my work, most of which isnt \ apparent here. Sorry, but Im not worried about it. > After all, Ive been posting for years here. > People like you have come and gone, over, and over, and over again. > Its still my newsgroup. I was posting here long before you \[CapitalThorn]rst showed up, although I was absent during the years you were forging your reputation here. So if owning the newsgroup is a matter of seniority, its my newsgroup, all mine. Well, mine and Dik Winters. And Torkel Franzens. And \ ... well, there are lots of people who have been posting here longer than you. Still, its my newsgroup, but its OK by me if you post here. Just \ dont go claiming its your newsgroup -- that would really piss me off. Id be so angry Id probably blurt out something Id regret in court later. Nice try . === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > (I couldnt do anything with Diks > djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com > reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) string in Message ID... Tomasso. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Tim Peters] >> (I couldnt do anything with Diks >> djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com >> reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) [Tomasso vs noise] > string in Message ID... Then thats a reply to http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 but looks like David skipped quoting the abuse at the originals end (which is the part I expect Arturo had in mind). === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy ... > [Tomasso vs noise] > string in Message ID... > Then thats a reply to > http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 > but looks like David skipped quoting the abuse at the originals end (which > is the part I expect Arturo had in mind). I have not yet found ways to let it show). -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy ... > The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case > occurred in October 2002, message > though it is gone from Google. djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> [snipped another repetition of JSHs standard Ullrich \ rant] >> ... >> [Will Twentyman] > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about > matters of (recent) history. >> Of course theres no slur to be found. The incident referred to >> was in early October of 1999. You can \[CapitalThorn]nd it easily. David >> Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, >> and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As >> David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering >> some sort of racial slur (thats as speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ as it ever got) would >> be an object lesson in *why* people shouldnt talk about other >> people the way JSH did. But he didnt do so. He said he thought it >> would have been appropriate to do so, and thats the extent of it. >You are already falling victim to JSHs propaganda. Here is the >sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such >that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort >of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich >_never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he said >that a racial slur seemed to \[CapitalThorn]t with what JSH was dealing out: and >this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in >this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. I dont think that any of this shows that Tim is falling for anything James has said. You quote me as saying it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be - given that I said that its perfectly reasonable for Tim to say He said he thought it would have been appropriate to do so. (The point of course being that theres appropriate and then theres appropriate - from one point of view it did seem perfectly appropriate, but from another point of view (that being the point of view of someone who agrees with the very point I was making) it would have been very inappropriate.) >And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting >his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you >should be ashamed to even think of it. Again, just for the record, as Ive clari\[CapitalThorn]ed a \ few times: That someone talked me out of that was not accurate - it was typed before I realized this was going to become a federal case. In fact I talked myself out of it almost immediately - a little later someone arrived, I mentioned this to him, and he said something like whoa, you cant talk that way! to which I agreed, having already \[CapitalThorn]gured that out for myself. Someone talked me out of it seemed like a reasonable simpli\[CapitalThorn]cation of the above at the time - I had no idea it was going to follow me forever.... >> I dont agree it would have been appropriate, >Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would >claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? >> but theres nothing objectionable about discussing its >> appropriateness. >> Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course theres no shortage of >> people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. >There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has ßung at >others. As long as were on this again, we should also mention that James is on record saying that the reason he made his complaint was not that he was offended, it was an attempt to get me to stop replying in his threads. (Which of course explains why he was more offended by what I didnt say than by \ certain others whove actually called him vile names - those guys \ are just yahoos, no danger anybodys going to _listen_ to them regarding the math.) ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Kurtis Mooney - February 6th 1976 posting-account=xTuwsg0AAAAJvUJEaPgOGiJgKaup0yZ5 M O O N E Y 13 15 15 14 5 25 = 87 Today Kurt decided to provide stats for his family members. 152+ Andrew 30 12 50 364/1 +2241 Andrew 65 Mooney 87 155+ Marlene 19 12 55 353/12 +426 Marlene 68 Mooney 87 185 Kurt 6 2 76 37/329 6928 Kurtis 98 Mooney 87 144+ Kris 22 4 78 112/253 7734 Kris 57 Mooney 87 152+ Kelly 20 8 79 232/133 8219 Kelly 65 Mooney 87 152+ Kathy 16 4 81 106/259 8824 Kathy 65 Mooney 87 Here is a family of 6 with the \[CapitalThorn]rst of the kids born on the 6th day of the month and has 6 and 6 lettered names. The parents were born in months adding to the 24 chapters of Bible Books 6 and 10 (the 6th non-prime). The kids were born in months adding to 18 (6+6+6). The parents were together born with 13 days remaining in their years (6th prime). The kids were together born on days of the year adding to 487 and with 974 (487+487) days remaining in their years, and so the kids were on average born with exactly 66.666...% of the year remaining. The females were together born 188 days closer to the end of their years than to the beginning of their years, its the opening chapter of Bible Book 6 (its 6x6x6 short of the 404 verses of Bible Book \ 66). And the males were together born 29 days closer to the end of their years than to the beginning of their years, it is 6 plus the 6th prime (13) plus the 6th non-prime (10), its the number of chapters in Bible Book 13 (the 6th prime) and is the number of verses in chapter 666 (Ecclesiastes 7). The family was born on days of the week adding to the 29 (6+6p+6np) verses in chapter 666. The kids were together born on days and in months and years adding to 396 (6x66). The 6th of 6 family members is the nubile sweety who was born on the 16th. The \[CapitalThorn]rst and last of the kids were born on days of the year adding to 143, pretty as chapter 666 brings Ecclesiastes up to 143 verses. The family was together born 217 days closer to the end of their years than to the beginning of their years (Judges 6). Andrew (65), Kelly (65) and Kathy (65) were born on days of the month adding to 66. 1-50 - Genesis 51-90 - Exodus 91-117 - Leviticus 118-153 - Numbers 154-187 - Deuteronomy 188-211 - Joshua 930-957 - Matthew 958-973 - Mark 974-997 - Luke 998-1018 - John 1019-1046 - Acts 1047-1062 - Romans 41 <-The 13th prime while 13 in turn is the 6th prime, its the 6th prime in prime position while one of the versions of Bible Book 41 contains 666 verses 123 <-Numbers 6, it is three times the 13th prime (41+41+41), keeping in mind that 13 is the 6th prime... its 3 times the 6th prime in prime position 188 <-the opening chapter of Book 6 is 6x6x6 short of the 404 verses of Bible Book 66, it is the 6th prime squared (13x13) short of the 357 verses of Daniel (also in part about 666) 193 <-Book 6 chapter 6 is the 44th prime, while 44 is in turn 66.666...% of 66 211 <-the terminating chapter of Book 6 is approximately 66.6% of the 66th prime (317) 357 <-the opening chapter of Book 6 plus the 6th prime squared is the 357 verses of Daniel (in part about 666) 404 <-the 6th prime squared (13x13) plus the 6th prime squared (13x13) plus 66 adds to the 404 verses of Bible Book 66 1062 <-666 plus 6x66 is a combination of the 658 verses of Bible Book 6 plus the 404 verses of Bible Book 66, and is the terminating chapter of New Testament Book 6 1070 <-666 plus the 404 verses of Book 66 is the 1070 verses of Job (Book 6+6+6) 1213 <-Exodus terminates at chapter 90 (66th non- prime) with 1213 verses (the 198th or the 66+66+66th prime) 1292 <-the 658 verses of Book 6 plus twice the 66th prime (317) is the 1292 verses of Isaiah (the Book contains 66 chapters) Dad was born in 50 (the 11th Book of the New Testament). \ Dads birthday always follows 11 days after moms birthday. All \ the kids have names beginning with the 11th letter of the alphabet. The kids were born in months adding to 18 (11th non-prime). Kurts names differ in value by 11, he stands 5 feet 11 inches tall. Mom was born in 55, her common name adds to 155. And mom was born on the 19th, The Samuels are Bible Books 9 and 10 (together for 19) with 55 chapters and 1505 verses. The \[CapitalThorn]rst of the kids was born in 76 (55th non-prime) and the parents and this \[CapitalThorn]rst kid were together born on days of the month adding to 55. And this \[CapitalThorn]rst \ kids consonants exceed his vowels by 55. The parents have \[CapitalThorn]rst names adding together for 133 (Numbers 16). Mom was born in 55, its the 16th Book of the New Testament, her sons were born on days of the month averaging 16 while her daughter was born on the 16th day of the month and on the 106th day of the year (Leviticus 16 and is twice the 16th prime). Mom was born on the 353rd day of the year, her sons are separated by 3.53 years. The parents are separated by 1815 (605+605+605) days while the last two kids are separated by 605 days. The brothers were born on days of the year averaging 127 while the last two kids are separated by 605 days (Psalm 127). Kurt Mooney (87) was born 87 days after his parents birthdays. Chapter 87 is Exodus 37 while the feller was born on day 37. 389 <-77th prime 104 <-77th non-prime 77 <-77 --- 570 The Four 57s Genesis 41 -> 41 Leviticus 14 -> 104 Judges 9 -> 220 <-I dreamt of 220 roofs blown John 11 -> 1008 off homes in the Dakotas ---- 1373 <-220th prime Chapter 57 is Exodus 7 with 25 verses Book 57 is Philemon with 25 verses -- -- 41st non-prime 16th non-prime <-together for 57-> Major Books of End-Times Prophecy (Daniel and Revelation are in part about 666 while Isaiah contains 66 chapters): Daniel - 357 verses Revelation - 404 verses <-57 plus the 57th prime plus the 57th non-prime Isaiah - 1292 verses <-an average of 19.575757... verses per chapter The parents were born in years adding to 105, its the 78th non-prime while 78 in turn is the 57th non-prime. Kris (57) was born in 78 (57th non-prime). The kids have \[CapitalThorn]rst names adding to 285 (5x57). The middle kids were born in years adding to 157, and the \[CapitalThorn]rst and last kids were born in years adding to 157. The family was born on days and in months adding to 157. Kurt (70) Mooney (87) adds to 157. The kids were born a total of 1026 (18x57) days after their parents birthdays. The middle kids were born an average of 357 days after their parents birthdays. The kids were together born 535 days after moms birthdays (Psalm 57). Note that only Psalm 57 speaks of storms in the plural sense, interesting as the main Books of end-times prophecy are Daniel with 357 verses and Revelation with 57 plus the 57th prime (269) plus the 57th non-prime (78) verses. Genesis 41 repeats the spoken seven 28 times, pretty as 1 through 7 adds to 28. We are warned in Genesis 41 to accumulate 7 years worth of food supplies in anticipation of several years of successive crop failures. Genesis 41 contains 57 verses, together for 98 (7x7+7x7). Pretty that Genesis 41 would contain 57 verses, for 57 is the 41st non-prime. Genesis 41 is a numerological marker in the Bible, I tried to tell people this in 1988 but they rolled their eyes back and smirked, people did not like my criticisms of their churches and used my interest in math as one of their reasons to arrest and torture me in psychiatric settings. I was arrested under the mental health act while the farmers were \[CapitalThorn]ned for failing to get the grain to port fast enough. The Canadian government provided land for the railways, but then the railroad companies ripped out the tracks and sold the land, and used the money to purchase lucrative money making hotels. I was tortured for speaking while the people guilty of treason took their frequent trips to Europe, Asia and the Caribbean, while the Catholics sponsored Latin American and Asian Catholics to come to Canada and earn hard Western currency so they could tithe to the Catholic church. And they repeatedly raped Canadian taxpayers to the tune of many hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for costs involved in the visits of the pope (it is theft, just like the theft of the Egyptian obelisk situated at The Vatican). People used my interest in numbers as one of the reasons to support having me arrested and tortured, I show you people gems and year after year you spend billions of dollars on turning trees into idols while calling me insane (Second Chronicles 36:16). The Bible repeatedly condemns turning trees into idols. Bowing to the tree (via the placement and retrieval of presents at the base of the tree) is a violation of Gods First Commandment. Hanging representations of the sun, moon and angels on the tree is a violation of Gods Second Commandment. The sun is visibly rising from the south by December 25th, calling this pagan holiday Christmas is a violation of Gods Third Commandment for it is not \ Christs Mass at all but is instead a pagan mass that commemorates the return of the sun from the south. In my effort to get away from the brutal cycle of psychiatric abuse, at the psychiatric appeal panel hearings I would tell the Protestants and Catholics seated in judgment against me that the Bible repeatedly condemns turning trees into idols (see Deuteronomy 12:2; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 16:4, 17:10; 2 Chronicles 28:4; Isaiah 57:5; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:6, 3:13, 10:3-4, 17:2 and Ezekiel 6:13), but my words were used against me, once Dr. Gene Marcoux heard me say this and he responded by saying that I was religiously deluded, for everybody does it (turns trees into idols). Hiring Hindus or Catholic or Protestant psychiatrists to torture me in an attempt to make me shut up about your fertility symbols (such as evergreen trees, phallic steeples and symbols of the sun built into church architecture...) and other false traditions is nothing less than a violation of Gods Sixth Commandment. Closing your hearts to me and allowing me to beg in vain for assistance to ßee the country and the horrid rounds of psychiatric abuse is in absolute opposition to love, compassion and anything Jesus ever stood for. As long as you people are free to offer prayers to Mary and/or to hang posters advertising drunken parties then you think you are free. Your reproductive strategy is to support your parents traditions (including their churches) in order to obtain support from parents, relatives and employers, but God dothnt think too highly of your attitude and will sometimes trim your branches. 187 Dar 17 2 57 48/317 00 Daryl 60 Shawn 65 Kabatoff 62 187 Marcia 6 8 80 219/147 8571 Marcia 45 Veronica 87 Acevedo 55 288 Melinda 23 3 83 82/283 9530 Melinda 58 Janelle 59 Elaine 46 Joyce 58 Jarocki 67 182 Kathy 16 4 81 106/259 8824 Kathy 65 Acevedo-Kabatoff 55-62 If you people think you have the right to use my abusive parents as tools to have me arrested and tortured, then I think that I have the right to ask women to marry me, or to marry Marcia and me. I have Scripture to support taking seven brides (Isaiah 4:1) and I have Scripture to support sleeping with Melinda Jarocki outside of wedlock (First Kings 1:1-5), while you people have a vast multitude of Scriptures condemning your decorated trees, phallic-capped churches and your violence against me for daring to point out your pagan traditions. Good luck!!! If you think Jesus is telling you people to spend billions of dollars annually on turning trees into decorated idols, and millions of dollars to torture me, then you people dont have Jesus and are instead in desperate need of luck. Just as you people sat back in silence when I was being tortured, beaten and robbed, or just as you people sat back in silence when the Star-Phoenix called me a pedophile \[CapitalThorn]nd themselves in their hour of need (Hosea 4:6). But I will not sit back in silence, if I \[CapitalThorn]nd any of you compassionless turds in the obituaries I will cheer with utter glee (Psalm 137:9) and will post your stats again. All you people are really good for is to have your stats posted on the usenet and be used as examples to others, and look, here you are!!! Daryl Shawn Kabatoff Box 7134 Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada S7K 4J1 Isaiah 45:4, Ephesians 3:15 - God gives you your name!!! Here are my Carlys: 1) 1936 Buick Coupe - I wanted to buy a coupe, when Sam discovered I found one at a reasonable price, he insisted that he would take me to see it, he then drove me to see this car on 7th Street. I think I was 17 years old, the car was about $700. Sam ordered me in a very angry and gruff voice not to buy the car, he said it needed king pins and that I would never \[CapitalThorn]nd king pins for it. Sam ordered me not to purchase it and added that he would buy me a nice car some day 2) 1938 Cadillac LaSalle 4 door sedan - Ruby threw away the head lights and the tail lights, the car is rolled and already missing the drive train, now there isnt enough left of this car to attempt to \[CapitalThorn]x. I still have this car and need parts for it. Farmer \ cousin Jack never gave me a bill of sale for it, maybe he forgot about the transaction 3) 1940 Chevrolet 4 door sedan - no tears in the interior, gauges intact, not rusted out, the engine needed work. Sam sold it for the $50 I paid for it within 3 days after bringing it home (Lloyd Minion and Brian Dent helped me get it home), I think that Sam sold it to one of the alcoholic Saskatoon City Police of\[CapitalThorn]cers that dropped by daily to drink with Sam at his bar in the basement 4) 1952 Studebaker Coupe - Ran and drivable but the water pump was about to fail, Sam ordered me to sell it. Sam sold it to the \[CapitalThorn]rst person who ßashed any amount of money. When there was a car that needed to be sold, Ruby would always become very threatening and speak in a shrill voice that I would expect to hear as a child before she would hit me. She slapped me around pretty good on the morning of December 25th one year, this and acts like it resulted in me stuttering when I was around 11 or 12 years old. About this time I did not desire to dress up and go Halloweening, and Sam gave me a slap and ordered me to get dressed and go door to door on my own for the sweet treats 5) 1956 Ford 2 door Sedan - I went to Kelsey to learn motor mechanics, I put a lot of work into the 390 V8 engine, also installed a 4 speed manual transmission, Ruby went insane in her insistence that I sell the vehicle (new brakes and exhaust), I put it up for sale to try to keep peace in the family, sold it for about what the transmission was worth 6) 1957 Ford 2 door Sedan - And what a mistake to put this car in Sams precious back yard, the body school at Kelsey Institute repaired the rusted-out rocker panels, the parents insisted and insisted I should not have this car 7) 1958 Ford School Bus camperized with stove and 3 way fridge - In the late 1970s (or perhaps in 1980) I drove this over to show my parents, Ruby became ballistic and repeatedly demanded I sell it, she would phone me up and harp about it 8) 1965 Daimler Benz 40 Foot Bus V6 Cummins - As per Rubys insistence I sold the 58 Ford school bus. But then I immediately bought a bigger bus, then year after year after year after year after year after year after year I listened to Ruby ordering me to sell the bus (again she would phone me up to harp at me about it, and pretty much every time I saw her she would make it an issue). There was never any encouragement from Sam, all my life he took away my vehicles and always promised that he would help me get established in life and buy me a car. But all he would do is feed steaks and booze to the rich relatives and to any of his alcoholic friends 9) 1970(?) VW Station Wagon - Clark Hendersons sister sold me this VW Wagon when I worked as a Social Worker in Whitecourt Alberta in 1987, intoxicated Sam and insane Ruby came to see me in Whitecourt, Ruby repeatedly demanded I sell the 1965 Daimler bus, Sam assaulted me during the visit, they returned to Saskatoon and sold the Daimler for $1000. Earlier Sam sent me $1000 when I went to school in Montreal and \[CapitalThorn]nished my degree in Anthropology with \ Womens Studies Classes, he used this amount to determine the selling price, sold the bus and took the money. My job performance suffered after Sam assaulted me and sold my bus, I lost my job in Whitecourt, this VW broke down and I had no money to \[CapitalThorn]x it 10) 1966 Ford 2 door hardtop - The VW broke down, so at the end of 1987 I bought a cheap Ford to leave Whitecourt and return to Saskatoon, but during 1988 my words upset people in the community and they had my abusive parents institutionalize me. Rather than make money to keep this car running, I was drugged and tortured 11 and 12) After a few years of psychiatric torture and a few years of absence from my parents, I renewed limited contact with them late into year 2001, for Sam was in the hospital then with a hip replacement, I thought to go to wish him well. Sam then told me that he bought a van, and that he never really got anything in trade for the late 1990s Crown Victoria. The contact with Sam results in contact with Ruby, and together they took me for a drive looking around the streets of Confederation Park to \[CapitalThorn]nd my \ mothers 1984 Mustang, Ruby sold it to some kid and so Sam drove us around in search of the car just to point it out for me. I heard Ruby say many times since obtaining it, that she would pass her Mustang down to her kids. Then Sam insisted on checking my blood sugar and then promptly stuck me with a dirty needle. Ruby said that Sam should have used a clean-new needle === Subject: Christy Angela Weise - May 13th 1983 posting-account=xTuwsg0AAAAJvUJEaPgOGiJgKaup0yZ5 W E I S E 23 5 9 19 5 = 61 Nubile sweety Christy provided stats for herself and family members today. Both parents are older than me, its a very positive sign. 61+ Mom 28 6 54 179/186 +965 61+ Dad 11 12 56 346/20 +68 203 Christy 13 5 83 133/232 9581 Christy 102 Angela 40 Weise 61 61+ Sis 29 1 85 29/336 10208 Primes Non-Primes Numbers 2 1 1 3 4 2 5 6 3 7 8 4 11 9 5 13 10 6 17 12 7 19 14 8 23 15 9 29 16 10 31 18 11 37 20 12 41 21 13 43 22 14 47 24 15 53 25 16 59 26 17 61 27 18 67 28 19 71 30 20 73 32 21 79 33 22 83 34 23 89 35 24 97 36 25 101 38 26 103 39 27 107 40 28 109 42 29 113 44 30 127 45 31 131 46 32 137 48 33 139 49 34 149 50 35 151 51 36 157 52 37 163 54 38 167 55 39 173 56 40 179 <-41st-> 57 <-41st-> 41 ---- --- --- 3266 1272 861 Mom was born on the 179th day of the year, its the 41st prime while 41 in turn is the 13th prime (179 is the 13th prime in prime position). The parents were born on days of the month adding to 39 (13+13+13). Dad was born 167 days further into the year than mom (the 39th or the 13+13+13th prime). The parents were born on days and in months and years adding to 167 (the 39th or the 13+13+13th prime). The parents are separated by 29 months and 13 days, keeping in mind that Bible Book 13 contains 29 chapters. Christy was born on the 13th day of the month and on the 133rd day of the year. The little sister was born on the 29th (the number of chapters in Bible Book 13). The sisters were born in years averaging 84, its the \[CapitalThorn]rst 13 primes \ (238) minus the \[CapitalThorn]rst 13 non-primes (154). The family was born in years adding to 7878 (13x606). The parents were born on days 28 and 11, together these Bible Books contain 1013 verses. Dad and the kids were born in years adding to 224 (Judges 13). Normally dad and the kids have their birthdays on days of the year averaging 169 (13x13). The kids were born on days of the month averaging 21 (13th non-prime). The females were born in years adding to 222, its the number of verses in Bible Book 21 (13th non-prime). The females were together born 413 days closer to the beginning of their years than to the end of their years. Mom and Christy were born on days of the month adding to 41 (13th prime). Christy and her parents were born on days of the month adding to 52 (the 13th Book of the New Testament). Christy (born on the 13th) has 13 letters in her given names. Her given names differ in value by 62, its the 13th prime (41) plus the 13th non-prime (21). Her last two names differ in value by 21 (13th non-prime) and add together for 101 (the 26th or the 13+13th prime). Her \[CapitalThorn]rst and last names differ in value by 41 (13th prime). The vowels in her given names add to 41 (13th prime) while the consonants in her given names add to 101 (the 26th or the 13+13th prime). All of her consonants add to 143 (11x13). The nubile sweety has 13 different letters in her full name. Her 13 odd valued letters add to 131, and her unrepeated letters add to 130 (Numbers 13). I meet Christy when she is 45.13% of my age. Primes Non-Primes Fibonacci Lucas Numbers 2 1 0 1 1 3 4 1 3 2 5 6 1 4 3 7 8 2 7 4 11 9 3 11 5 13 10 5 18 6 17 12 8 29 7 19 14 13 47 8 23 15 21 76 9 29 16 34 123 10 31 18 55 199 11 37 20 89 322 12 41 <-13th-> 21 <-13th-> 144 <-13th-> 521 <-13th-> 13 --- --- -- 238 154 <-Lamentations 91 The nubile sweety was born on the 13th (6th prime) day of the month and on the 6th day of the week, she has an average of 6 letters per name. The little sister was born on the 29th, its 6 plus \ the 6th prime (13) plus the 6th non-prime (10), its the number of \ chapters in Bible Book 13 (6th prime). The kids were born in months adding to 6. Dads birthday always follows 166 days after moms birthday. Christy stands 66 inches tall. The kids were born an average of 184 days after their parents birthdays... the 184th prime (1097) and the 184th non-prime (235) averages 666. The parents and the little sister were born on days of the year averaging 184.666... Christy and her parents were born in years adding to 193 (Bible Book 6 chapter 6) and on days of the year adding to the 658 verses of Bible Book 6. Christy and her parents were born in months adding to 23, its the 6th prime (13) plus \ the 6th non-prime (10), corresponding to Isaiah with 66 chapters. Dad and Christy were born on days of the month adding to the 24 chapters of Bible Book 6. Dad and the kids were born on days of the year adding to 508 (16.6 months). Mom and the kids were born on days 28, 13 and 29, these Bible Books contain an average of 404 verses, its the number of verses in Revelation, Bible Book 66. 1-50 - Genesis 51-90 - Exodus 91-117 - Leviticus 118-153 - Numbers 154-187 - Deuteronomy 188-211 - Joshua 930-957 - Matthew 958-973 - Mark 974-997 - Luke 998-1018 - John 1019-1046 - Acts 1047-1062 - Romans 41 <-The 13th prime while 13 in turn is the 6th prime, its the 6th prime in prime position while one of the versions of Bible Book 41 contains 666 verses 123 <-Numbers 6, it is three times the 13th prime (41+41+41), keeping in mind that 13 is the 6th prime... its 3 times the 6th prime in prime position 188 <-the opening chapter of Book 6 is 6x6x6 short of the 404 verses of Bible Book 66, it is the 6th prime squared (13x13) short of the 357 verses of Daniel (also in part about 666) 193 <-Book 6 chapter 6 is the 44th prime, while 44 is in turn 66.666...% of 66 211 <-the terminating chapter of Book 6 is approximately 66.6% of the 66th prime (317) 357 <-the opening chapter of Book 6 plus the 6th prime squared is the 357 verses of Daniel (in part about 666) 404 <-the 6th prime squared (13x13) plus the 6th prime squared (13x13) plus 66 adds to the 404 verses of Bible Book 66 1062 <-666 plus 6x66 is a combination of the 658 verses of Bible Book 6 plus the 404 verses of Bible Book 66, and is the terminating chapter of New Testament Book 6 1070 <-666 plus the 404 verses of Book 66 is the 1070 verses of Job (Book 6+6+6) 1213 <-Exodus terminates at chapter 90 (66th non- prime) with 1213 verses (the 198th or the 66+66+66th prime) 1292 <-the 658 verses of Book 6 plus twice the 66th prime (317) is the 1292 verses of Isaiah (the Book contains 66 chapters) Dad and the kids were born on days of the month adding to 53 (16th prime), interesting as dad was born on the 11th, for Bible Book 11 opens with 53 verses and also closes with 53 verses. The kids were together born 406 days closer to the beginning of their years than to the end of their years (the number of verses in Bible Book 16). The kids were born on days 13 and 29 (a difference of 16). The kids were born on days of the month adding to 162 and in years adding to 168. Christy was born on day 133 (Numbers 16) and in year 83, \ its the number of verses in the 16th Book of the New Testament, while her name adds to 203 (Joshua 16). Her common name adds to 163, she stands 66 inches tall (Exodus 16). Christy was born in 83, her consonants exceed her vowels by 83. There are 83 verses in Bible Book 55 while the parents were born in years averaging 55. The parents are separated by 29 months (and 13 days). The parents were together born 319 (11x29) days closer to the end of their years than to the beginning of their years. Mom \[CapitalThorn]rst gave birth 319 (11x29) days after her birthday. Christy was born 1.29 years after her parents birthdays. Christy was born on the 13th (First Chronicles with 29 chapters). The little sister was born on the 29th while the sisters were born on days of the month adding to 42 (29th non-prime). The kids were on average born exactly 29 weeks closer to the beginning of their years than to the end of their years. The family was together born 87 (29+29+29) days closer to the beginning of their years than to the end of their years. Lucas 1 3 4 7 11 18 29 -- 73 <-the Lucas numbers up to 29 add to the 73 verses of Bible Book 29 J O E L <-Bible Book 29 10 15 5 12 = 42 <-29th non-prime C O P P E R <-29th element 3 15 16 16 5 18 = 73 <-Book 29 and is the Lucas numbers up to 29, there is a copper riding a horse on the 1973 Canadian 25 cent piece C E N T <-made out of 29th element 3 5 14 20 = 42 <-29th non-prime Copper and Zinc are elements 29 and 30 (together for 59), and together they make Brass (59): B R A S S 2 18 1 19 19 = 59 Dad was born on the 11th. The parents were born in years adding to 110 and in months adding to 18 (11th non-prime). The kids were born an average of 11% into their years. The kids were born an average of 101 days after dads birthdays (Leviticus 11). Christy and her parents were born on days of the week adding to 11. I was born in 57, I meet Christy when she is 21.57 years old. Her \[CapitalThorn]rst 5 letters add to 57. Christys name adds \ to 203 (the 157th non-prime). The kids are separated by 627 (11x57) days. 389 <-77th prime 104 <-77th non-prime 77 <-77 --- 570 The Four 57s Genesis 41 -> 41 Leviticus 14 -> 104 Judges 9 -> 220 <-I dreamt of 220 roofs blown John 11 -> 1008 off homes in the Dakotas ---- 1373 <-220th prime Chapter 57 is Exodus 7 with 25 verses Book 57 is Philemon with 25 verses -- -- 41st non-prime 16th non-prime <-together for 57-> Major Books of End-Times Prophecy (Daniel and Revelation are in part about 666 while Isaiah contains 66 chapters): Daniel - 357 verses Revelation - 404 verses <-57 plus the 57th prime plus the 57th non-prime Isaiah - 1292 verses <-an average of 19.575757... verses per chapter The kids were on average born 203 days closer to the beginning of their years than to the end of their years while Christys name adds to 203. Just two days ago there was a house \[CapitalThorn]re nearby at 203 Ave. E South that claimed the lives of a mom and her two children, and now all their friends and relatives will get bigger trees and decorate them to greater degrees. Celine Michasiw died in the \[CapitalThorn]re, her name adds to 133 while Christy was born on the 133rd day of the year. Christy says she dothnt believe in goink to church... probababbly she has seen the lavishly decorated trees there and has decided that by not supporting these organizations, she can save money so that she and her family members can annually purchase decorated trees that are at least equally as nice as those found in the \[CapitalThorn]lthy churches. Turning trees into decorated idols is way more important than the Word of God, and this applies to those who attend churches just as much as to those who do not. And you can bet that if tragedy befalls this family, then the surviving family members will get a bigger tree and decorate it to a greater degree, its for the sake of tradition. Or alternatively, probababbly and maybe more, Christy has seen the copper covered dinks and other phallic steeples gracing the outside of the churches, and has decided that by not supporting these organizations, she can save money so that she and her family members can annually purchase large phallic symbols of their own, or some damn thing like that. I meet Christy at Habitat for Humanity Saskatoon Restore at 519 Ave. L South, I told her that I was looking for structural pieces of aluminum (the 13th element), then shortly after she revealed that she was born on the 13th. I was here earlier in the year and found some pieces of aluminum that I wanted to purchase, but the manager refused to sell any of it to me. I asked the fat manager why he would not sell it to me, I said that somebody is going to buy it, so why cant it be me?!!! But the fat manager is king here, he dothnt need any reason to prevent me from purchasing the choice pieces. The fat manager should resign his position, the organization he runs is supposed to provide a public service to the disenfranchised, but his favoritism helps to perpetuate the gross inequality (the rights I have is limited to a needle up my arse, and when brutally assaulted on the street, the police dont lay charges). I criticized your churches and received years of psychiatric torture, I begged for years for assistance to ßee the country and all you \[CapitalThorn]lthy pieces of can do is decorate your own homes with billions of dollars of decorated trees while making me a God-damned home in a psychiatric ward, followed by your refusal to sell me building materials. There is also some steel here that I would like to have, but these \[CapitalThorn]lthy assholes want more than new price for the metal, I guess one has to support their churches before one can win some kind of deal here. If I desire to see aluminum at Habitat For Humanity, it will be lavishly draped over their decorated tree, and I wont be allowed to touch it. Anyway Christy, you love your traditions more than the Word of God, certainly you love your traditions more than me, and I in turn dont have the slightest bit of respect for you and so do not require your permission to post your stats on the usenet, and look, here you are!!! All you people could do is beat me and mock me while you turn your trees into idols, and all I can do is cry out to God and ask Him to honor Exodus 20:5 and Hosea 4:6 as promises, and terminate your ignorant lives. They hired Hindus who tortured me for years, and now you \[CapitalThorn]lthy compassionless pieces of erect a statue of Gandhi in downtown Saskatoon with his back turned to the facilities where I was tortured by Hindus, and now you think yourselves to be politically and morally correct by openly honoring a Hindu. I showed Christy gems, it wasnt worth to her, she puts her money into her \ tree or whatever other idol she adores. The Bible repeatedly condemns turning trees into idols. Bowing to the tree (via the placement and retrieval of presents at the base of the tree) is a violation of Gods First Commandment. Hanging representations of the sun, moon and angels on the tree is a violation of Gods Second Commandment. The sun is visibly rising from the south by December 25th, calling this pagan holiday Christmas is a violation of Gods Third Commandment for it is not \ Christs Mass at all but is instead a pagan mass that commemorates the return of the sun from the south. In my effort to get away from the brutal cycle of psychiatric abuse, at the psychiatric appeal panel hearings I would tell the Protestants and Catholics seated in judgment against me that the Bible repeatedly condemns turning trees into idols (see Deuteronomy 12:2; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 16:4, 17:10; 2 Chronicles 28:4; Isaiah 57:5; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:6, 3:13, 10:3-4, 17:2 and Ezekiel 6:13), but my words were used against me, once Dr. Gene Marcoux heard me say this and he responded by saying that I was religiously deluded, for everybody does it (turns trees into idols). Hiring Hindus or Catholic or Protestant psychiatrists to torture me in an attempt to make me shut up about your fertility symbols (such as evergreen trees, phallic steeples and symbols of the sun built into church architecture...) and other false traditions is nothing less than a violation of Gods Sixth Commandment. Closing your hearts to me and allowing me to beg in vain for assistance to ßee the country and the horrid rounds of psychiatric abuse is in absolute opposition to love, compassion and anything Jesus ever stood for. As long as you people are free to offer prayers to Mary and/or to hang posters advertising drunken parties then you think you are free. Your reproductive strategy is to support your parents traditions (including their churches) in order to obtain support from parents, relatives and employers, but God dothnt think too highly of your attitude and will sometimes trim your branches. 187 Dar 17 2 57 48/317 00 Daryl 60 Shawn 65 Kabatoff 62 187 Marcia 6 8 80 219/147 8571 Marcia 45 Veronica 87 Acevedo 55 288 Melinda 23 3 83 82/283 9530 Melinda 58 Janelle 59 Elaine 46 Joyce 58 Jarocki 67 259 Christy 13 5 83 133/232 9581 Christy 102 Angela 40 Acevedo-Kabatoff 55-62 If you people think you have the right to use my abusive parents as tools to have me arrested and tortured, then I think that I have the right to ask women to marry me, or to marry Marcia and me. I have Scripture to support taking seven brides (Isaiah 4:1) and I have Scripture to support sleeping with Melinda Jarocki outside of wedlock (First Kings 1:1-5), while you people have a vast multitude of Scriptures condemning your decorated trees, phallic-capped churches and your violence against me for daring to point out your pagan traditions. Good luck!!! If you think Jesus is telling you people to spend billions of dollars annually on turning trees into decorated idols, and millions of dollars to torture me, then you people dont have Jesus and are instead in desperate need of luck. Just as you people sat back in silence when I was being tortured, beaten and robbed, or just as you people sat back in silence when the Star-Phoenix called me a pedophile \[CapitalThorn]nd themselves in their hour of need (Hosea 4:6). But I will not sit back in silence, if I \[CapitalThorn]nd any of you compassionless turds in the obituaries I will cheer with utter glee (Psalm 137:9) and will post your stats again. All you people are really good for is to have your stats posted on the usenet and be used as examples to others, and look, here you are!!! Daryl Shawn Kabatoff Box 7134 Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada S7K 4J1 Isaiah 45:4, Ephesians 3:15 - God gives you your name!!! Here are my Carlys: 1) 1936 Buick Coupe - I wanted to buy a coupe, when Sam discovered I found one at a reasonable price, he insisted that he would take me to see it, he then drove me to see this car on 7th Street. I think I was 17 years old, the car was about $700. Sam ordered me in a very angry and gruff voice not to buy the car, he said it needed king pins and that I would never \[CapitalThorn]nd king pins for it. Sam ordered me not to purchase it and added that he would buy me a nice car some day 2) 1938 Cadillac LaSalle 4 door sedan - Ruby threw away the head lights and the tail lights, the car is rolled and already missing the drive train, now there isnt enough left of this car to attempt to \[CapitalThorn]x. I still have this car and need parts for it. Farmer \ cousin Jack never gave me a bill of sale for it, maybe he forgot about the transaction 3) 1940 Chevrolet 4 door sedan - no tears in the interior, gauges intact, not rusted out, the engine needed work. Sam sold it for the $50 I paid for it within 3 days after bringing it home (Lloyd Minion and Brian Dent helped me get it home), I think that Sam sold it to one of the alcoholic Saskatoon City Police of\[CapitalThorn]cers that dropped by daily to drink with Sam at his bar in the basement 4) 1952 Studebaker Coupe - Ran and drivable but the water pump was about to fail, Sam ordered me to sell it. Sam sold it to the \[CapitalThorn]rst person who ßashed any amount of money. When there was a car that needed to be sold, Ruby would always become very threatening and speak in a shrill voice that I would expect to hear as a child before she would hit me. She slapped me around pretty good on the morning of December 25th one year, this and acts like it resulted in me stuttering when I was around 11 or 12 years old. About this time I did not desire to dress up and go Halloweening, and Sam gave me a slap and ordered me to get dressed and go door to door on my own for the sweet treats 5) 1956 Ford 2 door Sedan - I went to Kelsey to learn motor mechanics, I put a lot of work into the 390 V8 engine, also installed a 4 speed manual transmission, Ruby went insane in her insistence that I sell the vehicle (new brakes and exhaust), I put it up for sale to try to keep peace in the family, sold it for about what the transmission was worth 6) 1957 Ford 2 door Sedan - And what a mistake to put this car in Sams precious back yard, the body school at Kelsey Institute repaired the rusted-out rocker panels, the parents insisted and insisted I should not have this car 7) 1958 Ford School Bus camperized with stove and 3 way fridge - In the late 1970s (or perhaps in 1980) I drove this over to show my parents, Ruby became ballistic and repeatedly demanded I sell it, she would phone me up and harp about it 8) 1965 Daimler Benz 40 Foot Bus V6 Cummins - As per Rubys insistence I sold the 58 Ford school bus. But then I immediately bought a bigger bus, then year after year after year after year after year after year after year I listened to Ruby ordering me to sell the bus (again she would phone me up to harp at me about it, and pretty much every time I saw her she would make it an issue). There was never any encouragement from Sam, all my life he took away my vehicles and always promised that he would help me get established in life and buy me a car. But all he would do is feed steaks and booze to the rich relatives and to any of his alcoholic friends 9) 1970(?) VW Station Wagon - Clark Hendersons sister sold me this VW Wagon when I worked as a Social Worker in Whitecourt Alberta in 1987, intoxicated Sam and insane Ruby came to see me in Whitecourt, Ruby repeatedly demanded I sell the 1965 Daimler bus, Sam assaulted me during the visit, they returned to Saskatoon and sold the Daimler for $1000. Earlier Sam sent me $1000 when I went to school in Montreal and \[CapitalThorn]nished my degree in Anthropology with \ Womens Studies Classes, he used this amount to determine the selling price, sold the bus and took the money. My job performance suffered after Sam assaulted me and sold my bus, I lost my job in Whitecourt, this VW broke down and I had no money to \[CapitalThorn]x it 10) 1966 Ford 2 door hardtop - The VW broke down, so at the end of 1987 I bought a cheap Ford to leave Whitecourt and return to Saskatoon, but during 1988 my words upset people in the community and they had my abusive parents institutionalize me. Rather than make money to keep this car running, I was drugged and tortured 11 and 12) After a few years of psychiatric torture and a few years of absence from my parents, I renewed limited contact with them late into year 2001, for Sam was in the hospital then with a hip replacement, I thought to go to wish him well. Sam then told me that he bought a van, and that he never really got anything in trade for the late 1990s Crown Victoria. The contact with Sam results in contact with Ruby, and together they took me for a drive looking around the streets of Confederation Park to \[CapitalThorn]nd my \ mothers 1984 Mustang, Ruby sold it to some kid and so Sam drove us around in search of the car just to point it out for me. I heard Ruby say many times since obtaining it, that she would pass her Mustang down to her kids. Then Sam insisted on checking my blood sugar and then promptly stuck me with a dirty needle. Ruby said that Sam should have used a clean-new needle === Subject: Celine Michasiw - June 21st 1976 posting-account=xTuwsg0AAAAJvUJEaPgOGiJgKaup0yZ5 M I C H A S I W 13 9 3 8 1 19 9 23 = 85 Oh dear. Celine Michasiw and her kids died in a house \[CapitalThorn]re on Saskatoon Star-Phoenix (Penis-City Sun-Sunbird) newspaper. And in the evening today (December 13th) they held a service to assure everybody that the traditions embraced by the family were more than adequate to gain them passage to heaven, and now in fact Celine and her kids are supposedly watching down upon us as if they were gods. 136+ Michael Michael 51 Michasiw 85 133+ Celine 21 6 76 173/193 7064 Celine 48 Michasiw 85 161+ Kaitlin 10 3 99 69/296 15361 Kaitlin 76 Michasiw 85 150+ Andrew 20 7 00 202/164 15859 Andrew 65 Michasiw 85 Celine and her kids died on the 8th day of the month. Their 8 lettered last name adds to the 85 verses of Bible Book 8, its the \[CapitalThorn]rst 8 primes plus 8 more. Kaitlins name adds \ to 161 (Deuteronomy 8). Celine and the kids were born on days of the year adding to 444 (Job 8), and they have \[CapitalThorn]rst and last names (and perhaps full names) adding together for 444 (Job 8). Ruth is Bible Book 8, there are 4 letters in Ruth, and there are 4 chapters in Ruth, pretty as 8 is the 4th number that is not prime, while this is a family of 4. Celine Michasiw (85) was an average age of 8546 days old when she gave birth. The Michasiw (85) kids have \[CapitalThorn]rst names adding to 76 and 65, the latter is 85.52% of the former. Celine and her last were born in years averaging 1988. Kaitlin generally has her birthday 233 days after Andrew has his (the opening chapter of Bible Book 8). Primes Non-Primes 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 <-4th-> 8 <-Bible Book 8 contains 11 4 chapters, pretty as 13 8 is the 4th non-prime 17 19 -- 77 <-the \[CapitalThorn]rst 8 primes plus 8 more adds to the 85 verses of Bible Book 8 Primes In Prime Primes Positions 1 2 2 3 <- 3 3 5 <- 5 4 7 5 11 <- 11 6 13 7 17 <- 17 8 19 9 23 10 29 11 31 <- 31 12 37 13 41 <- 41 14 43 15 47 16 53 17 59 <- 59 18 61 19 67 <- 67 <-the 8th prime in prime position R U T H <-Book 8 18 21 20 8 = 67 Ruth is Bible Book 8, it begins with the 18th letter of the alphabet and ends with the 8th letter of the alphabet. The letters in Ruth add to 67 (the 19th prime while 19 in turn is the 8th prime, and so 67 is the 8th prime in prime position). Celine was born in 76, her \[CapitalThorn]rst kids \ \[CapitalThorn]rst name adds to 76. Andrew died when he was 76% of Kaitlins (76s) age. The kids were together born 189 days closer to the beginning of their years than to the end of their years, pretty that mom and the kids would have \[CapitalThorn]rst names adding together for 189. Celines \[CapitalThorn]rst and last names (and perhaps her \ full name) adds to 133, she gave birth on the 69th and the 202nd days of the year (a difference of 133). Celine was born on day 173 (Deuteronomy 20), she last gave birth on the 20th day of the month and on the 202nd day of the year. Its Andrew who was born on the 20th, his names differ in value by 20. Her kids are separated by 498 days (Psalm 20). Her kids were born on days of the month adding to 30 (20th non-prime). Her kids have names adding together for 311 (First Kings 20). The parents have \[CapitalThorn]rst names adding together for 99, the \ \[CapitalThorn]rst of their kids was born in year 99. Mom and the kids were born in years averaging 58.333... Dad and son have \[CapitalThorn]rst names averaging 58. All \[CapitalThorn]rst and last \ names in the family add together for 580. The kids were born on days of the year adding to 271 (the 58th prime). Celine was born Hamm (35), at birth her name added to the 83 verses of the 16th Book of the New Testament, and then she married Michasiw, resulting in her name adding to 133 (Numbers 16). Dads name adds to 136 (1 through 16) while the kids are separated by 1.36 years. Their \[CapitalThorn]rst kids name adds to 161. Mom and Andrew \ have names adding together for 283 (Second Samuel 16). Mom and the kids were born in months adding to 16. The kids are separated by just 16 months (and 10 days). They died in a house \[CapitalThorn]re at address 203 (Joshua 16) Ave. E South. Celine was born Hamm (35), then she took a last name adding to 85 (Exodus 35). Mom and the kids perish on the 1804th day of the century, Bible verse 1804 is the 271st verse of Exodus, pretty as the kids were born on days of the year adding to 271 and they exodused. The females have \[CapitalThorn]rst names adding together for 124 (Numbers 7), and differing in value by 28 (1 through 7), they perish on the 7x7x7th day of the year. Celine was born on the 21st (7+7+7th), its the number of chapters in Bible Book 7. Celine was born 104 (the 77th non-prime) days further into the year than 7 lettered Kaitlin. Kaitlin was born 227 days closer to the beginning of the year than to the end of the year (the 7x7th prime). When Michael and the relatives see these sevens, they will go to church on Sunday (the \[CapitalThorn]rst day of the week). And their Anglican (Dagon) priest will be given enough money so he can buy several \[CapitalThorn]sh-head (Dagon) hats, but thats \ ok by you because he will read you a passage from the Bible pertaining to love. Dad is Michael, his \[CapitalThorn]rst name adds to 51, pretty that his wife and kids were born on days of the month adding to 51. And his kids were born on days of the century adding to 36430, pretty as 3643 is the 510th prime. This all means that Michael will always want to hang 51 blinkin lights onto his God-damned tree. You people \ annually spend billions of dollars on turning trees into decorated idols, and you spent millions having me tortured in an effort to prevent me from saying so, and now you people have the audacity to claim that your smitten family members reside in heaven, what a laugh!!! Why dont you make a golden statue of Celine and the kids, supposedly up in heaven with Mary, looking down upon the penis poster poles on Broadway Avenue, or down upon the little penises lining 20th Street?!!! Maybe if you werent so cheap and bought a bigger and better tree, then the house would not have burned down. Probababbly your Sunday god of the decorated evergreen tree (your Sunday god of the phallic-capped churches) just wasnt powerful enough to preserve their lives. Year after year after year after year after year after year after year they tortured me, and year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year I begged in vain for help to ßee the country but your compassion was limited to those people who abide by your \[CapitalThorn]lthy God-damned traditions... how I rejoice at the loss of your family members, Michael!!! You people are insane if you think that can turn trees into decorated idols and cap your \[CapitalThorn]lthy churches with Egyptian penises, hire Hindus to torture me for daring to say so, close your hearts to me and then think you can keep you family safe from all danger. Anyway, some people (such as Connie Glushyk) \[CapitalThorn]nd the psychiatric treatment (torture) so very distasteful that they commit suicide rather than return to the psychiatric ward, and what a small number of you pay for your decorated trees could easily pay for a ticket for these people to ßee their persecutors. These drugs they force upon us prevent us from being able to make a simple phone call and you expect us to work and be able to raise enough money for a ßight to freedom?!!! You people are compassionless God-damned turds, you deserve the event (the house \[CapitalThorn]re and deaths), and you deserve this essay. Be careful now, Santa is watching who is naughty and nice, and you better be nice if you want him to come down your chimney. Telling stories to your kids of Santa goink down the chimney may result in your wife and kids goink up the chimney... and this results in you getting a bigger tree and decorating it to a greater degree, for the sake of tradition!!! The Bible repeatedly condemns turning trees into idols. Bowing to the tree (via the placement and retrieval of presents at the base of the tree) is a violation of Gods First Commandment. Hanging representations of the sun, moon and angels on the tree is a violation of Gods Second Commandment. The sun is visibly rising from the south by December 25th, calling this pagan holiday Christmas is a violation of Gods Third Commandment for it is not \ Christs Mass at all but is instead a pagan mass that commemorates the return of the sun from the south. In my effort to get away from the brutal cycle of psychiatric abuse, at the psychiatric appeal panel hearings I would tell the Protestants and Catholics seated in judgment against me that the Bible repeatedly condemns turning trees into idols (see Deuteronomy 12:2; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 16:4, 17:10; 2 Chronicles 28:4; Isaiah 57:5; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:6, 3:13, 10:3-4, 17:2 and Ezekiel 6:13), but my words were used against me, once Dr. Gene Marcoux heard me say this and he responded by saying that I was religiously deluded, for everybody does it (turns trees into idols). Hiring Hindus or Catholic or Protestant psychiatrists to torture me in an attempt to make me shut up about your fertility symbols (such as evergreen trees, phallic steeples and symbols of the sun built into church architecture...) and other false traditions is nothing less than a violation of Gods Sixth Commandment. Closing your hearts to me and allowing me to beg in vain for assistance to ßee the country and the horrid rounds of psychiatric abuse is in absolute opposition to love, compassion and anything Jesus ever stood for. As long as you people are free to offer prayers to Mary and/or to hang posters advertising drunken parties then you think you are free. Your reproductive strategy is to support your parents traditions (including their churches) in order to obtain support from parents, relatives and employers, but God dothnt think too highly of your attitude and will sometimes trim your branches. 187 Dar 17 2 57 48/317 00 Daryl 60 Shawn 65 Kabatoff 62 187 Marcia 6 8 80 219/147 8571 Marcia 45 Veronica 87 Acevedo 55 288 Melinda 23 3 83 82/283 9530 Melinda 58 Janelle 59 Elaine 46 Joyce 58 Jarocki 67 If you people think you have the right to use my abusive parents as tools to have me arrested and tortured, then I think that I have the right to ask women to marry me, or to marry Marcia and me. I have Scripture to support taking seven brides (Isaiah 4:1) and I have Scripture to support sleeping with Melinda Jarocki outside of wedlock (First Kings 1:1-5), while you people have a vast multitude of Scriptures condemning your decorated trees, phallic-capped churches and your violence against me for daring to point out your pagan traditions. Good luck!!! If you think Jesus is telling you people to spend billions of dollars annually on turning trees into decorated idols, and millions of dollars to torture me, then you people dont have Jesus and are instead in desperate need of luck. Just as you people sat back in silence when I was being tortured, beaten and robbed, or just as you people sat back in silence when the Star-Phoenix called me a pedophile \[CapitalThorn]nd themselves in their hour of need (Hosea 4:6). But I will not sit back in silence, if I \[CapitalThorn]nd any of you compassionless turds in the obituaries I will cheer with utter glee (Psalm 137:9) and will post your stats again. All you people are really good for is to have your stats posted on the usenet and be used as examples to others, and look, here you are!!! Daryl Shawn Kabatoff Box 7134 Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada S7K 4J1 Isaiah 45:4, Ephesians 3:15 - God gives you your name!!! Here are my Carlys: 1) 1936 Buick Coupe - I wanted to buy a coupe, when Sam discovered I found one at a reasonable price, he insisted that he would take me to see it, he then drove me to see this car on 7th Street. I think I was 17 years old, the car was about $700. Sam ordered me in a very angry and gruff voice not to buy the car, he said it needed king pins and that I would never \[CapitalThorn]nd king pins for it. Sam ordered me not to purchase it and added that he would buy me a nice car some day 2) 1938 Cadillac LaSalle 4 door sedan - Ruby threw away the head lights and the tail lights, the car is rolled and already missing the drive train, now there isnt enough left of this car to attempt to \[CapitalThorn]x. I still have this car and need parts for it. Farmer \ cousin Jack never gave me a bill of sale for it, maybe he forgot about the transaction 3) 1940 Chevrolet 4 door sedan - no tears in the interior, gauges intact, not rusted out, the engine needed work. Sam sold it for the $50 I paid for it within 3 days after bringing it home (Lloyd Minion and Brian Dent helped me get it home), I think that Sam sold it to one of the alcoholic Saskatoon City Police of\[CapitalThorn]cers that dropped by daily to drink with Sam at his bar in the basement 4) 1952 Studebaker Coupe - Ran and drivable but the water pump was about to fail, Sam ordered me to sell it. Sam sold it to the \[CapitalThorn]rst person who ßashed any amount of money. When there was a car that needed to be sold, Ruby would always become very threatening and speak in a shrill voice that I would expect to hear as a child before she would hit me. She slapped me around pretty good on the morning of December 25th one year, this and acts like it resulted in me stuttering when I was around 11 or 12 years old. About this time I did not desire to dress up and go Halloweening, and Sam gave me a slap and ordered me to get dressed and go door to door on my own for the sweet treats 5) 1956 Ford 2 door Sedan - I went to Kelsey to learn motor mechanics, I put a lot of work into the 390 V8 engine, also installed a 4 speed manual transmission, Ruby went insane in her insistence that I sell the vehicle (new brakes and exhaust), I put it up for sale to try to keep peace in the family, sold it for about what the transmission was worth 6) 1957 Ford 2 door Sedan - And what a mistake to put this car in Sams precious back yard, the body school at Kelsey Institute repaired the rusted-out rocker panels, the parents insisted and insisted I should not have this car 7) 1958 Ford School Bus camperized with stove and 3 way fridge - In the late 1970s (or perhaps in 1980) I drove this over to show my parents, Ruby became ballistic and repeatedly demanded I sell it, she would phone me up and harp about it 8) 1965 Daimler Benz 40 Foot Bus V6 Cummins - As per Rubys insistence I sold the 58 Ford school bus. But then I immediately bought a bigger bus, then year after year after year after year after year after year after year I listened to Ruby ordering me to sell the bus (again she would phone me up to harp at me about it, and pretty much every time I saw her she would make it an issue). There was never any encouragement from Sam, all my life he took away my vehicles and always promised that he would help me get established in life and buy me a car. But all he would do is feed steaks and booze to the rich relatives and to any of his alcoholic friends 9) 1970(?) VW Station Wagon - Clark Hendersons sister sold me this VW Wagon when I worked as a Social Worker in Whitecourt Alberta in 1987, intoxicated Sam and insane Ruby came to see me in Whitecourt, Ruby repeatedly demanded I sell the 1965 Daimler bus, Sam assaulted me during the visit, they returned to Saskatoon and sold the Daimler for $1000. Earlier Sam sent me $1000 when I went to school in Montreal and \[CapitalThorn]nished my degree in Anthropology with \ Womens Studies Classes, he used this amount to determine the selling price, sold the bus and took the money. My job performance suffered after Sam assaulted me and sold my bus, I lost my job in Whitecourt, this VW broke down and I had no money to \[CapitalThorn]x it 10) 1966 Ford 2 door hardtop - The VW broke down, so at the end of 1987 I bought a cheap Ford to leave Whitecourt and return to Saskatoon, but during 1988 my words upset people in the community and they had my abusive parents institutionalize me. Rather than make money to keep this car running, I was drugged and tortured 11 and 12) After a few years of psychiatric torture and a few years of absence from my parents, I renewed limited contact with them late into year 2001, for Sam was in the hospital then with a hip replacement, I thought to go to wish him well. Sam then told me that he bought a van, and that he never really got anything in trade for the late 1990s Crown Victoria. The contact with Sam results in contact with Ruby, and together they took me for a drive looking around the streets of Confederation Park to \[CapitalThorn]nd my \ mothers 1984 Mustang, Ruby sold it to some kid and so Sam drove us around in search of the car just to point it out for me. I heard Ruby say many times since obtaining it, that she would pass her Mustang down to her kids. Then Sam insisted on checking my blood sugar and then promptly stuck me with a dirty needle. Ruby said that Sam should have used a clean-new needle === Subject: Spherical trigonometry question. How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of separation and distribution. One method I am considering is to assume that each point is positively charged, and that if left to ßoat on the surface, the points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an optimum number of points for a given sphere. The purpose is of course to build a geodesic dome using one mold instead of the thirty needed now. I reason that if it is possible to cover a sphere with nearly identical triangles, it must be possible to cover it with identical pieces, if the problem is addressed correctly. *-----------------------* www.GroupSrv.com *-----------------------* === Subject: re:Spherical trigonometry question. this problem. And with a program to calculate coordinates for gravitating points. http://www.math-atlas.org/index/spheres.html A C++ program to calculate point migration. FILE points_on_sphere.cc ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ----- #include #include #include #include typedef double vec3[3]; double frand(void){return ((rand()-(RAND_MAX/2))/(RAND_MAX/2.));} double dot(vec3 v1,vec3 v2){ return v1[0]*v2[0]+v1[1]*v2[1]+v1[2]*v2[2];} double length(vec3 v){ return sqrt(v[0]*v[0]+v[1]*v[1]+v[2]*v[2]); } double length(vec3 v1,vec3 v2) { vec3 v; v[0] = v2[0] - v1[0]; v[1] = v2[1] - v1[1]; v[2] = v2[2] - v1[2]; return length(v); } double get_coulomb_energy(int N,vec3 p[]) { double e = 0; for(int i = 0;i n); fprintf(stderr,output is printed in VRML format to stdoutn); fprintf(stderr,example of usage: points_on_sphere 10 1000 > dist10.wrl n); fprintf(stderr,nAuthor: V.Bulatov@ic.ac.uk nn); exit(-1); } N = atoi(argv[1]); if(argc > 2) Nstep = atoi(argv[2]); vec3 *p0 = new vec3[N]; vec3 *p1 = new vec3[N]; vec3 *f = new vec3[N]; int i,k; vec3 *pp0 = p0, *pp1 = p1; srand(time(NULL)); for(i = 0; i= e0){ // not successfull step step /= 2; if(step < minimal_step) break; continue; } else { // successfull step vec3 *t = pp0; pp0 = pp1; pp1 = t; e0 = e; step*=2; } fprintf(stderr,rn: %5d, e = %18.8f step = %12.10f,k,e,step); fßush(stderr); } fprintf(stdout,#VRML V1.0 asciin); fprintf(stdout,Separator {n); fprintf(stdout,Material {diffuseColor 1 1 0 specularColor 1 1 1}n); for(i = 0;i posting-account=CfSJ5AwAAAD1yt3VP50q913IBHikxMCd Would the icosidodecahedron (20+12) be more stable than either dodecahedron (12) or icosahedron (20) in this respect? Is there some stability index to evaluate in each case? === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. posting-account=2cSpUgwAAAC62s7i9tYaQ_o97Mapa1V8 > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the > sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is > positively charged, and that if left to ßoat on the surface, the > points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a > wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time > more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an > optimum number of points for a given sphere. McDowell. Point Charge Approximation to a Spherical Charge Distribution (A Random Walk to High Symmetry). Journal of Chemical Education, Vol 67 No 12, December 1990. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. posting-account=2cSpUgwAAAC62s7i9tYaQ_o97Mapa1V8 > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the > sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is > positively charged, and that if left to ßoat on the surface, the > points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a > wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time > more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an > optimum number of points for a given sphere. McDowell. Point Charge Approximation to a Spherical Charge Distribution (A Random Walk to High Symmetry). Journal of Chemical Education, Vol 67 No 12, December 1990. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. posting-account=CfSJ5AwAAAD1yt3VP50q913IBHikxMCd > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of > the sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. Read about Platonic and Archimedean solids, Eulers formula \ P + N = E + 2 , where E = number of edges. Also Fullers geodesic dome subdivision of the icosahedron. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? Mark off that many points equidistant around an equator and then segment the sphere like an orange. Then after a necessary rotation and translation each part is equal and identical. How can one divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts using some other method into regular polygons formed as connected neighboring points on the surface of the sphere, where the angle through the center of any two points forming one of those polygons is equal to each other? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the > sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. Maybe instead of trigonometry you want some kind of pyramidometry. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is > positively charged, and that if left to ßoat on the surface, the > points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a > wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time > more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an > optimum number of points for a given sphere. Thats reminiscent of 109.5 (?) as the tetrahedral bond \ angle of CH_4. Those are dif\[CapitalThorn]cult to compute, particularly without the correct mathematical tools. There are easy solutions for regular polyhedra. > The purpose is of course to build a geodesic dome using one mold > instead of the thirty needed now. I reason that if it is possible to > cover a sphere with nearly identical triangles, it must be possible > to cover it with identical pieces, if the problem is addressed > correctly. Theres a general solution, I forget what it is, as if I \ ever knew. When you section it like the orange, youd expect one of the points in each section. Sometimes a point or multiple, two, points would be collinear with the meridien. That means for any equator of the sphere you select, ie by selecting a point and the point opposite it through the center, and the equator being the circle with each point equidistant from the poles, for any equator, youd expect each orange slice to contain one of the points that is equally distributed about the sphere by some method. A point could be in each of the slices if it where coincident with a pole, otherwise it would be on a maximum of two, because each slice borders only its two adjacent slices except at the pole, where it borders (shares a point) with each of the other slices. They have those toys that fold among various spherical con\[CapitalThorn]gurations, those guys would probably know something about it. Ross F. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. >How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an >arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the >sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of >separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is >positively charged, and that if left to ßoat on the surface, the >points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. It wont work, unless N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 or 20. There arent enough regular polyhedra. You will reach an equilibrium (at least a local minimum of the potential energy, but probably not a global one if N is large), but the parts wont be identical. You might look at Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. posting-account=a35wGg0AAACOWUi67S1IGDnAcxMVzE0y impressive. > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the > sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is > positively charged, and that if left to ßoat on the surface, the > points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a > wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time > more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an > optimum number of points for a given sphere. > The purpose is of course to build a geodesic dome using one mold > instead of the thirty needed now. I reason that if it is possible to > cover a sphere with nearly identical triangles, it must be possible > to cover it with identical pieces, if the problem is addressed > correctly. > *-----------------------* > www.GroupSrv.com > *-----------------------* === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. posting-account= y3wZYhMAAABYsCtaDBjCWE5oFd14ElQZbfvQjxC1czdFUKdrfKUl4g There is a trivial way to divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts, but Im afraid it will not be satisfying to you. Draw N semicircular arcs from one pole to the other of the sphere and cut along these lines. Of course these pieces are not triangles, as each will have two edges and two vertices. === Subject: Re: lim question >Is it true that for all integers x and m such that x >= 0 and m > 0 is true the following from http://img52.exs.cx/img52/1909/lim0qp.png? >In both cases: why? How did you create the image at http://img52.exs.cx/img52/1909/lim0qp.png? === Subject: Re: lim question >Is it true that for all integers x and m such that x >= 0 and m > 0 is true the following from http://img52.exs.cx/img52/1909/lim0qp.png? >In both cases: why? How did you create the image at http://img52.exs.cx/img52/1909/lim0qp.png? === Subject: Re: lim question >>Is (1) true? (if not, why?) >Yes. But note that the notation in (1) does not imply that there >is such a thing as 1-. The n -> 1- means n tends to 1 from >below, _not_ that there is a thing named 1- that n tends to. >(The minus sign there is really an adjective modifying what >the arrow means.) No, its an adverb; youre rightly stressing \ the fact that there isnt such a thing as 1-, which notation would imply 1 is a noun and - an adjective attached a la mode francaise . dave (Does anal-retentive have a hyphen?) [The last time I used that line, I got fussed at for forgetting the quotation marks. Well! That same day I noticed the sentence While the sign said ÔFish and Chips, I would \ have put hyphens between \[CapitalThorn]sh and and and and and chips. and realized it would be clearer if one were to insert quotation marks before \[CapitalThorn]sh and after chips, and pairs of quotation marks between \[CapitalThorn]sh and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and chips.] === Subject: Re: lim question >Is (1) true? (if not, why?) >>Yes. But note that the notation in (1) does not imply that there >>is such a thing as 1-. The n -> 1- means n tends to 1 from >>below, _not_ that there is a thing named 1- that n tends to. >>(The minus sign there is really an adjective modifying what >>the arrow means.) >No, its an adverb; Right. I lied. >youre rightly stressing the fact that there >isnt such a thing as 1-, which notation would imply 1 is a >noun and - an adjective attached a la mode francaise . >dave (Does anal-retentive have a hyphen?) Well of course it does! Are you blind or what? >[The last time I used that line, I got fussed at for forgetting the >quotation marks. And now you get fussed at for not realizing that when you phrase the question as you did the answer is yes, by inspection, just as its clear that ioty*yr contains an asterisk, two ys and no es. (Um. Two ys and no es. Or is it ys and es?) >Well! That same day I noticed the sentence > While the sign said ÔFish and Chips, I would \ have put > hyphens between \[CapitalThorn]sh and and and and and chips. >and realized it would be clearer if one were to insert quotation marks >before \[CapitalThorn]sh and after chips, and pairs of quotation marks between \[CapitalThorn]sh >and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and >and and and chips.] Im glad you pointed that out. Really. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? posting-account=ou6uXw0AAAATG1pZF2sTMFqr_yeSoc1o > Heres something all of you should have some fun with. > > Nath is not something I specialize in (and I dont read \ this group > normally), but Ive been looking at a few things lately \ and Ive decided > that some very big mistakes have been made in math because people started > playing around the concept of in\[CapitalThorn]nity without realizing the trouble they > were creating for themselves. > > When I was shown Cantors diagonal proof that the number \ of reals was not > countable back in college, I thought it was a fascinating proof. It seemed > to uncover some great mystery about the nature of numbers that was not at > \[CapitalThorn]rst obvious. It sounded very logical and I quickly embraced it as fact. > > Lately however, Ive come to see things very differently. \ I now belief the > proof is totally bogus. And the huge body of work built on top of the > concept is likewise, totally bogus. > AS the diagonal proof was Cantors SECOND proof of the uncountability > of the reals, and there have been several subsequent proofs, all of > which are totally independent of the diagonal construction, it would > not affect the validity of the theorem itself even if the diagonal > proof were to be found ßawed. > For which reason, no sensible mathematician is the least worried that > such a ßaw would in any way weaken the validity of the theorem itself. > Im writing to belabor the binary case is \ suf\[CapitalThorn]cient and necessary. > Im reminded of my request about belaborment, which was about > communication and confusion issues, Virgil. Why do you think the > antidiagonal argument is ßawed? > In the binary case, there is one speci\[CapitalThorn]c anti-diagonal. > Consider an arbitrary base. Any method you use to generate some > antidiagonal will affect more than one location in the expansion as a > binary number. In that way, it might reset one of the previous > locations that would have been different, thus that the antidiagonal > would not be different at that location. Thats an implication that a > number represented in a different base is a different number, and > stranger things are known to occur. That is perhaps just an artifact > of the algorithm. > Thats similar to the argument that any number is representable in any > radix (base). The point is being that if there is some list, to > generate the list in a base greater than three, where three is as well > shown useless as a base to de\[CapitalThorn]nitely generate an antidiagonal, and > construct an antidiagonal in some way that it is not rational so it > couldnt be dually represented. > Add a leading zero to each element of the list, then only in a > speci\[CapitalThorn]c case is the antidiagonal an element in the range. > You refer to other arguments about the naturals and the reals, so do > with EF. Then again, my line of reasoning easily uses what you would > not term standard real numbers. > The rationals are dense in the real numbers. > Curt, you might want to learn about Skolem. Skolem extended the work > of Loewenheim to show that everything is countable. People handwave > about that and theyre quite nonsensical in their \ ludicrous nonsense, > because the extensions are no different than the set. What that means > is they say that they have a set of integers that maps to a powerset > of integers, but in a receding slippery slope type of way that still > claims the opposite true. Thats why they call that \ quandary Skolems > paradox. > If you accept that the powerset result does not always hold true, > then, both Skolems and Cantors paradoxes \ dissolve, where Cantors > is that a set of all sets would be its own powerset, and would map to > itself with the identity function. Without trans\[CapitalThorn]nite cardinals, for > everyone, measure theory needs some few new foundations, or rather, > just rephrased foundations, with perhaps some meaningful results, and, > that is about it, and all of trans\[CapitalThorn]nite cardinal mathematics is its > own little sub\[CapitalThorn]eld where you axiomatize that so, just so all the work > put into trans\[CapitalThorn]nite cardinals was not a total waste of time, like a > pickled three-headed sheep. > Curt, whats the point, man? Do you want to map the reals to the > integers? What good is mapping the reals to the integers? Do you > think calculus is easier to understand if dx is a llittle > in\[CapitalThorn]nitesimal coef\[CapitalThorn]cient and when you sum the \ product of the function > and dx over the range that you get the integral? Even if that was too > slippery for general use, the limit being a safety feature of sorts, > and all the calculus was done using limit, wouldnt that \ be better? > Me, I was just offended that somebody claimed in\[CapitalThorn]nite sets werent > equivalent. Now I feel better about it, because Ive \ proved a few > things about that to people. > Do Zenos paradoxes prevent Achilles from catching the tortoise? No, > they dont. Does Skolems paradox prevent \ there being uncountable > sets? It does. Youve probably heard of the paradoxical barber, > there are no paradoxes and so that barber does not exist anywhere, > because everybody in that town is shaved by the barber unless (if and > only if they dont) they shave themselves, everybody shaves, nobody > ever leaves town, and the well-meaning barber, who as an expert > probably shaves himself, also is the barber shaving himself. So, the > barber shaves himself and anybody else who doesnt shave themself. > Take two in\[CapitalThorn]nite sets. If there is a way that for each you can > select an element of each set and remove it from that set, do that. > Thats a terse constructive proof that \ in\[CapitalThorn]nite sets are equivalent. > Cantors results have meaning, they in a way force certain conclusions > about the nature of binary logic, because of that one element that is > unmapped, call it the antidiagonal or something, in\[CapitalThorn]nity rolls right > back over to zero like an odometer. > That gets into that any set X is an ordinal, and that the order type, > and successor, and X+1, and the powerset, are all the same thing. > When youre talking about mapping the naturals to the reals, theres > probably actually some useful formulas or functions that be used to > derive mathematical results that are not otherwise immediately > apparent. Heres a mapping between the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, ..., > non-negative integers) and the unit interval of the reals ( R[0,1], > every real number between zero and one inclusive): the natural/unit > equivalency function, EF. Its simple, order the reals \ from least to > greatest or greatest to least, and then map zero from the integer to > least or greatest, and then, in order, pair elements of those sets. > The binary antidiagonal does not exist on the range or is dually > represented, or you can add leading zeroes, and non-standard real > numbers, which are very much real numbers, are used thus that results > about mapping the naturals and reals do not apply. So anyways, > integrate EF and the result is equal to one, where you might think it > would be equal to one half, because youd \ \[CapitalThorn]gure it would be just like > f(x)=x from zero to one. > That has to do with how points on the real number line are de\[CapitalThorn]ned in > terms of preceding and following points on that same line, and that > points on a continuous line are in a sense one-sided, where that side > is in the direction of the rays passage on that line, as the reals > are ordered thus that for two different real numbers one is lesser and > one is greater, or oppositely one is greater and one is lesser. When > the number is by itself then it has two sides and twice the weight, > because two different straight lines can pass through it. > You may as well consider a different method for sweeping through those > points, such as a spiral of sorts or alternatively taking the next > inde\[CapitalThorn]nite real element on the lesser and greater side. Again, that > leads to models of non-standard reals, which are real numbers. > Anyways, Curt, some people are very attached to their notions of > cardinality and the uncountable, they think its very sophisticated > and urbane. A lot of work has been done based upon the simple notion > that f(x) = x+1 doesnt equal x+1. Most \ dont give a damn either way. > You can say that half of the integers are even, and that half of the > integers are positive, and that a given fraction of the integers are > primes or perfect squares, without the necessity of the trans\[CapitalThorn]nite > cardinals. As well, it is shown that a proper subset of a set has > less elements than the superset. There are more rationals than > integers, and more reals than irrationals or rationals. A powerset > has more elements than the set, in a sense, thats not the problem. > Curt, 1+1=2, and 2+2=4. Cant you leave the Cantorians \ their paradise > and well enough alone? Biblically, Adam and Eve were cast from > Paradise after they partook of the tree of knowledge. If they hadnt, > theyd still be there and that would be the end of the story. > Ross F. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41ad4f31$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2432e$17$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq >If you accept that the whole set of natural numbers is created by the >Peano axioms, > Axioms dont create, they describe. That is a matter of personal opinion. For me, Peanos axioms create the set of natural numbers. >but if you simultaneously deny that induction is capable of reaching >all natural numbers (all lines of the list), > issue is not any imaginary claims that there is an unreachable natural > number; the issue is Cantors antidiagonal argument, which neither > makes nor requires any such claim. By induction I have shown that the distance of any natural number from the origin 0 is n - 0 = n. Hence \[CapitalThorn]nite. Any natural number has a \[CapitalThorn]nite distance from the origin means: The set IN of all natural numbers ist not in\[CapitalThorn]nite. (This does not imply that IN was \[CapitalThorn]nite. IN is not at all!) === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41ad4f31$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2432e$17$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> >By induction I have shown that the distance of any natural number >from the origin 0 is n - 0 = n. Irrelevant; omega is not a natural number. >The set IN of all natural numbers ist not in\[CapitalThorn]nite. The mapping *2: n->2n does not exist? Because if it exists then by de\[CapitalThorn]nition the set of naturals is in\[CapitalThorn]nite. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41ad4f31$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2432e$17$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22f1d$9$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq The mapping *2: n->2n does not exist? No, it does not exist. It is impossible to store more than 10^100 bits in the universe. If you have used them up , then further numbers can only be created by forgetting existing numbers. The existence of actual in\[CapitalThorn]nity is an irrealistic demand. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? part: >That is a matter of personal opinion. For me, Peanos \ axioms create the >set of natural numbers. How did we ever manage to count anything before Peano? John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41ad4f31$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2432e$17$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c21d91.2705820@news.ecn.ab.ca> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq > part: >That is a matter of personal opinion. For me, Peanos \ axioms create the >set of natural numbers. > How did we ever manage to count anything before Peano? The principle of creating natural numbers is very old. Peano only formalized it in a very precise way. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41ad4f31$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2432e$17$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c21d91.2705820@news.ecn.ab.ca> !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~( 5eZ41to5f%E@ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+(Ô>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw > part: >>That is a matter of personal opinion. For me, Peanos axioms create the >>set of natural numbers. > How did we ever manage to count anything before Peano? That is not the question. How did we ever manage to rigorously prove something about counting before Peano? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? > part: >>That is a matter of personal opinion. For me, Peanos axioms create the >>set of natural numbers. > How did we ever manage to count anything before Peano? > That is not the question. How did we ever manage to rigorously prove > something about counting before Peano? We didnt. Peano died in April, 1932, before I ever started counting. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? > That is not the question. How did we ever manage to rigorously prove > something about counting before Peano? > We didnt. > Peano died in April, 1932, before I ever started counting. So you started counting *after* Peano. -- Alec McKenzie === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? > That is a matter of personal opinion. For me, Peanos axioms create the > set of natural numbers. What, if anything, does this statement mean? === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5d5a$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ae4af6$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b243a2$20$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq >If you think, that then his list would be impossible, we do agree. > No, we dont agree; he proved that no such list is possible. Or, to > put it another way, he proved that for any list of real numbers there > is a real number not on the list. He proved that a complete list of all real numbers IR is impossible. His result is correct, because no complete set IR does exist. But his proof is wrong. You can see this best by considering the following Cantor-list: 0.0 0.1 0.11 0.111 ... If you start to construct the diagonal number 0.111..., you will see that it is always contained in the next line, how far you ever proceed. You can never keep up, except in a nice dream. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5d5a$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ae4af6$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b243a2$20$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> >If you start There is not start. Cantor de\[CapitalThorn]nes a speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ number in terms of the list, not a sequence of numbers. >to construct the diagonal number 0.111..., you will see that it is >always contained in the next line, No. A number totally unrelated to any of Cantors arguments appears in the list. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5d5a$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ae4af6$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b243a2$20$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22e94$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq >If you start > There is not start. Cantor de\[CapitalThorn]nes a speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ number in terms of the > list, not a sequence of numbers. De\[CapitalThorn]ne a number different from another whithout having seen the other one. Such a claim is typical for set theory but void of any rational meaning. >to construct the diagonal number 0.111..., you will see that it is >always contained in the next line, > No. A number totally unrelated to any of Cantors \ arguments appears in > the list. I know, I cannot convince set theorists by any rational arguing. But I hope that some young mathematicians, not yet spoiled by set theory, may read my arguments and may \[CapitalThorn]nd their own way. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5d5a$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ae4af6$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b243a2$20$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22e94$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> >De\[CapitalThorn]ne a number different from another whithout having seen the other >one. Mathematics is not about seeing, it is about logical inferences. But please note that if I accepted your argument then it would immediately lead to Cantors result without having to resort to an antidiagonal argument; since I havent seen[1] a list of all real \ numbers, it doesnt exist. >I know, I cannot convince set theorists by any rational arguing. Indeed ;-) >But I hope that some young mathematicians, not yet spoiled by set >theory, may read my arguments and may \[CapitalThorn]nd their own way. ITYM \[CapitalThorn]nd your way. I doubt that you would be pleased should their way include in\[CapitalThorn]nite sets. [1] And there arent enough atoms in the Universe to construct one. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5d5a$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ae4af6$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b243a2$20$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=Glvc4AwAAADzVCZ73XnxpzMhXir6xVzs >If you think, that then his list would be impossible, we do agree. > No, we dont agree; he proved that no such list is possible. Or, to > put it another way, he proved that for any list of real numbers there > is a real number not on the list. > He proved that a complete list of all real numbers IR is impossible. > His result is correct, because no complete set IR does exist. But his > proof is wrong. > You can see this best by considering the following Cantor-list: > 0.0 > 0.1 > 0.11 > 0.111 > ... > If you start to construct the diagonal number 0.111..., you will see > that it is always contained in the next line, Really? Is 0.111... a number? Let us call it x. Do you agree with the following statement: Either x is in the list, or x is not in the list. Both can not be true. What about the following statement: If x is in the list, it occurs at position n where n is a natural number. - Randy === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5d5a$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ae4af6$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b243a2$20$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq >If you think, that then his list would be impossible, we do agree. > > No, we dont agree; he proved that no such list is possible. Or, to > put it another way, he proved that for any list of real numbers > there > is a real number not on the list. > He proved that a complete list of all real numbers IR is impossible. > His result is correct, because no complete set IR does exist. But his > proof is wrong. > You can see this best by considering the following Cantor-list: > 0.0 > 0.1 > 0.11 > 0.111 > ... > If you start to construct the diagonal number 0.111..., you will see > that it is always contained in the next line, > Really? > Is 0.111... a number? Let us call it x. It is 1/9. > Do you agree with the following statement: Either x is in > the list, or x is not in the list. Both can not be true. In a \[CapitalThorn]nite list, only one of these alternatives could be true. But why do you think that an in\[CapitalThorn]nite list obeys the same logic? - a list, which lacks not only the last line, but also the line next to the last one, ... the second half of all lines, 99 % of all lines, and even much more? Arithmetics is very different for in\[CapitalThorn]nite sets. Why should logic be the same? > What about the following statement: If x is in the list, > it occurs at position n where n is a natural number. Before 1/9 will be constructed as the antidiagonal number (exchanging 0 by 1) it will appear in a line. It occurs in the line subsequent to the completed 1/9. I cannot name the line number n because I dont know, where 1/9 is completed. But would 1/9 not completely occur as the antidiagonal number, then Cantors method of constructing transcendental numbers would fail too (and with it the whole proof). === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq WM: >Every natural number is an ordinal number and is simultaneously the >cardinal number of the sequence of all its successors including >itself: 1,2,3,...,n. The sequence up to a natural number n can never >have the cardinal number aleph_0. > Cantors proofs do not involve \[CapitalThorn]nite \ sequences. Omega is not a > natural number. Hence the set of natural numbers cannot be actually in\[CapitalThorn]nite. It is potentially in\[CapitalThorn]nite, i.e., there is no threshold but there is no in\[CapitalThorn]nite number. And the same holds for the cardinal number of each sequence 1,2,3,...,n. You see it best, if you imagine Card{1,2,3,...,n} as a function f(n) of n. The sloop is 1 and that will never change. FOR ALL FINITE NUMBERS n (and there are no others) === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> >Hence the set of natural numbers cannot be actually in\[CapitalThorn]nite. Non sequitor. >You see it best, if you imagine Card{1,2,3,...,n} as a function f(n) >of n. Youd have to be hallucinating to see it that way. >(and there are no others) That depends on what is is. It has no relevance to Mathematics, which does not depend on your philosophy. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22df7$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq >Hence the set of natural numbers cannot be actually in\[CapitalThorn]nite. > Non sequitor. >You see it best, if you imagine Card{1,2,3,...,n} as a function f(n) >of n. > Youd have to be hallucinating to see it that way. You could even prove it by using set theory. In the \[CapitalThorn]nite realm, ordinal number n is equal to cardinal number n of the sequence 1,2,3,...n. If we have a set of \[CapitalThorn]nite numbers only, then all the ordinal numbers are \[CapitalThorn]nite, hence giving \[CapitalThorn]nite \ cardinal numbers. There is no chance to form an in\[CapitalThorn]nite set with \[CapitalThorn]nite \ numbers. It is so easy to see, but Cantor has spoiled many brains. >(and there are no others) > That depends on what is is. It has no relevance to Mathematics, > which does not depend on your philosophy. There are no in\[CapitalThorn]nite natural numbers in all mathematics. Youd need no philosophy to see that. > Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the > right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to > domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22df7$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> >There are no in\[CapitalThorn]nite natural numbers in all mathematics. Well, there are in NSA, but that is not the issue. A set of \[CapitalThorn]nite numbers need not be \[CapitalThorn]nite any more than a box of red spoons need be red or a spoon. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? > There are no in\[CapitalThorn]nite natural numbers in all mathematics. Youd need no > philosophy to see that. No mathematician says that there are in\[CapitalThorn]nite naturals, at least in standard models. What they do say is that there is no \[CapitalThorn]nite number representing the number of naturals. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22df7$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> posting-account=7ryOqgsAAABSV_46k1efyFxO01THH4J8 Prof. Dr. Mueckenheim, I disagree with you. First, the universe is in\[CapitalThorn]nite. Secondly, if 10^100 is the largest number you can imagine, then it would be in\[CapitalThorn]nity. Otherwise, 10^100+1 would be a number, and 10^100 not the largest. The counting numbers are each a \[CapitalThorn]nite integer, taken together theyre the in\[CapitalThorn]nite integer. There are \[CapitalThorn]nite integers \ that as far as we or anyone else are concerned are no different than in\[CapitalThorn]nitely large, because no physical process we could ever observe except a highly contrived one would enumerate them all. They are still \[CapitalThorn]nite. Breaking through and deductively considering them all at once with a simple tool of mathematical logic called a proof, the set of all of them exists, and has characteristics of being an in\[CapitalThorn]nite integer, enough to make it worthwhile to consider that so. Thats \ like the difference between an analytical solution and approximation. In\[CapitalThorn]nite sets are equivalent, because otherwise they \ wouldnt be in\[CapitalThorn]nite. When Cantor has results that appear to show they are not, then, to resolve that, one avenue of rational progression of mathematical logic to reconcile those claims is that there is a shared dual representation of in\[CapitalThorn]nity, and zero. That corresponds to the most ancient recorded folklore on the planet of the nature of being. Youd \[CapitalThorn]gure they got \ something correct. It also corresponds to modern philosophical methods, the dualist dichotomy. A consequence of the consideration of the reals and integers due to Cantor and earlier pigeonholing arguments might be that EF, the natural/unit equivalency fucntion, is the necessary building block of functions from the naturals bijectively to and from the real numbers, except those arguments dont apply or else they would apply to rational numbers. There are convenient models of the totally-ordered reals that help de\[CapitalThorn]ne those nonstandard, yet perfectly acceptible when used correctly, contiguous and continuous real numbers on the real number line. That notion also conveniently \[CapitalThorn]ts well with other set-theoretical notions attempting to explain the very real nature of mathematical objects, where a set theory needs an ur-element that should be as well a set. It can not be only a set, and the only other things that can not be a set must share a literal value of sorts, because there can only be one proper class, or none. There are a handful of what they call paradoxes or antinomies that have been plaguing set theory since its inception and coagulation upon ZF that are neatly resolved in that way. Consider Plancks constant, h, and Plancks \ constant, h bar = h / 2 pi. Something measured in a rational number of Planck distances (or Planck lengths) is some irrational number of modi\[CapitalThorn]ed, or corrected, Planck distances, because pi is irrational. Thats about that irrational quantities exist. I had this fantastic notion this morning of a matrix of truth values, containing all the numbers and every true statement. Ross F. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> > ... That depends on what is is. It has no relevance to Mathematics, > which does not depend on your philosophy. Do you think philosophy has any bearing on mathematics? Philosophy has little bearing on mathematics, except the philosophical (philoshopical, philosophical) methods, particularly the rationalist ones, apply. What do you think of Hegels Being and Nothing dichotomy as model of the ur-element? The set of all sets is its own powerset. An in\[CapitalThorn]nite set, in a \[CapitalThorn]nitist model, has a \ powerset that contains a dually represented element, in this way. The set may itself be considered that ur-element, to satisfy some ultra\[CapitalThorn]nitist notions while coincidentally considering the in\[CapitalThorn]nite very particularly. Another notion of the philosophical ur-element is Kants thing-in-itself and noumenon (noumena). Whats the class of all classes? Is it the same thing as the set of all sets? Ross F. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22df7$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41C25DB8.EF7C5F2F@tiki-lounge.com> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq > ... That depends on what is is. It has no relevance to Mathematics, > which does not depend on your philosophy. > Do you think philosophy has any bearing on mathematics? Philosophy has > little bearing on mathematics, except the philosophical (philoshopical, > philosophical) methods, particularly the rationalist ones, apply. Not only philosophy but, in particular, physics has. Withou matter there is not only no space but there is no means to store any number, not in an abacus, not in a pocket calculator, not in a computer and not in a brain. As there are at most 10^80 protons in the universe and some is 10^10^100. (Though there is not a largest number existing.) Therefore any considering of an actual in\[CapitalThorn]nity is nonsense from the scratch. This position isnt \[CapitalThorn]nitism, but \ realism, though not in the euphemistic meaning mathematicians like to use for their utterly unrealistic positions. Actual in\[CapitalThorn]nity was also denied by Hegel, by the way. But I dont know much of his his philosophy. > What do you think of Hegels Being and Nothing dichotomy \ as model of the > ur-element? > The set of all sets is its own powerset. And, therefore, it cannot exist. The sum of all natural numbers is larger than any natural number. Therefore the set of all natural numbers cannot exist. (Would it actually exist, we could calculate the sum.) Thats the same arguing, but mathematicians use to see things different. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22df7$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41C25DB8.EF7C5F2F@tiki-lounge.com> at 01:56 PM, mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de said: >And, therefore, it cannot exist. The sum of all natural numbers is >larger than any natural number. Therefore the set of all natural >numbers cannot exist. Thats a non sequitor. >(Would it actually exist, we could calculate the sum.) No. There is no sum of the elements of an in\[CapitalThorn]nite set. There may or may not be a limit of a sequence of partial sums; in the case of the integers, there isnt. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22df7$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41C25DB8.EF7C5F2F@tiki-lounge.com> !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~( 5eZ41to5f%E@ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+(Ô>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw >> Do you think philosophy has any bearing on mathematics? Philosophy >> has little bearing on mathematics, except the philosophical >> (philoshopical, philosophical) methods, particularly the >> rationalist ones, apply. > Not only philosophy but, in particular, physics has. Withou matter > there is not only no space but there is no means to store any > number, not in an abacus, not in a pocket calculator, not in a > computer and not in a brain. But the good thing is that we only need the space for storing the laws that _all_ numbers obey. Like a Shakespearean play: the words of it are spoken by players, but the essence of the play is in the book, and it remains there even when a play is not being performed. And the literary critics can talk about the play without actually seeing a single performance of it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22df7$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41C25DB8.EF7C5F2F@tiki-lounge.com> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq >> Do you think philosophy has any bearing on mathematics? Philosophy >> has little bearing on mathematics, except the philosophical >> (philoshopical, philosophical) methods, particularly the >> rationalist ones, apply. > Not only philosophy but, in particular, physics has. Withou matter > there is not only no space but there is no means to store any > number, not in an abacus, not in a pocket calculator, not in a > computer and not in a brain. > But the good thing is that we only need the space for storing the laws > that _all_ numbers obey. Like a Shakespearean play: the words of it > are spoken by players, but the essence of the play is in the book, and > it remains there even when a play is not being performed. > And the literary critics can talk about the play without actually > seeing a single performance of it. Whats in a name? that which we call a number by another \ name would count as well. Could you give me the sum of Integer(pi*10^10^100) and Integer(sqrt(2)*10^10^100), please? Or are your laws insuf\[CapitalThorn]cient to describe what primarily counts with numbers, namely counting? === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c22df7$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41C25DB8.EF7C5F2F@tiki-lounge.com> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq >> But the good thing is that we only need the space for storing the laws >> that _all_ numbers obey. Like a Shakespearean play: the words of it >> are spoken by players, but the essence of the play is in the book, and >> it remains there even when a play is not being performed. >> >> And the literary critics can talk about the play without actually >> seeing a single performance of it. > Whats in a name? that which we call a number by another name would > count as well. > Could you give me the sum of Integer(pi*10^10^100) and > Integer(sqrt(2)*10^10^100), please? > Integer(pi*10^10^100) + Integer(sqrt(2)*10^10^100) > Or are your laws insuf\[CapitalThorn]cient to describe what primarily counts with > numbers, namely counting? > Where is the problem? I havent yet been able to \[CapitalThorn]gure out whether it \ is an even number. Seems to be an odd problem. Could you help me? Merry Christmas to all participants. I will be absent for a while, spending my holidays in the Harz mountains where Cantor liked to spend his holidays too. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? part: >Hence the set of natural numbers cannot be actually in\[CapitalThorn]nite. It is >potentially in\[CapitalThorn]nite, i.e., there is no threshold but there is no >in\[CapitalThorn]nite number. No, what is potentially in\[CapitalThorn]nite is the set of natural numbers less than some \[CapitalThorn]nite number which I havent named \ yet. The set of natural numbers is actually in\[CapitalThorn]nite - if one admits all the natural numbers actually exist as a set. One can reject the natural numbers as an object suitable for mathematical study as such, if one wishes to admit only the potentially in\[CapitalThorn]nite into mathematics. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c21cfb.2555895@news.ecn.ab.ca> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq > part: >Hence the set of natural numbers cannot be actually in\[CapitalThorn]nite. It is >potentially in\[CapitalThorn]nite, i.e., there is no threshold but there is no >in\[CapitalThorn]nite number. > No, what is potentially in\[CapitalThorn]nite is the set of natural numbers less > than some \[CapitalThorn]nite number which I havent named \ yet. The set of natural > numbers is actually in\[CapitalThorn]nite - if one admits all the natural numbers > actually exist as a set. The sequence A(n) = {1,2,3,...,n} up to any \[CapitalThorn]nite number n is \[CapitalThorn]nite too. If there are only \[CapitalThorn]nite numbers, then there are only \[CapitalThorn]nite sequences. (In the \[CapitalThorn]nite realm we have ordinal = cardinal.) We obtain the theorem: n e IN -> Card(A(n)) < aleph_0 which is equipollent to. Card(A(n)) !< aleph_0 -> n !e IN (with ! the symbol of negation). > One can reject the natural numbers as an object suitable for > mathematical study as such, if one wishes to admit only the potentially > in\[CapitalThorn]nite into mathematics. If adhering to realism (not what mathematicians call realism, but real realism) then one cannot but reject the set of all natural numbers as an existing entity. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? > If adhering to realism (not what mathematicians call realism, but real > realism) then one cannot but reject the set of all natural numbers as > an existing entity. Platos realm of Forms is the Real reality. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? <41aa5b47$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41ad5139$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41b2427f$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <41c21cfb.2555895@news.ecn.ab.ca> posting-account=htRwYA0AAACUC1yg4djqvdjZ_SB9JXGq Platos kind of philosophy is called idealism in all \ branches except mathematics, because it has nothing to do with reality. Mathematicians call it realism (cp. the ministery of peace in Orwells \ 1984) === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? > You see it best, if you imagine Card{1,2,3,...,n} as a function f(n) of > n. The sloop is 1 and that will never change. FOR ALL FINITE NUMBERS n > (and there are no others) The sloop is in fact Sloop John B, and we hope it will never change. Hence the well-known exhortation: So hoist up the John Bs sails, see how the main sail sets, Call for the captain ashore, and let me go home. Let me go home, I want to go home, Well I feel so break up, I want to go home. === Subject: Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong? >> You see it best, if you imagine Card{1,2,3,...,n} as a function f(n) of >> n. The sloop is 1 and that will never change. FOR ALL FINITE NUMBERS n >> (and there are no others) > The sloop is in fact Sloop John B, and we hope it will never >change. Hence the well-known exhortation: > So hoist up the John Bs sails, see how the main sail \ sets, > Call for the captain ashore, and let me go home. > Let me go home, I want to go home, > Well I feel so break up, I want to go home. Duh, it was a typo. He meant slop. === Subject: ADV: Staff Announcement boundary=AF3D..B.__._.F.D..A_D.2. 1.9 primary) with SMTP id iBH5vKI19410; by ASHTAR with SMTP; ------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Attention All School Staff: Teachers, Students and Faculty Members: Through a special arrangement, Avtech Direct is offering a limited allotment of BRAND NEW, top of-the-line, name-brand desktop computers at more than 50% off MSRP to all Teachers, Students,Faculty and Staff, All desktop computers are brand-new packed in their original boxes, and come with a full manufacturers warranty plus a 100% satisfaction guarantee. These professional grade Desktops are fully equipped with 2005 next generation technology, making these the best performing computers money can buy. Avtech Direct is offering these feature rich, top performing Desktops with the latest technology at an amazing price to all who call: The fast and powerful AT-2800 series Desktop features: * Intel 2.0Ghz Processor for amazing speed and performance * 20 GB UDMA Hard Drive, -- Upgradeable to 80 GB * 52X CD-Rom Drive, -- Upgradeable to DVD/CDRW * Next Generation 2005 Technology * Premium video and sound -- For enhanced colors and graphics * Full Connectivity with Fax modem/Lan/USB 2.0 * Soft Touch Keyboard and scroll mouse * Internet Ready * Network Ready * 1 Year parts and labor warranty * Priority customer service and tech support MSRP $499 ........................................ Your Cost $257 How to qualify: 1. You must be a Teacher, Student, Faculty or Staff Member. 2. All desktop computers will be available on a \[CapitalThorn]rst come \[CapitalThorn]rst serve basis. and we will hold the desktops you request on will call. 4. You are not obligated in any way. 5. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. 6. Ask for Department C. Call Avtech Direct Visit our website at http://www.avtechcomputers.com If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please go to http://www.avtechcomputers.com/announcements.asp Avtech Direct 22647 Ventura Blvd. Suite 374 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 === Subject: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors posting-account=OYmWlQwAAACNyvYyZWgrC2S68daTBtzH Heres a kind of philosophical question, more philosophical than mathematical I think, but I \[CapitalThorn]gure the members of this group would be interested. A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom direction. It doesnt prefer one axis over the other. So \ why, when we look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and bottom? I have what I think is a very short answer that goes to the heart of the issue. Im interested to hear what other people think. -Mike === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors in part: >A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom >direction. It doesnt prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we >look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and >bottom? Look in a mirror that is along the north wall of a room. Your head, that points up, also points up in the mirror. Let your right hand point east. The reßection of your right hand points east in the mirror. But youre facing north, yet your image in the mirror faces south. That is what is reversed, the directions in and out of the mirror. It happens that right and left are de\[CapitalThorn]ned in terms of angles from the reversed front and back directions, and so the mirror images right hand is the one pointing west, the reßection of your left hand. If you look down from up, Ôright is whatever is 90 \ degrees clockwise from the front. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > Heres a kind of philosophical question, more \ philosophical than > mathematical I think, but I \[CapitalThorn]gure the members of this group would be > interested. > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesnt prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? Speak for yourself. When *I* look in a mirror I see front anfd back reversed, not left and right. :-) -- Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html Lacan, Jacques, 79, 91-92; mistakes his penis for a square root, 88-9 Francis Wheen, _How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World_ === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesnt prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? My two cents worth: As Dan Weiner already pointed out, you *do* see left on the left and right on the right. So your question becomes: why are we (well, most of us) fooled into thinking that there is a left-right ßip although there actually \ isnt one? Well, when you look into a mirror, you picture a copy of your self stepping behind the mirror and turning around to face your (original) self. And thats the catch: turning around. So you *expect* a rotation r by 180 degrees (with vertical axis), but you *see* a reßection s that ßips front and back. Hence its the difference s^(-1)r that bothers \ you, i.e. a reßection ßipping left and right. LD === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors <41c29465$0$14209$636a15ce@news.free.fr> posting-account=OYmWlQwAAACNyvYyZWgrC2S68daTBtzH Yes, this is approximately the answer I came up with. More speci\[CapitalThorn]cally to answer the original question: when you imagine yourself turning around, you imagine turning around your vertical axis. If you imagined turning around a horizontal axis instead, swapping positions of head and feet, then you would perceive that mirrors ßip top and bottom but not left and right. So it has to do with how we imagine turning ourselves around. Or in the case of turning an object to present it to a mirror, for example turning a page with a word on it, we turn it around a vertical axis and so perceive that it is reversed left-to-right. We could ßip the page top-to-bottom and then end up perceiving that mirrors reversed top-bottom. Best, Mike === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors posting-account=CfSJ5AwAAAD1yt3VP50q913IBHikxMCd > Heres a kind of philosophical question, more \ philosophical than > mathematical I think, but I \[CapitalThorn]gure the members of this group would be > interested. > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesnt prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? > I have what I think is a very short answer that goes to the heart of > the issue. Im interested to hear what other people think. > -Mike Lateral (right/left) inversion is seen with respect to body height/length, the way eyes are \[CapitalThorn]tted in the skull and seen by brain. Even if you are horizontally lying on a bed, or may be even a bat when hanging upside down would see mirror images laterally inverted. === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors posting-account=W9drAQ0AAAAwnUCtDicSi-THtOHRPCY8 Isnt it just that light rays from a speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ point on your body reßect directly back toward you? So a light ray from your left side will be reßected on the left side of the mirrior, but that will appear to be the right side of your reßection, since your reßection is facing you. Curved mirrors can invert objects top to bottom, but it requires a substantial change in the light path. === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors posting-account=W9drAQ0AAAAwnUCtDicSi-THtOHRPCY8 Isnt it just that light rays from a speci\[CapitalThorn]c \ point on your body reßect directly back toward you? So a light ray from your left side will be reßected on the left side of the mirrior, but that will appear to be the right side of your reßection, since your reßection is facing you. Curved mirrors can invert objects top to bottom, but it requires a substantial change in the light path. === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesnt prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? When I face my mirror, it reverses front and back. When I turn so that its on my left, it reverses left and right. It seems \ to reverse the directions orthogonal to its surface, whatever I call them. I bet if I put it on the ßoor, itll reverse up and down. -- Don Reble djr@nk.ca === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > When I face my mirror, it reverses front and back. When I turn so > that its on my left, it reverses left and right. It seems to reverse > the directions orthogonal to its surface, whatever I call them. I bet > if I put it on the ßoor, itll reverse up and down. The reßection of your feet will still be near the ßoor where your toes are. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > Heres a kind of philosophical question, more \ philosophical than > mathematical I think, but I \[CapitalThorn]gure the members of this group would be > interested. > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesnt prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? > I have what I think is a very short answer that goes to the heart of > the issue. Im interested to hear what other people think. > -Mike This has nothing to do with math or philosophy. Or anything really. We dont see anything reversed in a mirror.... stuff on the \ left is on the left, and stuff on the right is on the right. --D === Subject: re:Is this math test too easy? ok, Im a ninth grader now, and last year the state math tests were mind bogglingly easy. Im pretty sure the only reason I missed any was that I wasnt really paying attention it was so easy. *-----------------------* www.GroupSrv.com *-----------------------* === Subject: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 heres a much simpler proof: statement: .9999999...=1 since 9x=10x-x, 9=9 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 its probably got some blindingly obvious ßaw, but what \ the heck, im a freshman. *-----------------------* www.GroupSrv.com *-----------------------* === Subject: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >heres a much simpler proof: >statement: .9999999...=1 >since 9x=10x-x, >9=9 >9=9.9999999...-.9999999... >9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) Even if you assume you can do this operation with in\[CapitalThorn]nite repeating 9s. 9(.999...) = 8.999... 9 =/= 8.999... >its probably got some blindingly obvious ßaw, but what \ the heck, im >a freshman. >*-----------------------* > www.GroupSrv.com >*-----------------------* Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> heres a much simpler proof: >> statement: .9999999...=1 >> since 9x=10x-x, >> 9=9 >> 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... >> 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 > 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) Huh? Nowhere in this proof does he assume that 9(1) = 9(.999...). He assumes 9(1) = 9 (going from the second to last line that you quoted, to the last line). One reason this proof is de\[CapitalThorn]cient is because of the assumption that 10(.9999999...) = 9.9999999... (which is true, but needs to be proven). --Mark === Subject: Re: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > heres a much simpler proof: > statement: .9999999...=1 > since 9x=10x-x, > 9=9 > 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... > 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 >> 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) >Huh? Nowhere in this proof does he assume that 9(1) = 9(.999...). He >assumes 9(1) = 9 (going from the second to last line that you quoted, to the >last line). >One reason this proof is de\[CapitalThorn]cient is because of the assumption that >10(.9999999...) = 9.9999999... (which is true, but needs to be proven). >--Mark But he assumes .999... = 1 in his equation before it is proven. Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> heres a much simpler proof: >> statement: .9999999...=1 >> since 9x=10x-x, >> >> 9=9 >> 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... >> 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 > 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) >> Huh? Nowhere in this proof does he assume that 9(1) = 9(.999...). >> He assumes 9(1) = 9 (going from the second to last line that you >> quoted, to the last line). >> One reason this proof is de\[CapitalThorn]cient is because of the assumption >> that 10(.9999999...) = 9.9999999... (which is true, but needs to be >> proven). >> --Mark > But he assumes .999... = 1 in his equation before it is proven. Would you point out where he makes this assumption? I repeat the entire proof, expanded a bit, with line numbers added for your convenience: [1] 9=9 [2] 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... [3] 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 [4] Let x = .9999999... and substitute in [3] [5] 9(1) = 10x - x [6] 9(1) = 9(x) [7] Therefore x=1 In which line is the assumption .99999... = 1 used? --Mark === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 In sci.math, Mark Nudelman : > heres a much simpler proof: > statement: .9999999...=1 > since 9x=10x-x, > > 9=9 > 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... > 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 >> >> 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) > Huh? Nowhere in this proof does he assume that 9(1) = 9(.999...). > He assumes 9(1) = 9 (going from the second to last line that you > quoted, to the last line). > One reason this proof is de\[CapitalThorn]cient is because of the assumption > that 10(.9999999...) = 9.9999999... (which is true, but needs to be > proven). > --Mark >> But he assumes .999... = 1 in his equation before it is proven. > Would you point out where he makes this assumption? I repeat the entire > proof, expanded a bit, with line numbers added for your convenience: > [1] 9=9 > [2] 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... > [3] 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 > [4] Let x = .9999999... and substitute in [3] > [5] 9(1) = 10x - x > [6] 9(1) = 9(x) > [7] Therefore x=1 > In which line is the assumption .99999... = 1 used? [3]. The possibility of an in\[CapitalThorn]nite borrow generates \ headaches. > --Mark -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Its still legal to go .sigless. === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > In sci.math, Mark Nudelman >> Would you point out where he makes this assumption? I repeat the >> entire proof, expanded a bit, with line numbers added for your >> convenience: >> [1] 9=9 >> [2] 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... >> [3] 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 >> [4] Let x = .9999999... and substitute in [3] >> [5] 9(1) = 10x - x >> [6] 9(1) = 9(x) >> [7] Therefore x=1 >> In which line is the assumption .99999... = 1 used? > [3]. The possibility of an in\[CapitalThorn]nite borrow generates headaches. Going from [2] to [3] merely assumes that 10(.99999...) = 9.9999.... This is indeed problematic and needs to be proven, as does the assumption that 9 = 9.99999...- 0.999999 in going from [1] to [2], but I dont see that either of these steps uses the assumption that .99999... = 1. --Mark === Subject: Re: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> heres a much simpler proof: >> statement: .9999999...=1 >> since 9x=10x-x, >> >> 9=9 >> 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... >> 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 > 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) >>Huh? Nowhere in this proof does he assume that 9(1) = 9(.999...). He >>assumes 9(1) = 9 (going from the second to last line that you quoted, to >>the >>last line). >>One reason this proof is de\[CapitalThorn]cient is because of the assumption that >>10(.9999999...) = 9.9999999... (which is true, but needs to be proven). >>--Mark > But he assumes .999... = 1 in his equation before it is proven. > Smarts Alt. Physics News Group > http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 > S. Enterprize (Science Journal) > http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ jesus christ! do you know anything about mathematical induction?????????????? let x_n = 9*sum((1/10)^k,k=0..n) = 9*(1 + 1/10 + 1/100 + .. 1/10^n) = 9*(1.11111111...) = 9.999999.. then |10 - x_n| = |10 - 9*sum((1/10^k,k=0..n))| = |10 - ((1/10)^(k+1) - 1)/(1 - 1/10))| = |1/10^n| = 1/10^n < e for all n >= N > -log(e) that means, the difference between the in\[CapitalThorn]nitely repeating decimal with period one is the same as 10, i.e. 9.9999999...... = 10 (ofcourse, this work for any number, not just 9) if you dont believe that x_n = 9.9999999999999999999 then thats your fault, you need to learn some simple math.... just try to \[CapitalThorn]nd me a number sticktly between .999999999999..... and 1! you can do this for all x if you want... x = [x] + {x} = ßoor(x) + sum((ßoor((n-x)*10^k) mod 10)/10^k) if x is terminating or repeating in its tail, then the sum has a simple solution and its easy to calculate the answer. if you put x = 1, the {x} = 0 x = .99999...... then sum is just over 9/10^k which is easily to compute again, the only thing that you can have any sorta problem with is how .9999999999 could be reprsented by the sum, but that is your problem... as any halfwit knows that. === Subject: Re: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > heres a much simpler proof: > statement: .9999999...=1 > since 9x=10x-x, > > 9=9 > 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... > 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 >> >> 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) >Huh? Nowhere in this proof does he assume that 9(1) = 9(.999...). He >assumes 9(1) = 9 (going from the second to last line that you quoted, to >the >last line). >One reason this proof is de\[CapitalThorn]cient is because of the assumption that >10(.9999999...) = 9.9999999... (which is true, but needs to be proven). >--Mark >> But he assumes .999... = 1 in his equation before it is proven. >> Smarts Alt. Physics News Group >> http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 >> S. Enterprize (Science Journal) >> http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ >jesus christ! >do you know anything about mathematical induction?????????????? >let x_n = 9*sum((1/10)^k,k=0..n) = 9*(1 + 1/10 + 1/100 + .. 1/10^n) = >9*(1.11111111...) = 9.999999.. >then |10 - x_n| = |10 - 9*sum((1/10^k,k=0..n))| = |10 - ((1/10)^(k+1) - >1)/(1 - 1/10))| >= |1/10^n| = 1/10^n < e for all n >= N > -log(e) >that means, the difference between the in\[CapitalThorn]nitely repeating decimal with >period one is the same as 10, i.e. 9.9999999...... = 10 (ofcourse, this work >for any number, not just 9) >if you dont believe that x_n = 9.9999999999999999999 then thats your fault, >you need to learn some simple math.... just try to \[CapitalThorn]nd me a number sticktly >between .999999999999..... and 1! >you can do this for all x if you want... >x = [x] + {x} = ßoor(x) + sum((ßoor((n-x)*10^k) mod 10)/10^k) >if x is terminating or repeating in its tail, then the sum has a simple >solution and its easy to calculate the answer. >if you put x = 1, the {x} = 0 >x = .99999...... >then sum is just over 9/10^k which is easily to compute >again, the only thing that you can have any sorta problem with is how >.9999999999 could be reprsented by the sum, but that is your problem... as >any halfwit knows that. Hey .999... IS NOT A REAL NUMBER (PERIOD). See math link below: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperrealNumber.html .999... is of the form of a hyper-real number because there is a space between the real numbers between .999... and 1. .999... | | 1 ^ | See space A Hyperreal number is of the form Where n is a real number, x < n x = .999... n = 1 .999... < 1 THEREFORE, .999... =/= 1 Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> heres a much simpler proof: >> statement: .9999999...=1 >> since 9x=10x-x, >> >> 9=9 >> 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... >> 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 > > 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) >> >>Huh? Nowhere in this proof does he assume that 9(1) = 9(.999...). He >>assumes 9(1) = 9 (going from the second to last line that you quoted, to >>the >>last line). >> >>One reason this proof is de\[CapitalThorn]cient is because of the assumption that >>10(.9999999...) = 9.9999999... (which is true, but needs to be proven). >> >>--Mark >> > But he assumes .999... = 1 in his equation before it is proven. > Smarts Alt. Physics News Group > http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 > S. Enterprize (Science Journal) > http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ >>jesus christ! >>do you know anything about mathematical induction?????????????? >>let x_n = 9*sum((1/10)^k,k=0..n) = 9*(1 + 1/10 + 1/100 + .. 1/10^n) = >>9*(1.11111111...) = 9.999999.. >>then |10 - x_n| = |10 - 9*sum((1/10^k,k=0..n))| = |10 - ((1/10)^(k+1) - >>1)/(1 - 1/10))| >>= |1/10^n| = 1/10^n < e for all n >= N > -log(e) >>that means, the difference between the in\[CapitalThorn]nitely repeating decimal with >>period one is the same as 10, i.e. 9.9999999...... = 10 (ofcourse, this >>work >>for any number, not just 9) >>if you dont believe that x_n = 9.9999999999999999999 then thats your >>fault, >>you need to learn some simple math.... just try to \[CapitalThorn]nd me a number >>sticktly >>between .999999999999..... and 1! >>you can do this for all x if you want... >>x = [x] + {x} = ßoor(x) + sum((ßoor((n-x)*10^k) mod 10)/10^k) >>if x is terminating or repeating in its tail, then the sum has a simple >>solution and its easy to calculate the answer. >>if you put x = 1, the {x} = 0 >>x = .99999...... >>then sum is just over 9/10^k which is easily to compute >>again, the only thing that you can have any sorta problem with is how >>.9999999999 could be reprsented by the sum, but that is your problem... as >>any halfwit knows that. > Hey .999... IS NOT A REAL NUMBER (PERIOD). > See math link below: > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperrealNumber.html > .999... is of the form of a hyper-real number because there is a space > between > the real numbers between .999... and 1. > .999... | | 1 > ^ > | > See space > A Hyperreal number is of the form > Where n is a real number, > x < n > x = .999... > n = 1 > .999... < 1 > THEREFORE, > .999... =/= 1 > Smarts Alt. Physics News Group > http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 > S. Enterprize (Science Journal) > http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ your a freaken genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 In sci.math, Jon Slaughter <10sbusfei7k2lee@corp.supernews.com>: [snipped for sanity] >> .999... =/= 1 >> Smarts Alt. Physics News Group >> http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 >> S. Enterprize (Science Journal) >> http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ > your a freaken genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FSVO genius. Most of us use an alternate word with one less letter. :-) -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Its still legal to go .sigless. === Subject: Re: re:PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > heres a much simpler proof: > statement: .9999999...=1 > since 9x=10x-x, > > 9=9 > 9=9.9999999...-.9999999... > 9(1)=10(.9999999...)-.9999999 >> >> 9(1) =/= 9(.999...) > >Huh? Nowhere in this proof does he assume that 9(1) = 9(.999...). He >assumes 9(1) = 9 (going from the second to last line that you quoted, to >the >last line). > >One reason this proof is de\[CapitalThorn]cient is because of the assumption that >10(.9999999...) = 9.9999999... (which is true, but needs to be proven). > >--Mark > >> >> But he assumes .999... = 1 in his equation before it is proven. >> >> >> Smarts Alt. Physics News Group >> http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 >> S. Enterprize (Science Journal) >> http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ >> >> >jesus christ! >do you know anything about mathematical induction?????????????? >let x_n = 9*sum((1/10)^k,k=0..n) = 9*(1 + 1/10 + 1/100 + .. 1/10^n) = >9*(1.11111111...) = 9.999999.. >then |10 - x_n| = |10 - 9*sum((1/10^k,k=0..n))| = |10 - ((1/10)^(k+1) - >1)/(1 - 1/10))| >= |1/10^n| = 1/10^n < e for all n >= N > -log(e) >that means, the difference between the in\[CapitalThorn]nitely repeating decimal with >period one is the same as 10, i.e. 9.9999999...... = 10 (ofcourse, this >work >for any number, not just 9) >if you dont believe that x_n = 9.9999999999999999999 then thats your >fault, >you need to learn some simple math.... just try to \[CapitalThorn]nd me a number >sticktly >between .999999999999..... and 1! >you can do this for all x if you want... >x = [x] + {x} = ßoor(x) + sum((ßoor((n-x)*10^k) mod 10)/10^k) >if x is terminating or repeating in its tail, then the sum has a simple >solution and its easy to calculate the answer. >if you put x = 1, the {x} = 0 >x = .99999...... >then sum is just over 9/10^k which is easily to compute >again, the only thing that you can have any sorta problem with is how >.9999999999 could be reprsented by the sum, but that is your problem... as >any halfwit knows that. >> Hey .999... IS NOT A REAL NUMBER (PERIOD). >> See math link below: >> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperrealNumber.html >> .999... is of the form of a hyper-real number because there is a space >> between >> the real numbers between .999... and 1. >> .999... | | 1 >> ^ >> | >> See space >> A Hyperreal number is of the form >> Where n is a real number, >> x < n >> x = .999... >> n = 1 >> .999... < 1 >> THEREFORE, >> .999... =/= 1 >> Smarts Alt. Physics News Group >> http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 >> S. Enterprize (Science Journal) >> http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ >your a freaken genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! youre not your Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > .999... | | 1 > ^ > | > See space Pure scribble. > A Hyperreal number is of the form You would not know a hyperreal if it bit you. You have not the foggiest notion of how the real number system R is extended to *R. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> .999... | | 1 >> ^ >> | >> See space >Pure scribble. >> A Hyperreal number is of the form >You would not know a hyperreal if it bit you. You have not the foggiest >notion of how the real number system R is extended to *R. >Bob Kolker Hey, I thought you said I didnt know what it was. You are wrong again, and again, again. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperrealNumber.html Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company > > .999... | | 1 > ^ > | > See space >>Pure scribble. > > A Hyperreal number is of the form >>You would not know a hyperreal if it bit you. You have not the foggiest >>notion of how the real number system R is extended to *R. >>Bob Kolker > Hey, I thought you said I didnt know what it was. You are wrong again, and > again, again. > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperrealNumber.html Like that tells him *anything*. Heres a few Qs for you. [1] If d is such that 0 < d < 1/n for all n in N, what is d^2? d^3? sqrt(d)? [2] Why is 5/5 != 9/9? 5/5 = 1, of course; 0.2 * 5 = 1. 9/9, by contrast, is 0.111... * 9 = 0.999... = 1 - d. In base 12, 1/9 = 0.14(12) but 1/5 = .24972497...(12) ; therefore in this case 9/9 = 1 but 5/5 = 1-d. Does it matter what base one uses for arithmetic? [3] Explain how one computes D_10[.999..., w-1], where w (omega) is the \[CapitalThorn]rst trans\[CapitalThorn]nite ordinal, and D_10[r,n] is \ rs nth digit to the right of the decimal point, if n is an integer, then evaluate D_10[(.999... + 9)/10, w-1] and D_10[.999... * 10 - 9, w-1]. (n can be negative but thats not all that important here.) [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Its still legal to go .sigless. === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > jesus christ! > do you know anything about mathematical induction?????????????? Enterprise does not even know what end comes out of. He is a total mathematical incompetent. He makes JSH look intelligent by comparison. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> jesus christ! >> do you know anything about mathematical induction?????????????? >Enterprise does not even know what end comes out of. He is a total >mathematical incompetent. He makes JSH look intelligent by comparison. >Bob Kolker Whats a hyper-real number? Do you even know anything about math? Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > Whats a hyper-real number? Do you even know anything \ about math? No. But I do know how the hyperrals are constructed. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 In sci.math, robert j. kolker : >> Whats a hyper-real number? Do you even know anything about math? > No. But I do know how the hyperrals are constructed. > Bob Kolker http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperrealNumber.html is extremely bare-bones (is there one hyperreal? more than one? arithmetic operations? proofs?) but at least its a start. A reference link http://members.tripod.com/PhilipApps/line.html looks to be little more than my attempts at d-math, though there might be more than one d -- or H, its dual. No doubt one could claim at least three theories: [1] An in\[CapitalThorn]nite hierarchy of d < 1/n for all n in N: 0 < ... < d^4 < d^3 < d^2 < d < 1, with a more or less standard algebra (e.g., (1-d)^3 = 1 - 3d + 3d^2 - d^3). [2] d^k = d for some k in N. [3] Some other esoteric condition. I suppose one might even notate this as R[d] -- a standard polynomial group over R, with a slightly weird ordering. And again, I must complain that S. Enterprize is being extremely sloppy here. (Not that Im all that neat, but hopefully my notations clear at least.) -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Its still legal to go .sigless. === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> Whats a hyper-real number? Do you even know anything about math? >No. But I do know how the hyperrals are You dont even know what a hyper-real number is??? And you are name calling people here like you know everything?????? Why not admit you ARE WRONG! constructed. >Bob Kolker Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > Whats a hyper-real number? Do you even know anything \ about math? >>No. But I do know how the hyperrals are > You dont even know what a hyper-real number is??? And you are name calling > people here like you know everything?????? Why not admit you ARE WRONG! Quick. De\[CapitalThorn]ne an ultra-\[CapitalThorn]lter. No, \ dont look it up. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> Whats a hyper-real number? Do you even know anything about math? >No. But I do know how the hyperrals are >> You dont even know what a hyper-real number is??? And \ you are name >calling >> people here like you know everything?????? Why not admit you ARE WRONG! >Quick. De\[CapitalThorn]ne an ultra-\[CapitalThorn]lter. No, \ dont look it up. >Bob Kolker Oh this is so hard to understand, I might need to take an asprin for a headache. Ill de\[CapitalThorn]ne it with an example. Suppose you have \ alot of people here making noise here on this NG and they dont know what they are talking about with .999..., and then comes along an ultra\[CapitalThorn]lter F_Smart1234 with the correct information. What we do is apply ultra\[CapitalThorn]lter F_Smart1234 to the whole set S of noise on the NG, and then just the pure correct answer is shown. The ultra\[CapitalThorn]lter is then said to be a success and has worked very well, and is therefore proven. Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> >> > Whats a hyper-real number? Do you even know anything \ about math? >> >>No. But I do know how the hyperrals are > > You dont even know what a hyper-real number is??? And you are name >>calling > people here like you know everything?????? Why not admit you ARE WRONG! >>Quick. De\[CapitalThorn]ne an ultra-\[CapitalThorn]lter. No, \ dont look it up. >>Bob Kolker > Oh this is so hard to understand, I might need to take an asprin for a >headache. > Ill de\[CapitalThorn]ne it with an example. Suppose you \ have alot of people here >making >noise here on this NG and they dont know what they are talking about with >.999..., and then comes along an ultra\[CapitalThorn]lter F_Smart1234 with the correct >information. What we do is apply ultra\[CapitalThorn]lter F_Smart1234 to the whole set S >noise on the NG, and then just the pure correct answer is shown. > The ultra\[CapitalThorn]lter is then said to be a success and has worked very well, and >is therefore proven. Your turn. Perform a ANOVA statistical test between .999... and 1. And of course go into details explaining what the ANOVA test is. hurry hurry dont look... Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >> Whats a hyper-real number? Do you even know anything about math? >No. But I do know how the hyperrals are >> You dont even know what a hyper-real number is??? And \ you are name >calling >> people here like you know everything?????? Why not admit you ARE WRONG! >Quick. De\[CapitalThorn]ne an ultra-\[CapitalThorn]lter. No, \ dont look it up. Oh, but I do have the right to refresh my memory. I even gave you time to do this and you still dont know what a hyper-real number is. >Bob Kolker Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company > >I made a typing error here, >10x = 9 + x >> Its still useless. >> let x = 2 >> 10( 2) = 9 + 2 >> 20 =/= 11 >Congratulations! Youve proven that x=2 is not a root of >the above equation. >Care to try another number, though? :-) >[.sigsnip] >-- >#191, ewill3@earthlink.net >Its still legal to go .sigless. Ok, lets look at it in this point of view. 10x = 9 + x x can equal 1 or .999... . There are two roots to the equation. x1 = 1 x2 = .999... but, x1 =/= x2 The method I used was to show the degree of balance in the equation using a convergence lim for the equation, which was a non-standard approach that showed that a convergence test, if it could be could be applied for the equation you showed. The convergence of a series has to do with the limits as they approach in\[CapitalThorn]nity for the nth term. Your proof clearly shows only two roots. This is not a proof that .999... precisely equals 1. In fact, you can see there are two roots, and they dont equal. Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company >>In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company >> >>I made a typing error here, >> >>10x = 9 + x >> > Its still useless. > let x = 2 > 10( 2) = 9 + 2 > 20 =/= 11 >>Congratulations! Youve proven that x=2 is not a root of >>the above equation. >>Care to try another number, though? :-) >>[.sigsnip] >>-- >>#191, ewill3@earthlink.net >>Its still legal to go .sigless. > Ok, lets look at it in this point of view. > 10x = 9 + x > x can equal 1 or .999... . > There are two roots to the equation. > x1 = 1 > x2 = .999... > but, > x1 =/= x2 If x1 != x2, is 10*x1 - 9 - x1 == 10*x2 - 9 - x2? [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Its still legal to go .sigless. === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 >In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company > >In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company > >I made a typing error here, > >10x = 9 + x > >> >> Its still useless. >> >> let x = 2 >> >> 10( 2) = 9 + 2 >> >> 20 =/= 11 >> >Congratulations! Youve proven that x=2 is not a root of >the above equation. >Care to try another number, though? :-) >[.sigsnip] >-- >#191, ewill3@earthlink.net >Its still legal to go .sigless. >> Ok, lets look at it in this point of view. >> 10x = 9 + x >> x can equal 1 or .999... . >> There are two roots to the equation. >> x1 = 1 >> x2 = .999... >> but, >> x1 =/= x2 >If x1 != x2, is 10*x1 - 9 - x1 == 10*x2 - 9 - x2? x1 =/= x2 Two different roots. >[rest snipped] >-- >#191, ewill3@earthlink.net >Its still legal to go .sigless. Smarts Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813& cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 [megasnip] 1/3 = .33333... = 3x10^-1+3x10^-2+3x10^-3+3x10^-4+3x10^-5+... thus: 3*1/3 = 3*(3x10^-1+3x10^-2+3x10^-3+3x10^-4+3x10^-5+...) which is: 9x10^-1+9x10^-2+9x10^-3+9x10^-4+9x10^-5+... = .99999... therefore .99999... = 3*1/3 = 3/3 = 1 [] === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 In sci.math, Dan Weiner : > [megasnip] > 1/3 = .33333... = 3x10^-1+3x10^-2+3x10^-3+3x10^-4+3x10^-5+... > thus: > 3*1/3 = > 3*(3x10^-1+3x10^-2+3x10^-3+3x10^-4+3x10^-5+...) > which is: > 9x10^-1+9x10^-2+9x10^-3+9x10^-4+9x10^-5+... = .99999... > therefore .99999... = 3*1/3 = 3/3 = 1 > [] Not quite rigorous enough, but pretty close. One \[CapitalThorn]rst has to make sure 3 * (3*10^-1 + 3*10^-2 + ... + 3*10^(-n) + ...) makes sense. To illustrate, I shall prove the nonsense result below: Let x = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... + 2^n + ... Then 2 * x = 2 * (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... + 2^n + ...) = 2 + 4 + 8 + ... + 2^(n+1) + ... = x - 1 Since 2 * x = x - 1, x = -1. QED. The main ßaw of course is the divergent series x. This ones obvious but there are some subtle ones such as the alternate-sign harmonic series that arent. Fortunately, Cauchy proved that, under certain conditions (which are met by your series, but not by mine :-) ) the distribution of the product does make sense. One can go the long way, if one wishes; de\[CapitalThorn]ne S3_n = .333...3 (n 3s) = (3 * 10^-1 + ... + 3 * 10^-n). Multiplying S3_n by 3 is perfectly valid, and leads to S9_n = .999...9 = (9 * 10^-1 + ... + 9 * 10^-n). As n tends to the limit, one can easily prove that S3_n -> S3 = 1/3, and therefore S9_n -> S9 = 3 * S3 = 3/3 = 1. Not that I expect S. Enterprize to understand much of this, as he seems to think ... = oo and have some very weird notions regarding series -- and no understanding at all regarding limits. -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Its still legal to go .sigless. === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 > Not quite rigorous enough, but pretty close. One \[CapitalThorn]rst has > to make sure 3 * (3*10^-1 + 3*10^-2 + ... + 3*10^(-n) + ...) > makes sense. Do you accept 1/3 = (3*10^-1 + 3*10^-2 + ... + 3*10^(-n) + ...) ? It pretty much follows that the series converges.... Anyway, if you REALLY want proof, the series is Cauchy therefore its OK. QED. Hah! > Not that I expect S. Enterprize to understand much of this, as > he seems to think ... = oo and have some very weird notions > regarding series -- and no understanding at all regarding limits. True... why did we even bother... --D === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company >>In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company >> >>In sci.math, S. Enterprize Company >> >>I made a typing error here, >> >>10x = 9 + x >> > > Its still useless. > > let x = 2 > > 10( 2) = 9 + 2 > > 20 =/= 11 > >> >>Congratulations! Youve proven that x=2 is not a root of >>the above equation. >> >>Care to try another number, though? :-) >> >>[.sigsnip] >> >>-- >>#191, ewill3@earthlink.net >>Its still legal to go .sigless. >> >> > Ok, lets look at it in this point of view. > 10x = 9 + x > x can equal 1 or .999... . > There are two roots to the equation. > x1 = 1 > x2 = .999... > but, > x1 =/= x2 >>If x1 != x2, is 10*x1 - 9 - x1 == 10*x2 - 9 - x2? > x1 =/= x2 > Two different roots. Oh, so an equation of polynomial degree n (n=1 in this case) can have more than n roots? [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Its still legal to go .sigless. === Subject: Re: PROOF that 0.99999... = 1 at 04:44 PM, escu;tur36@hotmail.com;;; (E. Escultura) said: >2) The real number ssystem itself is ill-de\[CapitalThorn]ned because two of its >axioms are false, That statement is meaningless. >namely, the completeness and trichotomy axioms. counterexamples to >them were constructed by Banach-Tarski and Brouwer. That statement is meaningless. You can proove axioms to be inconsistent with other axioms; you cant provide counterexamples. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: VonNeumann Gametheory applied to StockMarket with Crossover technique; BMY, Q, SBC, SGP Well, hindsight can be 20/20. I saw Q rise from 3.45 to a recent 4.30. I had bought 100,000 shares some months back and sold and made a meagre pro\[CapitalThorn]t of about $5,000 whereas if I held and sold at 4.30 would have made a $80,000 pro\[CapitalThorn]t. Back in July I held 14,100 shares of BMY and seem interminable for BMY price to rise above the price of SBC and make a Crossover switch. But if I had held to those BMY shares then today BMY was brießy 25.70 and SBC was below 25.60 to allow for a Crossover switch. And recently I held 11,310 shares of SGP for less than $18 a share and today it was over $20.50 a share. But I am not sad because I am not greedy. I have the rest of my life to make gains and pro\[CapitalThorn]ts from the stock market. The above shows clearly that the strategy of Crossover is the best strategy possible and I need to \[CapitalThorn]ne tune adjust for the rest of my life. So what if I did not make $80,000 on Qwest, I did make a pro\[CapitalThorn]t on Qwest and another pro\[CapitalThorn]t on SGP which I bought on the Qwest funds. We should never become so greedy that we feel bad about lost pro\[CapitalThorn]ts. It does not pain me to see Sprint or Nextel or Guidant rise, or even to see Merck rise from its downfall plunge. We cannot own everything that rises. So we should be happy with whatever pro\[CapitalThorn]ts we are blessed with, for there are many people who do not even make pro\[CapitalThorn]ts. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? Hi all, I have a stationary process X_k as an input to a Linear and Time-Invariant system. Is the output process Y_k still a stationary process? SSS(Strict-Sense Stationary) or at least WSS(Wide Sense Stationary)? === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? Homework? -- Stephan M. Bernsee http://www.dspdimension.com === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? > Hi all, > I have a stationary process X_k as an input to a Linear and Time-Invariant > system. Is the output process Y_k still a stationary process? > SSS(Strict-Sense Stationary) or at least WSS(Wide Sense Stationary)? Well, think about it. A stationary process is one whos parameters are independent of time, although the value of the signal resulting from the process can be correlated to past or future values of itself. A time-invariant system is one that modi\[CapitalThorn]es a signal in a time-independent way, although the output signal at any given time may depend on past (or future, if you dont care about \ causality) values of the input signal. So you tell me -- is it still stationary, or has it acquired a time dependence? -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? <10s5shpq8j4h141@corp.supernews.com> posting-account=MscchQwAAAD1m5NHYInCV5DpiRQ-0KT9 Well, think about it. A stationary process is one whos parameters are independent of time, although the value of the signal resulting from the process can be correlated to past or future values of itself. A time-invariant system is one that modi\[CapitalThorn]es a signal in a time-independent way, although the output signal at any given time may depend on past (or future, if you dont care about \ causality) values of the input signal. So you tell me -- is it still stationary, or has it acquired a time dependence? Your explanation seems to make sense. However, if you have an LTI system with poles on the unit circle, one can still say that it modi\[CapitalThorn]es the signal in a time-independent way, but the output is not stationary. Can you re\[CapitalThorn]ne your \ argument? Andor === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? windows-nt) Andor, What about startup transients? I agree in the steady-state. --RY > Well, think about it. A stationary process is one whos parameters are > independent of time, although the value of the signal resulting from > the > process can be correlated to past or future values of itself. > A time-invariant system is one that modi\[CapitalThorn]es a signal in a > time-independent way, although the output signal at any given time may > depend on past (or future, if you dont care about causality) values of > the input signal. > So you tell me -- is it still stationary, or has it acquired a time > dependence? > Your explanation seems to make sense. > However, if you have an LTI system with poles on the unit circle, one > can still say that it modi\[CapitalThorn]es the signal in a time-independent way, > but the output is not stationary. Can you re\[CapitalThorn]ne your argument? > Andor -- % Randy Yates % Shes sweet on Wagner-I think \ shed die for Beethoven. %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and %%% 919-577-9882 % Verdis always creepin \ from her room. %%%% % Rockaria, *A New World Record*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? > Andor, > What about startup transients? I agree in the steady-state. > --RY >>Well, think about it. A stationary process is one whos parameters are >>independent of time, although the value of the signal resulting from >>the >>process can be correlated to past or future values of itself. >>A time-invariant system is one that modi\[CapitalThorn]es a signal in a >>time-independent way, although the output signal at any given time may >>depend on past (or future, if you dont care about causality) values of >>the input signal. >>So you tell me -- is it still stationary, or has it acquired a time >>dependence? >>Your explanation seems to make sense. >>However, if you have an LTI system with poles on the unit circle, one >>can still say that it modi\[CapitalThorn]es the signal in a time-independent way, >>but the output is not stationary. Can you re\[CapitalThorn]ne your argument? >>Andor I missed Andors post, so Im answering it \ here. Youre probably thinking of the Wiener process, where you integrate white noise starting at time t = zero. You are correct that this is not stationary, but if you have a system that holds its output at zero until time t = zero then the system is not time invariant. If your system _is_ time invariant then you must have a signal that is zero for t < 0 and has energy for t > 0 -- and thats not a stationary signal. Actually any LTI that is held at zero and only released at time t=0 will have an output thats non-stationary because you must \ be violating one of the conditions above. To keep the overall system time invariant you have to start things up at -in\[CapitalThorn]nity. So I think Im still right. Now, granted, if you have an unstable or metastable system your output signal in such a case will have in\[CapitalThorn]nite variance -- this is probably why you want to hold things to zero until t = 0. I suspect that trying to do the analysis with any sort of rigor while allowing unstable or metastable systems would require many extra reams of paper, but I think my assertions would hold true. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? <10s5shpq8j4h141@corp.supernews.com> <10s8r3mj2ibkq54@corp.supernews.com> posting-account=MscchQwAAAD1m5NHYInCV5DpiRQ-0KT9 If your system _is_ time invariant then you must have a signal that is zero for t < 0 and has energy for t > 0 -- and thats not a stationary signal. Point taken. Now, granted, if you have an unstable or metastable system your output signal in such a case will have in\[CapitalThorn]nite variance -- this is probably why you want to hold things to zero until t = 0. I guess thats what I had in mind. Best just forget about unstable systems. Andor === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? <10s5shpq8j4h141@corp.supernews.com> posting-account=VhNkrw0AAABfAa_CaZ54XDxj0gJ5_J0G > What about startup transients? I agree in the steady-state. Well, then the system isnt, strictly speaking, LTI, is it? :-) Ciao, Peter K. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Philosophy argues that A is A, B is B and C is C. They are all part of an > didactic letternomic set with has been assigned arbitrary cultural and > cognitive importance... at least thats what it says here... in this book. Obviously I missed this... Philosophy argues that A is A, B is B and C is C but is \ Ôis =? === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics [...]> > Im mostly interested in de\[CapitalThorn]nitions that hold \ true all the time. They do, Lester, they do. By de\[CapitalThorn]nition. Whether a \ de\[CapitalThorn]nition refers to anything real is another question. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >[...]> >> Im mostly interested in de\[CapitalThorn]nitions that \ hold true all the time. >They do, Lester, they do. By de\[CapitalThorn]nition. Whether a \ de\[CapitalThorn]nition refers to >anything real is another question. On the other hand, Wolf, it might be interesting to explore this de\[CapitalThorn]nition of de\[CapitalThorn]nition a little more objectively \ to decide how they can refer to anything unreal. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >>[...]> >Im mostly interested in de\[CapitalThorn]nitions that hold \ true all the time. >>They do, Lester, they do. By de\[CapitalThorn]nition. Whether a \ de\[CapitalThorn]nition refers to >>anything real is another question. > On the other hand, Wolf, it might be interesting to explore this > de\[CapitalThorn]nition of de\[CapitalThorn]nition a little more \ objectively to decide how they > can refer to anything unreal. A unicorn is.... === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >[...]> >>Im mostly interested in de\[CapitalThorn]nitions that hold \ true all the time. >They do, Lester, they do. By de\[CapitalThorn]nition. Whether a \ de\[CapitalThorn]nition refers to >anything real is another question. >> On the other hand, Wolf, it might be interesting to explore this >> de\[CapitalThorn]nition of de\[CapitalThorn]nition a little more \ objectively to decide how they >> can refer to anything unreal. >A unicorn is.... Oh, I get it. A unicorn is like a de\[CapitalThorn]nition. \ De\[CapitalThorn]nitions refer to anything unreal if and only if what they refer to is unreal. Bit circular but I daresay quite useful for defending circular de\[CapitalThorn]nitions. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41bd1833.17476667@netnews.att.net> <41bd9f23.21123889@netnews.att.net> <41be9010.22849242@netnews.att.net> <41bfb1af.31103987@netnews.att.net> posting-account=RkUO3A0AAAAo6FJoWWMb916-xRvUxBKb >>[...]> >> >Im mostly interested in de\[CapitalThorn]nitions that hold \ true all the time. >> >> >>They do, Lester, they do. By de\[CapitalThorn]nition. Whether a \ de\[CapitalThorn]nition refers to >>anything real is another question. > On the other hand, Wolf, it might be interesting to explore this > de\[CapitalThorn]nition of de\[CapitalThorn]nition a little more \ objectively to decide how they > can refer to anything unreal. > A unicorn is.... A unicorn is a mythical creature. It does exist, like God, in the human mind and has an observable effect on behaviour. Apparently Queen Elizabeth in the 16th century paid 10,000 pounds for the horn of a unicorn. It was of course the spiraled tusk of the narwhal, an artic whale. -john === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41bd1833.17476667@netnews.att.net> <41bd9f23.21123889@netnews.att.net> <41be9010.22849242@netnews.att.net> <41bfb1af.31103987@netnews.att.net> posting-account=RkUO3A0AAAAo6FJoWWMb916-xRvUxBKb >>[...]> >> >Im mostly interested in de\[CapitalThorn]nitions that hold \ true all the time. >> >> >>They do, Lester, they do. By de\[CapitalThorn]nition. Whether a \ de\[CapitalThorn]nition refers to >>anything real is another question. > On the other hand, Wolf, it might be interesting to explore this > de\[CapitalThorn]nition of de\[CapitalThorn]nition a little more \ objectively to decide how they > can refer to anything unreal. > A unicorn is.... A unicorn is a mythical creature. It does exist, like God, in the human mind and has an observable effect on behaviour. Apparently Queen Elizabeth in the 16th century paid 10,000 pounds for the horn of a unicorn. It was of course the spiraled tusk of the narwhal, an artic whale. -john === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics posting-account=u3EDPg0AAADaLcRunJk5L0Cw4LDDaXak > Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > --------------- > Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the > de\[CapitalThorn]nition of science, philosophy, and mysticism so as to make these > ideas explicit. > Science argues that A is C because A is B and B is C. > Philosophy argues that A is C either because A is B and let me tell > you a little story about B and C or because let me tell you a little > story about A and B and B is C. > Mysticism just postulates that A is C because X is Y and the two are > connected by let me tell you a little story. > Art just argues that X is Y. > Mathematics just argues that A is C because they have dibs on it. > Physics aruges that A is C cuz they dont need no stinkin reasons. you forgot the most important one: Lester = idiot in all science, philosophy, mysticism, art, math and physics. Thats an invariant under any conceivable transformation local or global. Seems you are an example of a uni\[CapitalThorn]ed theory of stupidity. Mike === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> --------------- >> Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the >> de\[CapitalThorn]nition of science, philosophy, and mysticism so as to make these >> ideas explicit. >> Science argues that A is C because A is B and B is C. >> Philosophy argues that A is C either because A is B and let me tell >> you a little story about B and C or because let me tell you a >little >> story about A and B and B is C. >> Mysticism just postulates that A is C because X is Y and the two are >> connected by let me tell you a little story. >> Art just argues that X is Y. >> Mathematics just argues that A is C because they have dibs on it. >> Physics aruges that A is C cuz they dont need no stinkin reasons. >you forgot the most important one: >Lester = idiot in all science, philosophy, mysticism, art, math and >physics. >Thats an invariant under any conceivable transformation local or >global. Seems you are an example of a uni\[CapitalThorn]ed theory of stupidity. Yes. However, yours is only a particular de\[CapitalThorn]nition and not of any universal signi\[CapitalThorn]cance. When you get around to dealing in universals for a change, do let us know, wont you, sport? === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41bfb282.31315365@netnews.att.net> posting-account=u3EDPg0AAADaLcRunJk5L0Cw4LDDaXak I prefer Existential Quali\[CapitalThorn]ers to Universals. I tend to think the latter hode som dogmatism. Anyway, no universally quanti\[CapitalThorn]ed propositions can be proved empirically so there you go, my particular de\[CapitalThorn]nition may not be of universal signi\[CapitalThorn]cance \ but its of signi\[CapitalThorn]cance to you:) Mike === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >I prefer Existential Quali\[CapitalThorn]ers to Universals. I tend to think the >latter hode som dogmatism. Anyway, no universally quanti\[CapitalThorn]ed >propositions can be proved empirically so there you go, my particular >de\[CapitalThorn]nition may not be of universal signi\[CapitalThorn]cance \ but its of >signi\[CapitalThorn]cance to you:) Well, it may apply to me but it is hardly of signi\[CapitalThorn]cance to me. The problem is that it doesnt apply to anyone but me; so, it is only of particular signi\[CapitalThorn]cance in any event whereas what I say is applicable across the board whence I say it. You might consider getting your words straight before you say them. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >My main point is that the word equal, with all its secular meanings, >is probably a poor choice for =, which you have well described as an >approximate relationship, or at least a quali\[CapitalThorn]ed relationship. Most words of any fundamental signi\[CapitalThorn]cance are. And the more we try to specify them the vaguer they get. Maybe theres a conservation of vagueness law at work akin to the uncertainty principle. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41bd1833.17476667@netnews.att.net> <41bd9f23.21123889@netnews.att.net> <1Umvd.231528$HA.34538@attbi_s01> <41bec327.26789264@netnews.att.net> posting-account=SqYkwg0AAABibDnSpEgBfNCp5F3aKoMz >My main point is that the word equal, with all its secular meanings, >is probably a poor choice for =, which you have well described as an >approximate relationship, or at least a quali\[CapitalThorn]ed relationship. > Most words of any fundamental signi\[CapitalThorn]cance are. And the more we try > to specify them the vaguer they get. Maybe theres a conservation of > vagueness law at work akin to the uncertainty principle. I like that! They are very similar! Specifying de\[CapitalThorn]nition increases vagueness---and like in the subatomic world, we become part of the experiment---we cannot stay outside the system we are measuring! === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >>My main point is that the word equal, with all its secular > meanings, >>is probably a poor choice for =, which you have well described as > an >>approximate relationship, or at least a quali\[CapitalThorn]ed relationship. >> Most words of any fundamental signi\[CapitalThorn]cance are. And the more we try >> to specify them the vaguer they get. Maybe theres a conservation of >> vagueness law at work akin to the uncertainty principle. > I like that! They are very similar! Specifying de\[CapitalThorn]nition increases > vagueness---and like in the subatomic world, we become part of the > experiment---we cannot stay outside the system we are measuring! I dont think Lester likes quantum physics ;-) === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >My main point is that the word equal, with all its secular >> meanings, >is probably a poor choice for =, which you have well described as >> an >approximate relationship, or at least a quali\[CapitalThorn]ed relationship. > Most words of any fundamental signi\[CapitalThorn]cance are. And the more we try > to specify them the vaguer they get. Maybe theres a conservation of > vagueness law at work akin to the uncertainty principle. >> I like that! They are very similar! Specifying de\[CapitalThorn]nition increases >> vagueness---and like in the subatomic world, we become part of the >> experiment---we cannot stay outside the system we are measuring! >I dont think Lester likes quantum physics ;-) Actually, JPL, I think quantum mechanics relations are very important. I just prefer to derive the uncertainty relation from scratch and derive its implications mechanically from that derivation instead of the not stinkin reasons method used in conventional quantum physics. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >>This is all interesting stuff and Ill have to reread it during the >>day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and >>grainy, and the big deal in the 1920s and later was that energy and >>mass had a fundamental unit and only seemed to be measurable in integer >>multiples of some fundamental quantities---eigen values were invoked to >>observable rotation like a ball on a string or a phonograph. Electrons >>have their spin direction either up or down, or A and B or yes and no >>(to refer to some sort of symmetry)---its too late in the evening for >>me to make sense---Ill try to recall my book \ learnin from 10-15 years >>ago tomorrow--to help us \[CapitalThorn]nd common ground...oh, the poem is from >>Faust, Pt.1, in the witchs kitchen. The poem makes Faust angry, but >>Mephisto exclaims (to the witch that says it),Well done... The >>serpent was the \[CapitalThorn]rst friend to knowledge as we know. >>Ideas that come into peoples heads probably are not in integer >>form, but most likely when tried to come to expression through >>words---we can count them, as in I had an Idea, I had another idea. In >>truth they are each one multifaceted. We like to assign integer >>numbers to things so that we can be good accountants and keep track of >>things, use binary math, etc... All theoreticians must be good >>accountants. We experimentalists can let detectors, graphs etc do it >>for us. But we probably design them to measure that way. >I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it >morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain >ol no stinkin reasons. So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I suppose. But ignoring whether thats even possible, which unanswered questions about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask? Its easy to think of some, since we have quantum mechanics to contrast with it. Why would an object take just a single trajectory out of the in\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectories available to it? Why is it possible to develop a mechanics based on the concept of the When an object goes from point A to point B, why should we expect it to occupy in succession every point along a path from A to B rather than teleporting to its destination? Why should time move forward at the same rate at all points in the universe? Why should time always move forward at all points in the universe? The \[CapitalThorn]rst two questions, at least, can be answered by quantum mechanics. whose position and momentum uncertainties are much smaller than the interpretation of the \[CapitalThorn]elds is available in the mostly \ ßat and quiescent spacetime we \[CapitalThorn]nd ourselves in. All theories have things that are true for no stinkin reason, including classical mechanics. Theyre called postulates. If they \ could be derived from more basic notions they wouldnt be postulates. But sometimes people reach their comfort zone and it doesnt \ even occur to them to keep asking what the stinkin reasons are. -- We dont grow up hearing stories around the camp \ \[CapitalThorn]re anymore about cultural \[CapitalThorn]gures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the characters that today provide us a common language are corporate creatures -- Rebecca Tushnet === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >This is all interesting stuff and Ill have to reread it during the >day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and >grainy, and the big deal in the 1920s and later was that energy and >mass had a fundamental unit and only seemed to be measurable in integer >multiples of some fundamental quantities---eigen values were invoked to >observable rotation like a ball on a string or a phonograph. Electrons >have their spin direction either up or down, or A and B or yes and no >(to refer to some sort of symmetry)---its too late in the evening for >me to make sense---Ill try to recall my book \ learnin from 10-15 years >ago tomorrow--to help us \[CapitalThorn]nd common ground...oh, the poem is from >Faust, Pt.1, in the witchs kitchen. The poem makes Faust angry, but >Mephisto exclaims (to the witch that says it),Well done... The >serpent was the \[CapitalThorn]rst friend to knowledge as we know. >Ideas that come into peoples heads probably are not in integer >form, but most likely when tried to come to expression through >words---we can count them, as in I had an Idea, I had another idea. In >truth they are each one multifaceted. We like to assign integer >numbers to things so that we can be good accountants and keep track of >things, use binary math, etc... All theoreticians must be good >accountants. We experimentalists can let detectors, graphs etc do it >for us. But we probably design them to measure that way. >>I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it >>morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain >>ol no stinkin reasons. >So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I suppose. >But ignoring whether thats even possible, which unanswered questions >about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask? This is interesting. I think I expect quantum theory can be reduced to mechanics even if it cant be exactly reduced to classical mechanics. Dont forget that Plancks constant was a \ product of classical not quantum mechanics. But classical mechanics had problems especially in its treatment of the orbital characteristics of the newly discovered atom, and I think these can be directly tied to a misunderstanding in classical interpretation of angular momentum. It also obviously had problems in the interpretation of electrodynamics of moving bodies, but I think these can be laid to inexperience with the phenomena under consideration. As to which problems in classical mechanics I choose not to ask, Im not sure there are any. There are many problems in classical mechanics and there are many problems in quantum theory and there are at least some critical issues in relativity, and I would just as soon we ask them all even if we cannot resolve them all out of hand. >Its easy to think of some, since we have quantum mechanics to contrast >with it. Why would an object take just a single trajectory out of the >in\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectories available to it? Conservation of angular momentum? >Why is it possible to develop a mechanics based on the concept of the I suspect it would be a lot easier to develop a quantum mechanics developed such a mechanics it will be a lot easier to develop a mechanics consistent with the electrodynamics of moving bodies. >When an object goes from point A to point B, why should we expect it to >occupy in succession every point along a path from A to B rather than >teleporting to its destination? We dont necessarily. Its just that the \ extrapolation of a mechanics and B in the same terms we describe every point in between. If you or anyone else can explain teleportation in such terms consistent with the designation of A and B as points of properties common to those in between A and B, we can certainly re examine the issue in mechanical terms. >Why should time move forward at the same rate at all points in the >universe? Why should time always move forward at all points in the >universe? Well, time in what I choose to call material terms is just a temporal metric we commonly analyze in terms of EM frequency. In the past it has been measured in other terms of pendulum, balance wheel, or solar frequency. So, if these metrics change throughout the universe in response to velocity or gravitation, I, if not classical mechanics, see no reason our measures of time should not change as well. >The \[CapitalThorn]rst two questions, at least, can be answered by quantum mechanics. >whose position and momentum uncertainties are much smaller than the >interpretation of the \[CapitalThorn]elds is available in the mostly \ ßat and quiescent >spacetime we \[CapitalThorn]nd ourselves in. Well, you dont eliminate issues by failing to address them. You posit certain failings of classical mechanics and then assert that these can be resolved by quantum theory because quantum theory doesnt rely on the issues you posit for classical mechanics. Quantum theory just says it has no idea what these things mean in mechanical terms: theyre just so many empirical ad hoc observations that quantum theory fails to justify on any basis of mechanical interconnectedness either. >All theories have things that are true for no stinkin reason, including >classical mechanics. Theyre called postulates. If they could be >derived from more basic notions they wouldnt be \ postulates. But >sometimes people reach their comfort zone and it doesnt even occur to >them to keep asking what the stinkin reasons are. Yes, well, thats a common failing of axiomatic systems. \ When axioms fail we do indeed tend to move into comfort zones where such questions are no longer asked because we no longer feel comfortable asking questions our axioms cant answer or even address. \ Thats exactly what happened to classical physics. So we replaced these postulates with more comfortable ones known as quantum theory and relativity instead of resolving the issue of failed axioms. >-- >We dont grow up hearing stories around the camp \ \[CapitalThorn]re anymore about >cultural \[CapitalThorn]gures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the >characters that today provide us a common language are corporate >creatures -- Rebecca Tushnet === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >>This is all interesting stuff and Ill have to reread it during the >>day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and >>grainy, and the big deal in the 1920s and later was that energy and >>mass had a fundamental unit and only seemed to be measurable in integer >>multiples of some fundamental quantities---eigen values were invoked to >>observable rotation like a ball on a string or a phonograph. Electrons >>have their spin direction either up or down, or A and B or yes and no >>(to refer to some sort of symmetry)---its too late in the evening for >>me to make sense---Ill try to recall my book \ learnin from 10-15 years >>ago tomorrow--to help us \[CapitalThorn]nd common ground...oh, the poem is from >>Faust, Pt.1, in the witchs kitchen. The poem makes Faust angry, but >>Mephisto exclaims (to the witch that says it),Well done... The >>serpent was the \[CapitalThorn]rst friend to knowledge as we know. >>Ideas that come into peoples heads probably are not in integer >>form, but most likely when tried to come to expression through >>words---we can count them, as in I had an Idea, I had another idea. In >>truth they are each one multifaceted. We like to assign integer >>numbers to things so that we can be good accountants and keep track of >>things, use binary math, etc... All theoreticians must be good >>accountants. We experimentalists can let detectors, graphs etc do it >>for us. But we probably design them to measure that way. >I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it >morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain >ol no stinkin reasons. >>So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I suppose. >>But ignoring whether thats even possible, which \ unanswered questions >>about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask? >This is interesting. I think I expect quantum theory can be reduced to >mechanics even if it cant be exactly reduced to classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics already is a mechanics. Its not classical mechanics, but its quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics can be shown to be a specialization of quantum mechanics. And my understanding is that its impossible to reduce quantum to classical mechanics because classical mechanics doesnt have the concept of a superposition of states. It has statistical mixtures of states, but not superpositions. >Dont forget that Plancks constant was a \ product of classical not >quantum mechanics. Blackbody radiation, as I recall. To handle the integration, Plack threw an exp(h) term in there with the intention of letting h->0 after the integration was completed, but the result was only physically reasonable for a \[CapitalThorn]nite h. There are a lot of problems that can be usefully analyzed semiclassically-- not quite classical, but not quantum enough that we have to resort to Schroedingers equation. >But classical mechanics had problems especially in >its treatment of the orbital characteristics of the newly discovered >atom, and I think these can be directly tied to a misunderstanding in >classical interpretation of angular momentum. It also obviously had >problems in the interpretation of electrodynamics of moving bodies, >but I think these can be laid to inexperience with the phenomena under >consideration. >As to which problems in classical mechanics I choose not to ask, Im >not sure there are any. There are many problems in classical mechanics >and there are many problems in quantum theory and there are at least >some critical issues in relativity, and I would just as soon we ask >them all even if we cannot resolve them all out of hand. >>Its easy to think of some, since we have quantum \ mechanics to contrast >>with it. Why would an object take just a single trajectory out of the >>in\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectories available to it? >Conservation of angular momentum? Feynmans path integral is equivalent to wave mechanics, and classical electromagnetic radiation still conserves angular momentum. >>Why is it possible to develop a mechanics based on the concept of the >I suspect it would be a lot easier to develop a quantum mechanics >developed such a mechanics it will be a lot easier to develop a >mechanics consistent with the electrodynamics of moving bodies. >>When an object goes from point A to point B, why should we expect it to >>occupy in succession every point along a path from A to B rather than >>teleporting to its destination? >We dont necessarily. Its just that the \ extrapolation of a mechanics >and B in the same terms we describe every point in between. If you or >anyone else can explain teleportation in such terms consistent with >the designation of A and B as points of properties common to those in >between A and B, we can certainly re examine the issue in mechanical >terms. Its a generalization of our experience. We see a baseball occupy a succession of points from A to B. A Volkswagon Quantum has never been observed to pass safely through a bridge support or another car. When Ive seen, um, free-thinkers rail against relativity and cry Illogical!, sometimes the only reasonable interpretation seems to be that they dont and take a postulate inspired by experience to be a logical necessity rather than a postulate. But we know that the very fast and the very small dont act like little baseballs, and I \ dont know why we should expect common sense to extend beyond the common phenomena that inspired it. >>Why should time move forward at the same rate at all points in the >>universe? Why should time always move forward at all points in the >>universe? >Well, time in what I choose to call material terms is just a temporal >metric we commonly analyze in terms of EM frequency. In the past it >has been measured in other terms of pendulum, balance wheel, or solar >frequency. So, if these metrics change throughout the universe in >response to velocity or gravitation, I, if not classical mechanics, >see no reason our measures of time should not change as well. Youre not thinking dramatically enough! Its \ not a priori impossible for someone to visit The Vortex in Oregon and come back ten years younger than when he had left. Its not something we observe in practice, but that sort of thing cant be ruled out a priori. But when you look for stinkin reasons, you either have to derive them from a priori necessities, or youve only given a reason in terms of other postulates that have no stinkin reason. And like \ Ive suggested above, a lot of what some people consider a priori necessities are only personal preferences. Consider also the well known point that even if there was a One True Theory that exists, and even if we \[CapitalThorn]nd it, we can never really prove that weve found it. And thats really my basis for \ a distaste of \[CapitalThorn]nding the real reasons for fundamental physics-- anyone who claims theyve found the real reasons as opposed to the fake reasons that merely make all the right predictions have duped themselves; theyre just guessing, and can never do more. >>The \[CapitalThorn]rst two questions, at least, can be answered by quantum mechanics. >>whose position and momentum uncertainties are much smaller than the >>interpretation of the \[CapitalThorn]elds is available in the mostly \ ßat and quiescent >>spacetime we \[CapitalThorn]nd ourselves in. >Well, you dont eliminate issues by failing to address \ them. You posit >certain failings of classical mechanics and then assert that these can >be resolved by quantum theory because quantum theory \ doesnt rely on >the issues you posit for classical mechanics. Quantum theory just says >it has no idea what these things mean in mechanical terms: theyre >just so many empirical ad hoc observations that quantum theory fails >to justify on any basis of mechanical interconnectedness either. The philosophical lesson to take away is that a de\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectory, and not something the metaphysician can just take for granted. An explanation shift us to a different set of unanswered questions. >>All theories have things that are true for no stinkin reason, including >>classical mechanics. Theyre called postulates. If they could be >>derived from more basic notions they wouldnt be postulates. But >>sometimes people reach their comfort zone and it doesnt even occur to >>them to keep asking what the stinkin reasons are. >Yes, well, thats a common failing of axiomatic systems. When axioms >fail we do indeed tend to move into comfort zones where such questions >are no longer asked because we no longer feel comfortable asking >questions our axioms cant answer or even address. \ Thats exactly what >happened to classical physics. So we replaced these postulates with >more comfortable ones known as quantum theory and relativity instead >of resolving the issue of failed axioms. Axioms dont fail-- sets of axioms can fail. They can lead \ to internal contradictions, or they can be empirically falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. Falsi\[CapitalThorn]cation doesnt tell you which axiom was wrong, or even that a \ single axiom was to blame. And virtually any axiom can be asserted true if you change the remainder of the set appropriately. -- Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination. -- Max Planck === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41c10c20.49709196@netnews.att.net> <41c13ddb.56649778@netnews.att.net> said: >Quantum mechanics already is a mechanics. Its not \ classical >mechanics, but its quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics can be >shown to be a specialization of quantum mechanics. Not if you take gravity into account. Or, at least, not yet. >And my understanding is that its impossible to reduce quantum to >classical mechanics because classical mechanics doesnt \ have the >concept of a superposition of states. Classical EM theory has it, and you can do nonrelativistic QM as a hidden variables theory. Of course, you need spooky action at a distance to do it. >Axioms dont fail-- sets of axioms can fail. They can lead \ to >internal contradictions, or they can be empirically \ falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. What you empirically falsify is not the set of axioms, but rather the claim that it applies in a speci\[CapitalThorn]c way to a \ speci\[CapitalThorn]c physical system. That doesnt keep the axiom system from being Mathematically interesting and relevant, or even keep it from being appropriate for a different physical system. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in [. . .] >>I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it >>morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain >>ol no stinkin reasons. >So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I suppose. >But ignoring whether thats even possible, which unanswered questions >about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask? >>This is interesting. I think I expect quantum theory can be reduced to >>mechanics even if it cant be exactly reduced to classical mechanics. >Quantum mechanics already is a mechanics. Its not \ classical mechanics, >but its quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics can be \ shown to be a >specialization of quantum mechanics. And my understanding is that its >impossible to reduce quantum to classical mechanics because classical >mechanics doesnt have the concept of a superposition of states. It has >statistical mixtures of states, but not superpositions. Yeah, here Id like to say that I consider quantum mechanics not a mechanics at all because it is really just a series of principles not relating things de\[CapitalThorn]ned by those principles. I consider that there are certainly quantum effects and there is certainly quantum theory. But I dont see quantum theory explaining transitions between and among various quantum effects. And thats what I consider a mechanics does. Newtonian and classical mechanics generally rested their mechanics not on general observations alone but explanations for transitions between and among observations. Thats mechanics. QM maintains there is no choose of those open to it as long as conservation principles apply in aggregate whereas classical mechanics considers those conservation laws apply in particular as well as in general. And without particular You just wind up with a non material anthropomorphic probability. As far as superposition of states is concerned, I dont know of any tenet of classical mechanics that precludes it if I understand the point correctly. Certainly there is a superposition of properties. [. . .] >Why is it possible to develop a mechanics based on the concept of the >>I suspect it would be a lot easier to develop a quantum mechanics >>developed such a mechanics it will be a lot easier to develop a >>mechanics consistent with the electrodynamics of moving bodies. >When an object goes from point A to point B, why should we expect it to >occupy in succession every point along a path from A to B rather than >teleporting to its destination? >>We dont necessarily. Its just that the \ extrapolation of a mechanics >>and B in the same terms we describe every point in between. If you or >>anyone else can explain teleportation in such terms consistent with >>the designation of A and B as points of properties common to those in >>between A and B, we can certainly re examine the issue in mechanical >>terms. >Its a generalization of our experience. We see a baseball occupy a >succession of points from A to B. A Volkswagon Quantum has never been >observed to pass safely through a bridge support or another car. When >Ive seen, um, free-thinkers rail against relativity and \ cry Illogical!, >sometimes the only reasonable interpretation seems to be that they dont >and take a postulate inspired by experience to be a logical necessity >rather than a postulate. But we know that the very fast and the very >small dont act like little baseballs, and I \ dont know why we should >expect common sense to extend beyond the common phenomena that inspired >it. I agree its a generalization from experience but that it is also a very poorly analyzed generalization because what is being generalized is an amalgm of geometric and material circumstances having no necessary connection to one another. Our experience superimposes geometric spatiality on material circumstances and then maintains that the cause of material circumstances is only certain aspects of the geometry and not the geometry as a whole. We are the ones who characterize some object as existing at point A and then point B according to experience and then we blithely ellide the points in between as if our geometry of paths werent based on all points along the path of motion to begin with. The point of lack of experience is often raised against putative debunkers of relativity when they cry foul. But the point is that Einsteins own suppositions debunk SR contraction hypotheses and not any extrapolated material consequences. The logic is simple if not intuitively obvious to the casual observer: A frame of reference in SR is de\[CapitalThorn]ned in terms of velocity alone (some would argue the term should be relative velocity, but the point is nugatory since velocities are always relative) because all bodies of a common velocity occupy a common frame of reference because they all have zero relative velocity, and bodies with different velocities occupy different frames of reference because they have different relative velocities. Thus the sole mechanical determinant for any frame of reference in SR is velocity and not anything else. However, palpable bodies represent composites of interstitial bodies moving at different velocities relative to one another which means they occupy different frames of reference geometrically overlapping one another. Hence there can be no uniform geometric contraction applying to the body as a whole and thus no geometric explanation for an isotropic frequency dilation as supposed by Einstein in SR. Consequently, as a practical matter there is no geometric contraction at velocity and observed frequency dilations cannot be isotropic and must therefore be anisotropic and be explained by the bidirectional relative velocity of light at right angles to the direction of motion because this factor has exactly the same magnitude as the observed frequency dilation whereas the same factor in the directions of motion does not. Now, the rest of the world can rail against the heavens, but this is what I consider a mechanical explanation for relativistic effects and a mechanical reductio argument against geometric contraction and isotropic frequency dilation in de\[CapitalThorn]ntive logical form. >Why should time move forward at the same rate at all points in the >universe? Why should time always move forward at all points in the >universe? >>Well, time in what I choose to call material terms is just a temporal >>metric we commonly analyze in terms of EM frequency. In the past it >>has been measured in other terms of pendulum, balance wheel, or solar >>frequency. So, if these metrics change throughout the universe in >>response to velocity or gravitation, I, if not classical mechanics, >>see no reason our measures of time should not change as well. >Youre not thinking dramatically enough! This is exactly what makes physicists into drama queens uttering the immortal line: we dont need no stinkin reasons. If you want drama, go on stage. A collateral objective of mine is to get scientists out of drama and back into mundane elementary mechanics instead of acting like a bunch of fairy queens preening and primping on a universal stage. > Its not a priori impossible for >someone to visit The Vortex in Oregon and come back ten years younger than >when he had left. Its not something we observe in \ practice, but that >sort of thing cant be ruled out a priori. I think you mean ten years younger than we are when he gets back. Nothing will make him any younger than he was when he left. In any event there is nothing apriori preventing this as long as he transits all the space in between at velocities probably not exceeding that of light. >But when you look for stinkin reasons, you either have to derive them >from a priori necessities, or youve only given a reason in terms of other >postulates that have no stinkin reason. And like \ Ive suggested above, >a lot of what some people consider a priori necessities are only personal >preferences. No stinkin reason regressions are one of the greatest problems in conventional science. We have to \[CapitalThorn]nd some logical necessity and way to preclude in\[CapitalThorn]nite regression or we have no mechanics or science; we only have more or less self consistent plausibilities. >Consider also the well known point that even if there was a One True >Theory that exists, and even if we \[CapitalThorn]nd it, we can never really prove that >weve found it. And thats really my basis \ for a distaste of \[CapitalThorn]nding the >real reasons for fundamental physics-- anyone who claims theyve found >the real reasons as opposed to the fake reasons that merely make all the >right predictions have duped themselves; theyre just guessing, and can >never do more. Quoth the raven, nevermore. And you know this how? All you can really know empirically is what has been found and not what cant \ be found. What cant be found is a matter of proof and self contradiction and there is none here not born of the frustration of empirical failure to explain.. >The \[CapitalThorn]rst two questions, at least, can be answered by quantum mechanics. >whose position and momentum uncertainties are much smaller than the >interpretation of the \[CapitalThorn]elds is available in the mostly \ ßat and quiescent >spacetime we \[CapitalThorn]nd ourselves in. >>Well, you dont eliminate issues by failing to address them. You posit >>certain failings of classical mechanics and then assert that these can >>be resolved by quantum theory because quantum theory doesnt rely on >>the issues you posit for classical mechanics. Quantum theory just says >>it has no idea what these things mean in mechanical terms: theyre >>just so many empirical ad hoc observations that quantum theory fails >>to justify on any basis of mechanical interconnectedness either. >The philosophical lesson to take away is that a de\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectory, and >not something the metaphysician can just take for granted. An explanation >shift us to a different set of unanswered questions. according to what mechanical necessity. As long as metaphysicians and this will undoubtedly remain the case. When they get around to analyzing the stinkin reasons for their beliefs and what they imagine to be true, however, all that can change. >All theories have things that are true for no stinkin reason, including >classical mechanics. Theyre called postulates. If they could be >derived from more basic notions they wouldnt be \ postulates. But >sometimes people reach their comfort zone and it doesnt even occur to >them to keep asking what the stinkin reasons are. >>Yes, well, thats a common failing of axiomatic systems. When axioms >>fail we do indeed tend to move into comfort zones where such questions >>are no longer asked because we no longer feel comfortable asking >>questions our axioms cant answer or even address. \ Thats exactly what >>happened to classical physics. So we replaced these postulates with >>more comfortable ones known as quantum theory and relativity instead >>of resolving the issue of failed axioms. >Axioms dont fail-- sets of axioms can fail. A distinction without a difference. The plural of axiom is axioms meaning sets of axioms. > They can lead to internal >contradictions, or they can be empirically falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. Falsi\[CapitalThorn]cation >doesnt tell you which axiom was wrong, or even that a single axiom was to >blame. And virtually any axiom can be asserted true if you change the >remainder of the set appropriately. I have yet to see axioms emprically falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. \ Theyre usually only logically contradicted by other axioms when one set fails to explain empirical observations the way another set does. And every set of axioms can be asserted true but that does not make them true. >-- >Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is >poetry, imagination. -- Max Planck Yeah, well empirical observation is only one part of tautologies, and the raveled sleeve of reality is knit up by both halves and not by the emprirical pretense of people who substitute axioms for explanations. -- Lester Zick === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >[. . .] >I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it >morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain >ol no stinkin reasons. >> >>So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I suppose. >>But ignoring whether thats even possible, which \ unanswered questions >>about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask? >This is interesting. I think I expect quantum theory can be reduced to >mechanics even if it cant be exactly reduced to classical mechanics. >>Quantum mechanics already is a mechanics. Its not classical mechanics, >>but its quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics can be shown to be a >>specialization of quantum mechanics. And my understanding is that its >>impossible to reduce quantum to classical mechanics because classical >>mechanics doesnt have the concept of a superposition of states. It has >>statistical mixtures of states, but not superpositions. >Yeah, here Id like to say that I consider quantum \ mechanics not a >mechanics at all because it is really just a series of principles not >relating things de\[CapitalThorn]ned by those principles. I consider that there are >certainly quantum effects and there is certainly quantum theory. But I >dont see quantum theory explaining transitions between and among >various quantum effects. And thats what I consider a mechanics does. Apply the time evolution operator. >Newtonian and classical mechanics generally rested their mechanics not >on general observations alone but explanations for transitions between >and among observations. Thats mechanics. QM maintains \ there is no >choose of those open to it as long as conservation principles apply in >aggregate whereas classical mechanics considers those conservation >laws apply in particular as well as in general. And without particular >You just wind up with a non material anthropomorphic probability. Again I warn you against falling prey to your own hidden assumptions. Quantum mechanics maintains that there is no de\[CapitalThorn]ned path! Not that the even exist in the \[CapitalThorn]rst place. By insisting that a path be taken, youve already inserted a postulate of your own preference, and \ Ill immediately ask you the reason that a single path can be taken. >[. . .] >>Why should time move forward at the same rate at all points in the >>universe? Why should time always move forward at all points in the >>universe? >Well, time in what I choose to call material terms is just a temporal >metric we commonly analyze in terms of EM frequency. In the past it >has been measured in other terms of pendulum, balance wheel, or solar >frequency. So, if these metrics change throughout the universe in >response to velocity or gravitation, I, if not classical mechanics, >see no reason our measures of time should not change as well. >>Youre not thinking dramatically enough! >This is exactly what makes physicists into drama queens uttering the >immortal line: we dont need no stinkin reasons. If you \ want drama, >go on stage. A collateral objective of mine is to get scientists out >of drama and back into mundane elementary mechanics instead of acting >like a bunch of fairy queens preening and primping on a universal >stage. Then let your clock come back from The Vortex rewound. Whatever. >> Its >not a priori impossible for >>someone to visit The Vortex in Oregon and come back ten years younger than >>when he had left. Its not something we observe in practice, but that >>sort of thing cant be ruled out a priori. >I think you mean ten years younger than we are when he gets back. >Nothing will make him any younger than he was when he left. In any >event there is nothing apriori preventing this as long as he transits >all the space in between at velocities probably not exceeding that of >light. >>But when you look for stinkin reasons, you either have to derive them >>from a priori necessities, or youve only given a reason \ in terms of other >>postulates that have no stinkin reason. And like \ Ive suggested above, >>a lot of what some people consider a priori necessities are only personal >>preferences. >No stinkin reason regressions are one of the greatest problems in >conventional science. We have to \[CapitalThorn]nd some logical necessity and way >to preclude in\[CapitalThorn]nite regression or we have no mechanics or science; we >only have more or less self consistent plausibilities. What makes you think mechanics or science are more than self-consistent plausibilities? >>Consider also the well known point that even if there was a One True >>Theory that exists, and even if we \[CapitalThorn]nd it, we can never really prove that >>weve found it. And thats really my basis \ for a distaste of \[CapitalThorn]nding the >>real reasons for fundamental physics-- anyone who claims theyve found >>the real reasons as opposed to the fake reasons that merely make all the >>right predictions have duped themselves; theyre just guessing, and can >>never do more. >Quoth the raven, nevermore. And you know this how? All you can really >know empirically is what has been found and not what cant be found. >What cant be found is a matter of proof and self contradiction and >there is none here not born of the frustration of empirical failure to >explain.. I know this because you cannot measure every part of every phenomenon with in\[CapitalThorn]nite precision from the beginning to the end of time. Weve already missed 15 billions years worth of phenomena! There may be discrepencies hiding a few sig-\[CapitalThorn]gs lower than your most precise measurements. There may be conßicts with phenomena that you havent explored \ yet. Physical constants might change on time scales that are very long compared with the times over which youve made detailed measurements. May be, might-- you dont know, and you cant know. And \ measurements aside, different words can be used to describe the same quantitative predictions. E.g. Lorentzs aether theory and special relativity make \ identical predictions about the observable quantities in electrodynamics. \ Lorentzs theory has an aether whose properties drop out by the time an observable is calculated. We could call that surplus metaphysical baggage, but we certainly cant say its been empirically \ falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. A pre-The Matrix twist on Descartes question, from a philosophy class, is how do you know youre not a brain in a jar with memories and sensory data given you by an interactive computer program, and all your experiences lead you to conclude the wrong laws of nature? [...] >>The philosophical lesson to take away is that a de\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectory, and >>not something the metaphysician can just take for granted. An explanation >>shift us to a different set of unanswered questions. >according to what mechanical necessity. As long as metaphysicians and >this will undoubtedly remain the case. When they get around to >analyzing the stinkin reasons for their beliefs and what they imagine >to be true, however, all that can change. Quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory is a theory of \[CapitalThorn]elds, and it \ is the \[CapitalThorn]eld, not the DeBroglies relation and the superposition principle and you can get sudden and \[CapitalThorn]nite changes in a momentum or energy or something, that can But thats really just a concrete illustration of the more abstract point -- Im giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers and say, ÔStep off, bitch. This is my party and \ youre not invited. -- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_ === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >>[. . .] >>I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it >>morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain >>ol no stinkin reasons. > >So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I suppose. >But ignoring whether thats even possible, which unanswered questions >about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask? >> >>This is interesting. I think I expect quantum theory can be reduced to >>mechanics even if it cant be exactly reduced to classical mechanics. >Quantum mechanics already is a mechanics. Its not \ classical mechanics, >but its quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics can be \ shown to be a >specialization of quantum mechanics. And my understanding is that its >impossible to reduce quantum to classical mechanics because classical >mechanics doesnt have the concept of a superposition of states. It has >statistical mixtures of states, but not superpositions. >>Yeah, here Id like to say that I consider quantum mechanics not a >>mechanics at all because it is really just a series of principles not >>relating things de\[CapitalThorn]ned by those principles. I consider that there are >>certainly quantum effects and there is certainly quantum theory. But I >>dont see quantum theory explaining transitions between \ and among >>various quantum effects. And thats what I consider a mechanics does. >Apply the time evolution operator. Operators are just substitutes for explanations. I understand that Star Trek often employs a Heisenberg compensator. Same principle. >>Newtonian and classical mechanics generally rested their mechanics not >>on general observations alone but explanations for transitions between >>and among observations. Thats mechanics. QM maintains there is no >>choose of those open to it as long as conservation principles apply in >>aggregate whereas classical mechanics considers those conservation >>laws apply in particular as well as in general. And without particular >>You just wind up with a non material anthropomorphic probability. >Again I warn you against falling prey to your own hidden assumptions. >Quantum mechanics maintains that there is no de\[CapitalThorn]ned path! Then what QM maintains is at odds with the geometry underlying your empirical observation of the existence of the same material object at point A then at point B. That empirical observation is what de\[CapitalThorn]nes the geometry involved. Points A and B dont actually exist any more than the path between them. Theyre products of geometry in our minds. And if what QM maintains is at variance with the geometry you employ to de\[CapitalThorn]ne points A and B, it is going to need a new geometry with non linear non contiguous points. Then, of course, itll be dif\[CapitalThorn]cult to de\[CapitalThorn]ne space. But, what the hey, you cant have \ everything. > Not that the >even exist in the \[CapitalThorn]rst place. By insisting that a path be taken, youve >already inserted a postulate of your own preference, and Ill immediately >ask you the reason that a single path can be taken. Because you de\[CapitalThorn]ne it with points A and B. Unless \ youre inserting a postulate of your own preference to the effect that points can exist without lines, and Ill immediately ask you how that trick \ is done in mechanically geometric rather than merely arbitrary postulated terms. [. . .] >>No stinkin reason regressions are one of the greatest problems in >>conventional science. We have to \[CapitalThorn]nd some logical necessity and way >>to preclude in\[CapitalThorn]nite regression or we have no mechanics or science; we >>only have more or less self consistent plausibilities. >What makes you think mechanics or science are more than self-consistent >plausibilities? Well, the point of my observation was the standard of plausibility and not self consistency. If all science is based on is plausibility, it, like Euclidean geometry, rests on a rather sandy foundation. >Consider also the well known point that even if there was a One True >Theory that exists, and even if we \[CapitalThorn]nd it, we can never really prove that >weve found it. And thats really my basis \ for a distaste of \[CapitalThorn]nding the >real reasons for fundamental physics-- anyone who claims theyve found >the real reasons as opposed to the fake reasons that merely make all the >right predictions have duped themselves; theyre just guessing, and can >never do more. >>Quoth the raven, nevermore. And you know this how? All you can really >>know empirically is what has been found and not what cant be found. >>What cant be found is a matter of proof and self contradiction and >>there is none here not born of the frustration of empirical failure to >>explain.. >I know this because you cannot measure every part of every phenomenon with >in\[CapitalThorn]nite precision from the beginning to the end of time. Youre talking empiricism not knowledge. Precisely \ whats wrong with positivism. A thousand years of observations do not an idea make. > Weve already >missed 15 billions years worth of phenomena! There may be discrepencies >hiding a few sig-\[CapitalThorn]gs lower than your most precise measurements. There >may be conßicts with phenomena that you havent \ explored yet. Physical >constants might change on time scales that are very long compared with >the times over which youve made detailed measurements. May be, might-- >you dont know, and you cant know. And \ measurements aside, different >words can be used to describe the same quantitative predictions. E.g. >Lorentzs aether theory and special relativity make identical predictions >about the observable quantities in electrodynamics. Lorentzs theory has >an aether whose properties drop out by the time an observable is >calculated. We could call that surplus metaphysical baggage, but we >certainly cant say its been empirically \ falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. Well, since you chose not comment on my discussion of contraction hypotheses, I cant comment on Lorentz except to say that MM can be performed successfully with radiation polarized normal to the plane of rotation and the absolute motion of the earth through space detected. >A pre-The Matrix twist on Descartes question, from a philosophy class, >is how do you know youre not a brain in a jar with \ memories and sensory >data given you by an interactive computer program, and all your >experiences lead you to conclude the wrong laws of nature? Probably the same way you can know that youre not standing on your head: logical inference. Science should try it some time. >The philosophical lesson to take away is that a de\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectory, and >not something the metaphysician can just take for granted. An explanation >shift us to a different set of unanswered questions. >>according to what mechanical necessity. As long as metaphysicians and >>this will undoubtedly remain the case. When they get around to >>analyzing the stinkin reasons for their beliefs and what they imagine >>to be true, however, all that can change. >Quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory is a theory of \[CapitalThorn]elds, and \ it is the \[CapitalThorn]eld, not the The problem lies in considering anything an irreducible atomic monad. > Throw in >DeBroglies relation and the superposition principle and \ you can get >sudden and \[CapitalThorn]nite changes in a momentum or energy or something, that can Yes, but can they be interpreted as irreducible atomic monads? >But thats really just a concrete illustration of the more abstract point will \[CapitalThorn]nd yourself in the enviable position of being able to explain >Im giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers >and say, ÔStep off, bitch. This is my party and \ youre not invited. > -- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_ Im not allowed out much anyway because I step on too many toes. -- Lester Zick === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >[. . .] >I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it >morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain >ol no stinkin reasons. >> >>So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I >suppose. >>But ignoring whether thats even possible, which \ unanswered questions >>about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask? > >This is interesting. I think I expect quantum theory can be reduced to >mechanics even if it cant be exactly reduced to classical mechanics. >> >>Quantum mechanics already is a mechanics. Its not classical mechanics, >>but its quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics can be shown to be a >>specialization of quantum mechanics. And my understanding is that its >>impossible to reduce quantum to classical mechanics because classical >>mechanics doesnt have the concept of a superposition of states. It has >>statistical mixtures of states, but not superpositions. >Yeah, here Id like to say that I consider quantum \ mechanics not a >mechanics at all because it is really just a series of principles not >relating things de\[CapitalThorn]ned by those principles. I consider that there are >certainly quantum effects and there is certainly quantum theory. But I >dont see quantum theory explaining transitions between and among >various quantum effects. And thats what I consider a mechanics does. >>Apply the time evolution operator. >Operators are just substitutes for explanations. I understand that >Star Trek often employs a Heisenberg compensator. Same principle. Did you think F=ma is any more explanatory? The potential in quantum mechanics has the same role as the index of refraction in optics. And, in a sense, the same role as force in classical mechanics. A wave packet will tend to be drawn toward low spots of the potential and pushed away from high spots. Electrons are bound to atoms because of the attractive force between the two; an atom can transition to a higher energy state when, e.g., another atom bumps into it and pushes the peices around. >Newtonian and classical mechanics generally rested their mechanics not >on general observations alone but explanations for transitions between >and among observations. Thats mechanics. QM maintains \ there is no >choose of those open to it as long as conservation principles apply in >aggregate whereas classical mechanics considers those conservation >laws apply in particular as well as in general. And without particular >You just wind up with a non material anthropomorphic probability. >>Again I warn you against falling prey to your own hidden assumptions. >>Quantum mechanics maintains that there is no de\[CapitalThorn]ned path! >Then what QM maintains is at odds with the geometry underlying your >empirical observation of the existence of the same material object at >point A then at point B. That empirical observation is what de\[CapitalThorn]nes >the geometry involved. Points A and B dont actually exist any more >than the path between them. Theyre products of geometry in our minds. >And if what QM maintains is at variance with the geometry you employ >to de\[CapitalThorn]ne points A and B, it is going to need a new geometry with non >linear non contiguous points. Then, of course, itll be dif\[CapitalThorn]cult to >de\[CapitalThorn]ne space. But, what the hey, you cant have \ everything. >> > Not that the >>even exist in the \[CapitalThorn]rst place. By insisting that a path be taken, youve >>already inserted a postulate of your own preference, and Ill immediately >>ask you the reason that a single path can be taken. >Because you de\[CapitalThorn]ne it with points A and B. Unless \ youre inserting a >postulate of your own preference to the effect that points can exist >without lines, and Ill immediately ask you how that trick is done in >mechanically geometric rather than merely arbitrary postulated terms. I didnt realize you were assuming a linear path from A to B even in the classical sense. Paths, linear or otherwise, can be de\[CapitalThorn]ned in quantum mechanics. But they are, as you said, geometry. It in no way implies wave takes. >[. . .] >No stinkin reason regressions are one of the greatest problems in >conventional science. We have to \[CapitalThorn]nd some logical necessity and way >to preclude in\[CapitalThorn]nite regression or we have no mechanics or science; we >only have more or less self consistent plausibilities. >>What makes you think mechanics or science are more than self-consistent >>plausibilities? >Well, the point of my observation was the standard of plausibility >and not self consistency. If all science is based on is plausibility, >it, like Euclidean geometry, rests on a rather sandy foundation. Get used to it. As Poincare said, science doesnt tell you what things are. It organizes relationships between them, and any theory is a true theory to the extent that if faithfully describes those relationships within the theorys valid regime of application. Read \ Science and Hypothesis by Poincare, which is usefully close to modern views on the philosophy of science despite being a hundred years old. >>Consider also the well known point that even if there was a One True >>Theory that exists, and even if we \[CapitalThorn]nd it, we can never really prove that >>weve found it. And thats really my basis \ for a distaste of \[CapitalThorn]nding the >>real reasons for fundamental physics-- anyone who claims theyve found >>the real reasons as opposed to the fake reasons that merely make all the >>right predictions have duped themselves; theyre just guessing, and can >>never do more. >Quoth the raven, nevermore. And you know this how? All you can really >know empirically is what has been found and not what cant be found. >What cant be found is a matter of proof and self contradiction and >there is none here not born of the frustration of empirical failure to >explain.. >>I know this because you cannot measure every part of every phenomenon with >>in\[CapitalThorn]nite precision from the beginning to the end of time. >Youre talking empiricism not knowledge. Precisely \ whats wrong with >positivism. A thousand years of observations do not an idea make. Science is an empirical practice. A theory is good if and only if it stands up to empirical scrutiny. If it cant, the theory is ßawed. And if you cant measure every part of every phenomenon with in\[CapitalThorn]nite precision from the beginning to the end of time, then you might never know you have a ßawed theory. > Weve already >>missed 15 billions years worth of phenomena! There may be discrepencies >>hiding a few sig-\[CapitalThorn]gs lower than your most precise measurements. There >>may be conßicts with phenomena that you havent \ explored yet. Physical >>constants might change on time scales that are very long compared with >>the times over which youve made detailed measurements. \ May be, might-- >>you dont know, and you cant know. And \ measurements aside, different >>words can be used to describe the same quantitative predictions. E.g. >>Lorentzs aether theory and special relativity make identical predictions >>about the observable quantities in electrodynamics. Lorentzs theory has >>an aether whose properties drop out by the time an observable is >>calculated. We could call that surplus metaphysical baggage, but we >>certainly cant say its been empirically \ falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. >Well, since you chose not comment on my discussion of contraction >hypotheses, I cant comment on Lorentz except to say that \ MM can be >performed successfully with radiation polarized normal to the plane of >rotation and the absolute motion of the earth through space detected. Okay, Ill comment on it. The Lorentz transforms form a group, which means if you think you \[CapitalThorn]nd a contradiction in them, you owe it to yourself to \[CapitalThorn]gure out why youre wrong. In your particular example, the length of an object is de\[CapitalThorn]ned by the hollow cube, is moving around in there, that doesnt make a bit of difference as long as you know what you want to call the front and what you want to call the back. The gas molecule might itself have a different length contraction than the block as a whole, but if its between the front and back in any frame, it will be between the front and back in all frames. The object itself isnt even necessary. Pick any two points. >>A pre-The Matrix twist on Descartes question, from a philosophy class, >>is how do you know youre not a brain in a jar with memories and sensory >>data given you by an interactive computer program, and all your >>experiences lead you to conclude the wrong laws of nature? >Probably the same way you can know that youre not standing on your >head: logical inference. Science should try it some time. How is your logical inference different from the way you want things to be? Logic doesnt tell you what your premises have to be, which is why its always bugged me when Vulcans in Star Trek go running around saying Thats illogical. Its pragmatic to suppose \ that youre not a brain in a jar being fed false experiences, but you cant prove it from a priori considerations. >>The philosophical lesson to take away is that a de\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectory, and >>not something the metaphysician can just take for granted. An explanation >>shift us to a different set of unanswered questions. >according to what mechanical necessity. As long as metaphysicians and >this will undoubtedly remain the case. When they get around to >analyzing the stinkin reasons for their beliefs and what they imagine >to be true, however, all that can change. >>Quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory is a theory of \[CapitalThorn]elds, and \ it is the \[CapitalThorn]eld, not the >The problem lies in considering anything an irreducible atomic monad. Well, I dont ask a model to be a monad. But \ isnt a monad exactly what you were looking for with a sort-of classical description of quantum mechanics? >> > Throw in >>DeBroglies relation and the superposition principle and you can get >>sudden and \[CapitalThorn]nite changes in a momentum or energy or something, that can >Yes, but can they be interpreted as irreducible atomic monads? www.dictionary.com describes a monad as An indivisible, impenetrable unit of substance viewed as the basic constituent element of physical reality in the metaphysics of Leibnitz. No, a \[CapitalThorn]eld cannot be interpreted literally as a monad. \ Its not impenetrable, it probably doesnt make sense to call it divisible or indivisible. And Leibnitz probably had a stronger opinion of the ultimate truthness of it than I would admit in a theory. But more loosely, as the basic quantity in a model from which electrons and atoms and baseballs can be derived, sure. >>But thats really just a concrete illustration of the more abstract point >will \[CapitalThorn]nd yourself in the enviable position of being able to explain interacting quantum \[CapitalThorn]elds. I think you must have meant an explanation with elements that nobody thinks to ask the explanation of. -- Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >> >> >>[. . .] >> >>I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it >>morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain >>ol no stinkin reasons. > >So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I >>suppose. >But ignoring whether thats even possible, which unanswered questions >about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask? >> >>This is interesting. I think I expect quantum theory can be reduced to >>mechanics even if it cant be exactly reduced to classical mechanics. > >Quantum mechanics already is a mechanics. Its not \ classical mechanics, >but its quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics can be \ shown to be a >specialization of quantum mechanics. And my understanding is that its >impossible to reduce quantum to classical mechanics because classical >mechanics doesnt have the concept of a superposition of states. It has >statistical mixtures of states, but not superpositions. >> >>Yeah, here Id like to say that I consider quantum mechanics not a >>mechanics at all because it is really just a series of principles not >>relating things de\[CapitalThorn]ned by those principles. I consider that there are >>certainly quantum effects and there is certainly quantum theory. But I >>dont see quantum theory explaining transitions between \ and among >>various quantum effects. And thats what I consider a mechanics does. >Apply the time evolution operator. >>Operators are just substitutes for explanations. I understand that >>Star Trek often employs a Heisenberg compensator. Same principle. >Did you think F=ma is any more explanatory? Oh, hell, yes. F, m, and a are explained in terms of one another. QM merely asserts there is some explanation but cant say what it is. >The potential in quantum mechanics has the same role as the index of >refraction in optics. And, in a sense, the same role as force in >classical mechanics. A wave packet will tend to be drawn toward low spots >of the potential and pushed away from high spots. Electrons are bound to >atoms because of the attractive force between the two; an atom can >transition to a higher energy state when, e.g., another atom bumps into it >and pushes the peices around. Yes, yes, this is all very interesting. I always imagined there was some reason electrons didnt go marching down Main Street in unison on New Years Day. QM just doesnt explain what all this anthropomorphism really amount to. >>Newtonian and classical mechanics generally rested their mechanics not >>on general observations alone but explanations for transitions between >>and among observations. Thats mechanics. QM maintains there is no >>choose of those open to it as long as conservation principles apply in >>aggregate whereas classical mechanics considers those conservation >>laws apply in particular as well as in general. And without particular >>You just wind up with a non material anthropomorphic probability. >Again I warn you against falling prey to your own hidden assumptions. >Quantum mechanics maintains that there is no de\[CapitalThorn]ned path! >>Then what QM maintains is at odds with the geometry underlying your >>empirical observation of the existence of the same material object at >>point A then at point B. That empirical observation is what de\[CapitalThorn]nes >>the geometry involved. Points A and B dont actually exist any more >>than the path between them. Theyre products of geometry \ in our minds. >>And if what QM maintains is at variance with the geometry you employ >>to de\[CapitalThorn]ne points A and B, it is going to need a new geometry with non >>linear non contiguous points. Then, of course, itll be dif\[CapitalThorn]cult to >>de\[CapitalThorn]ne space. But, what the hey, you cant \ have everything. > >> Not that the >even exist in the \[CapitalThorn]rst place. By insisting that a path be taken, youve >already inserted a postulate of your own preference, and Ill immediately >ask you the reason that a single path can be taken. >>Because you de\[CapitalThorn]ne it with points A and B. Unless \ youre inserting a >>postulate of your own preference to the effect that points can exist >>without lines, and Ill immediately ask you how that trick is done in >>mechanically geometric rather than merely arbitrary postulated terms. >I didnt realize you were assuming a linear path from A to \ B even in the >classical sense. Paths, linear or otherwise, can be de\[CapitalThorn]ned in quantum >mechanics. But they are, as you said, geometry. It in no way implies >wave takes. So, your references to points A and B were metaphorical? I dont >>No stinkin reason regressions are one of the greatest problems in >>conventional science. We have to \[CapitalThorn]nd some logical necessity and way >>to preclude in\[CapitalThorn]nite regression or we have no mechanics or science; we >>only have more or less self consistent plausibilities. >What makes you think mechanics or science are more than self-consistent >plausibilities? >>Well, the point of my observation was the standard of plausibility >>and not self consistency. If all science is based on is plausibility, >>it, like Euclidean geometry, rests on a rather sandy foundation. >Get used to it. As Poincare said, science doesnt tell you what things >are. It organizes relationships between them, and any theory is a true >theory to the extent that if faithfully describes those relationships >within the theorys valid regime of application. Read Science and >Hypothesis by Poincare, which is usefully close to modern views on the >philosophy of science despite being a hundred years old. No, no. Science tells us what things are. Thats why we keep it around. Its mysticism that doesnt tell us \ what things are but maintains it needs to be kept around as a substitute for science. >Consider also the well known point that even if there was a One True >Theory that exists, and even if we \[CapitalThorn]nd it, we can never really prove that >weve found it. And thats really my basis \ for a distaste of \[CapitalThorn]nding the >real reasons for fundamental physics-- anyone who claims theyve found >the real reasons as opposed to the fake reasons that merely make all the >right predictions have duped themselves; theyre just guessing, and can >never do more. >> >>Quoth the raven, nevermore. And you know this how? All you can really >>know empirically is what has been found and not what cant be found. >>What cant be found is a matter of proof and self contradiction and >>there is none here not born of the frustration of empirical failure to >>explain.. >I know this because you cannot measure every part of every phenomenon with >in\[CapitalThorn]nite precision from the beginning to the end of time. >>Youre talking empiricism not knowledge. Precisely \ whats wrong with >>positivism. A thousand years of observations do not an idea make. >Science is an empirical practice. A theory is good if and only if it >stands up to empirical scrutiny. If it cant, the theory is ßawed. And >if you cant measure every part of every phenomenon with in\[CapitalThorn]nite >precision from the beginning to the end of time, then you might never know >you have a ßawed theory. And my point is empiricists never empirically know anything. >> Weve already >missed 15 billions years worth of phenomena! There may be discrepencies >hiding a few sig-\[CapitalThorn]gs lower than your most precise measurements. There >may be conßicts with phenomena that you havent \ explored yet. Physical >constants might change on time scales that are very long compared with >the times over which youve made detailed measurements. May be, might-- >you dont know, and you cant know. And \ measurements aside, different >words can be used to describe the same quantitative predictions. E.g. >Lorentzs aether theory and special relativity make identical predictions >about the observable quantities in electrodynamics. Lorentzs theory has >an aether whose properties drop out by the time an observable is >calculated. We could call that surplus metaphysical baggage, but we >certainly cant say its been empirically \ falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. >>Well, since you chose not comment on my discussion of contraction >>hypotheses, I cant comment on Lorentz except to say that MM can be >>performed successfully with radiation polarized normal to the plane of >>rotation and the absolute motion of the earth through space detected. >Okay, Ill comment on it. The Lorentz transforms form a group, which >means if you think you \[CapitalThorn]nd a contradiction in them, you owe it to >yourself to \[CapitalThorn]gure out why youre wrong. >In your particular example, the length of an object is de\[CapitalThorn]ned by the >hollow cube, is moving around in there, that doesnt make a bit of >difference as long as you know what you want to call the front and what >you want to call the back. The gas molecule might itself have a different >length contraction than the block as a whole, but if its between the >front and back in any frame, it will be between the front and back in all >frames. The object itself isnt even necessary. Pick any \ two points. how do we average all these different frames of reference since any average of vs would be linear but the effect is non linear? Einsteins geometric contraction hypothesis applies to a \ body moving at any particular velocity. Different vs, different contraction factors. So, which geometry applies to the group of interstitial bodies that constitute the body as a whole that Einstein uses to explain frequency dilation at v when there are numerous different vs? Surely, youre not going to say net v for the body as whole because there is no body as a whole; there are only aggregates of interstitial frames of reference with vs of their own. And \ vs average linearly whereas frequency dilation factors are non linear. >A pre-The Matrix twist on Descartes question, from a philosophy class, >is how do you know youre not a brain in a jar with \ memories and sensory >data given you by an interactive computer program, and all your >experiences lead you to conclude the wrong laws of nature? >>Probably the same way you can know that youre not \ standing on your >>head: logical inference. Science should try it some time. >How is your logical inference different from the way you want things to >be? It doesnt. Its just different from empirical \ observation. Empirical observation isnt knowledge. Logical inference is. It may be right or wrong knowledge, but its the only form of knowledge there \ is. >Logic doesnt tell you what your premises have to be, which is why its >always bugged me when Vulcans in Star Trek go running around saying >Thats illogical. Its pragmatic to suppose \ that youre not a brain in >a jar being fed false experiences, but you cant prove it from a priori >considerations. Well, you are a brain in a jar, the skull, being fed experiences by the senses, and its up to the brain in the jar to decipher truth from falsity through logical inference. I dont know what a \ priori considerations are and neither does anyone else except to say that theyre assumptions, neither true nor false. >The philosophical lesson to take away is that a de\[CapitalThorn]nite trajectory, and >not something the metaphysician can just take for granted. An explanation >shift us to a different set of unanswered questions. >> >>according to what mechanical necessity. As long as metaphysicians and >>this will undoubtedly remain the case. When they get around to >>analyzing the stinkin reasons for their beliefs and what they imagine >>to be true, however, all that can change. >Quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory is a theory of \[CapitalThorn]elds, and \ it is the \[CapitalThorn]eld, not the >>The problem lies in considering anything an irreducible atomic monad. >Well, I dont ask a model to be a monad. But \ isnt a monad exactly what >you were looking for with a sort-of classical description of quantum >mechanics? Yeah, therein lies a tale of woe for classical and contemporary physics. What Im looking for is an Einstein compensator, an effect called anisotropic time, that explains relativistic frequency dilation without the mystic mumbo jumbo of longitudinal contraction and nonsensical geometric distortion, and a Planck compensator that explains the origin of Plancks constant in purely \ analytical terms of deducible instead of postulated. And both compensators exist. >> Throw in >DeBroglies relation and the superposition principle and \ you can get >sudden and \[CapitalThorn]nite changes in a momentum or energy or something, that can >>Yes, but can they be interpreted as irreducible atomic monads? >www.dictionary.com describes a monad as An indivisible, impenetrable unit >of substance viewed as the basic constituent element of physical reality >in the metaphysics of Leibnitz. >No, a \[CapitalThorn]eld cannot be interpreted literally as a monad. \ Its not >impenetrable, it probably doesnt make sense to call it divisible or >indivisible. And Leibnitz probably had a stronger opinion of the >ultimate truthness of it than I would admit in a theory. But more >loosely, as the basic quantity in a model from which electrons and atoms >and baseballs can be derived, sure. As long as they arent atomic monads. Whats \ irreducible about >But thats really just a concrete illustration of the more abstract point >>will \[CapitalThorn]nd yourself in the enviable position of being able to explain >interacting quantum \[CapitalThorn]elds. nice that interacting quantum \[CapitalThorn]elds can be interpreted one way or >I think you must have meant an explanation with elements that nobody >thinks to ask the explanation of. No, I mean an explanation with elements that nobody needs to ask the explanation of because the explanation is evident in the explanation without interpretation or the divine intercession of an interpreter. >-- >Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of >Congress... But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in [...] >>Did you think F=ma is any more explanatory? >Oh, hell, yes. F, m, and a are explained in terms of one another. QM >merely asserts there is some explanation but cant say what it is. >>The potential in quantum mechanics has the same role as the index of >>refraction in optics. And, in a sense, the same role as force in >>classical mechanics. A wave packet will tend to be drawn toward low spots >>of the potential and pushed away from high spots. Electrons are bound to >>atoms because of the attractive force between the two; an atom can >>transition to a higher energy state when, e.g., another atom bumps into it >>and pushes the peices around. >Yes, yes, this is all very interesting. I always imagined there was >some reason electrons didnt go marching down Main Street \ in unison on >New Years Day. QM just doesnt explain what all this anthropomorphism >really amount to. If you like F=ma, then I dont know why youd \ have a problem with a wavefunction attracted to lows and repelled from highs in the potential. Do you know how force and potential energy are related? And did you, by any chance, notice that force in classical mechanics isnt itself explained, but simply de\[CapitalThorn]ned as that which causes an acceleration? [...] >>What makes you think mechanics or science are more than self-consistent >>plausibilities? >Well, the point of my observation was the standard of plausibility >and not self consistency. If all science is based on is plausibility, >it, like Euclidean geometry, rests on a rather sandy foundation. >>Get used to it. As Poincare said, science doesnt tell you what things >>are. It organizes relationships between them, and any theory is a true >>theory to the extent that if faithfully describes those relationships >>within the theorys valid regime of application. Read Science and >>Hypothesis by Poincare, which is usefully close to modern views on the >>philosophy of science despite being a hundred years old. >No, no. Science tells us what things are. Thats why we \ keep it >around. Its mysticism that doesnt tell us \ what things are but >maintains it needs to be kept around as a substitute for science. Science has grown out of that viewpoint after a few theories that say what things are have fallen away. But to claim to know what things REALLY are seems far more akin to claiming knowledge about spirits and other unmeasurables to me. [...] >Youre talking empiricism not knowledge. Precisely \ whats wrong with >positivism. A thousand years of observations do not an idea make. >>Science is an empirical practice. A theory is good if and only if it >>stands up to empirical scrutiny. If it cant, the theory \ is ßawed. And >>if you cant measure every part of every phenomenon with in\[CapitalThorn]nite >>precision from the beginning to the end of time, then you might never know >>you have a ßawed theory. >And my point is empiricists never empirically know anything. You cant have missed the existence of modern technology, so I think you must be using a personal, restrictive de\[CapitalThorn]nition of what it means to know something. [...] >Well, since you chose not comment on my discussion of contraction >hypotheses, I cant comment on Lorentz except to say that \ MM can be >performed successfully with radiation polarized normal to the plane of >rotation and the absolute motion of the earth through space detected. >>Okay, Ill comment on it. The Lorentz transforms form a group, which >>means if you think you \[CapitalThorn]nd a contradiction in them, you owe it to >>yourself to \[CapitalThorn]gure out why youre wrong. >>In your particular example, the length of an object is de\[CapitalThorn]ned by the >>hollow cube, is moving around in there, that doesnt make \ a bit of >>difference as long as you know what you want to call the front and what >>you want to call the back. The gas molecule might itself have a different >>length contraction than the block as a whole, but if its between the >>front and back in any frame, it will be between the front and back in all >>frames. The object itself isnt even necessary. Pick any two points. >how do we average all these different frames of reference since any >average of vs would be linear but the effect is non \ linear? If you want to calculate a length from the frame of each individual observer is not oberving simultaneously from all those different reference frames. The observer observes from his own rest frame. >Einsteins geometric contraction hypothesis applies to a body moving >at any particular velocity. Different vs, different contraction >factors. So, which geometry applies to the group of interstitial >bodies that constitute the body as a whole that Einstein uses to >explain frequency dilation at v when there are numerous different vs? >Surely, youre not going to say net v for the body as whole because >there is no body as a whole; there are only aggregates of interstitial >frames of reference with vs of their own. And \ vs average linearly >whereas frequency dilation factors are non linear. Einsteins geometric contraction hypothesis relates a length measured in one frame to a length measured in another frame. When you, Lester, measure (taking an example from in front of me) the diameter of a Vanilla Pepsi can, do you need to measure the speeds of each individual atom within the can? Review the derivation of length contraction and the de\[CapitalThorn]nition of length that is used. >>A pre-The Matrix twist on Descartes question, from a philosophy class, >>is how do you know youre not a brain in a jar with memories and sensory >>data given you by an interactive computer program, and all your >>experiences lead you to conclude the wrong laws of nature? >Probably the same way you can know that youre not standing on your >head: logical inference. Science should try it some time. >>How is your logical inference different from the way you want things to >>be? >It doesnt. Its just different from \ empirical observation. Empirical >observation isnt knowledge. Logical inference is. It may \ be right or >wrong knowledge, but its the only form of knowledge there is. Logical inference without data is fantasy. If youre not beholden to empirical observation, you can build any kind of abstract world that you like. >>Logic doesnt tell you what your premises have to be, \ which is why its >>always bugged me when Vulcans in Star Trek go running around saying >>Thats illogical. Its pragmatic to suppose \ that youre not a brain in >>a jar being fed false experiences, but you cant prove it from a priori >>considerations. >Well, you are a brain in a jar, the skull, being fed experiences by >the senses, and its up to the brain in the jar to decipher truth from >falsity through logical inference. I dont know what a \ priori >considerations are and neither does anyone else except to say that >theyre assumptions, neither true nor false. A priori means knowable without reference to particular facts or experience. Your logical inference is something that is done with postulates. Where do those postulates come from? As far as I can tell, you want postulates that do not appeal to any particular facts or experiences, and yet say something useful about particular facts or exeriences. Good luck. [...] >>I think you must have meant an explanation with elements that nobody >>thinks to ask the explanation of. >No, I mean an explanation with elements that nobody needs to ask the >explanation of because the explanation is evident in the explanation >without interpretation or the divine intercession of an interpreter. The explanation is evident in the explanation? Go right ahead, but I urge you again to be careful of unstated assumptions without which the explanation would not be so evident. interpretation of quantum \[CapitalThorn]elds. Theres \ another view advanced by a a basic result in ßuid mechanics, for instance, that two vortices will attract or repel each other, according to the relative directions of their spin axes, analogously to a Coulomb force. He likes to think of a ßuid thats ultimately particulate, but ßuid mechanics is typically done in the continuum limit and I see no logical problem with assuming the ßuid is itself a continuum. and necessary, youre fooling yourself. First, because you know from priori knowledge. Even if there were no concrete examples there will always be possibilities that just havent occured to you \ yet, or the possibility that there are possibilities that havent \ occured to you yet. -- Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids. -- 1 Samuel 6:11 === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in >[...] >Did you think F=ma is any more explanatory? >>Oh, hell, yes. F, m, and a are explained in terms of one another. QM >>merely asserts there is some explanation but cant say \ what it is. >The potential in quantum mechanics has the same role as the index of >refraction in optics. And, in a sense, the same role as force in >classical mechanics. A wave packet will tend to be drawn toward low spots >of the potential and pushed away from high spots. Electrons are bound to >atoms because of the attractive force between the two; an atom can >transition to a higher energy state when, e.g., another atom bumps into it >and pushes the peices around. >>Yes, yes, this is all very interesting. I always imagined there was >>some reason electrons didnt go marching down Main Street in unison on >>New Years Day. QM just doesnt explain what all this anthropomorphism >>really amount to. >If you like F=ma, then I dont know why youd \ have a problem with a >wavefunction attracted to lows and repelled from highs in the potential. >Do you know how force and potential energy are related? I assume you know how they are related. Do you know why they are related? >And did you, by any chance, notice that force in classical mechanics isnt >itself explained, but simply de\[CapitalThorn]ned as that which causes an acceleration? Well, force causes acceleration; it doesnt cause an acceleration unless mediated by mass. What kind of explanation do you expect for force? What kind of explanation for force or mass or even acceleration is possible? I dont say no better explanation for force \ etc. is possible. I do say that Newton explained what he could of force pretty effectively. Mechanics engages in a mechanical reduction of causes by explaining factors in terms of one another. >[...] >What makes you think mechanics or science are more than self-consistent >plausibilities? >> >>Well, the point of my observation was the standard of plausibility >>and not self consistency. If all science is based on is plausibility, >>it, like Euclidean geometry, rests on a rather sandy foundation. >Get used to it. As Poincare said, science doesnt tell you what things >are. It organizes relationships between them, and any theory is a true >theory to the extent that if faithfully describes those relationships >within the theorys valid regime of application. Read Science and >Hypothesis by Poincare, which is usefully close to modern views on the >philosophy of science despite being a hundred years old. >>No, no. Science tells us what things are. Thats why we keep it >>around. Its mysticism that doesnt tell us \ what things are but >>maintains it needs to be kept around as a substitute for science. >Science has grown out of that viewpoint after a few theories that say what >things are have fallen away. None of the macro cause and effect theories Im familiar \ with have fallen away. They have merely been supplanted at the micro level by QM postulates which turn out to be true but of ambiguous origin in the sense that they dont explain what they explain or fail to explain. If classical mechanics had taken a similar route, we would still be doing classical mechanics supplemented by arbitrary postulates of dubious orign and ambiguous mechanical signi\[CapitalThorn]cance. >But to claim to know what things REALLY are seems far more akin to >claiming knowledge about spirits and other unmeasurables to me. Not necessarily although I have to admit that such a conclusion certainly mirrors contemporary thinking. Personally I consider that if one can show that alternatives of a speci\[CapitalThorn]c empirical theory are inherently self contradictory truth of the theory itself is necessary. Conversely, showing self contradiction within an empirical theory shows the theory to be false regardless of what experiments fail to contradict, which is the approach Ive taken with special relativity. >[...] >>Youre talking empiricism not knowledge. Precisely \ whats wrong with >>positivism. A thousand years of observations do not an idea make. >Science is an empirical practice. A theory is good if and only if it >stands up to empirical scrutiny. If it cant, the theory is ßawed. And >if you cant measure every part of every phenomenon with in\[CapitalThorn]nite >precision from the beginning to the end of time, then you might never know >you have a ßawed theory. >>And my point is empiricists never empirically know anything. >You cant have missed the existence of modern technology, \ so I think you >must be using a personal, restrictive de\[CapitalThorn]nition of what it means to know >something. I think youll \[CapitalThorn]nd development of modern \ technology is largely a reßection of classical mechanics with the enhancement of quantum theories. I dont know many machines that inherently rely on quantum ambiguity. We certainly have things like tunneling diodes that rely on quantum suppositions. But those suppositions themselves are not based on any mechanical understanding of the forces at work. They are just suppositions that turn out to reßect poorly understood mechanisms. >[...] >>Well, since you chose not comment on my discussion of contraction >>hypotheses, I cant comment on Lorentz except to say that MM can be >>performed successfully with radiation polarized normal to the plane of >>rotation and the absolute motion of the earth through space detected. >Okay, Ill comment on it. The Lorentz transforms form a group, which >means if you think you \[CapitalThorn]nd a contradiction in them, you owe it to >yourself to \[CapitalThorn]gure out why youre wrong. >In your particular example, the length of an object is de\[CapitalThorn]ned by the >hollow cube, is moving around in there, that doesnt make a bit of >difference as long as you know what you want to call the front and what >you want to call the back. The gas molecule might itself have a different >length contraction than the block as a whole, but if its between the >front and back in any frame, it will be between the front and back in all >frames. The object itself isnt even necessary. Pick any \ two points. >>how do we average all these different frames of reference since any >>average of vs would be linear but the effect is non \ linear? >If you want to calculate a length from the frame of each individual >observer is not oberving simultaneously from all those different reference >frames. The observer observes from his own rest frame. OK. Back to the observer paradox. I guess weve regressed to ground zero for relativistic explanations because I dont need an observer to explain and justify my geometric conclusions but relativity does. >>Einsteins geometric contraction hypothesis applies to a body moving >>at any particular velocity. Different vs, different contraction >>factors. So, which geometry applies to the group of interstitial >>bodies that constitute the body as a whole that Einstein uses to >>explain frequency dilation at v when there are numerous different vs? >>Surely, youre not going to say net v for the body as \ whole because >>there is no body as a whole; there are only aggregates of interstitial >>frames of reference with vs of their own. And \ vs average linearly >>whereas frequency dilation factors are non linear. >Einsteins geometric contraction hypothesis relates a \ length measured in >one frame to a length measured in another frame. When you, Lester, >measure (taking an example from in front of me) the diameter of a >Vanilla Pepsi can, do you need to measure the speeds of each individual >atom within the can? Review the derivation of length contraction and the >de\[CapitalThorn]nition of length that is used. I dont need to measure anything in my spatial geometry because the problem is logic and not geometry. You, on the other hand, need to resort to observers and personalized measurement because the spatial geometry in relativity contradiction hypotheses is self contradictory on its own terms. >A pre-The Matrix twist on Descartes question, from a philosophy class, >is how do you know youre not a brain in a jar with \ memories and sensory >data given you by an interactive computer program, and all your >experiences lead you to conclude the wrong laws of nature? >> >>Probably the same way you can know that youre not \ standing on your >>head: logical inference. Science should try it some time. >How is your logical inference different from the way you want things to >be? >>It doesnt. Its just different from \ empirical observation. Empirical >>observation isnt knowledge. Logical inference is. It may be right or >>wrong knowledge, but its the only form of knowledge there is. >Logical inference without data is fantasy. If youre not beholden to >empirical observation, you can build any kind of abstract world that you >like. I never suggested inference without data. Empirical observations are the data. Logical inference is what we make of the data interrelated. >Logic doesnt tell you what your premises have to be, which is why its >always bugged me when Vulcans in Star Trek go running around saying >Thats illogical. Its pragmatic to suppose \ that youre not a brain in >a jar being fed false experiences, but you cant prove it from a priori >considerations. >>Well, you are a brain in a jar, the skull, being fed experiences by >>the senses, and its up to the brain in the jar to \ decipher truth from >>falsity through logical inference. I dont know what a priori >>considerations are and neither does anyone else except to say that >>theyre assumptions, neither true nor false. >A priori means knowable without reference to particular facts or >experience. Your logical inference is something that is done with >postulates. Where do those postulates come from? As far as I can tell, >you want postulates that do not appeal to any particular facts or >experiences, and yet say something useful about particular facts or >exeriences. Good luck. Goodness has nothing to do with it. Nor do postulates. What you do need is mechanically irreducible and unregressable truth, by which I mean some empirical observation which is irreducible because alternatives are self contradictory. Logical inference is then done with that mechanism on other reducible empirical observations to determine their relations to one another. >[...] >I think you must have meant an explanation with elements that nobody >thinks to ask the explanation of. >>No, I mean an explanation with elements that nobody needs to ask the >>explanation of because the explanation is evident in the explanation >>without interpretation or the divine intercession of an interpreter. >The explanation is evident in the explanation? Go right ahead, but I >urge you again to be careful of unstated assumptions without which the >explanation would not be so evident. Well, you just start with the empirical observation [not] and work up from there. T:[not][not not] is a tautology and tautologies are always true because they include all possibilities and exclude no possibilities. Then we \[CapitalThorn]nd that the empirical observation [not] is itself always true because its logical regression [not not] is self contradictory. Which implies that [not] is the logic mechanism were looking for because it is irreducible and unregressable. >interpretation of quantum \[CapitalThorn]elds. Theres \ another view advanced by a >a basic result in ßuid mechanics, for instance, that two vortices will >attract or repel each other, according to the relative directions of their >spin axes, analogously to a Coulomb force. He likes to think of a ßuid >thats ultimately particulate, but ßuid mechanics is typically done in >the continuum limit and I see no logical problem with assuming the ßuid >is itself a continuum. I agree completely and Ill even give it a name: the ether. >and necessary, youre fooling yourself. First, because you know from >priori knowledge. Even if there were no concrete examples there will >always be possibilities that just havent occured to you yet, or the >possibility that there are possibilities that havent occured to you yet. There are always possibilities that just havent occurred to me yet or to you or to others. Quantum theory is \[CapitalThorn]lled with them and their symmetries and with quantum theorists hunting for them. I take nothing except basic truth T:[not][not not] as self evident and that only because the term self evident means evident of itself in that alternatives are inherently self contradictory. Maybe there are other de\[CapitalThorn]nitions for self evidence, but that is the one I use. You seem to think Im whistling in the dark regarding the existence of of the mechanical origin of Plancks constant, \ Im enclosing a copy: > Plancks Constant >Previously in the thread Angular Momentum in Rotating Bodies, I >presented an analytical framework for the interpretation of dr/dt in >circular rotation of a point mass m at velocity v and radius r. No one >I know of agrees with my interpretation of dr/dt. However, in the >interests of further establishing this general framework, I would like >to pursue general developement of the idea which culminates in the >analytical de\[CapitalThorn]nition of Plancks constant. >We begin by noting that in cases of circular rotation at constant >angular velocity we have a centripetally directed dr/dt acting on >point mass m of a magnitude equal to tangential velocity v. This is >what causes the rotation of v and produces r as a consequence of >rotation. >We then integrate dr/dt along r which produces 1/2 mvr/2pi with units >of measure equal to rr/t. Now, I have been cautioned on several >occasions not to suggest that this quantity represents angular >momentum in conventional terms and I agree. Perhaps we should simply >call it rotational momentum to prevent confusion. >What we notice immediately however is that it bears the same form as >the quantity mvr corresponding to Plancks constant. However, we have >to straighten certain things out in this connection. >In conventional macro angular rotation such as ßywheels we have a >centripetal dr/dt and tangential v which are equal to each other. They >are effectively bound up through tensile forces internal to the body >undergoing rotation. In celestial angular mechanics on the other hand >we have a wide variety of potential dr/dts and tangential orbital >velocities operating in various combinations. >different situation. The tangential velocity of rotation v is constant >under all circumstances. In other words, v = c. Thus dr/dt operates >mass. >second) times an analytical masslet, m0 (kg-sec) and interpret the >quantity mvr as a multiple of nm0vr. Further we can interpret r as a >function of c/n such that Plancks constant = m0cc. In \ other words, m0 >is roughly on the order of 10^-50 kg-sec in magnitude and Plancks >constant corresponds to the multiple of m0 and the square of the >velocity of light. >We notice several things about rotational momentum. In linear motion >at constant velocity rotational momentum is zero because dr/dt and mvr >are both zero. And in circular rotation at a constant angular velocity >rotational momentum is constant because mvr is constant. This >represents the analytical distinction between circular and linear >motion. >Further we notice that dr/dt can be of any magnitude. It is not bound >by the constancy of the velocity of light as an upper limit because it >doesnt go anywhere. It only produces rotation in relation to actual >tangential motion v = c. >mass and radius of rotation are inversely proportional, that is that >remove DEL in address for email Linear versus Analytical Mechanics One of the really unfortunate aspects of Newtons choice of \ a linear frame of reference for the analysis of mechanics is that r is poorly de\[CapitalThorn]ned and t is not de\[CapitalThorn]ned at all. In other \ words, r is only de\[CapitalThorn]ned in direction and t is not de\[CapitalThorn]ned by any consideration pertinent to the analytical frame of reference. And this had a pernicious impact on the subsequent development of angular mechanics as well as relativistic considerations and quantum mechanics in the twentieth century. The problem is that r and t and their combinations are all we have to work with. Taken to the second level of compounding we have six combinations: r, 1/t, r/t, r/tt, rr/t, and rr/tt. However, in the linear analytical frame of reference the next to last combination rr/t was overlooked because there is no apparent application for it in linear mechanical contexts. On the other hand, in angular frames of reference we have applications for all combinations and all the elements are well de\[CapitalThorn]ned. The radius of rotation is well de\[CapitalThorn]ned in terms of direction and magnitude and time is well de\[CapitalThorn]ned in analytical terms as whatever time is needed for 2pi radians of rotation. The rr/t combination is also well de\[CapitalThorn]ned in angular terms. However, in extrapolating the idea of rr/t from linear to angular contexts in classical mechanics, whoever devised the analytical approach made the mistake of trying to emulate linear mechanics in the sense of explaining rotation as a linear progression of r instead of a simple radial v in combination with tangential v. This is more akin to an anachronistic pre Newtonian view of mechanics. Kepler thought that some force of angels was needed to keep planets in orbit around the sun and regarded that force as tangential in direction. Newton on the other hand recognized that the only force needed was centripetal in nature and not tangential. But whoever devised the analytical considerations underlying angular mechanics apparently never considered the Newtonian perspective and presumably relied on the pre Newtonian rationale. Thus we wind up with a conceptual schism among the various realms of angular mechanics. On the one hand we have orbital angular mechanics, the macro realm of ordinary angular mechanics, and the micro realm of quantum effects. And unfortunately there is no conceptual integration among them. We are convinced that all represent mechanical realms but we have no basis for comprehending each in terms of the others. Orbital angular mechanics represents the realm of remote interactions dealt with in terms of inverse square centripetal forces and tangential orbital velocities. Whereas the macro realm of ordinary angular mechanics deals with linear analogs such as moments of inertia instead of mass, torque instead of force, and angular acceleration and velocity instead of their linear analogs. The micro realm of angular mechanics on the other hand is dealt with on the merely descriptive basis of formalisms. This is the realm of quantum mechanics - QM - or as I prefer to call it quantum magic where things dont seem to happen for any de\[CapitalThorn]nite \ mechanical reason at all. However with the rede\[CapitalThorn]nition of macro angular momentum and Plancks constant in circular rotation we are at last in a position to understand the mechanical differences among the realms in conceptual terms. The micro realm of quantum effects is one of constant tangential velocity of rotation v = c and a variable radial dr/dt. The macro realm of ordinary angular mechanics on the other hand is one in which the tangential velocity of rotation is variable but tangential v = radial dr/dt and both are kept in strict synchronization by internal tensile forces. And \[CapitalThorn]nally orbital angular mechanics is de\[CapitalThorn]ned \ by various combinations of tangential v and radial dr/dt. This is normally thought of in celestial terms but in point of fact applies equally to the atomic realm as well. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics [...] > Because you de\[CapitalThorn]ne it with points A and B. Unless \ youre inserting a > postulate of your own preference to the effect that points can exist > without lines, and Ill immediately ask you how that trick is done in > mechanically geometric rather than merely arbitrary postulated terms. [...] Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \[CapitalThorn]rst \ class crank. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts > he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. > Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \[CapitalThorn]rst \ class crank. Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more his arguments make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my science seasoned with magic. -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > >> Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts >> he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. >> Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \[CapitalThorn]rst \ class crank. >Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more his >arguments make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my >science seasoned with magic. Very, very good, Albert. lol (lots of hilarity). I begin to think very well of you. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics [...] > Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more his arguments make > sense. I guess Im a crank also. I dont \ like my science seasoned with > magic. Wheres the magic? === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > [...] >> Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more his arguments >> make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my science >> seasoned with magic. > Wheres the magic? Well, one good example is available in my reply to your reply to Stlbl above: your assertion that any unfalsi\[CapitalThorn]ed theory was evidence. A second example might be your statement to Lester that: The Ôcalculations, as you call them, _are_ the \ explanations. This assumed link between arbitrary calculations and reality is pretty magical sounding to me. But Im sure that Lester will \ explain that to you. -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> [...] > Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more his arguments > make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my science > seasoned with magic. >> Wheres the magic? >Well, one good example is available in my reply to your reply to >Stlbl above: your assertion that any unfalsi\[CapitalThorn]ed theory was >evidence. >A second example might be your statement to Lester that: The >calculations, as you call them, _are_ the \ explanations. This >assumed link between arbitrary calculations and reality is pretty >magical sounding to me. But Im sure that Lester will \ explain >that to you. Wolf is rather dif\[CapitalThorn]cult to reach on issues in mechanics. He prefers philosophy to science both in behavior analysis and mathematics and constantly regales us with his beliefs instead of his knowledge and berates me, at least, for failing to believe in his beliefs as opposed to his science. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > A second example might be your statement to Lester that: The > Ôcalculations, as you call them, _are_ the \ explanations. This assumed > link between arbitrary calculations and reality is pretty magical > sounding to me. But Im sure that Lester will explain that to you. It isnt magic when it leads to good technology. Technology is solid and sound reason for using a theory. That is why quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory is a winner. It is behind most of our best technology. And theories do not -explain- anything. They predict. They also function as good intuition pumps for making more good theories and promoting engineering and applications. We cannot know the Real Reality (i.e. the reality beyond the appearences). The only things we really -know- (as opposed to guess at or infer or hypothesize) is direct experience. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> A second example might be your statement to Lester that: The >> Ôcalculations, as you call them, _are_ the \ explanations. This >> assumed link between arbitrary calculations and reality is pretty >> magical sounding to me. But Im sure that Lester will explain that >> to you. > It isnt magic when it leads to good technology. \ Technology is solid > and sound reason for using a theory. That is why quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory > is a winner. It is behind most of our best technology. > And theories do not -explain- anything. Which begs the question - is there anything that explains anything? Whats *is* an explanation? They predict. They also function > as good intuition pumps for making more good theories and promoting > engineering and applications. We cannot know the Real Reality (i.e. > the reality beyond the appearences). Appearances are real realities. To call them appearances instead of real realities might be caused by..[explanation] > The only things we really -know- (as opposed to guess at or infer or > hypothesize) is direct experience. But guessing is very much part of direct experience since [expectancy]->[con\[CapitalThorn]rmation yes/no] cycling is what direct experience is all about. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> A second example might be your statement to Lester that: The >> Ôcalculations, as you call them, _are_ the \ explanations. This assumed >> link between arbitrary calculations and reality is pretty magical >> sounding to me. But Im sure that Lester will explain \ that to you. >It isnt magic when it leads to good technology. Technology is solid and >sound reason for using a theory. That is why quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory is a >winner. It is behind most of our best technology. Sure. Behind most of our best and worst technology lie intuition pumps. >And theories do not -explain- anything. They predict. They also function >as good intuition pumps for making more good theories and promoting >engineering and applications. We cannot know the Real Reality (i.e. the >reality beyond the appearences). The only things we really -know- (as >opposed to guess at or infer or hypothesize) is direct experience. Is all this theory or speculation? The difference between speculation and theory is that theory tells us how speculations actually work. All speculation is is educated guesses based on collateral factors. Theory makes speculation explicit by making various middle terms objective. So far as I know, QM is still pretty much stuck in the speculation phase unable to say how or why various symmetries work or dont work. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> A second example might be your statement to Lester that: The >> Ôcalculations, as you call them, _are_ the \ explanations. This >> assumed link between arbitrary calculations and reality is pretty >> magical sounding to me. But Im sure that Lester will explain that to >> you. > It isnt magic when it leads to good technology. Damn, Bob. Please read for comprehension and note the context. I never said nor implied otherwise. > Technology is solid and > sound reason for using a theory. That is why quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory is a > winner. It is behind most of our best technology. You talk about QM as if it were explained by a monolithic single theory and all aspects of that single theory have been empirically proven. > And theories do not -explain- anything. They predict. And are useful *only* to the extent they predict. Please explain this to Wolf. > They also function > as good intuition pumps for making more good theories and promoting > engineering and applications. We cannot know the Real Reality (i.e. the > reality beyond the appearences). The only things we really -know- (as > opposed to guess at or infer or hypothesize) is direct experience. Please explain this to Wolf et al. -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41c13ddb.56649778@netnews.att.net> <41c258f7.67644674@netnews.att.net> <41c287c2.75781421@netnews.att.net> <09qwd.117$ql2.71@okepread04> posting-account=RkUO3A0AAAAo6FJoWWMb916-xRvUxBKb > A second example might be your statement to Lester that: The > Ôcalculations, as you call them, _are_ the \ explanations. This assumed > link between arbitrary calculations and reality is pretty magical > sounding to me. But Im sure that Lester will explain that to you. > It isnt magic when it leads to good technology. \ Technology is solid and > sound reason for using a theory. That is why quantum \[CapitalThorn]eld theory is a > winner. It is behind most of our best technology. > And theories do not -explain- anything. They predict. They also function > as good intuition pumps for making more good theories and promoting > engineering and applications. We cannot know the Real Reality (i.e. the > reality beyond the appearences). The only things we really -know- (as > opposed to guess at or infer or hypothesize) is direct experience. > Bob Kolker What you write is exactly what I understand science to be. You end with The only things we really -know- ... is direct experience. I would say all we really -know- is our conscious experience Now, (qualia). We dont really -know- anything beyond that. Without that there is, for the individual, nothing. John Casey === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Well, one good example is available in my reply to your reply to Stlbl > above: your assertion that any unfalsi\[CapitalThorn]ed theory was evidence. I never said or implied that. We can never know when a theory is true. We can only know when it is falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. A \ non-falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed theory with a good record of predictions (many kinds of things predicted or related) is suf\[CapitalThorn]cient reason for staying with the theory. If the theory leads to good technology that is even more reason for staying with the theory. We stay with a theory because it is productive and useful, not because it is true. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> Well, one good example is available in my reply to your reply to Stlbl >> above: your assertion that any unfalsi\[CapitalThorn]ed theory was evidence. > I never said or implied that. I never said you did, Bob. There is something wrong with your reader. I was replying to Wolf. > We can never know when a theory is true. > We can only know when it is falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed. A \ non-falsi\[CapitalThorn]ed theory with a > good record of predictions (many kinds of things predicted or related) > is suf\[CapitalThorn]cient reason for staying with the theory. If the theory leads to > good technology that is even more reason for staying with the theory. We > stay with a theory because it is productive and useful, not because it > is true. Agreed. -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics : :> Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts :> he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. :> Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \[CapitalThorn]rst \ class crank. : Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more his : arguments make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my : science seasoned with magic. Do you think that the set {1,2,3} contains the element 0? :) Stephen === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >: >:> Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts >:> he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. >:> >:> Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \[CapitalThorn]rst \ class crank. >: Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more his >: arguments make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my >: science seasoned with magic. >Do you think that the set {1,2,3} contains the element 0? :) When you suggested a photograph of a class as a set, I asked what the cardinality of a photograph of 42 students was and suggested that 0 just photograph very well. With a cardinality of equal differences, we \[CapitalThorn]nd that 1-1=0 and that 1-(1-1) is equal to 2-1 and 3-2. Of course, if your particular brand of cardinality contains unequal differences or no differences, I can readily appreciate that you have a problem. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > : > :> Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts > :> he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. > :> > :> Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \[CapitalThorn]rst \ class crank. > : Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more \ his > : arguments make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my > : science seasoned with magic. > Do you think that the set {1,2,3} contains the element 0? :) Do you think that is what I was talking about? -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics :> : :> :> Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts :> :> he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. :> :> :> :> Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \ \[CapitalThorn]rst class crank. :> : Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more \ his :> : arguments make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my :> : science seasoned with magic. :> Do you think that the set {1,2,3} contains the element 0? :) : Do you think that is what I was talking about? You mentioned Lesters arguments and that is one of \ Lesters arguments. Stephen === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >:> : >:> :> Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts >:> :> he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. >:> :> >:> :> Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \ \[CapitalThorn]rst class crank. >:> >:> : Actually, the more of Lesters posts I read, the more his >:> : arguments make sense. I guess Im a crank also. I \ dont like my >:> : science seasoned with magic. >:> >:> Do you think that the set {1,2,3} contains the element 0? :) >: Do you think that is what I was talking about? >You mentioned Lesters arguments and that is one of \ Lesters arguments. One of many of Lesters arguments relating to mathematics \ and differences and differences between differences, none of which you seem to prefer to conventional mathematical mysticism, sometimes known as pythagoreanism or platonism. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Do you think that the set {1,2,3} contains the element 0? :) Trick question :) The set {1,2,3} contains { }. Some people confuse Null with Empty with Zero; the concepts are in the same general vicinity. Like accidentally putting salt in your coffee, or thinking you woke up late for work when its your day off. -:|:- AngleWyrm === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> Do you think that the set {1,2,3} contains the element 0? :) >Trick question :) >The set {1,2,3} contains { }. Some people confuse Null with Empty with Zero; the >concepts are in the same general vicinity. >Like accidentally putting salt in your coffee, or thinking you woke up late for >work when its your day off. Decent observation, but I prefer my collateral reply to Stephen regarding differences in sets and the determination of cardinality. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics :> Do you think that the set {1,2,3} contains the element 0? :) : Trick question :) No. Just part of the de\[CapitalThorn]nition of Lesternality. : The set {1,2,3} contains { }. Some people confuse Null with Empty with Zero; the : concepts are in the same general vicinity. { } is a subset of { 1, 2, 3}. {} is not an element of { 1, 2, 3 }. Stephen === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >[...] >> Because you de\[CapitalThorn]ne it with points A and B. Unless \ youre inserting a >> postulate of your own preference to the effect that points can exist >> without lines, and Ill immediately ask you how that \ trick is done in >> mechanically geometric rather than merely arbitrary postulated terms. >[...] >Lester once again displaying his unwillingness to believe that concepts >he cant understand nevertheless makes sense. >Lester, Lester, youre turning into a \[CapitalThorn]rst \ class crank. Yes, yes, Wolf, but at least I dont have the pompous effrontery to reply to others with exactly the point theyre making then instruct them to do some reading. What I display is not my unwillingness to believe in concepts that I dont understand but my unwillingness to believe in concepts that you dont understand. I just have a tough time believing in your beliefs. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Operators are just substitutes for explanations. I understand that > Star Trek often employs a Heisenberg compensator. Same principle. How about predictions. Quantum Field Theory predicts everything that happens outside the atomic nucleus except gravity to accuracies of 12 to 15 decimal places. And it doesnt explain a thing in the sense that causes are not postulated. I am of the opinion that explanations (so called) are no more than hypotheses and the only thing that matters is that all quantitative predictions ßowing therefrom are experimentally correct. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> Operators are just substitutes for explanations. I understand that >> Star Trek often employs a Heisenberg compensator. Same principle. >How about predictions. Quantum Field Theory predicts everything that >happens outside the atomic nucleus except gravity to accuracies of 12 to >15 decimal places. And it doesnt explain a thing in the sense that >causes are not postulated. Well, thats exactly the complaint. Science is about explanations and not just calculations in which we cant tell what is being calculated. >I am of the opinion that explanations (so called) are no more than >hypotheses and the only thing that matters is that all quantitative >predictions ßowing therefrom are experimentally correct. Well, it would help to know what the objects of empirically correct calculations are so we know what empirically correct calculations apply to. Of course, we can always just say that empirically correct calculations apply to whatever they apply to and let it go at that. Just not very satisfying scienti\[CapitalThorn]cally to say we have a 3.14159 . . . here and a 6.27 there. Oh well, I suppose we all do the best we can. Close enough for government work I expect. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics [...] > Well, thats exactly the complaint. Science is about explanations and > not just calculations in which we cant tell what is being calculated. The calculations, as you call them, _are_ the explanations. What is explained by saying F = m * a? Nothing. The statement, whether rendered in alegbra or in English merely asserts a relationship between measurable quantities. And whats a measurable quantity, anyhow? The end result of \ a peculiar behaviour we call measuring. EG, when I measure the length of a piece of wood, I put a tape measure up alongside it, and look at the numbers at both ends of the tape measure, and perform a calculation. To make it easier, tape measures have a zero at one end, so the calculation amounts to reading the second number. If I use a metric tape, I might get 904mm. If I use an imperial tape, I might get 2ft 11-1/2 plus a smidgen. Does this procedure explain what length is? Nope. Does it explain why some objects, such as sticks of wood, have length and others, such as electric curtrents, dont? Nope. Length is what we measure with meter sticks my physics teacher told us. Thats all we know about it. I think he was right. The scienti\[CapitalThorn]c attitude is one of profound humility in the face of the unknowable. It requires accepting the limits of our knowledge. It refuses to deal with things we cannot know, or to answer questions that can have no answers. Its scienti\[CapitalThorn]c to say \ Length is what we measure with meter sticks. Its unscientifc to say Length is really..... (\[CapitalThorn]nish that sentence any way you like.) St Augustine commented that How long is a piece of string? has no answer, while How long is this piece of string? does. Good comment IMO. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > And whats a measurable quantity, anyhow? The end result \ of a peculiar > behaviour we call measuring. EG, when I measure the length of a piece > of wood, I put a tape measure up alongside it, and look at the numbers > at both ends of the tape measure, and perform a calculation. To make it > easier, tape measures have a zero at one end, so the calculation amounts > to reading the second number. If I use a metric tape, I might get 904mm. > If I use an imperial tape, I might get 2ft 11-1/2 plus a smidgen. Does > this procedure explain what length is? Nope. Does it explain why some > objects, such as sticks of wood, have length and others, such as > electric curtrents, dont? Nope. Length is what we measure with meter > sticks my physics teacher told us. Thats all we know \ about it. I > think he was right. My de\[CapitalThorn]nition of measuring: A communication, where the sender relates a description of a subject to the receiver in terms that the receiver can recognize, but with an additional convenient property: The comparison between subject and familiar ground is indirectly related to the receivers knowledge. Outside my window right now, the sky is 100% overcast. The thermometer on the wall reads 74 degrees. Something I dont seem to have a good measurement for is the amount of disorganization I see in the things laying about on my desk. My desk is 10% organized? 90% entropy? 2 standard deviations from organized? -:|:- AngleWyrm === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >[...] >> Well, thats exactly the complaint. Science is about explanations and >> not just calculations in which we cant tell what is \ being calculated. >The calculations, as you call them, _are_ the explanations. Sure, just like behaviorisms dictum to wit the history of behavior is the explanation of behavior. I should have thought you would have jumped for joy at my discovery of an extensional rationale for cardinality and some theoretical con\[CapitalThorn]rmation for naturalized epistemology. Of course, that would take us back to counting on our \[CapitalThorn]ngers and toes. But positivism, materialism, and behaviorism have pretty much done that already. >What is explained by saying F = m * a? Nothing. The statement, whether >rendered in alegbra or in English merely asserts a relationship between >measurable quantities. Sunofagun! Ill be sure to pass the word that f=ma explains nothing about f, m, and a in relation to one another. Maybe that relationship is an explanation? But if you insist on calculation, how about f=2 dynes? Thats an empirical calculation that I defy you to falsify. >And whats a measurable quantity, anyhow? The end result of a peculiar >behaviour we call measuring. EG, when I measure the length of a piece >of wood, I put a tape measure up alongside it, and look at the numbers >at both ends of the tape measure, and perform a calculation. To make it >easier, tape measures have a zero at one end, so the calculation amounts >to reading the second number. If I use a metric tape, I might get 904mm. >If I use an imperial tape, I might get 2ft 11-1/2 plus a smidgen. Does >this procedure explain what length is? Nope. Does it explain why some >objects, such as sticks of wood, have length and others, such as >electric curtrents, dont? Nope. Length is what we measure with meter >sticks my physics teacher told us. Thats all we know about it. I >think he was right. No doubt you both do. Not too keen on geometric inference, are you? >The scienti\[CapitalThorn]c attitude is one of profound humility in the face of the >unknowable. Yes, Ive routinely noticed your profound humility in the face of all my suggestions. I would sure hate to see your pride. > It requires accepting the limits of our knowledge. It >refuses to deal with things we cannot know, or to answer questions that >can have no answers. Well, its clear at least that there are questions than can have no answers for you, among others the length of a piece of string, and the mechanics of intelligence. However, Im not so sure such questions have no answers for others of greater acumen. > Its scienti\[CapitalThorn]c to say Length is what we measure >with meter sticks. Its unscientifc to say Length is really..... >(\[CapitalThorn]nish that sentence any way you like.) >St Augustine commented that How long is a piece of string? has no >answer, while How long is this piece of string? does. Good comment IMO. And Im sure this parable is noted in canonic apologetics everywhere. The length of a piece of string is a piece. You just said that was the metric just like the length of a foot of string is a foot. But please dont tell canon authorities or I might be called before \ some unholy of\[CapitalThorn]ce of the inquisition. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >The calculations, as you call them, _are_ the explanations. I once had a Physics Prof announce that In Physics meaning has no meaning, the only thing that matters is whether we can manipulate the formalisms. Im not sure what this contributes to the thread, but \ its an interesting quote. Dark skies, tom -- We have discovered a therapy ( NOT a cure ) for the common cold. Play tuba for an hour. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >>The calculations, as you call them, _are_ the explanations. >I once had a Physics Prof announce that In Physics meaning >has no meaning, the only thing that matters is whether we can >manipulate the formalisms. The we dont need no stinkin reasons school of physics. >Im not sure what this contributes to the thread, but \ its >an interesting quote. >Dark skies, >tom >-- >We have discovered a therapy ( NOT a cure ) >for the common cold. Play tuba for an hour. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >>The calculations, as you call them, _are_ the explanations. > I once had a Physics Prof announce that In Physics meaning > has no meaning, the only thing that matters is whether we can > manipulate the formalisms. > Im not sure what this contributes to the thread, but \ its > an interesting quote. > Dark skies, > tom He was right. But of course the really odd thing is that those manipulated formalisms somehow refer to the real world.... === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >The calculations, as you call them, _are_ the explanations. >> I once had a Physics Prof announce that In Physics meaning >> has no meaning, the only thing that matters is whether we can >> manipulate the formalisms. >> Im not sure what this contributes to the thread, but \ its >> an interesting quote. >> Dark skies, >> tom >He was right. >But of course the really odd thing is that those manipulated formalisms >somehow refer to the real world.... Unfortunately, QM doesnt explain the somehow, which is what \ a mechanics is supposed to do. And I daresay there are a multitude of formalisms that somehow dont apply for reasons QM is too \ busy providing intuition pumps to supply. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Unfortunately, QM doesnt explain the somehow, which is what a > mechanics is supposed to do. Tell me. How does a Lagrangian formulation of mechanics explain anything? What it does is imply some laws which when applied produce good predictions. What makes you think there are entities behind the appearences that behave mechanically? What evidence do you have. Classical physics which was solidly mechanics is an empirical failure which is why we have quantum theory and relativity. The truly mechanical theories such as statistical mechanics are heuristics, not fundemental models of reality. QM works. Relativity works. What more do you want? Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> Unfortunately, QM doesnt explain the somehow, which is what a >> mechanics is supposed to do. >Tell me. How does a Lagrangian formulation of mechanics explain >anything? What it does is imply some laws which when applied produce >good predictions. What makes you think there are entities behind the >appearences that behave mechanically? What makes you think there arent. By, George, I do believe youve just confessed that QM isnt mechanics. > What evidence do you have. What evidence do you have that there is no mechanics? All QM has at presence are educated speculations, some of which turn out to be correct and many of which turn out to be incorrect, and no mechanics to explain why any of their guesses are correct. >Classical physics which was solidly mechanics is an empirical failure Well, not exactly. Quantum theorists just took advantage of emprical failures of classical mechanics to suggest there is no mechanics and informed intuition or educated guesses were superior. >which is why we have quantum theory and relativity. The truly mechanical >theories such as statistical mechanics are heuristics, not fundemental >models of reality. QM works. Relativity works. What more do you want? Mechanics. Something that shows how they work. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> Unfortunately, QM doesnt explain the somehow, which is what a >> mechanics is supposed to do. > Tell me. How does a Lagrangian formulation of mechanics explain > anything? What it does is imply some laws which when applied produce > good predictions. What makes you think there are entities behind the > appearences that behave mechanically? What evidence do you have. > Classical physics which was solidly mechanics is an empirical failure > which is why we have quantum theory and relativity. The truly mechanical > theories such as statistical mechanics are heuristics, not fundemental > models of reality. QM works. Relativity works. What more do you want? > Bob Kolker Lester want to be recognised as the one who explains the _reasons why_ everything is the way it is. But just why mecvhanism should be the reasons why, he cant say; nor why the mechnaism of differences between doifferences is the fundamental mechanism. IOW, Lester cant accept that things are simply what they are, and the best we can do is describe how things happen. IOW, he cant accept what I call the Fundamnetal Ignorance Theorem (\[CapitalThorn]rst expressed by Bertrand Russell): When we know that we say is true, we dont know what it means. When we know what mean, we dont know if its \ true. Now, I wonder how Lester will blast me for that piece of heresy. :-) === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics : Lester want to be recognised as the one who explains the _reasons why_ : everything is the way it is. But just why mecvhanism should be the : reasons why, he cant say; nor why the mechnaism of differences between : doifferences is the fundamental mechanism. The following is from the preface for the second edition of Newtons Principia: I can hear some people disagreeing with this conclusion and muttering something or other about occult qualities. They are always prattling on and on to the effect that gravity is something occult, and that occult causes are to be banished completely from philosophy. But it is easy to answer them: occult causes are not those causes whose existence is very clearly demonstrated by observations, but only those whose existence is occult, imagined, and not yet proved. Therefore gravity is not an occult cause of celestial motions, since it has been shown from phenomena that this force really exists. Rather, occult causes are the refuge of those who assign the governing of these motions to some sort of vortices of a certain matter utterly \[CapitalThorn]ctitious and completely imperceptible to the senses. But will gravity be called an occult cause and be cast out of natural philosophy on the grounds that the cause of gravity itself is occult and not yet found? Let those who so believe take care lest they believe in an absurdity that, in the end may overthrow the foundations of all philosophy. For causes generally proceed in a continuous chain from compound to more simple; when you reach the simplest cause, you will not be able to proceed any further. Therefore no mechanical explanation can be given for the simplest cause; for if it could, the cause would not yet be the simplest. Will you accordingly call these simplest causes occult, and banish them? It was written by Roger Cotes in 1713. Stephen === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >: Lester want to be recognised as the one who explains the _reasons why_ >: everything is the way it is. But just why mecvhanism should be the >: reasons why, he cant say; nor why the mechnaism of differences between >: doifferences is the fundamental mechanism. >The following is from the preface for the second edition of Newtons >Principia: > I can hear some people disagreeing with this conclusion and > muttering something or other about occult qualities. They are always > prattling on and on to the effect that gravity is something occult, and > that occult causes are to be banished completely from philosophy. But > it is easy to answer them: occult causes are not those causes whose > existence is very clearly demonstrated by observations, but only those > whose existence is occult, imagined, and not yet proved. Therefore > gravity is not an occult cause of celestial motions, since it has been > shown from phenomena that this force really exists. Rather, occult > causes are the refuge of those who assign the governing of these motions > to some sort of vortices of a certain matter utterly \[CapitalThorn]ctitious and > completely imperceptible to the senses. > But will gravity be called an occult cause and be cast out of natural > philosophy on the grounds that the cause of gravity itself is occult > and not yet found? Let those who so believe take care lest they believe > in an absurdity that, in the end may overthrow the foundations of > all philosophy. For causes generally proceed in a continuous chain > from compound to more simple; when you reach the simplest cause, you will > not be able to proceed any further. Therefore no mechanical explanation > can be given for the simplest cause; for if it could, the cause would > not yet be the simplest. Will you accordingly call these simplest > causes occult, and banish them? >It was written by Roger Cotes in 1713. With which I agree and maintain that if quantum observations are in fact the simplest cause, the reason why has yet to be shown, nor has the reason they are not the simplest cause because quantum theory doesnt deal in causes for quantum observations. Quantum theory as I understand it maintains there are no causes. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Unfortunately, QM doesnt explain the somehow, which is what a > mechanics is supposed to do. >> Tell me. How does a Lagrangian formulation of mechanics explain >> anything? What it does is imply some laws which when applied produce >> good predictions. What makes you think there are entities behind the >> appearences that behave mechanically? What evidence do you have. >> Classical physics which was solidly mechanics is an empirical failure >> which is why we have quantum theory and relativity. The truly >> mechanical theories such as statistical mechanics are heuristics, not >> fundemental models of reality. QM works. Relativity works. What more >> do you want? >> Bob Kolker > Lester want to be recognised as the one who explains the _reasons why_ > everything is the way it is. But just why mecvhanism should be the > reasons why, he cant say; nor why the mechnaism of differences between > doifferences is the fundamental mechanism. > IOW, Lester cant accept that things are simply what they are, and the > best we can do is describe how things happen. IOW, he \ cant accept what > I call the Fundamnetal Ignorance Theorem (\[CapitalThorn]rst expressed by Bertrand > Russell): When we know that we say is true, we dont know what it means. > When we know what mean, we dont know if \ its true. To me, Fundamental Ignorance is that willed ignorance that you display when you argue *against* explaining the _reasons why_ things are the way they are. An excellent reply for a novice hoping for entry into the priesthood of Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Faith. BTW, I prefer to judge Lester by his own words and not by your revisionist interpretations of them. -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics [...] > To me, Fundamental Ignorance is that willed ignorance that you display > when you argue *against* explaining the _reasons why_ things are the way > they are. An excellent reply for a novice hoping for entry into the > priesthood of Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Faith. I dont understand the point of your comment. Are you claiming that I am trying to enter the Pristehood? Whatever gave you that idea? Are you implying that I am a novice? Since I dont know what you \ mean by novice, I have no idea what imnplication might mean, but Im pretty sure its not intended to be complimentary. Are you claiming that I refuse to explain the reasons-why? That depends on what reasons-why are being offered, or more precisely, on what the speaker intends with why. I do detect something rather more than annoyance in your remarks. Whats your game? Why do my remarks offend you? Are you suggesting that I refuse to accept that we can ever know why there is something rather than nothing? In the narrow sense of How did the Something within we exist come about? a partial answer can be given. Currently, it starts with a big bang, but since the maths around that singularity are rather, er singular, even the physicists are careful to hedge their bets by pointing out that this the best they can sofar. The story of what happened after the bang is somewhat better grounded. In the wider sense of Howcome did it get started at all? there is no scienti\[CapitalThorn]c answer (though there are plenty of more or less plausible and entertaining sci-\fispeculations.) Profound ignorance is what we must admit at this point. In the rather different sense of Is there some reason or purpose for it all? there is no answer, there are only statements of belief. Youre welcome to guess what my statement of belief might be. :-) > BTW, I prefer to judge Lester by his own words and not by your > revisionist interpretations of them. > Well, any judgement you make will be your revisionist interpretation, is all. I dont see that it makes any difference. Oh, that phrase willed ignorance belongs to theology, at least as far as my admittedly limited reading in that \[CapitalThorn]eld indicates. Are you trying to bring in some theological version of the reasons-why? I can see that if you commit to theological reasons, you would be annoyed at any remark that implies that such reasons-why arent reasons at all. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > [...] >> To me, Fundamental Ignorance is that willed ignorance that you display >> when you argue *against* explaining the _reasons why_ things are the >> way they are. An excellent reply for a novice hoping for entry into >> the priesthood of Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Faith. > I dont understand the point of your comment. Are you claiming that I am > trying to enter the Pristehood? Whatever gave you that idea? Are you > implying that I am a novice? Since I dont know what you mean by > novice, I have no idea what imnplication might mean, but Im pretty > sure its not intended to be complimentary. Are you claiming that I > refuse to explain the reasons-why? That depends on what reasons-why are > being offered, or more precisely, on what the speaker intends with > why. I do detect something rather more than annoyance in your remarks. > Whats your game? You must be severely challenged in the interpretation of metaphor. I have no Ôgame. >Why do my remarks offend you? Well, now. Arent you the paragon of innocence. > Are you suggesting that I refuse to accept that we can ever know why > there is something rather than nothing? In the narrow sense of How did > the Something within we exist come about? a partial answer can be > given. Currently, it starts with a big bang, but since the maths around > that singularity are rather, er singular, even the physicists are > careful to hedge their bets by pointing out that this the best they can > sofar. The story of what happened after the bang is somewhat better > grounded. > In the wider sense of Howcome did it get started at all? there is no > scienti\[CapitalThorn]c answer (though there are plenty of more or less plausible and > entertaining sci-\fispeculations.) Profound ignorance is what we must > admit at this point. If you did in fact admit profound ignorance, rather than defend the more or less plausible and entertaining sci-\fi\ speculations as truth, then we would have nothing to discuss. > In the rather different sense of Is there some reason or purpose for it > all? there is no answer, there are only statements of belief. Youre > welcome to guess what my statement of belief might be. :-) I have no choice but to infer your beliefs from your posts. >> BTW, I prefer to judge Lester by his own words and not by your >> revisionist interpretations of them. >> > Well, any judgement you make will be your revisionist interpretation, is > all. I dont see that it makes any difference. > Oh, that phrase willed ignorance belongs to theology, at least as far > as my admittedly limited reading in that \[CapitalThorn]eld indicates. Your admittedly limited reading in that \[CapitalThorn]eld leads you to serious mistakes. The statement has nothing to do with theology. > Are you trying > to bring in some theological version of the reasons-why? I can see that > if you commit to theological reasons, you would be annoyed at any remark > that implies that such reasons-why arent reasons at all. LOL. Sorry, Wolf, but you simply lack the rhetorical skill to tar me with that brush. I have not offered any theological arguments in my observations about your beliefs concerning science. I have argued only for the Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Method in the search for scienti\[CapitalThorn]c evidence. -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics [...] >> Oh, that phrase willed ignorance belongs to theology, at least as >> far as my admittedly limited reading in that \[CapitalThorn]eld indicates. > Your admittedly limited reading in that \[CapitalThorn]eld leads you to serious > mistakes. The statement has nothing to do with theology. Sorry, but Ive never before encountered that phrase in discussions about scienti\[CapitalThorn]c evidence for or against some claim, only in theological contexts, where it is considered a sin. Since you imply that my comments constitute some sort of heresy against the Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Faith, \ my inference isnt as far wrong as you may wish to claim. >> Are you trying to bring in some theological version of the >> reasons-why? I can see that if you commit to theological reasons, you >> would be annoyed at any remark that implies that such reasons-why >> arent reasons at all. > LOL. Sorry, Wolf, but you simply lack the rhetorical skill to tar me > with that brush. I have not offered any theological arguments in my > observations about your beliefs concerning science. I have argued only > for the Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Method in the search for \ scienti\[CapitalThorn]c evidence. Sofar, you havent once said anything that touches on my beliefs, only on my comments, from which you claim to be able to infer my beliefs. Since you capitalise Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Method, am I correct in inferring that you believe it is a path to Truth? If not, what do you intend by capitalising the phrase? In any case, Im not at all clear just what you object to \ and why. It seems to have something to do with the origin of life, but you havent as far as I can make out made your objections clear. On the one hand you claim that the Scieti\[CapitalThorn]c Method leads to truth (or Truth, I dunno), OTOH, you object to maybe-explanations of the o-o-l on the grounds that theyre not proven, or not evidence, or something. But these maybe-explanations are attempts to account for the facts as known. That they arent any better than maybe-explanations is just the way it is. For now, anyway. Maybe for the foreseeable future. I dunno. But Im pretty sure that evcentually some scienti\[CapitalThorn]c account will be available. (There, Ive actually _stated_ a belief - you \ neednt infer it. Saved you a lot of work, no doubt.) Oh, re your LOLs -- great rhetorical skills there. You must have laboured long and hard to come up with such witty ripostes. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > [...] > Oh, that phrase willed ignorance belongs to theology, at least as > far as my admittedly limited reading in that \[CapitalThorn]eld \ indicates. >> Your admittedly limited reading in that \[CapitalThorn]eld leads you to serious >> mistakes. The statement has nothing to do with theology. > Sorry, but Ive never before encountered that phrase in discussions > about scienti\[CapitalThorn]c evidence for or against some claim, only in theological > contexts, where it is considered a sin. Ive never seen it in either context. I simply stuck two \ words together to mean a type of ignorance that is not accidental, but rather willed, usually done to avoid looking at facts. If you examine previous posts you will see that I invented the phrase as a mockery of your intended insult of Lester where you said: [Lester] cant accept what I call the Fundamnetal Ignorance Theorem (\[CapitalThorn]rst expressed by Bertrand Russell): When we know that [what] we say is true, we dont know what \ it means. When we know what [it] mean[s], we dont know if \ its true. I think my phrase is as valid as yours, and much more descriptive of your replies. You seem determined to lead this discussion away from science and into religion. However, if you accept the de\[CapitalThorn]nition of sin as Ômissing the mark, then I suppose you could say \ that Ôwilled ignorance is shooting your arrow in a \ direction guaranteed to miss the mark. > Since you imply that my comments > constitute some sort of heresy against the Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Faith, my > inference isnt as far wrong as you may wish to claim. No, on the contrary. Your comments are not \ Ôheresy against the Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Faith, but rather the ingratiating repetitions of a toady hoping to become a high priest of that faith. I personally believe that properly done science should require no faith. > Are you trying to bring in some theological version of the > reasons-why? I can see that if you commit to theological reasons, you > would be annoyed at any remark that implies that such reasons-why > arent reasons at all. >> LOL. Sorry, Wolf, but you simply lack the rhetorical skill to tar me >> with that brush. I have not offered any theological arguments in my >> observations about your beliefs concerning science. I have argued >> only for the Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Method in the search for \ scienti\[CapitalThorn]c evidence. > Sofar, you havent once said anything that touches on my beliefs, only > on my comments, Which leads unavoidably to the conclusion that your comments have all been lies. > from which you claim to be able to infer my beliefs. Yes, I made the apparently erroneous assumption that your comments arose from your beliefs. Would it be safe to continue in the now corrected assumption that everything you post henceforth is also a lie. > Since you capitalise Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Method, am I correct in inferring that > you believe it is a path to Truth? Not Universal Truth. But certainly the accepted method for discovering scienti\[CapitalThorn]c truth. > If not, what do you intend by capitalising the phrase? What did you intend by capitalizing the phrase Fundamnetal Ignorance Theorem? > In any case, Im not at all clear just what you object to and why. I am aware of your disability. Remember? I called it Ôwilled ignorance. It does indeed have serious consequences. > It > seems to have something to do with the origin of life, but you havent > as far as I can make out made your objections clear. Not even warm. > On the one hand you > claim that the Scieti\[CapitalThorn]c Method leads to truth (or Truth, I dunno), > OTOH, you object to maybe-explanations of the o-o-l on the grounds that > theyre not proven, or not evidence, or something. But \ these > maybe-explanations are attempts to account for the facts as known. ÔMaybe-explanations are speculation, which is a \ valid word and quite proper in the context. And speculation does not in any way account for Ôthe facts as known. Which is what \ this whole stupid thread is about and why I accuse you of Ôwilled ignorance. > That > they arent any better than maybe-explanations is just the way it is. > For now, anyway. Maybe for the foreseeable future. I dunno. But Im > pretty sure that evcentually some scienti\[CapitalThorn]c account will be available. > (There, Ive actually _stated_ a belief - you \ neednt infer it. Saved > you a lot of work, no doubt.) account will be available. Now if you would just quit referring to such speculation as fact in the future, then possibly we can drop this stupid thread. > Oh, re your LOLs -- great rhetorical skills there. You must have > laboured long and hard to come up with such witty ripostes. Not at all. Laughing out loud was indeed my response to many of your statements. It was not a rhetorical device. -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> [...] [re: wiklled ignorance:] > Ive never seen it in either context. I simply stuck two words together > to mean a type of ignorance that is not accidental, but rather willed, > usually done to avoid looking at facts. OK. > If you examine previous posts > you will see that I invented the phrase as a mockery of your intended > insult of Lester where you said: > [Lester] cant accept what I call the Fundamnetal \ Ignorance Theorem > (\[CapitalThorn]rst expressed by Bertrand Russell): > When we know that [what] we say is true, we dont know \ what it means. > When we know what [it] mean[s], we dont know if \ its true. > I think my phrase is as valid as yours, and much more descriptive of > your replies. Only becaues you operate with what IMO are incorrect notions of beliefs and lies. (Ive snipped that part of your post.) As explicitly as I can say it: The contrary of a belief statement is not a lie. [...] > No, on the contrary. Your comments are not \ Ôheresy against the > Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Faith, but rather the ingratiating repetitions of a toady > hoping to become a high priest of that faith. I personally believe that > properly done science should require no faith. Me, a toady? Oh, Albert, Albert, how low you have fallen. If anything, youre the toady, with your reiterated references to a Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Method, in capitals, yet! [...] >> Sofar, you havent once said anything that touches on my beliefs, only >> on my comments, > Which leads unavoidably to the conclusion that your comments have all > been lies. Only by your de\[CapitalThorn]ntion, which I \[CapitalThorn]nd odd, to say \ the least. The usual claim is that belief statements are not truthfunctions. Hnece their relationship to lies is, um unclear, to put it mildly. I try to avoid belief statements, though I know thats \ dif\[CapitalThorn]cult. If you are claiming that I assert as truths statements I dont beleive in, I have two comments on that. A) What does belief have to do with truth? B) I offer commentys as more or less probbaly true - and I assume that the careful reader will be able to asses probbale truths. Your unpleasant attacks started when I offreed _possible_ scenarios for the origin of loifge. I didnt claim they were true. I \ didnt claim they were proven. I didnt claim I believed them. All these \ things you read into my comments because of your quaint notion that in discussions one only utters statments that one believes (whatver you mean by that - Ive found it dif\[CapitalThorn]cult to \[CapitalThorn]gure \ what people mean when they use that word.) >> from which you claim to be able to infer my beliefs. > Yes, I made the apparently erroneous assumption that your comments arose > from your beliefs. Would it be safe to continue in the now corrected > assumption that everything you post henceforth is also a lie. No, because I dont claim knowlege of truth or Truth, just tentative attempts. >> Since you capitalise Scienti\[CapitalThorn]c Method, am I correct in inferring that >> you believe it is a path to Truth? > Not Universal Truth. But certainly the accepted method for discovering > scienti\[CapitalThorn]c truth. Which is not a very great truth, but is the best we can do (I dont believe in Universal Truth, just in local and limited truths, of varying imnportance. The truths in personal relationships are very important. Thats naother beleif statement, in case you missed it.) >> If not, what do you intend by capitalising the phrase? > What did you intend by capitalizing the phrase Fundamnetal Ignorance > Theorem? Irony. Some ironies point the way to a truth (small t.) >> In any case, Im not at all clear just what you object to and why. > I am aware of your disability. Remember? I called it Ôwilled > ignorance. It does indeed have serious consequences. >> It seems to have something to do with the origin of life, but you >> havent as far as I can make out made your objections clear. > Not even warm. >> On the one hand you claim that the Scieti\[CapitalThorn]c Method leads to truth (or >> Truth, I dunno), OTOH, you object to maybe-explanations of the o-o-l >> on the grounds that theyre not proven, or not evidence, or something. >> But these maybe-explanations are attempts to account for the facts as >> known. > ÔMaybe-explanations are speculation, which is \ a valid word and quite > proper in the context. And speculation does not in any way account for > Ôthe facts as known. Which is what this whole \ stupid thread is about > and why I accuse you of Ôwilled ignorance. Ok, now that you;ve made yourself clear, kindly point me to what I am deliberately ignorant of. >> That they arent any better than maybe-explanations is just the way it >> is. For now, anyway. Maybe for the foreseeable future. I dunno. But >> Im pretty sure that evcentually some \ scienti\[CapitalThorn]c account will be >> available. (There, Ive actually _stated_ a belief - you neednt infer >> it. Saved you a lot of work, no doubt.) > will be available. Now if you would just quit referring to such > speculation as fact in the future, then possibly we can drop this stupid > thread. I never did - thats what you read into my comments. >> Oh, re your LOLs -- great rhetorical skills there. You must have >> laboured long and hard to come up with such witty ripostes. > Not at all. Laughing out loud was indeed my response to many of your > statements. It was not a rhetorical device. Chuckle. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Unfortunately, QM doesnt explain the somehow, which is what a > mechanics is supposed to do. >> Tell me. How does a Lagrangian formulation of mechanics explain >> anything? What it does is imply some laws which when applied produce >> good predictions. What makes you think there are entities behind the >> appearences that behave mechanically? What evidence do you have. >> Classical physics which was solidly mechanics is an empirical failure >> which is why we have quantum theory and relativity. The truly mechanical >> theories such as statistical mechanics are heuristics, not fundemental >> models of reality. QM works. Relativity works. What more do you want? >> Bob Kolker >Lester want to be recognised as the one who explains the _reasons why_ >everything is the way it is. But just why mecvhanism should be the >reasons why, he cant say; nor why the mechnaism of differences between >doifferences is the fundamental mechanism. Wolfs reading comprehension is rather poor not to mention his rather comical editing skills. Probably stream of consciousness appraisals of what he wants to imagine hes read. >IOW, Lester cant accept that things are simply what they are, Once more Wolf universalizes a personal observation. What bothers Wolf is that I cant accept that things simply are what he believes they are because Im not particularly partial to beliefs in any form as a substitute for science. > and the >best we can do is describe how things happen. IOW, he cant accept what >I call the Fundamnetal Ignorance Theorem (\[CapitalThorn]rst expressed by Bertrand >Russell): When we know that we say is true, we dont know what it means. >When we know what mean, we dont know if its \ true. Yes, well, I daresay when we dont understand what you mean, all we have to do is reread this particular comment. >Now, I wonder how Lester will blast me for that piece of heresy. :-) Heresy, what heresy? Just a rather confused description of your beliefs as far as I can tell. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >>IOW, Lester cant accept that things are simply what they are, > Once more Wolf universalizes a personal observation. What bothers > Wolf is that I cant accept that things simply are what he believes > they are because Im not particularly partial to beliefs \ in any form > as a substitute for science. Its nice to know that you know what I believe what things are, because I dont. Enlighten me. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >IOW, Lester cant accept that things are simply what they are, >> Once more Wolf universalizes a personal observation. What bothers >> Wolf is that I cant accept that things simply are what \ he believes >> they are because Im not particularly partial to beliefs in any form >> as a substitute for science. >Its nice to know that you know what I believe what things are, because >I dont. Enlighten me. All you have to do is read your own posts, Wolf. Youre pretty long on observation and pretty short on explanations. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > The calculations, as you call them, _are_ the explanations. >> I once had a Physics Prof announce that In Physics meaning has no >> meaning, the only thing that matters is whether we can manipulate the >> formalisms. >> Im not sure what this contributes to the thread, but \ its >> an interesting quote. >> Dark skies, >> tom > He was right. > But of course the really odd thing is that those manipulated formalisms > somehow refer to the real world.... Somehow? LOL. Well, sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. That area between mathematics and the real world that you refer to as Ôsomehow I assume de\[CapitalThorn]nes \ where your faith comes into play. -- Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow \ the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. -- George Orwell as Syme in 1984t === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> The calculations, as you call them, _are_ the explanations. > I once had a Physics Prof announce that In Physics meaning has no > meaning, the only thing that matters is whether we can manipulate the > formalisms. > Im not sure what this contributes to the thread, but \ its > an interesting quote. > Dark skies, > tom >> He was right. >> But of course the really odd thing is that those manipulated >> formalisms somehow refer to the real world.... > Somehow? LOL. Well, sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. That > area between mathematics and the real world that you refer to as > Ôsomehow I assume de\[CapitalThorn]nes where \ your faith comes into play. To quote you: Damn, Albert, read for comprehension. Somehow does not deny sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. The issue is, why do they refer to the real world at all, not what proportion does so. Though it is odd, isnt it, that so much math that began as pure manipulation of the formalisms turned out and still turns out to be applicable to the real world. I guess I must be on your bad-guy list, since you react with foaming mouth and irrelevant comments to just about everything I say - even when I make a point that doesnt disagree with you. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41bd1833.17476667@netnews.att.net> <41bd9f23.21123889@netnews.att.net> <1Umvd.231528$HA.34538@attbi_s01> <41bec327.26789264@netnews.att.net> <41be294a$0$44096$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl> <41bfb322.31475312@netnews.att.net> posting-account=SqYkwg0AAABibDnSpEgBfNCp5F3aKoMz One thing you may not be aware of in the history of quantum (or what they used to call , atomic) physics, is that the theoreticians were forced to change their descriptions of the atomic and subatomic world (mathematical and otherwise, like Dirac delta functions) because of the theretofore unexplainable observations from the laboratory, i.e. absorption and emission spectra, radiative decay, etc. So \ Im not sure sometimes and waves other times, depending on how they are constrained. describe---no stinkin reason is the frustrated exclamation of no reason I can see!. My favorite bit of prose---whoever can identify its source get the kewpie doll: The lofty prize, Of Science lies Hidden today as ever. Who, with no thought- To him its brought, To own without endeavor! on the ßip side... stlbl === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >One thing you may not be aware of in the history of quantum (or what >they used to call , atomic) physics, is that the theoreticians were >forced to change their descriptions of the atomic and subatomic world >(mathematical and otherwise, like Dirac delta functions) because of the >theretofore unexplainable observations from the laboratory, i.e. >absorption and emission spectra, radiative decay, etc. So Im not sure >sometimes and waves other times, depending on how they are constrained. >describe---no stinkin reason is the frustrated exclamation of no >reason I can see!. Of course. My primary complaint is the kind of philosophizing quantum theorists are willing to accept as a substitute for knowledge and as collateral for their ignorance. By the phrase from scratch what I have in mind is the de\[CapitalThorn]nition of de\[CapitalThorn]nition and the further deduction of \ Heisenbergs Uncertainty relation from it. I posted my analysis of the \[CapitalThorn]rst over a year ago and will append a copy. If youre interested, take a gander. >My favorite bit of prose---whoever can identify its source get the >kewpie doll: >The lofty prize, >Of Science lies >Hidden today as ever. >Who, with no thought- >To him its brought, >To own without endeavor! >on the ßip side... >stlbl As Ive received no analytical objections to the following post Im appending several historical observations. > Plancks Constant >Previously in the thread Angular Momentum in Rotating Bodies, I >presented an analytical framework for the interpretation of dr/dt in >circular rotation of a point mass m at velocity v and radius r. No one >I know of agrees with my interpretation of dr/dt. However, in the >interests of further establishing this general framework, I would like >to pursue general developement of the idea which culminates in the >analytical de\[CapitalThorn]nition of Plancks constant. >We begin by noting that in cases of circular rotation at constant >angular velocity we have a centripetally directed dr/dt acting on >point mass m of a magnitude equal to tangential velocity v. This is >what causes the rotation of v and produces r as a consequence of >rotation. >We then integrate dr/dt along r which produces 1/2 mvr/2pi with units >of measure equal to rr/t. Now, I have been cautioned on several >occasions not to suggest that this quantity represents angular >momentum in conventional terms and I agree. Perhaps we should simply >call it rotational momentum to prevent confusion. >What we notice immediately however is that it bears the same form as >the quantity mvr corresponding to Plancks constant. However, we have >to straighten certain things out in this connection. >In conventional macro angular rotation such as ßywheels we have a >centripetal dr/dt and tangential v which are equal to each other. They >are effectively bound up through tensile forces internal to the body >undergoing rotation. In celestial angular mechanics on the other hand >we have a wide variety of potential dr/dts and tangential orbital >velocities operating in various combinations. >different situation. The tangential velocity of rotation v is constant >under all circumstances. In other words, v = c. Thus dr/dt operates >mass. >second) times an analytical masslet, m0 (kg-sec) and interpret the >quantity mvr as a multiple of nm0vr. Further we can interpret r as a >function of c/n such that Plancks constant = m0cc. In \ other words, m0 >is roughly on the order of 10^-50 kg-sec in magnitude and Plancks >constant corresponds to the multiple of m0 and the square of the >velocity of light. >We notice several things about rotational momentum. In linear motion >at constant velocity rotational momentum is zero because dr/dt and mvr >are both zero. And in circular rotation at a constant angular velocity >rotational momentum is constant because mvr is constant. This >represents the analytical distinction between circular and linear >motion. >Further we notice that dr/dt can be of any magnitude. It is not bound >by the constancy of the velocity of light as an upper limit because it >doesnt go anywhere. It only produces rotation in relation to actual >tangential motion v = c. >mass and radius of rotation are inversely proportional, that is that >remove DEL in address for email Linear versus Analytical Mechanics One of the really unfortunate aspects of Newtons choice of \ a linear frame of reference for the analysis of mechanics is that r is poorly de\[CapitalThorn]ned and t is not de\[CapitalThorn]ned at all. In other \ words, r is only de\[CapitalThorn]ned in direction and t is not de\[CapitalThorn]ned by any consideration pertinent to the analytical frame of reference. And this had a pernicious impact on the subsequent development of angular mechanics as well as relativistic considerations and quantum mechanics in the twentieth century. The problem is that r and t and their combinations are all we have to work with. Taken to the second level of compounding we have six combinations: r, 1/t, r/t, r/tt, rr/t, and rr/tt. However, in the linear analytical frame of reference the next to last combination rr/t was overlooked because there is no apparent application for it in linear mechanical contexts. On the other hand, in angular frames of reference we have applications for all combinations and all the elements are well de\[CapitalThorn]ned. The radius of rotation is well de\[CapitalThorn]ned in terms of direction and magnitude and time is well de\[CapitalThorn]ned in analytical terms as whatever time is needed for 2pi radians of rotation. The rr/t combination is also well de\[CapitalThorn]ned in angular terms. However, in extrapolating the idea of rr/t from linear to angular contexts in classical mechanics, whoever devised the analytical approach made the mistake of trying to emulate linear mechanics in the sense of explaining rotation as a linear progression of r instead of a simple radial v in combination with tangential v. This is more akin to an anachronistic pre Newtonian view of mechanics. Kepler thought that some force of angels was needed to keep planets in orbit around the sun and regarded that force as tangential in direction. Newton on the other hand recognized that the only force needed was centripetal in nature and not tangential. But whoever devised the analytical considerations underlying angular mechanics apparently never considered the Newtonian perspective and presumably relied on the pre Newtonian rationale. Thus we wind up with a conceptual schism among the various realms of angular mechanics. On the one hand we have orbital angular mechanics, the macro realm of ordinary angular mechanics, and the micro realm of quantum effects. And unfortunately there is no conceptual integration among them. We are convinced that all represent mechanical realms but we have no basis for comprehending each in terms of the others. Orbital angular mechanics represents the realm of remote interactions dealt with in terms of inverse square centripetal forces and tangential orbital velocities. Whereas the macro realm of ordinary angular mechanics deals with linear analogs such as moments of inertia instead of mass, torque instead of force, and angular acceleration and velocity instead of their linear analogs. The micro realm of angular mechanics on the other hand is dealt with on the merely descriptive basis of formalisms. This is the realm of quantum mechanics - QM - or as I prefer to call it quantum magic where things dont seem to happen for any de\[CapitalThorn]nite \ mechanical reason at all. However with the rede\[CapitalThorn]nition of macro angular momentum and Plancks constant in circular rotation we are at last in a position to understand the mechanical differences among the realms in conceptual terms. The micro realm of quantum effects is one of constant tangential velocity of rotation v = c and a variable radial dr/dt. The macro realm of ordinary angular mechanics on the other hand is one in which the tangential velocity of rotation is variable but tangential v = radial dr/dt and both are kept in strict synchronization by internal tensile forces. And \[CapitalThorn]nally orbital angular mechanics is de\[CapitalThorn]ned \ by various combinations of tangential v and radial dr/dt. This is normally thought of in celestial terms but in point of fact applies equally to the atomic realm as well. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41bd1833.17476667@netnews.att.net> <41bd9f23.21123889@netnews.att.net> <1Umvd.231528$HA.34538@attbi_s01> <41bec327.26789264@netnews.att.net> <41be294a$0$44096$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl> <41bfb322.31475312@netnews.att.net> <41bfec2f.37616603@netnews.att.net> posting-account=SqYkwg0AAABibDnSpEgBfNCp5F3aKoMz This is all interesting stuff and Ill have to reread it during the day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and grainy, and the big deal in the 1920s and later was that energy and mass had a fundamental unit and only seemed to be measurable in integer multiples of some fundamental quantities---eigen values were invoked to observable rotation like a ball on a string or a phonograph. Electrons have their spin direction either up or down, or A and B or yes and no (to refer to some sort of symmetry)---its too late in the evening for me to make sense---Ill try to recall my book \ learnin from 10-15 years ago tomorrow--to help us \[CapitalThorn]nd common ground...oh, the poem is from Faust, Pt.1, in the witchs kitchen. The poem makes Faust angry, but Mephisto exclaims (to the witch that says it),Well done... The serpent was the \[CapitalThorn]rst friend to knowledge as we know. Ideas that come into peoples heads probably are not in integer form, but most likely when tried to come to expression through words---we can count them, as in I had an Idea, I had another idea. In truth they are each one multifaceted. We like to assign integer numbers to things so that we can be good accountants and keep track of things, use binary math, etc... All theoreticians must be good accountants. We experimentalists can let detectors, graphs etc do it for us. But we probably design them to measure that way. goodnight === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >This is all interesting stuff and Ill have to reread it during the >day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and >grainy, and the big deal in the 1920s and later was that energy and >mass had a fundamental unit and only seemed to be measurable in integer >multiples of some fundamental quantities---eigen values were invoked to >observable rotation like a ball on a string or a phonograph. Electrons >have their spin direction either up or down, or A and B or yes and no >(to refer to some sort of symmetry)---its too late in the evening for >me to make sense---Ill try to recall my book \ learnin from 10-15 years >ago tomorrow--to help us \[CapitalThorn]nd common ground...oh, the poem is from >Faust, Pt.1, in the witchs kitchen. The poem makes Faust angry, but >Mephisto exclaims (to the witch that says it),Well done... The >serpent was the \[CapitalThorn]rst friend to knowledge as we know. >Ideas that come into peoples heads probably are not in integer >form, but most likely when tried to come to expression through >words---we can count them, as in I had an Idea, I had another idea. In >truth they are each one multifaceted. We like to assign integer >numbers to things so that we can be good accountants and keep track of >things, use binary math, etc... All theoreticians must be good >accountants. We experimentalists can let detectors, graphs etc do it >for us. But we probably design them to measure that way. I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it morphed physics from no stinkin reasons we can see into just plain ol no stinkin reasons. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > This is all interesting stuff and Ill have to reread it during the > day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and > grainy, I dont know whether a quantum is discreet or not, never having imparted any of my secrets to it. :-) It is discrete, however. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> This is all interesting stuff and Ill have to reread it during the >> day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and >> grainy, >I dont know whether a quantum is discreet or not, never having imparted >any of my secrets to it. :-) It is discrete, however. Someone took his funny pill this morning. Very good. But at issue is the way in which a quantum is discrete and why. I cant say as Ive ever seen a quantum much less two or three. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41bd1833.17476667@netnews.att.net> <41bd9f23.21123889@netnews.att.net> <1Umvd.231528$HA.34538@attbi_s01> <41bec327.26789264@netnews.att.net> <41be294a$0$44096$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl> <41bfb322.31475312@netnews.att.net> <41bfec2f.37616603@netnews.att.net> <2LNvd.10083$pb.676679@news20.bellglobal.com> posting-account=SqYkwg0AAABibDnSpEgBfNCp5F3aKoMz Oops, pretty punny. Well spell what we can, what we \ cant spell, well can. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics [...]> > I dont think Lester likes quantum physics ;-) Lester thinks quantum theory is a fraud, or a joke, or both. He believes its a conspiracy by the elitist scientists who ignore his epoch-making discovery of differences among difference (or between - I forget; not that it would make much difference.) Lester doesnt like anything he cant imagine. \ He doesnt like any dimensions beyond the spatial three, either. Lester believes that if he cant understand it, it must be wrong - because of course whatever he understand must be true. (Thats an example of a vlaid but unsound argument, another thing Lester has trouble with. See his talk about tautologies.) === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >[...]> >> I dont think Lester likes quantum physics ;-) >Lester thinks quantum theory is a fraud, or a joke, or both. He believes >its a conspiracy by the elitist scientists who ignore his epoch-making >discovery of differences among difference (or between - I forget; not >that it would make much difference.) Not quite, Wolf. Lester thinks the application of quantum principles is etc. etc. etc. and that quantum effects should be derived from stinkin reasons guessing game used by conventional physics. >Lester doesnt like anything he cant \ imagine. He doesnt like any >dimensions beyond the spatial three, either. Not quite, Wolf. Lester doesnt like anything you can \ imagine but cant prove. >Lester believes that if he cant understand it, it must be wrong - >because of course whatever he understand must be true. (Thats an >example of a vlaid but unsound argument, another thing Lester has >trouble with. See his talk about tautologies.) Another vlaid faux pas, Wolf. Whats unsound is that your argument is particular and not universal. I may or may not like what I cant understand but unlike yourself I much prefer what I can prove. The only thing of universal signi\[CapitalThorn]cance youve ever \ said is that tautologies are always true. Can I help it if I then extrapolate the consequences of that uncharacteristic admission? Its your fault yet you blame me. You shoulda stood in bed. The true behaviorist never admits anything is true. === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics >> >>My main point is that the word equal, with all its secular meanings, >>is probably a poor choice for =, which you have well described as >>an approximate relationship, or at least a quali\[CapitalThorn]ed relationship. >> Most words of any fundamental signi\[CapitalThorn]cance are. And the more we try >> to specify them the vaguer they get. Maybe theres a conservation of >> vagueness law at work akin to the uncertainty principle. > I like that! They are very similar! Specifying de\[CapitalThorn]nition increases > vagueness---and like in the subatomic world, we become part of the > experiment---we cannot stay outside the system we are measuring! > I dont think Lester likes quantum physics ;-) I smell a cat...is it dead yet? === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics <41bd1833.17476667@netnews.att.net> <41bd9f23.21123889@netnews.att.net> <1Umvd.231528$HA.34538@attbi_s01> <41bec327.26789264@netnews.att.net> <41be294a$0$44096$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl> posting-account=SqYkwg0AAABibDnSpEgBfNCp5F3aKoMz Half dead, half alive of course.... === Subject: Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics > Half dead, half alive of course.... I tend to agree...half the time. When no ones looking. === Subject: How to \[CapitalThorn]nd the extremum of the Absolute value of a function=?big5?Q?=A1H?= Suppose I have a complex-valued function Z, and Z=Z(x1,x2,y) where x1,x2 and y are three real variables. I wanna |Z| has local minimums at two given points y=y1 and y=y2, where x1 and x2 should be adjusted to met this demand. i.e. QGHow to \[CapitalThorn]nd x1 and x2 such that |Z| has local minimum at two given points y1 and y2 ? --  Origin: j.b3.bc[Degre e]T  === Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re:_How_to_\[CapitalThorn]nd_the_extremum_of_the_Absolute_value_ of_a_function=EF =BC=9F?= posting-account=Glvc4AwAAADzVCZ73XnxpzMhXir6xVzs > Suppose I have a complex-valued function Z, and Z=Z(x1,x2,y) > where x1,x2 and y are three real variables. I wanna |Z| has local > minimums at two given points y=y1 and y=y2, where x1 and x2 should be > adjusted to met this demand. > i.e. > Q.81FHow to \[CapitalThorn]nd x1 and x2 such that |Z| has local minimum at two given points > y1 and y2 ? To \[CapitalThorn]nd the minimimum for y=y1, de\[CapitalThorn]ne a new \ function: W1(x1,x2) = Z(x1, x2, y1) and use your favorite minimization technique. Similarly for y2. - Randy === Subject: Inconsistency of All Axiomatizations of Real Number Theory posting-account=FWqG3gsAAABhAAoqk0BhKrcm7Pj0Hk13 I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of the above, but the space alloted for this email is insuf\[CapitalThorn]cient for me to reproduce it here... === Subject: Re: Inconsistency of All Axiomatizations of Real Number Theory > I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of the above, but the space > alloted for this email is insuf\[CapitalThorn]cient for me to reproduce it here... Then, to continue the analogy, it will be at least 350 years before anybody sees any such proof, so it is of no importance to anyone now alive. === Subject: Re: Inconsistency of All Axiomatizations of Real Number Theory posting-account=UtgH7gwAAACpBhTelVPOXNP7RAfbtQrK > I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of the above, but the space > alloted for this email is insuf\[CapitalThorn]cient for me to reproduce it here... So shut up.