 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Discovery of Higgs at Large Hadron Collider might not... |
|
Page 18 of 20 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Y.Porat... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 7:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 9:11 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:32 pm, PD > > > > do you have or had another
name ???
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Mr PD i am waiting to your answer:
how is it that you got my book
while i never gave it to you ???!!
Yes you did, Porat.
I don't know where your mind has gone.
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
do you think that you can talk any lie you like ??:
(we talk aboutthe whole book
NOT ABOUT THE ABSTRACT
THAT IS PUBLISHED ON THE NET RIGHT ??
Right.
ok so please send to my E mail
y.y.po... at (no spam) hotmail.com
a copy of the first page
with my dedication to you PD
and my signature on it as well
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
on each exemplar i was giving to people
i added to it a personal dedication on the opening
page
so please send me a copy of that page
dedicated yo you personally
please send it as an attachment to my private mail:
y.y.po... at (no spam) hotmail.com
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Mr PD
i am still waiting to see
my first page with my personal dedication to you
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
[/quote]
and now
a gfew days later
PD is telling us that he lost my book !!!!!
1
if you lost my book
how can you tell that you was able to evaluate it??
WITHOUT MY HELP AND DISCUSSIONS between us about it ???!!!
2
how long it took you to invent that new lie
trick that you lost my book
'AND DONT REMEMBER WERE IT IS' !!!...
is it possible for instance that you sent it to someone else ::
say
Robert Higgins ???
and may be others ??!!!
3
if so
maybe you can show (quote )
documentations about our
pre delivery of that book between us
as for where is the address that i should sent it
to ???
no one can imagine that i sent it to your address
without you telling it to me !!
so were is that correspondence between us ??
please quote it !!
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| zzbunker at (no spam) netscape.net... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 5:58 pm, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Quantification is obviously facilitated very nicely by using numbers.
But, quantification can also be accomplished by the use of things
which are not numbers. Natural phenomena can be quantified by the
"expectation" of a certain value.
These are very different things. And it should be clear that one CAN
model physical phenomena WITHOUT actually using numbers.
Numbers exist. But the expectation of a given value does not
neccesarily imply it's existence.
[/quote]
Well, that's why AI, Revese Compilers, Optical Computers,
Digital Books, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, 4D Hologrpahics, On-Line
Publishing, and
Self-Replicating Machines were invented.
Since given that the only thing scientists even know about expected
values
is Darwin, it's not really obvious what their crank ideas about
numbers really apply to. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Huang" <huangxienchen at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:953d4a03-ab18-48c6-a1c4-7e05393b3f7e at (no spam) l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Quantification is obviously facilitated very nicely by using numbers.
But, quantification can also be accomplished by the use of things
which are not numbers. Natural phenomena can be quantified by the
"expectation" of a certain value.
[/quote]
Which can be expressed as a number
[quote]These are very different things. And it should be clear that one CAN
model physical phenomena WITHOUT actually using numbers.
[/quote]
And math isn't just about numbers. You can express math using, say, English
sentence .. its still math
[quote]Numbers exist. But the expectation of a given value does not
neccesarily imply it's existence.
[/quote]
Who said it had to? you are making some naive assumptions about the nature
of mathematics if you think it can only deal with real existent objects. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f6d0659-5d92-4ac3-a71b-2055cc9a9cd0 at (no spam) b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 12:45 am, Aleph <Usenet.... at (no spam) gishpuppy.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2009 08:13, Y.Porat <y.y.po... at (no spam) gmail.com> gave it no where
near enough thought and then wrote:
On Oct 30, 4:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b91e632-242a-4d1c-a847-f281bf6faf7c at (no spam) p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
he says that he is under 50
and that is again a lie
he is probably under 30 !!!
Porat thinks that people under 30 are not under 50.
BAHAHAHAHA.
------------------
the point is not being 30 or 60
THE POINT IS BEING A
PROFESSIONAL -LIER ----
OR AN HONEST RELIABLE PERSON
(and not a traitor as well ..........!)
you said that you are under 50 !!!
Y.P
You obviously miss out on how ironic your posts can be.
Under 30 is also under 50.
Even if, by some miracle, you are being 100% honest in all your posts,
you are still wrong. You are so wrong, there arent sufficient words to
explain how wrong you are.
Good luck with your insane quest though.
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored.
-----------------
typical to the crook Aleph!!
if you are a honest person
and you are 29
(and you have nothing** to hide**
(as an honest man)
you should *not * say that you under 100
[/quote]
Of course you would. You would be wrong if you said you were over 100.
[quote]got iit nasty pigg Goebbels ???!! ??
[/quote]
You're such a nasty old man.
[quote]Aleph is not a scientist
he is Joself Goebbels in a new version
[/quote]
Bahahha
[quote]and let anyone here
know who really he is and his scientific credibility and honesty (that
does not exist in his
vocabulary !!)
actually as a good Nazi gangster
he despises honesty !!
[/quote]
Hurry up and die and make the world a better place for everyone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:039e5be5-9134-4218-8a1a-57cf218877e5 at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 1:03 am, Aleph <Usenet.... at (no spam) gishpuppy.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2009 08:26, Y.Porat <y.y.po... at (no spam) gmail.com> gave it no where
near enough thought and then wrote:
snip
--------------
1
i am not going to protest on the street
Shame. It would be funny.
for me it is enough that thousands of people
see this thread !!...
ROTFLMAO. Yes, people will see this thread, but I think the outcome is
not what you want it to be.
and test the reliability of the actors here
(including your great contribution to science ..(:-)
Yawn. You think your gibberish, which is shown to be wrong when ever it
comes close to science, is a "great contribution"?
Maybe to the field of mental healt.
and reliability and credibility ans excuse me--
for the obscene word ----in sci.physics---
Feel free to post elsewhere. Go to blogger and get yourself a blog.
honesty ...)
2
does the word Aleph mean something to you !!
Nope. Why? Are you getting a crush on me? Please, try to keep your hands
where everyone can see them.
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored.
------------------
(
Aleph called himself Aleph
[/quote]
Finally Porat gets something right
[snip rest of pathetic unwarranted porat ranting and insults] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Huang... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 3:07 am, "zzbun... at (no spam) netscape.net" <zzbun... at (no spam) netscape.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 5:58 pm, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quantification is obviously facilitated very nicely by using numbers.
But, quantification can also be accomplished by the use of things
which are not numbers. Natural phenomena can be quantified by the
"expectation" of a certain value.
These are very different things. And it should be clear that one CAN
model physical phenomena WITHOUT actually using numbers.
Numbers exist. But the expectation of a given value does not
neccesarily imply it's existence.
Well, that's why AI, Revese Compilers, Optical Computers,
Digital Books, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, 4D Hologrpahics, On-Line
Publishing, and
Self-Replicating Machines were invented.
Since given that the only thing scientists even know about expected
values
is Darwin, it's not really obvious what their crank ideas about
numbers really apply to.
[/quote]
My thesis is that one can model nature with numbers, or expectations.
Numbers are knowns, numbers are givens, numbers are proveable and in a
sense numbers create a kind of truth. Expectations are best guesses
and are not the same as knowns, not the same as givens, and nothing is
proveable using them, the best you can do is demonstrate consistency,
such a scheme of modelling is not the same as mathematical truth, it
is a system of guessing, a system of estimating expectations, and I
call it Conjectural Modelling.
Futher - that Math and Conjecture are so efficient and precise that it
is impossible to say whether oen tool is any better than the other for
ANY physical situation.
Nature is therefore no different than a cointoss, and we will NEVER be
able to know if it be deterministic, or non-deterministic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Huang... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 6:13 am, Salmon Egg <Salmon... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]In article
d3b7a472-5b75-4b1f-8b2d-17415e0d9... at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Go ahead and tun away from the science, I dont really care. Be
condused if you wish, all of you.
I don't care.
Bill
[/quote]
Nor do I. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| paparios at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 1 nov, 02:02, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]If I have a square and it is 5 units long on an edge, then I know that
the area is 25 square units.
But if I "expect" that the edge is 5 units long, then I cannot KNOW
that the area is 25 square units. NO ! , the best I can hope to do is
EXPECT to have an area of 25 square units.
Can we now agree that there is a difference between Truth and
Conjecture ?
Go ahead and tun away from the science, I dont really care. Be
condused if you wish, all of you.
[/quote]
Math has for long worked with expectations and bounds. Sometimes
obtaining an exact result (like the area in your example) it is not
posible because of the complexity of solving the problem. But it is
quite posible to easily obtain some bounds results saying, for
instance: the area is higher than A and lower than B. One example is
the Complimentary Error Function Q(x), which can not be evaluated in
closed form and it is usually presented in tabular form. However there
are some approximations that are very good, but that are only good for
values of x greater than 3.
Miguel Rios |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Y.Porat... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 11:07 am, "zzbun... at (no spam) netscape.net" <zzbun... at (no spam) netscape.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 5:58 pm, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quantification is obviously facilitated very nicely by using numbers.
But, quantification can also be accomplished by the use of things
which are not numbers. Natural phenomena can be quantified by the
"expectation" of a certain value.
These are very different things. And it should be clear that one CAN
model physical phenomena WITHOUT actually using numbers.
Numbers exist. But the expectation of a given value does not
neccesarily imply it's existence.
Well, that's why AI, Revese Compilers, Optical Computers,
Digital Books, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, 4D Hologrpahics, On-Line
Publishing, and
Self-Replicating Machines were invented.
Since given that the only thing scientists even know about expected
values
is Darwin, it's not really obvious what their crank ideas about
numbers really apply to.
[/quote]
------------------
you forgot to add to your
QM achievements
the invention of the Viagra !!!
and the feather decoration of the Indians !!
Y.P
-------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Huang... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 7:26 am, "papar... at (no spam) gmail.com" <papar... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 1 nov, 02:02, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
If I have a square and it is 5 units long on an edge, then I know that
the area is 25 square units.
But if I "expect" that the edge is 5 units long, then I cannot KNOW
that the area is 25 square units. NO ! , the best I can hope to do is
EXPECT to have an area of 25 square units.
Can we now agree that there is a difference between Truth and
Conjecture ?
Go ahead and tun away from the science, I dont really care. Be
condused if you wish, all of you.
Math has for long worked with expectations and bounds. Sometimes
obtaining an exact result (like the area in your example) it is not
posible because of the complexity of solving the problem. But it is
quite posible to easily obtain some bounds results saying, for
instance: the area is higher than A and lower than B. One example is
the Complimentary Error Function Q(x), which can not be evaluated in
closed form and it is usually presented in tabular form. However there
are some approximations that are very good, but that are only good for
values of x greater than 3.
Miguel Rios
[/quote]
The pivotal question at hand is whether an expected value is a number,
I think that it is indeterminate whether it is a number or not. I dont
think it's proveable, but the fact that there are legitimate arguments
for and against ( that is is and also is not a number) seems to
support this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| paparios at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 1 nov, 11:48, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 7:26 am, "papar... at (no spam) gmail.com" <papar... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 nov, 02:02, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
If I have a square and it is 5 units long on an edge, then I know that
the area is 25 square units.
But if I "expect" that the edge is 5 units long, then I cannot KNOW
that the area is 25 square units. NO ! , the best I can hope to do is
EXPECT to have an area of 25 square units.
Can we now agree that there is a difference between Truth and
Conjecture ?
Go ahead and tun away from the science, I dont really care. Be
condused if you wish, all of you.
Math has for long worked with expectations and bounds. Sometimes
obtaining an exact result (like the area in your example) it is not
posible because of the complexity of solving the problem. But it is
quite posible to easily obtain some bounds results saying, for
instance: the area is higher than A and lower than B. One example is
the Complimentary Error Function Q(x), which can not be evaluated in
closed form and it is usually presented in tabular form. However there
are some approximations that are very good, but that are only good for
values of x greater than 3.
Miguel Rios
The pivotal question at hand is whether an expected value is a number,
I think that it is indeterminate whether it is a number or not. I dont
think it's proveable, but the fact that there are legitimate arguments
for and against ( that is is and also is not a number) seems to
support this.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
[/quote]
Of course an expected value is a number! It may have a range like A=25
+/- 0.5, but, again, it is a number.
Miguel Rios |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Huang... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:01 am, "papar... at (no spam) gmail.com" <papar... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 1 nov, 11:48, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:26 am, "papar... at (no spam) gmail.com" <papar... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 nov, 02:02, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
If I have a square and it is 5 units long on an edge, then I know that
the area is 25 square units.
But if I "expect" that the edge is 5 units long, then I cannot KNOW
that the area is 25 square units. NO ! , the best I can hope to do is
EXPECT to have an area of 25 square units.
Can we now agree that there is a difference between Truth and
Conjecture ?
Go ahead and tun away from the science, I dont really care. Be
condused if you wish, all of you.
Math has for long worked with expectations and bounds. Sometimes
obtaining an exact result (like the area in your example) it is not
posible because of the complexity of solving the problem. But it is
quite posible to easily obtain some bounds results saying, for
instance: the area is higher than A and lower than B. One example is
the Complimentary Error Function Q(x), which can not be evaluated in
closed form and it is usually presented in tabular form. However there
are some approximations that are very good, but that are only good for
values of x greater than 3.
Miguel Rios
The pivotal question at hand is whether an expected value is a number,
I think that it is indeterminate whether it is a number or not. I dont
think it's proveable, but the fact that there are legitimate arguments
for and against ( that is is and also is not a number) seems to
support this.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
Of course an expected value is a number! It may have a range like A=25
+/- 0.5, but, again, it is a number.
Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Since when do numbers have ranges ? Have you seen the definition of a
number ?
For example, the definition of a Real Number is usually defined in
terms of Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts on the rationals.
You dont see any potential problems arising from trying to define
numbers as expected values ? No problems regarding defineability ?
Uniqueness ? Would you say that the expectation of snow is the same
thing as actually having snow ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Salmon Egg... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<d3b7a472-5b75-4b1f-8b2d-17415e0d96a8 at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Huang <huangxienchen at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Go ahead and tun away from the science, I dont really care. Be
condused if you wish, all of you.
[/quote]
I don't care.
Bill
--
As the years go by, dying just before having to fill out a tax return has merit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Huang" <huangxienchen at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c90b243-571e-452b-bbd3-8b3a533cfcc3 at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 3:07 am, "zzbun... at (no spam) netscape.net" <zzbun... at (no spam) netscape.net
wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:58 pm, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quantification is obviously facilitated very nicely by using numbers.
But, quantification can also be accomplished by the use of things
which are not numbers. Natural phenomena can be quantified by the
"expectation" of a certain value.
These are very different things. And it should be clear that one CAN
model physical phenomena WITHOUT actually using numbers.
Numbers exist. But the expectation of a given value does not
neccesarily imply it's existence.
Well, that's why AI, Revese Compilers, Optical Computers,
Digital Books, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, 4D Hologrpahics, On-Line
Publishing, and
Self-Replicating Machines were invented.
Since given that the only thing scientists even know about expected
values
is Darwin, it's not really obvious what their crank ideas about
numbers really apply to.
My thesis is that one can model nature with numbers, or expectations.
[/quote]
Youappear to have simply renamed 'probability' as 'expectation' and that is
numeric.
[quote]Numbers are knowns, numbers are givens, numbers are proveable and in a
sense numbers create a kind of truth. Expectations are best guesses
and are not the same as knowns, not the same as givens, and nothing is
proveable using them, the best you can do is demonstrate consistency,
such a scheme of modelling is not the same as mathematical truth, it
is a system of guessing, a system of estimating expectations, and I
call it Conjectural Modelling.
[/quote]
Sounds very mathematical.
[quote]Futher - that Math and Conjecture are so efficient and precise that it
is impossible to say whether oen tool is any better than the other for
ANY physical situation.
[/quote]
Conjecture appears to be math in disguise :)
[quote]Nature is therefore no different than a cointoss, and we will NEVER be
able to know if it be deterministic, or non-deterministic.
[/quote]
Math doesn't care, of course |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Huang... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:32 pm, Aleph <Usenet.... at (no spam) gishpuppy.com> wrote:
[quote]On 1/11/2009 03:38, Y.Porat <y.y.po... at (no spam) gmail.com> gave it nowhere near
enough thought and then wrote:
On Nov 1, 1:03 am, Aleph <Usenet.... at (no spam) gishpuppy.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2009 08:26, Y.Porat <y.y.po... at (no spam) gmail.com> gave it nowhere
near enough thought and then wrote:
2
does the word Aleph mean something to you !!
Nope. Why? Are you getting a crush on me? Please, try to keep your hands
where everyone can see them.
------------------
(
Aleph called himself Aleph
Well spotted. You are so clever it makes bacteria jealous.
**while that word means nothing to him!1*!!
What is your point here? Its a word. Why should it mean anything?
Does Y.Porat mean something to you?
got it people of this ng
Like you have any friends here. You are a babbling madman.
got it with whom we are dealing here ??!!
he is not only a crook
he is a psychopath crook gangster !!!
Ah, here we go. Down into the masturbation frenzy that is a porat post.
i think that the name Michael Varney
should fit him better .....
Why? Since when do *you* get to decide what random name to call me?
Y.Porat
Ok, from now on you are George Hammond.
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored.
[/quote]
And I am accused of being childish ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:46 pm
|
|