| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Enough is enough
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| mitch |
 Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mitch <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:<3FFA7BA0.6E7B9B18@rcnNOSPAM.com>...
Quote: It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup.
It is also clear WHO STARTED this nonsense.
It is also clear WHO CHOSE to post to this newsgroup
a conversation having NOTHING TO DO with its topics.
What is slightly (but ONLY slightly) LESS clear is
what MOTIVATION the ASSHOLE who did this had for doing it.
It's not enough UNTIL mitch smith shows some evidence
that he UNDERSTANDS that he was WRONG and he's SORRY. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mitch <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:<3FFA7BA0.6E7B9B18@rcnNOSPAM.com>...
Quote: It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup.
It is also clear WHO STARTED this nonsense.
It is also clear WHO CHOSE to post to this newsgroup
a conversation having NOTHING TO DO with its topics.
What is slightly (but ONLY slightly) LESS clear is
what MOTIVATION the ASSHOLE who did this had for doing it.
It's not enough UNTIL mitch smith shows some evidence
that he UNDERSTANDS that he was WRONG and he's SORRY. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mitch <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> writes:
: It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup.
ALL YOUR nonsense HAS ALWAYS been hurting this newsgroup
and I DON'T mean just hauling messages that weren't even
ADDRESSED TO THIS GROUP TO BEGIN WITH into it.
I MEAN:
1) lying about other people's positions, or ascribing
to them positions that they don't hold;
2) refusing to answer simple questions about your own
positions, or about topics that you yourself have
raised as relevant ("I got sick, so I went to grad
school near home". "Well, what was wrong with you?"
<dead silence, for 5 months, until you get an opportunity
to accuse somebody of being bigoted against you and the
group of people similarly afflicted -- bigotry in the
sense having nothing whatsoever to do with intolerance
of anybody's opinions but rather of over-generalized
bias against a group>);
3) continually bragging about knowing things that other
people haven't studied WITHOUT making any effort to
explain why they might be relevant or to help people
understand them, preferring instead to insist that
they need to read 400-page tomes notorious for their
difficulty in order to be qualifed to talk to you --
when in fact, your own posts prove that your own
understanding of the areas where you are bragging about
your superior expertise is lacking in perspective;
4) (most important) insulting people's character or style
or morality (that's what you're doing WHENEVER you call
anybody a bigot) INSTEAD OF ENGAGING THE MATH. This last
in particular is about intellectual temperament generally,
at least in public, and your failure on this front is
NOT excusable by your doctor. This is just a character
flaw. You DID have control over your CHOICE to KEEP
doing this or QUIT it; it is NOT like nicotine.
--
---
"It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any
strength, but internal issues have to be addressed."
--- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mitch <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> writes:
: It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup.
ALL YOUR nonsense HAS ALWAYS been hurting this newsgroup
and I DON'T mean just hauling messages that weren't even
ADDRESSED TO THIS GROUP TO BEGIN WITH into it.
I MEAN:
1) lying about other people's positions, or ascribing
to them positions that they don't hold;
2) refusing to answer simple questions about your own
positions, or about topics that you yourself have
raised as relevant ("I got sick, so I went to grad
school near home". "Well, what was wrong with you?"
<dead silence, for 5 months, until you get an opportunity
to accuse somebody of being bigoted against you and the
group of people similarly afflicted -- bigotry in the
sense having nothing whatsoever to do with intolerance
of anybody's opinions but rather of over-generalized
bias against a group>);
3) continually bragging about knowing things that other
people haven't studied WITHOUT making any effort to
explain why they might be relevant or to help people
understand them, preferring instead to insist that
they need to read 400-page tomes notorious for their
difficulty in order to be qualifed to talk to you --
when in fact, your own posts prove that your own
understanding of the areas where you are bragging about
your superior expertise is lacking in perspective;
4) (most important) insulting people's character or style
or morality (that's what you're doing WHENEVER you call
anybody a bigot) INSTEAD OF ENGAGING THE MATH. This last
in particular is about intellectual temperament generally,
at least in public, and your failure on this front is
NOT excusable by your doctor. This is just a character
flaw. You DID have control over your CHOICE to KEEP
doing this or QUIT it; it is NOT like nicotine.
--
---
"It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any
strength, but internal issues have to be addressed."
--- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mitch |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mitch wrote:
Quote: It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup.
It would be inappropriate for most Americans to deny a charge of racism
given the history of these matters. That is what makes what has just
happened so unfortunate. What is important for someone is how they
respond to the challenge such an issue faces in their life.
My use of "this nonsense" is in reference to the flame war George Greene
has engaged in for the last year. I have made appropriate appeals for
Mr. Greene to cease and desist to no avail. Having the good fortune of
a community of scholars in his daily activity, he seems unable to
respect the fact that someone might not have that resource. He could
have simply ignored my posts as I had asked and many others chose to do
on their own.
I had my reasons for continuing to post to sci.logic when others simply
would have stopped. Mostly, it is because I had hoped to find someone
with whom to have discussions at all. It is difficult enough because
the technical aspects of my ideas were nowhere near clear enough, and, I
did not understand the responses I was receiving. This has nothing to
do with more textbooks. Sometimes people need to be able to have
intelligent conversations to clarify matters.
Flame wars do not satisfy that criterion. Mr. Greene's flame war
effectively diminished any possibility of my finding assistance.
For the people who did not understand my posts, there is a difference
between the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and the fundamental
theorem of algebra. When you speak of set theory as a foundation for
mathematics you are invoking a great deal of complexity.
There are no proofs of the fundamental theorem of algebra that do not
require results from analysis. This theorem associates a basic closure
property with the mathematical sense of "number"--and, it is not
independent of geometry and topology.
I will reiterate something that I have said before. You need to be
interested in mathematics to argue about the foundations of
mathematics. You cannot simply say that nothing before 1968 matters.
I will stop posting to sci.logic now.
:-)
mitch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mitch |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mitch wrote:
Quote: It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup.
It would be inappropriate for most Americans to deny a charge of racism
given the history of these matters. That is what makes what has just
happened so unfortunate. What is important for someone is how they
respond to the challenge such an issue faces in their life.
My use of "this nonsense" is in reference to the flame war George Greene
has engaged in for the last year. I have made appropriate appeals for
Mr. Greene to cease and desist to no avail. Having the good fortune of
a community of scholars in his daily activity, he seems unable to
respect the fact that someone might not have that resource. He could
have simply ignored my posts as I had asked and many others chose to do
on their own.
I had my reasons for continuing to post to sci.logic when others simply
would have stopped. Mostly, it is because I had hoped to find someone
with whom to have discussions at all. It is difficult enough because
the technical aspects of my ideas were nowhere near clear enough, and, I
did not understand the responses I was receiving. This has nothing to
do with more textbooks. Sometimes people need to be able to have
intelligent conversations to clarify matters.
Flame wars do not satisfy that criterion. Mr. Greene's flame war
effectively diminished any possibility of my finding assistance.
For the people who did not understand my posts, there is a difference
between the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and the fundamental
theorem of algebra. When you speak of set theory as a foundation for
mathematics you are invoking a great deal of complexity.
There are no proofs of the fundamental theorem of algebra that do not
require results from analysis. This theorem associates a basic closure
property with the mathematical sense of "number"--and, it is not
independent of geometry and topology.
I will reiterate something that I have said before. You need to be
interested in mathematics to argue about the foundations of
mathematics. You cannot simply say that nothing before 1968 matters.
I will stop posting to sci.logic now.
:-)
mitch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mitch <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> writes:
: My use of "this nonsense" is in reference to the flame war George Greene
: has engaged in for the last year.
You're LYING, mitch. YOU STARTED with the flames.
The first inflammatory thing I saw you post when this
war began was that Herb Enderton was a career-minded incompetent
and that as a result, the first edition of his logic book was "horrid".
Fortunately, a war was averted there by the fact that he could plead
atonement by having published a 2nd edition in 2001 and you could plead
apology for not having seen it yet. But you began by attacking COHEN
as UNSOUND, for crying out loud! And you didn't STOP with attacking
the proofs in the books or the the results from the theories.
You INSISTED on PSYCHOLOGIZING about EVERYbody. IT IS YOU who started
the trend of invoking people's mental states or outside aspects of
who they are to attack them IN the context of your argument in support
of your claims about knowing how to re-do identity righter&better than
everybody else! And you do it again in THIS very message.
: I have made appropriate appeals for Mr. Greene to
: cease and desist to no avail.
NO YOU HAVEN'T, DUMBASS.
You have not even demonstrated that ANYTHING I AM DOING IS WRONG!
(Well, I was wrong, briefly, about the semantics of 1st-order
quantification, but I apologized for that, and the apology is
much more relevant than the error, since term models must in
fact exist). Your claim that I should cease or desist from ANYthing I am
doing is COMPLETELY INappropriate, as far as I am concerned, and
the burden of proof otherwise is VERY much on you!
: Having the good fortune of a community of scholars in his daily activity,
See, THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF *SHIT* I am talking about!
YOU HAVE NO IDEA where I stand with respect to other scholars in my
department! Obviously, as much time as I spend newsgrouping, I am
missing out on some opportunities to interact with them.
But more to the point, THE CORRECTNESS OR INCORRECTNESS OF ANYTHING
I HAVE SAID HERE IS *COMPLETELY*UNCONNECTED* to whether I do or don't
have access to a community of scholars! People deep in a community can
get it WRONG! Young Ramanujan alone in India can get it right!
ALL these MATHEMATICAL issues DESERVE to be debated ON THEIR MERITS
and NOT on the basis of any characteristics that people's external
situations may involve! Unless you can show direct relevance of
the external condition (like you actually studied under Cohen or Enderton
or something).
: he seems unable to respect the fact that someone might not have that resource.
THAT IS IRRELEVANT to this discussion! Whether you do or don't have access
to other scholars has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with whether you do or don't
choose to answer MY question when I ask you "Is your axiom-set in FOL
WITH equality or WITHOUT?" OTHER SCHOLARS HAVE NO RELEVANCE to that!
That's JUST you&me! When you say that equality in set theory is "rich"
and I PROVE to you that it IS NOT EVEN THERE AT ALL, access to other scholars
IS NOT RELEVANT! ALL that is relevant is YOUR megalomania!
When FF pointed out to you that Set theory was easy to do without
equality, you invoked Quine, you talked about alternative takes on
language primitives, you did basically everything except ADMIT YOU WERE
WRONG! You EVEN had the gall to swear that Axy[x=y <-df-> Az[zex<->zey]]
was, as a definition, AMBIGUOUS (which it isn't). "Well, unlike George,
I was disadvantaged because he, being black, got government and foundation
funding to go to grad school, whereas I, having grown up poor and white,
and having had the misfortune to contract a medical condition that kept
me at an inferior graduate school near home, got bounced out of it by
the evil system when I had some minor difficulty with my student loans;
he wants AA to help him overcome past injustice, but I've suffered more
of it than he has, and he's so inconsistent that he isn't even sympathetic
to my plight; but YOU should be -- AND to my revisionist take on
equality." THAT is the WHOLE content of your argument here and to say
it SUCKS would be an insult to cocksuckers!
: He could have simply ignored my posts as I had asked and many others chose to do
: on their own.
You could simply have answered simple questions when asked.
You could simply have been scrupulous about quoting what you were rebutting
(as am I).
: I had my reasons for continuing to post to sci.logic when others simply
: would have stopped. Mostly, it is because I had hoped to find someone
: with whom to have discussions at all.
That was credible until the day you called me a bigot for calling you
mentally ill. Since then it has been a whole different dynamic.
: It is difficult enough because
: the technical aspects of my ideas were nowhere near clear enough, and, I
: did not understand the responses I was receiving.
Then *ASK*, DON'T *TELL*, DUMBASS! If you don't understand then
ASK for clarification! I asked you REPEATEDLY and the number
of reply chains that end with me asking questions that you
won't answer is in the DOZENS by now! But you DIDN'T ask!
You just told people that they didn't know what ultrafilters
or modular linear functional transformations were and that they
were therefore unqualified to talk to you!
: This has nothing to do with more textbooks.
Which is precisely why I not only never consulted any text you
asked me to consult, but was also contemptuous of your requests
for people to cite texts backing their assertions.
: Sometimes people need to be able to have
: intelligent conversations to clarify matters.
I am able to do that. It is YOUR ability that is under debate.
: Flame wars do not satisfy that criterion.
In your ignorant opinion.
: Mr. Greene's flame war
IT TAKES TWO to have a flamewar, DUMBASS!
: effectively diminished any possibility of my finding assistance.
Nobody respects ME, fool! I think your calling Herb Enderton
"a career-minded incompetent" MIGHT have had SOMEthing more to do
with that. More to the point, when Tim Chow told you that
Cohen's explanation of forcing produced a finitistic relative
consistency proof, your reply was "Cohen was not interested in
relative consistency." It is dismissive retorts like that, TO
people with expertise, that got THEM to tune you out.
You can blame me if you want but I don't even NEED to spend
further political capital on that -- people at large are NOT
in danger of believing that you collapsed to a linear order
because of ME.
: For the people who did not understand my posts, there is a difference
: between the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and the fundamental
: theorem of algebra. When you speak of set theory as a foundation for
: mathematics you are invoking a great deal of complexity.
Sure, but that was not your point; your point was that
forcing-as-defined was suspect because reversing the direction
of epsilon meant that something that arguably needed to be well-
founded wasn't.
: There are no proofs of the fundamental theorem of algebra that do not
: require results from analysis. This theorem associates a basic closure
: property with the mathematical sense of "number"
Well, with complex numbers, specifically, but since WHEN
are THEY "basic"?
: --and, it is not independent of geometry and topology.
Of course not, but Nobody Ever EXPECTED that COMPLEX numbers
might be independent of topology or geometry, at least not
after they saw the DeMoivrean take with polar co-ordinates.
My point is simply that we weren't TALKING about complex numbers
or about the fundamental theorem of algebra -- we were
ORIGINALLY talking about rich equality and about the "boolean-
valued" models constructed in using forcing to prove the
indpendence of the continuum hypothesis.
: I will reiterate something that I have said before. You need to be
: interested in mathematics to argue about the foundations of
: mathematics. You cannot simply say that nothing before 1968 matters.
I have never said that. What I said was that TEACHING, was that PEDAGOGICAL
treatments from before 1968, are likely to have been done better since
(the disparity in quality -- not merely acknowledged, but CHAMPIONED by YOU --
between the 1972 and 2001 editions of Enderton's book is a GREAT example),
and that if you wanted something explained to you, it would be wise to
get it from a modern treatment. That some of this would include
treatments of ideas whose importance had originally been demonstrated
far earlier (and never yet superseded -- even if they WERE now phrased in
language not only more fashionable but more coherent) SHOULD have gone WITHOUT
saying.
: I will stop posting to sci.logic now.
Without having apologized for accusing black professionals
of intra-racial bigotry for trying to send their kids to
good schools. Without having apologized for saying that class
matters more than race in "these issues", when these issues
include homelessness, SAT scores, wrongly getting sentenced to
death, and a host of others about which you know about as much
as I know about ultrafilters. Without having apologized for
lying about most of what I've said. Without having EXPLAINED,
since last April, anything to anybody who WANTED to understand.
In other words, while having engaged in wholly political behavior,
while attributing that to everybody else. Your leaving is
just the coup de grace: it is the only way for you to provide
evidence that you were bullied; it's your victory lap
in the flamewar. But don't worry;
it's all archived on Google, including a lot of good
math from back before you got distracted by trying to win
vs. me. Somebody will probably put a coherent summary of
it together one day; maybe there will even be a chapter in
a text one day on why there is something philosophically
suspect about the fact that, as you put it, back before
we collided like electron and positron,
Quote: Cohen's method must assume there is an object (the total function)
outside of the given existing model.
If there isn't the whole construction is a fantasy. On
the other hand, Cohen's method involves reversing the sense of order
relations with respect to that object.
Or the facts that
Quote: Cohen was not interested in relative consistency. And, I find it difficult to
view the construction of a Boolean-valued model as being finitistic. After all,
the generic names are defined according to a transfinite recursion on the
ordinals.
Or the facts that
Quote: It is the dual order about which I am suspicious. But, that is only part
of the problem. Boolean logic failed to correctly describe the class universe
in the first place, and, Cohen's method is based on reintroducing Boolean logic
via complete Boolean algebras derived from separative partial orders.
As for the dual order, first consider the fact that it is a "top-down" order
deriving "hereditarily" from the structure of "proper classes." Don't worry,
that does not make much sense to me either (as written). But, then that is my
point.
Please do not get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for Cohen's forcing
theorem. It is absolutely brilliant. It just would not work except for the
fact that the use of "undefined language primitives" and "interpretation
mappings" in formal logic and model theory is unsound.
I wouldn't say "unsound". And of the two, the interpretation
mappings are far more problematic than the undefined language
primitives. But I guess we'll never know NOW, will we....
---
"It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any
strength, but internal issues have to be addressed."
--- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mitch <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> writes:
: My use of "this nonsense" is in reference to the flame war George Greene
: has engaged in for the last year.
You're LYING, mitch. YOU STARTED with the flames.
The first inflammatory thing I saw you post when this
war began was that Herb Enderton was a career-minded incompetent
and that as a result, the first edition of his logic book was "horrid".
Fortunately, a war was averted there by the fact that he could plead
atonement by having published a 2nd edition in 2001 and you could plead
apology for not having seen it yet. But you began by attacking COHEN
as UNSOUND, for crying out loud! And you didn't STOP with attacking
the proofs in the books or the the results from the theories.
You INSISTED on PSYCHOLOGIZING about EVERYbody. IT IS YOU who started
the trend of invoking people's mental states or outside aspects of
who they are to attack them IN the context of your argument in support
of your claims about knowing how to re-do identity righter&better than
everybody else! And you do it again in THIS very message.
: I have made appropriate appeals for Mr. Greene to
: cease and desist to no avail.
NO YOU HAVEN'T, DUMBASS.
You have not even demonstrated that ANYTHING I AM DOING IS WRONG!
(Well, I was wrong, briefly, about the semantics of 1st-order
quantification, but I apologized for that, and the apology is
much more relevant than the error, since term models must in
fact exist). Your claim that I should cease or desist from ANYthing I am
doing is COMPLETELY INappropriate, as far as I am concerned, and
the burden of proof otherwise is VERY much on you!
: Having the good fortune of a community of scholars in his daily activity,
See, THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF *SHIT* I am talking about!
YOU HAVE NO IDEA where I stand with respect to other scholars in my
department! Obviously, as much time as I spend newsgrouping, I am
missing out on some opportunities to interact with them.
But more to the point, THE CORRECTNESS OR INCORRECTNESS OF ANYTHING
I HAVE SAID HERE IS *COMPLETELY*UNCONNECTED* to whether I do or don't
have access to a community of scholars! People deep in a community can
get it WRONG! Young Ramanujan alone in India can get it right!
ALL these MATHEMATICAL issues DESERVE to be debated ON THEIR MERITS
and NOT on the basis of any characteristics that people's external
situations may involve! Unless you can show direct relevance of
the external condition (like you actually studied under Cohen or Enderton
or something).
: he seems unable to respect the fact that someone might not have that resource.
THAT IS IRRELEVANT to this discussion! Whether you do or don't have access
to other scholars has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with whether you do or don't
choose to answer MY question when I ask you "Is your axiom-set in FOL
WITH equality or WITHOUT?" OTHER SCHOLARS HAVE NO RELEVANCE to that!
That's JUST you&me! When you say that equality in set theory is "rich"
and I PROVE to you that it IS NOT EVEN THERE AT ALL, access to other scholars
IS NOT RELEVANT! ALL that is relevant is YOUR megalomania!
When FF pointed out to you that Set theory was easy to do without
equality, you invoked Quine, you talked about alternative takes on
language primitives, you did basically everything except ADMIT YOU WERE
WRONG! You EVEN had the gall to swear that Axy[x=y <-df-> Az[zex<->zey]]
was, as a definition, AMBIGUOUS (which it isn't). "Well, unlike George,
I was disadvantaged because he, being black, got government and foundation
funding to go to grad school, whereas I, having grown up poor and white,
and having had the misfortune to contract a medical condition that kept
me at an inferior graduate school near home, got bounced out of it by
the evil system when I had some minor difficulty with my student loans;
he wants AA to help him overcome past injustice, but I've suffered more
of it than he has, and he's so inconsistent that he isn't even sympathetic
to my plight; but YOU should be -- AND to my revisionist take on
equality." THAT is the WHOLE content of your argument here and to say
it SUCKS would be an insult to cocksuckers!
: He could have simply ignored my posts as I had asked and many others chose to do
: on their own.
You could simply have answered simple questions when asked.
You could simply have been scrupulous about quoting what you were rebutting
(as am I).
: I had my reasons for continuing to post to sci.logic when others simply
: would have stopped. Mostly, it is because I had hoped to find someone
: with whom to have discussions at all.
That was credible until the day you called me a bigot for calling you
mentally ill. Since then it has been a whole different dynamic.
: It is difficult enough because
: the technical aspects of my ideas were nowhere near clear enough, and, I
: did not understand the responses I was receiving.
Then *ASK*, DON'T *TELL*, DUMBASS! If you don't understand then
ASK for clarification! I asked you REPEATEDLY and the number
of reply chains that end with me asking questions that you
won't answer is in the DOZENS by now! But you DIDN'T ask!
You just told people that they didn't know what ultrafilters
or modular linear functional transformations were and that they
were therefore unqualified to talk to you!
: This has nothing to do with more textbooks.
Which is precisely why I not only never consulted any text you
asked me to consult, but was also contemptuous of your requests
for people to cite texts backing their assertions.
: Sometimes people need to be able to have
: intelligent conversations to clarify matters.
I am able to do that. It is YOUR ability that is under debate.
: Flame wars do not satisfy that criterion.
In your ignorant opinion.
: Mr. Greene's flame war
IT TAKES TWO to have a flamewar, DUMBASS!
: effectively diminished any possibility of my finding assistance.
Nobody respects ME, fool! I think your calling Herb Enderton
"a career-minded incompetent" MIGHT have had SOMEthing more to do
with that. More to the point, when Tim Chow told you that
Cohen's explanation of forcing produced a finitistic relative
consistency proof, your reply was "Cohen was not interested in
relative consistency." It is dismissive retorts like that, TO
people with expertise, that got THEM to tune you out.
You can blame me if you want but I don't even NEED to spend
further political capital on that -- people at large are NOT
in danger of believing that you collapsed to a linear order
because of ME.
: For the people who did not understand my posts, there is a difference
: between the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and the fundamental
: theorem of algebra. When you speak of set theory as a foundation for
: mathematics you are invoking a great deal of complexity.
Sure, but that was not your point; your point was that
forcing-as-defined was suspect because reversing the direction
of epsilon meant that something that arguably needed to be well-
founded wasn't.
: There are no proofs of the fundamental theorem of algebra that do not
: require results from analysis. This theorem associates a basic closure
: property with the mathematical sense of "number"
Well, with complex numbers, specifically, but since WHEN
are THEY "basic"?
: --and, it is not independent of geometry and topology.
Of course not, but Nobody Ever EXPECTED that COMPLEX numbers
might be independent of topology or geometry, at least not
after they saw the DeMoivrean take with polar co-ordinates.
My point is simply that we weren't TALKING about complex numbers
or about the fundamental theorem of algebra -- we were
ORIGINALLY talking about rich equality and about the "boolean-
valued" models constructed in using forcing to prove the
indpendence of the continuum hypothesis.
: I will reiterate something that I have said before. You need to be
: interested in mathematics to argue about the foundations of
: mathematics. You cannot simply say that nothing before 1968 matters.
I have never said that. What I said was that TEACHING, was that PEDAGOGICAL
treatments from before 1968, are likely to have been done better since
(the disparity in quality -- not merely acknowledged, but CHAMPIONED by YOU --
between the 1972 and 2001 editions of Enderton's book is a GREAT example),
and that if you wanted something explained to you, it would be wise to
get it from a modern treatment. That some of this would include
treatments of ideas whose importance had originally been demonstrated
far earlier (and never yet superseded -- even if they WERE now phrased in
language not only more fashionable but more coherent) SHOULD have gone WITHOUT
saying.
: I will stop posting to sci.logic now.
Without having apologized for accusing black professionals
of intra-racial bigotry for trying to send their kids to
good schools. Without having apologized for saying that class
matters more than race in "these issues", when these issues
include homelessness, SAT scores, wrongly getting sentenced to
death, and a host of others about which you know about as much
as I know about ultrafilters. Without having apologized for
lying about most of what I've said. Without having EXPLAINED,
since last April, anything to anybody who WANTED to understand.
In other words, while having engaged in wholly political behavior,
while attributing that to everybody else. Your leaving is
just the coup de grace: it is the only way for you to provide
evidence that you were bullied; it's your victory lap
in the flamewar. But don't worry;
it's all archived on Google, including a lot of good
math from back before you got distracted by trying to win
vs. me. Somebody will probably put a coherent summary of
it together one day; maybe there will even be a chapter in
a text one day on why there is something philosophically
suspect about the fact that, as you put it, back before
we collided like electron and positron,
Quote: Cohen's method must assume there is an object (the total function)
outside of the given existing model.
If there isn't the whole construction is a fantasy. On
the other hand, Cohen's method involves reversing the sense of order
relations with respect to that object.
Or the facts that
Quote: Cohen was not interested in relative consistency. And, I find it difficult to
view the construction of a Boolean-valued model as being finitistic. After all,
the generic names are defined according to a transfinite recursion on the
ordinals.
Or the facts that
Quote: It is the dual order about which I am suspicious. But, that is only part
of the problem. Boolean logic failed to correctly describe the class universe
in the first place, and, Cohen's method is based on reintroducing Boolean logic
via complete Boolean algebras derived from separative partial orders.
As for the dual order, first consider the fact that it is a "top-down" order
deriving "hereditarily" from the structure of "proper classes." Don't worry,
that does not make much sense to me either (as written). But, then that is my
point.
Please do not get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for Cohen's forcing
theorem. It is absolutely brilliant. It just would not work except for the
fact that the use of "undefined language primitives" and "interpretation
mappings" in formal logic and model theory is unsound.
I wouldn't say "unsound". And of the two, the interpretation
mappings are far more problematic than the undefined language
primitives. But I guess we'll never know NOW, will we....
---
"It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any
strength, but internal issues have to be addressed."
--- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ChrisX |
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 1:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"mitch" <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3FFB1124.381DC243@rcnNOSPAM.com...
<snip>
Quote:
I will stop posting to sci.logic now.
:-)
mitch
Hello mitch. I only very recently began reading sci.logic but I would be
very disappointed if you stopped posting because I felt that I was slowly
learning to look out for and appreciate your posts in particular.
I guess I would understand if you left if you really feel uncomfortable
with George shouting at you, but where I come from I've learnt to take
what I like and leave the rest.
Love and respect
to George and especially to mitch, if ok
from Chris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 1:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ChrisX" <spambin@asarian-host.org> writes:
: Hello mitch. I only very recently began reading sci.logic but I would be
: very disappointed if you stopped posting because I felt that I was slowly
: learning to look out for and appreciate your posts in particular.
:
: I guess I would understand if you left if you really feel uncomfortable
: with George shouting at you, but where I come from I've learnt to take
: what I like and leave the rest.
:
: Love and respect
: to George and especially to mitch, if ok
: from Chris
Mitch wrote a lot of very literate and interesting math,
back when he was writing about math, AS OPPOSED to trying
to defend Kant, Husserl, and all these ancient takes on
philosophy of logic. He was trying to propose an alternative
approach to model theory and he thought that he needed to justify it.
His attempt at justification was via alternative takes
on knowledge by appeal to respected elder philosphical authorities
like Kant and Husserl. When all I could say in rebuttal was "That
shit is old; people have been working on it for 150 years since
and are doing it all better now, and you'd best just
Shut Up And Take My Word For It, because I have a philosophy
degree and you don't," he lost intellectuality and started arguing
outside his domain of expertise, culminating in his eventually trying
to tell me what a good black lawyer would be (my father and two of my
sisters are black lawyers), or that I didn't know "the facts" around
race&class in America (I am of course much better acquainted
with those facts than he). But if you want to see him back
when he was a JOY to read, just go to groups.google.com
and search sci.logic for messages where the author is mitch.
You will get a few from the early '90s where the author was
Mitch somebody with a capital m, but starting in 2003,
they will pretty much all be from mitch smith, and the
early ones are quite good. If he could've just stuck to
math instead of migrating to philosophy -- OR JUST DONE
WHAT *I* TOLD HIM TO -- much could've been accomplished by now.
--
---
"It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any
strength, but internal issues have to be addressed."
--- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ChrisX" <spambin@asarian-host.org> writes:
: Hello mitch. I only very recently began reading sci.logic but I would be
: very disappointed if you stopped posting because I felt that I was slowly
: learning to look out for and appreciate your posts in particular.
I repeat, you will REALLY appreciate a lot of the good ones just
by searching back to last spring for them. I am sure there are
some good academic-journal-article topics in the stuff mitch was
trying to explore; somebody who actually knows the area ought to,
in my opinion, read back through that and see what can be organized,
salvaged, and re-presented clearly. And then present that to mitch,
of course.
--
---
"It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any
strength, but internal issues have to be addressed."
--- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ChrisX |
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"George Greene" <greeneg@greeneg-cs.cs.unc.edu> wrote in
message news:xesd69v39d1.fsf@greeneg-cs.cs.unc.edu...
Quote: "ChrisX" <spambin@asarian-host.org> writes:
: Hello mitch. I only very recently began reading sci.logic
: but I would be very disappointed if you stopped posting
: because I felt that I was slowly learning to look out for
: and appreciate your posts in particular.
I repeat, you will REALLY appreciate a lot of the good ones
just by searching back to last spring for them. I am sure
there are some good academic-journal-article topics in the
stuff mitch was trying to explore; somebody who actually
knows the area ought to, in my opinion, read back through
that and see what can be organized, salvaged, and re-
presented clearly. And then present that to mitch, of
course.
Thank you for the pointer George. I suspect I will have my
hands full reading current posts and following up what I
don't understand for now, but I will remember your advice
for the future. Right now I am interested in logic from any
perspective, philosophical, mathematical or even scientific,
as per this newsgroup name.
Thanks again for posting your obviously genuine
appreciation of mitch's mathematical posts.
Love and respect
Chris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| galathaea |
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"mitch" wrote
: It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup.
I wanted to mention that I am very sorry that I have not and will not have
time to engage in conversation with you. The questions on identity, logical
foundations, and your interest in the non-standard logics presented in
topological and other considerations is an extremely important part of
modern research that is leading much restructuring and reinterpretation in
the sciences and philosophy. I hope you continue your studies and any
researche programmes you may be currently pursuing, as I truly believe the
path you are on is not just righteous but very likely the one that holds the
most benefits to future progress.
Sometimes, fighting for alpha position can distract you from what is really
important. I know that. It seems a few others do. There is a certainly a
community in the literature. But they do seem to suffer more teritorial
battles than more accepted communities. Even when those accepted
communities are much more mature.
I find that more mature communities often yield fewer theorems.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Greene |
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
: "mitch" wrote
: : It is clear that this nonsense is hurting this newsgroup.
"galathaea" <galathaea@excite.com> writes:
: I wanted to mention that I am very sorry that I have not and will not have
: time to engage in conversation with you.
Well, I had the time. I Did engage. It got me nothing but insults
about my parents and their choice of schools for their kids, false
claims by somebody without a philosophy degree that he understood
Frege and Wittgenstein better than I did, false claims that I didn't
know "the facts" about race and class, and tons and tons of irrelevant
psychologizing about what he thought *my* motives were.
: The questions on identity, logical foundations, and your interest
: in the non-standard logics presented in topological and other considerations
: is an extremely important part of modern research that is leading much
: restructuring and reinterpretation in the sciences and philosophy.
Well, if you knew this, why didn't you cite some of it?
Why didn't you post some pointers? Why couldn't you give him
this support WHEN HE *needed* it??
: Sometimes, fighting for alpha position can distract you from what is really
: important. I know that. It seems a few others do.
It takes two to fight. I fought just as hard as he did and I did not
even have the redeeming virtue of being involved in the presentation of
"an extremely important part of modern research that is leading much
restructuring and reinterpretation in the sciences and philosophy".
But that has NOTHING to do with which of us was RIGHT as opposed to WRONG!
: There is a certainly a community in the literature.
Again, DON'T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD REFER mitch to this community?
If you care this much, don't you think you could've SPARED HIM SOME
AGONY by pointing him toward discussion of this WITH THEM instead of
WITH US? Regarding what mitch just went through here,
the fact that he asked for it and he had it coming is almost
irrelevant; nobody should have to go through what mitch just went
through IF anybody knows how to help him avoid it. Which is of
course NOT an apology for anything I put him through: he put ME
through a lot of shit as well. The mere fact that I don't happen
to be acquainted with "the non-standard logics presented in topological
and other considerations" which are "an extremely important part of
modern research that is leading much restructuring and reinterpretation
in the sciences and philosophy" did NOT mean that I deserved to
be treated the way mitch treated me.
--
---
"It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any
strength, but internal issues have to be addressed."
--- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:13 am
|
|