Re: Pyramidable
From: grapheus (grapheus_at_www.com)
Date: 10/10/04
- Next message: Denoco Inc: "Historic find on building site"
- Previous message: Doug Weller: "Re: 'Thorvald's Rock" a hoax"
- In reply to: Qakare: "Re: Pyramidable"
- Next in thread: Qakare: "Re: Pyramidable"
- Reply: Qakare: "Re: Pyramidable"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Oct 2004 11:58:02 -0700
Your post is a PERFECT ILLUSTRATION of what I've already said : "IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVINCE A DOGMATIC ! "
What is your goal with the following post ?.. Getting "the last word"
?..
OK. You won with that...
grapheus
qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0410100442.2669231f@posting.google.com>...
> grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0410091239.5c187295@posting.google.com>...
> > qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0410090632.61555a56@posting.google.com>...
> > > grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0410082346.7dc4b54a@posting.google.com>...
> > > > This is one of the best DOGMATIC reasoning I've even read !...
> > > > Qakare considers as "PROVEN" a theory which is not, but as UNPROVEN a
> > > > theory which has DEFINITELY shown to be the ONLY CORRECT ONE !!!!
> > >
> > > Hi Faucounau.
> >
> > AND HERE YOU GO AGAIN !.. Always the SAME MOTTO, applying the rule
> > number one of PROPAGANDA : REPEAT AGAIN AND AGAIN THE SAME LIE and
> > MANY PEOPLE WILL FINISH BELIEVING IT !...
>
> Hi Faucounau alias grapheus.
THIS IS DOGMATISM, right ?.. When one says that you are JUST
REPEATING AGAIN AND AGAIN the SAME LIE in order to make many people
believe that it's the truth, YOU GO ON WITH THIS TACTICS...
HOW CLEVER you are !!!!!!!
ALL MY CONGRATULATIONS !.. You ae not only DOGMATC, but CLEVER !... A
kind of SUPER-SUPER-GENIUS...
PS : And don't hesitate to use the trick once more to answer me !....
You will become a SUPER-SUPER-SUPER-GENIUS...
>
> > > > As for me, I have PROOFS that not only ALL the CONSEQUENCES of the
> > > > Proto-Ionic Solution are VERIFIED by the FACTS, but ALSO that ANY
> > > > COMPETITIVE THEORY *IS* WRONG !..
> > >
> > > State of the art is that it's impossible to decipher an unknown script
> > > in an unknown language, if there is only one short text available (see
> > > Chadwick).
> >
> > AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE WRONG by the mathematician Claude
> > Shannon !.. But you prefer, of course, IGNORING THIS FACT !..
>
> Wrong! Shannons theory is related to encrypted texts of WELL known
> languages. In this case you have numerous texts to compare the
> encrypted message to. Therefore the last part of the statement "if
> there is only one short text available" is not true for Shannon. There
> is no contradiction.
RIDICULOUS REMARK of an IGNARROGANT : YOU OBVIOUSLY IGNORE the
Shannon's Theory !... IT APPLIES WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE !!!!
Shannon was interested in the EFFICIENCY of a CODE, whatever the
language used. This EFFICIENCY depends upon several FACTORS : a)- the
CODE b)- the LENGTH of the text c)- the language d)- the
characteristics of the text itself. And he DEMONSTRATED that the two
first factors WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT. When one wants to EVALUATE the
difficulty of deciphering an ENCRYPTED TEXT, written in an UNKNOWN
LANGUAGE, the HYPOTHESES concerning the CODE and the TEXT's LENGTH
are the most important, the evaluation of the factor "LANGUAGE" (or
more generally ; ENTROPY of the text) being secondary.
>
> > > A second competitive theory is, that there are significant
> > > structural similarities between the Phaistos Script, Linear A and the
> > > Cretan
> > > Hieroglyphic Script (see Grumach, Schürr and Duhoux).
> >
> > AND THIS IS WRONG !.. The Signs of the Disk are NOT BELONGING to the
> > large LIST of the "CRETAN HIEROGLYPHS" !... As for seing
> > "similarities" between HIEROGLYPHS and LINEAR SIGNS, it's JUST a
> > WORTHLESS IMAGINATIVE EXERCICE !... Anyone can do it with success,
> > with any script : For instance, the alphabetic letter H may be
> > considered as "coming from" the Cretan Double Axe...
>
> Maybe I have to write in capital letters for you. I was writing about
> significant STRUCTURAL similarities. Please read the articles written
> by Grumach, Schürr and Duhoux before you start talking about them.
I know them. And I can assert that these "similarities" are mainly
based upon "BLIND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS" , which sees "prefixes" where
there are NONE, like the "prefix" MON- got when comparing key/monkey,
arch/monarch and goose/mongoose, or the "prefix" GA- got when
comparing rage/garage and lore/galore !...
> > > You are not able to show that these two theories are wrong!
> >
> > Of course, I am !... How many "hieroglyphs" from the Disk on one hand,
> > from the Cretan ones on the second hand, are STRICTLY IDENTICAL ?...
> > NO MORE THAN A HANDFUL ! And the SAME can be said when one compares
> > the Phaistos Disk's Signs with the Egyptian, or with the Hittite
> > Hieroglyphs !...
> > From this, it is CERTAIN that the Phaistos Disk's Script has NOTHING
> > TO DO with CRETE !...
>
> Your logic is very special: "I'm not able to prove that it's true,
> therefore it must be wrong." That you are not able to see a relation
> for the Phaistos Disk to Linear A or the Cretan Hieroglyphs does not
> mean that such a relation does not exist.
I apply the "Scientific rule" saying that "a theory has to be
considered as true IF ALL ITS CONSEQUENCES are VERIFIED BY THE FACTS".
Here, the "theory" is : "The Phaistos Disk is Minoan" . The
CONSEQUENCES are, then : a)- that the clay should be Minoan b)- that
the stamps should be in relief as ALL the Minoan stamps c)- that the
hieroglyphs should be the same as the "Cretan Hieroglyphs" d)- Etc.
NONE OF THESE CONSEQUENCES IS VERIFIED !...
ONLY DOGMATICS cannot understand that the theory MUST therefore be
rejected...
>
> > ONLY DOGMATICS [number 2] refuse this OBVIOUS CONCLUSION ...
>
> Even in this posting you repeat again and again the word dogamtic.
> Obviously you believe that only you are allowed to repeat the same
> idea. You are indeed a double standard guy.
NO. I apply THE SAME SCIENTIFIC TEST for verifying a theory, yours or
the one I defend... (See hereabove)
> > > > or VERY IMPROBABLE ("Minoan
> > > > Calendar" for instance, because ALL the CONSEQUENCES that the Phaistos
> > > > Disk would be "Minoan" are NOT VERIFIED BY THE FACTS. E.g. the
> > > > INEXPLAINED surprising absence of the MOST USUAL MINOAN SIGNS in the
> > > > text, like the "Double Axe").
> > >
> > > The text is very short.
> >
> > BUT, as DEMONSTRATED by Cl. Shannon, LONG ENOUGH TO BE DECIPHERED !..
>
> Only, if you are able to compare it with other texts in the same
> language!
NO, Sir !.. YOU IGNORE Shannon's work !
> Anyway the type of the language is part of shannons formula,
YES !
> therefore you have to determine the language before you are able to
> know if the message is long enough or not.
NO, Sir !.. For EVALUATING the CHANCES one has to decipher the CODED
MESSAGE, he has just to make a reasonable EVALUATION of the
Language/Entropy- FACTOR, which is secondary, so that a possible ERROR
has NO REAL CONSEQUENCES about the conclusion coming from the
Shannon's Formula !...
>
> > > You are saying that only half of the signs in
> > > the script can be found on the Disk. Therefore the absence of one sign
> > > shows nothing.
> >
> > THIS IS THE NEGATION of the CALCULUS Of PROBABILITIES !!!!! You are
> > reasoning as ALL the signs had the same FREQUENCY !!!!
>
> In a syllabic script the frequencies of the signs are indeed more
> similar as in a alphabetic script. Additional your imagination of
> probabilities is wrong. It's not unlikely that in a short sample, a
> frequent event is not frequent or missed. Therefore the frequency of
> one sign says nothing.
RIDICULOUS REMARK of an IGNARROGANT !... You are IGNORING the
ELEMENTARY BASICS of the CALCULUS of PROBABILITIES !... a)- A
242-signs long text is NOT "a short sample" b)- the APPARITION of
one particular sign in such a text depends upon the FREQUENCY-LAW
applying to THIS particular sign : "Gaussian Law" or "Poisson's Law" .
It's NOT "a question of imagination" !!!!!
>
> > > Secondly, we didn't know anything about a usual Minoan
> > > calendar. Therefore you are not able to tell something about usual
> > > signs for such a calendar.
> >
> > Except that if this calendar is "Minoan", why its signs would be
> > DIFFERENT FROM THE MINOAN HIEROGLYPHS ?... Is an English Calendar
> > using Chinese characters ?... Or a Chinese Calendar alphabetic signs
> > ?...
>
> Obviously you are not able to understand a sentence without capitals.
> I was writing about USUAL signs. Does, in an English calendar the
> signs occur with the same frequency as in a text? No there are more
> numbers on it. Also additional signs for the zodiac are possible.
BALONEY !... One has to compare what can be compared : you cannot put
into the same bag ALPHABETIC LETTERS (corresponding to January,
February, etc.) and NUMBERS !...
>
> > But of course you DON'T CARE about PROBABILITIES !...
>
> You are the one ignoring the fact that to decipher the Phaistos Disc
> by guessing has a chance less then 1 to 10^69.
SO WHAT ?.. The only problem is FINDING THE GOOD METHOD...
>
> > For you, as for
> > all the DOGMATICS [number 3], the DOGMA is "true", whatever the CONTRARY
> > PROBABILITIES...
>
> Very interisting defintion of dogmatics: "whatever the contrary
> probabilities". With other words if something is unsecure its not
> allowed to say "we didn't know",
That is NOT WHAT YOU SAY : You say : "I choose NOT TO SERIOUSLY LOOK
AT THE PROOFS that the Phaistos Disk has been deciphered, so that I
may be able to STICK TO MY DOGMA that it "CANNOT" be deciphered" ...
grapheus
- Next message: Denoco Inc: "Historic find on building site"
- Previous message: Doug Weller: "Re: 'Thorvald's Rock" a hoax"
- In reply to: Qakare: "Re: Pyramidable"
- Next in thread: Qakare: "Re: Pyramidable"
- Reply: Qakare: "Re: Pyramidable"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
