Re: Peano's space-filling curve

From: John Morgan (john.morgan_at_REMOVECAPSataraxie.fr)
Date: 06/09/04 

Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:22:58 +0200

Jesse F. Hughes <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
news:87aczf2vq1.fsf@phiwumbda.org...

> Evidently, you work in a scientific field so simple that
> every theory of the field can be explained and justified
> to a layman using just the standard tool of Usenet.
> In only a few posts.

Yes, yes, yes. And maybe. How very perceptive of you. But
maybe you read my post where I said what I did (oops - used
to do). Nowadays it's different. I've gone into
construction. Oh, and horticulture. But with a torn
Achilles' tendon requiring six weeks in plaster, I've gone
back to research, this time indoors, looking into a
new phenomenon. It's very, very fascinating.
>
> Otherwise, how could one understand your incredulity at
> failing to apprehend a theorem of set theory? I mean,
> if your field wasn't so transparent to the layperson,
well,
> then you wouldn't expect to understand mathematics
> without cracking a text or at least asking for a
definition.

You're right again. Perhaps this is why my "field" gets so
much TV coverage.

I apprehend some things, though, including simple set
theory, Cantor's middle third and his diagonal proof of the
alephs. When I first saw it, Peano's curve didn't seem to me
to be a whole lot more involved. What I was unprepared for
was the welter of jargon embedded in unfamiliar semantic
surroundings.

>
> So, what *is* your scientific field? I have a free
> afternoon coming up. Maybe I can write a
> dissertation in that field. Maybe two.

Once again, I am flabbergasted by your perspicacity. It is
such a field, indeed. In fact I know a few "scientists" (and
this time the quote marks are mine, not yours) who regularly
do and did just that, inventing data that would normally
require months, if not years, of field work, fudging or
discarding data that did not suit their "findings", and so
on.

> Or maybe you don't apply the same demands of transparency
> of results to your field that you require here.

I do, others don't. It's a constant headache because it
gives us all a bad name. I'm glad to be out of it, to be
honest.

> Or maybe you're not a scientist. Who knows?

That would seem to be a popular view of ecologists among our
political masters, and who can blame them in view of what I
told you above.

> "Well *supposedly* a correct and profound math
> paper can get published in a 'reputable journal'
> which means that the journals I've faced so
> far may lose a lot of their luster once the full story
> comes out."
> --- James Harris, on the quality of math journals
> rejecting his paper

You seem to quote this guy quite often in your posts. Guess
you're a big fan. Me? I quote Dylan.

Cheers,

John.
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide,
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side
- Bob Dylan

Quantcast