Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ...
From: Robin Chapman (rjc_at_ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 07/14/04
- Next message: Donald G. Shead: "Re: Do you know?"
- Previous message: William Elliot: "Re: Analysis"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ..."
- Next in thread: Victor Eijkhout: "Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:14:49 +0100
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
> Eckard Blumschein wrote:
Replying to his own posts :-(
>
> Well, any child will tell me 1-1=0. Who is really stupid enough as to
> suspect me being even more stupid?
There is a high standard of idiocy on sci.math. Yet for
egregious daftness can anyone surpass the poster
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=40EE5DAC.4070904%40et.uni-magdeburg.de
who after reading the assertion in
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EmptySet.html
that
"the empty set is both open and closed for any set X and topology"
inferred that
"An empty set is known to be neither open nor closed"?
> - Isn't it overdue to clarify what is wrong with Buridan's donkey?
It is certainly overdue for Mr Blumschien to clarify the
relevance of Buridan's ass for mathematics. It has certainly
escaped the attention of every mathematician that I know.
-- 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_
- Next message: Donald G. Shead: "Re: Do you know?"
- Previous message: William Elliot: "Re: Analysis"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ..."
- Next in thread: Victor Eijkhout: "Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
