Re: My paper, and the cheaters
From: David Kastrup (dak_at_gnu.org)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: oğin: "Re: Would NASA impress?"
- Previous message: Bill Dubuque: "Re: On localization rings"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: My paper, and the cheaters"
- Next in thread: Nora Baron: "Re: My paper, and the cheaters"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:12:17 +0200
jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) writes:
> norabaron@hotmail.com (Nora Baron) wrote in message news:<36024859.0409291431.5fcbd82e@posting.google.com>...
>
>> One of your steps is NOT logical: the generalization from m = 0
>> (linear, singular, reducible case) to m nonzero (cubic, irreducible
>> case in general). This step is, quite simply, wrong. This leads
>> to your incorrect statement in the conclusion.
>>
>>
>
> Finally you have a specific criticism though you still piled on
> irrelevant extra which you see I've deleted off, yet again. But it
> looks like you're adjusting at least slightly.
>
> Why don't you pull those steps from the paper versus just talking
> about them in the abstract?
>
> That is, I'm challenging you to back up your claim of an illogical
> step by going to the actual paper.
>
> The reality, of course, is that your claim is false, but I'm curious
> to see if you will dodge the actual argument in the paper, and chatter
> a lot more, or at least try to attack it.
>
> Remember, a math proof is absolute and indestructible.
>
> I have no problem with you attempting to challenge my paper.
>
> Give it all you've got "Nora Baron".
And here JSH again gives his famous "Black Knight"
<URL:http://www.rit.edu/~smo4215/monty.htm#Scene%204> impersonation.
"'Tis but a scratch."
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Next message: oğin: "Re: Would NASA impress?"
- Previous message: Bill Dubuque: "Re: On localization rings"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: My paper, and the cheaters"
- Next in thread: Nora Baron: "Re: My paper, and the cheaters"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
