Re: Natural Densities are Probabilities

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 10/14/04 

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:36:31 -0500

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:34:32 +0100, Robin Chapman
<rjc@ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You have not the slightest idea whom you are talking to.
>>>Maybe change your mind if you skip through some writeups:
>>>
>>>http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2004/Fransen2.pdf
>>>http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2004/Fransen3.pdf
>>>
>>>They are mine. See ? I'm not THAT much ignorant.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
>His point is that he always argues ad hominem. He doesn't
>accept that most of us here we judge arguments according to
>their merits (or lack thereof). He prefers to weigh arguments
>according to the credentials of those holding them.
>Recall that his response to an early rebuttal of mine
>was "I have never heard of you before". While this
>is probably true (I am quite obscure) it is totally irrelevant
>to the argument. Also another defence of his views were
>that they were held by Brouwer, Kronecker and Poincare.
>Again deferring to authority, but also it's doubtful
>whether any of them would have held the extremist view
>of de Bruijn that there is no proper subset of N in bijection
>with N (being conveniently dead they are in no position to confirm
>or deny this). Of course one could have countered this by listing
>examples of famous mathematicians who would have disagreed, but
>that would be apeing his dubious tactics. In this particular
>instance he is insisting that he has Credentials and so his
>arguments must be correct. Like most of the sci.math regulars
>I do not base my arguments on what my credentials are, and judge
>postings by what they contain, rather than the position in
>society of the poster. I don't care who or what de Bruijn is
>but I'm a bit baffled that it's so important to him who I am.

What bugs me about the guy is he deletes posts. Yesterday
at the office I read a reply from him suggesting that
Battle Rule #1 was not to underestimate the enemy. Didn't
have a chance to reply then, and now it's gone.

************************

David C. Ullrich

Quantcast