Re: JSH: Fool all of the people, all of the time?
From: Richard Henry (rphenry_at_home.com)
Date: 12/05/04
- Next message: KeithK: "Re: JSH: Simply fascinating"
- Previous message: Tim Walters: "Re: Circle construction problem"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: JSH: Fool all of the people, all of the time?"
- Next in thread: Brian Chandler: "Re: JSH: Fool all of the people, all of the time?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:46:54 -0800
"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0412050552.40525729@posting.google.com...
> imaginatorium@despammed.com (Brian Chandler) wrote in message
news:<f2c35871.0412042036.542cbcd6@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > "What does 'properly a unit' mean?"
> >
> > Only you can answer.
> >
>
> That's an old game of trying to cause major arguments over the use of
> some term or other, as I now simply shift from usage that sci.math'ers
> find easily works to provoke confusion.
>
> What I find fascinating is that *clearly* some of you have worked
> rather hard to confuse the issue, hide the reality, and fight for
> arguments that just don't work, when I know that I learned years ago
> that it's just futile in mathematics to do those things.
>
> And now some of you may finally be learning why, as I simply adjust
> explanations, and soon enough people will realize that you had to
> understand how it all worked to confuse them so well, and then they
> probably won't appreciate your efforts.
>
> After all, mathematics is objective in many ways. Sure some of you
> have personalized it, so that you can attack it as if it were mine.
>
> But it's like if you hated Pythagoras and went after the Pythagorean
> Theorem.
>
> You're not doing the world any favors, and fighting a battle you will
> lose.
>
> These things have happened before, history repeats itself, and for
> some reason there are people like some of you who step out to fight
> what is mathematically true, for personal reasons.
The question was "What does 'properly a unit' mean?"
In what you wrote above, where is your answer?
>From reading criticisms of Ms. Nora Baron and others, it appears that your
fundamental (remaining) problem is finding a value for your sample
polynomials at x = 0, and then extending that result to all values of x.
How have you answered that?
- Next message: KeithK: "Re: JSH: Simply fascinating"
- Previous message: Tim Walters: "Re: Circle construction problem"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: JSH: Fool all of the people, all of the time?"
- Next in thread: Brian Chandler: "Re: JSH: Fool all of the people, all of the time?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|