Re: Sign conventions
jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 02/21/05
- Next message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- Previous message: William Elliot: "Re: What is a Closed set of Boolean Functions ?"
- In reply to: mhochster_at_gmail.com: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Next in thread: Justin: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Reply: Justin: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Reply: Jim Spriggs: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Reply: Matt Gutting: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Feb 2005 04:11:20 -0800
mhochster@gmail.com wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> > Let
> >
> > x = -sqrt(y)
> >
> > and now consider y=1.
> >
> > Then a solution is x=-1, but x=1 is also a solution.
> >
> > Right?
>
> What is your definition of "sqrt"?
The square root operator returns that number which when multipled times
itself gives the square root argument e.g. sqrt(4) returns 2 and -2, as
*both* multiply times themselves to give 4.
Mathematicians have naively and arbitrarily thought they could remove
the inherent ambiguity by fiat--a childish effort--and I can not only
point out in small ways why that's a huge mistake, but also in big
ways.
If you were real mathematicians then that's all that would be
necessary, but many of you seem to believe that mathematics is just
some little toy you build or break at will.
Emotion RULES math society.
Now I can objectively step through mathematical arguments, but if you
people can't accept math and logic, then what good does it do?
Notice that you are math students and professors, people who post on
math newsgroups, but many of you abhor mathematics itself, clearly
having pet beliefs.
Your pet beliefs when shown to be wrong, you keep.
Your pet "proofs" when shown to be false, you keep claiming they are
true.
And it seems to me you do that out of a contempt for mathematics
itself, having taken on the title of mathematicians without any respect
for logic or mathematical rules.
You are a style over substance society--a fashion show--made up of
people who try to play a role for your own benefit in terms of titles
and prestige.
Someone like me is most foreign to you as you can't understand how I
can continue going under the barrage of social humiliation you try to
toss on me.
That proves my point as much as anything else as post after post after
post, you people cite social issues, as if a real mathematician would
pause to consider whether people would like them anymore or not, before
they put forward a mathematical argument.
So some of you track my posts obsessively replying year after year
after year because you are NOT real mathematicians and you have no
concept of how a real mathematician is motivated, and you can't
understand that ridicule is just some oddity to an actual
mathematician, while it's everything to people playing at being one.
James Harris
- Next message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- Previous message: William Elliot: "Re: What is a Closed set of Boolean Functions ?"
- In reply to: mhochster_at_gmail.com: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Next in thread: Justin: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Reply: Justin: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Reply: Jim Spriggs: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Reply: Matt Gutting: "Re: Sign conventions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
