Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: stevendar yl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 1 Nov 2005 10:32:43 -0800
Tony Orlow says...
>Oh, okay. I guess it's better to be a good idiot than an evil genius. Haha!
>Seriously Daryl, this is not idiocy on my part, even if it seems contrary to
>the general world view.
What you have written is *incoherent* nonsense. It doesn't
have anything to do with being "contrary to the general
world view". As I have pointed out repeatedly there are
*many* different points of view about mathematics,
Platonism, formalism, constructivism, intuitionism.
There's nonstandard analysis, there's Conway's surreal
numbers, there's Quine's New Foundations, there's Aczel's
non-well-founded set theory. These different theories don't
conform to a single world view. But what they have in common
is that they are *coherent*, and the consequences of these
different starting points are worked out rigorously. I have
nothing but respect for someone who comes up with a new
and rigorous way to look at things.
>No one that knows me outside of mathematics thinks I
>am anything like an idiot.
Well, it is certainly possible that outside of mathematics
you are not an idiot. But when you talk about mathematics,
you are being an idiot.
>Could an idiot come up with a well ordering of the
>reals
An idiot can convince himself of anything.
>identify the implied last element in all your proofs by contradiction,
An idiot can convince himself of anything.
>and offer so many proofs, albeit not with the standard lame axioms,
You have never constructed a single proof. It doesn't have
anything to do with "standard" axioms. You are flattering
yourself by believing that people object to your posts because
they are outside of standard mathematics. People object to
your posts because they are gibberish. You pretend to be doing
mathematics, when you are really just stroking your own
ego without the hard work necessary to actually accomplish
anything.
You are self-deluded.
>contrary to the absurdities of this theory? Could an idiot
>offer methods which measure infinite sets to the satisfaction
>of general intuition?
As I said, an idiot can convince himself of anything.
An actual mathematician or scientist can convince *others*
of the merit of his work. You can't do that---not because
your work is unconventional---plenty of unconventional work
is recognized as valid. The reason you can't convince anyone
else of the merits of your work is because it is without
any merit.
Please, please. Stop posting about mathematics until
you actually know some mathematics. If you think that
there is a germ of truth in what you post, then go
take 6 months or a year, or 5 years to work it out.
Come up with a rigorous axiomatization of your theory,
and show how your amazing results follow from that
axiomatization. Don't spew your stream of consciousness
on the internet. Until you can cast it into a form that
somebody besides you can make sense of, it is *garbage*.
You have, so far, created nothing but garbage. And
you actually seem proud of it.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- References:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Prev by Date: Re: Some cardinal arithmetic puzzler...
- Next by Date: Re: prime task
- Previous by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Next by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
