Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:54:38 -0600
In article <45189e62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <45187864@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Han de Bruijn wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:Do you have the saying, "Shallow brooks babble, and still waters run
Mike Kelly wrote:I may be rude sometimes, but I never get _personal_ by calling somebody
Han de Bruijn wrote:I don't think I have ever found Han to be rude, except when he
Mike Kelly wrote:You're a very rude person yourself, Han. I generally don't feel the
Han de Bruijn wrote:Still don't get the point, huh?
Mike Kelly wrote:So what? Your English is still too poor for this discussion to be
What the hell are you talking about? Arguing with someone who can'tMy English is much better than your Dutch.
speak English is getting aggravating.
fruitful.
You are lacking even the most elementary form of politeness. It's very
impolite to cut of a discussion with somebody from a foureign country -
somebody who is doing his best to communicate with you - only because
you are obviously superior in expressing your thoughts within your own
mother's tongue.
need to be civil to those who won't reciprocate.
referred to my "babbling" recently. Ahem. But anyway, while we
disagree on the actuality of any infinity, we have the open mind of
spirited debate, and feel no need to get nasty.
an "idiot" or a "crank". Tony's "babbling" translates with Euroglot as
"babbelen" in Dutch, which is a word I can use here in the conversation
with my collegues without making them very angry (if I say "volgens mij
babbel je maar wat"). But, of course, I cannot judge the precise impact
of the word in English. Apologies if it is heavier than I thought.
deep"? I figured you picked up the usage from this forum, actually. It's
meant, in English, to mean you aren't making any sense. :)
My pleasure. It seemed like a vacuous excuse. I get pretty sick of thoseFurthermore, I have never had any trouble understanding what Han isThank you very much, Tony, for this sort of defense.
saying, except where he is using some mathematical construct with
which I am not familiar. His English is not bad, and blaming your
disagreement on his inability to communicate is kind of low.
diversionary tactics.
Well, it seems to me that perhaps you're saying something like, "ThoseSo, let's engage in lively debate, and maintain our civility, whileUhm, since litteraly everybody is complaining ... Let it be an encrypted
chopping each other's arguments to pieces. Of course, this can only
happen if we don't consider our arguments to be part of our anatomy.
Otherwise, it gets personal.
Well, that's a difficult type of quote. Han - I wouldn't mind workingReally? You've never had anybody else other than me complain that youYou are misinterpreting virtually all my posts. You claim that you'reI have only this kind of trouble with _you_ and nobody else on the web.
not dishonest so I have to conclude you're simply incapable of
comprehending written English. This makes this whole subthread
pointless.
misinterpret their posts? I suppose I must have hallucinated dozens of
posts I've seen of just that, then.
You've never had anyone other than me struggling to understand what the
devil you mean by your broken English? I must have hallucinated, for
example, "A little physics would be no idleness in mathematics", then
:)?
on exactly how you want to say that in English, if you like. :)
message then :-)
with their heads in the abstract should keep their feet in the
concrete", though that sounds a little funny.
Math=Science?
Scientists, particularly those in the sciences most dependent on
mathematics, tend to think that all mathematics is, or should be, a
subservient to their particular fragment of science.
Mathematicians know better.
Define "better". Those that work in various areas of science share a
notion which defines science. Theories which have no means of
verification are not science, but philosophy. In mathematics,
verification really consists of corroboration by other means, agreement
between different approaches. In science, where you find a contradiction
with your theory, it needs revision. So, the scientific approach to
mathematics requires some criterion for universal consistency, as
measured by the predictions of the various theories that comprise it.
Where two theories collide, one or both is in error. I think that's better.
TO mistakes misapplication of mathematics, which is an error by
scientists, as an error of the mathematics.
The history of science is strewn with scientists getting their theories
wrong and then having to change their minds about how things work.
The only major time that happened in mathematics was the discovery of
non-Eucidean geometry, and Euclidean geometry was based mostly on the
conlusins of science, not pure math.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- References:
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Mike Kelly
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Mike Kelly
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Mike Kelly
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Mike Kelly
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Mike Kelly
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Mike Kelly
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Mike Kelly
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Virgil
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- Prev by Date: convexity
- Next by Date: Re: quantum finance book
- Previous by thread: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Next by thread: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading