Re: JSH: Questioning certainty

[Jason Pawloski]
Does anyone have a link to the post where James claims 2 is an
irrational number? I was looking for it to add to my "greatest hits"
collection but I had no luck (maybe the victim of deletion?) I also
remember there was a witty commentary on JSH's work, saying something
like "In [date] James made the startling discovery (assertion?) that 2
is an irrational number" and I thought it was on the CrackPot index,
but I can no longer find it. Any help would be appreciated.

[Proginoskes]
"2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational."

from the post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/112faecf3a3c1124?dmode=source&hl=en&utoken=pdK5VSgAAABcjFp7WBHu8qDsgaHmcrdrt4QG3dMm-ap1jvtPXdIt9pbNBG3GZi-ctq772l2eJLo>

(Fri, Aug 11 2000 12:00 am, from "Recent quotes from James Harris"
(sci.math).)

You /really/ need to browse that whole thread, and realize that JSH posted
from different accounts way back then. It's hilariously "typical".

Having goofed about a different issue and been corrected, he persevered:

You're wrong.

A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental
does not have "factors".

Transcendentals can still be said to have factors, as I've
demonstrated.

And to help you out, I mentioned a practical application.

That is, the sqr(pi) is scattered all through physics.

Still, I suspect that you'd rather chatter endlessly than just
admit you made a mistake.

I'd rather not.

"WTF?!" It was pointed out then that, for example, 6 is neither irrational
nor transcendental, so does that mean 6 doesn't have factors?!

Aha!

Well, I take this as evidence that your intellect has been
compromised by your emotions.

I figured only the novices would find a problem with that
statement.

Integers are members of the class of rationals.

Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.

Irrationals are members of the class of reals.

2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational.

Many like to use the terms in different ways.

For instance, they will say that the sqr(2) is irrational.

Or, they'll say 345.4353456... is a real.

But, 2 is an irrational (notice the "an").

And 2 is a real.

Or do you deny that?

He seemed to be somewhat saner back then, and quickly enough allowed that he
might be wrong:

Hey, maybe you're right.

If I made a mistake here, I'm not going to get excited about
it.

But I was making my statement based on the belief that one was
inside the other.

That is, you have the set of integers in the set of rationals,
which is in the set of irrationals, which is in the set of reals.

But, hey if they're disjoint then I was wrong.

Yet still unimpressed by the desirability of getting /something/ trivial
right when posting to a technical group, he went on to explain:

PI and e are transcendental

Transcendentals as a set came up after the definition irrational
was found to not include certain numbers.

Afterwards, the way I understand it, the real classification
came about.

I wouldn't mind someone providing the correct history and current
classification scheme because I find it somewhat interesting.

Ya, it's hard to keep up with a classification scheme that changes damn near
every day ;-)

After more people pissed away their time saving him the effort of doing any
work whatsoever:

So, after all that energy so many of you expended, guess what?

Hey, I guess I was wrong.

<yawn>

It's fun being me.

and chastised those who were less than grateful:

Civility seems to me to be a lot more efficient.

As he surely demonstrated in the first message quoted above.

So 73 messages devoted to what he should have learned in high school
algebra, getting everything jaw-droppingly wrong, assuming posters were
somehow playing him when they couldn't guess what utterly bizarre private
meanings he made up for himself, and prolonged by his refusal to do even the
tiniest bit of remedial studying. And in the end? "So what?"

It's that combination of extreme arrogance and breathtaking ignorance that
keeps me coming back in awe -- I can do one or the other, but not both at
the same time ;-)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... aren't transcendentals reals that are not rationals or true ... :> Transcendentals are irrationals, ... :> The reals consist of the rationals and the irrationals. ... and mathematically the cardinal numbers include the transfinite cardinals ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... aren't transcendentals reals that are not rationals or true ... :> Transcendentals are irrationals, ... :> The reals consist of the rationals and the irrationals. ... and mathematically the cardinal numbers include the transfinite cardinals ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... aren't transcendentals reals that are not rationals or true ... :> Transcendentals are irrationals, ... :> The reals consist of the rationals and the irrationals. ... and mathematically the cardinal numbers include the transfinite cardinals ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The state-of-the-art in mathematics
    ... >Between any two irrationals is a rational. ... The state of the art in mathematics includes many, ... |>Conclude that Trichotomy breaks down in the Reals." ... are constructivists, but the mainstream point of view about it is ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... It ignores the sequence specified. ... mathematicians want to find the best representation of ... there always exist irrationals between .999...999 ... they're not, and due to the completeness of the reals, if they're not, ...
    (sci.math)