Re: JSH: Questioning certainty

Tim Peters wrote:
[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".


Why? I was probably in a lot of stupid arguments and posting very fast
as I usually do, and said something wrong.

I do BRAINSTORMING which means that you just spit stuff out, and get
lots of things wrong, even stupidly wrong, as you're not being very
critical as you type.

I explain this repeatedly and people like you drag up old stuff as if
you can't understand the concept.

Now on to what you dug up...

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.

Well that's just wrong.

Who knows what exactly was running through my mind at the time, I don't
remember.

But it looks like I was trying to step up the classes of numbers from
integer to complex numbers, and for some wacky reason included
rationals with irrationals.

Brainstorming is a lot about releasing the critical mechanism of the
mind so that you can come up with new ideas.

But that loss of upfront criticality means you can mess up on weird
things.

People who don't brainstorm can't comprehend how it's possible to miss
something so obvious.

But the mechanisms of modern problem solving can escape people who
refuse to do it.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>To be more specific I mean that rationals and irrationals form a ... significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. ... >>use of right angles and that transcendentals cannot. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>To be more specific I mean that rationals and irrationals form a ... significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. ... >>use of right angles and that transcendentals cannot. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>To be more specific I mean that rationals and irrationals form a ... significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. ... >>use of right angles and that transcendentals cannot. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: infinitely many nns = infinite nns?
    ... every two irrationals, it would seem that the rationals and the ... Possibly at first glance, but that assumes that the number of rationals between two irrationals is the same as the number of irrationals between two rationals, which is distinctly not the case. ... There are never two or more reals "in a row" without others between them, regardless of their rationality or lack therof. ... Now, if we want to say that we are limited by potential infinity when mentally examining a structure with actually infinitely many elements, I would certainly agree that we cannot mentally examine the elements individually, but in the limit, where actual infinity either CAN be used, or at least predicted, there cannot be a y between ANY two x's. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Rational/Irrational Numbers
    ... The consideration of rationals and irrationals, ... other sets that are NCD2 in the reals from "On Well-Orderingof Sets ... number line, or algebraics and transcendentals, or rationals, ...
    (sci.math)