Re: JSH: Newsgroups mistakes, updated explanation and proof

On Apr 18, 10:03 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, magi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Arturo Magidin) wrote:



In article <1176868989.148917.236...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

Rupert <rupertmccal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The records of the past 10 years show that you have absolutely no
capacity whatsoever for distinguish sound from unsound arguments,
despite the patient efforts of many people to educate you.

Hmmm...

An argument is valid if the conclusion follows logically from the
premises, invalid otherwise.

An argument is ->sound<- (in a given model) if and only if, in
addition to being valid, the premises are true in the model.

I would say that James's record shows he has no capacity for
distinguishing valid from invalid arguments. While he may also be
incapable of distinguishing sound from unsound arguments, his record
rests mostly on invalid arguments.

--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as
reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org

This is true in the sense that James usually starts his arguments with
statements that are true.

I have a record of actually trying versus acting like I am trying.

One of the more profound things I realized some years ago was that
sci.math'ers were deliberately acting to confuse versus caring about
what was mathematically true and that happened when I wrote a very
detailed rebuttal to "Nora Baron" only to have that poster delete out
everything and just repeat flawed claims.

It's easier to claim you are honest than to actually be honest.

I screw up. I make lots of mistakes in my search for truth and quite
a few times over the years I have been rude, very wrong, and regretted
things I've posted.

But I at least admit my humanity.

And in the world I thought I knew when I was growing up, human beings
do those things and then some, because they work harder at being
right, than just trying to look right.

If mathematicians proved me wrong I'd accept that because I know
fantasy, and I prefer knowing truth.

But to the extent that they claim they prefer truth and rip on me as
if the truth were the opposite, when I admit to being a very flawed
human being just trying to get some things straight while these
monsters pretend to be perfect--or very damn close to perfect--while
they lie, and lie, and lie then I say we have a serious problem
people.

The monsters have taken the high ground, and made it illegal to be
human.

They spit on mistakes made in the search for truth.

And they piss on failures made in the pursuit of truth, to tell you
lies, when they do not actually try to know what is mathematically
correct--preferring only to rely on what they can convince you is
correct.

I fail. And I cheer my ability to not only fail in trying, but to
admit that I fail, and I fail, and I fail.

And through failing honestly, I find success, honestly.

While the demons tell you lies.


James Harris

.