Re: Abolish Fractions???? the nutty professor 3 -> out now !!

In article <fv0iq3dbenumehchvn2el6d1hmr6019754@xxxxxxx>,
quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:37:23 -0800, The World Wide Wade
<aderamey.addw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <bothq3duue5ai4l7ngali59inn7s7r6r2j@xxxxxxx>,
quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:25:36 EST, tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Gerry myerson wrote:

In article
<gig2q3d6ll02jc6ge044n7paum35gjn19v@xxxxxxx>,
quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:38:02 -0800 (PST), amzoti
<amzoti@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Thoughts?


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008
-01-23-fractions_N.htm

He's a kook.

When you've accomplished one-tenth of what he has,
maybe you can call him a kook. In the meantime,
I suggest you
1. don't believe everything you read in usatoday,
2. keep a civil finger on your keyboard, and
3. wait until you see a detailed exposition by the
man himself.

--
Gerry Myerson (gerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (i -> u for
email)

so you support the idea ??

the idea is even too crazy for JSH !!

i dont know about america but here in europe you cant become a prof in
math
if you cant work with fractions. :p

abolish fractions ?? get real !!

he should have better said abolish aleph_3 instead of fractions.

will mathematics in the future include aleph 3 , aleph 4 , aleph 82 ,
beth
34 , epsilon 72 ...
but no longer fractions.

nice going america !!

why might as well replace sqrt(x) with a mathematical god proof.
( certain american religious politicians would be pleased )

what's next ? abolish non-euclidean geometry ???

abolish matrices ???

we might as well hand over the fields medal to JSH for his ring of
objects
then.

and since we dont work with fractions anymore we can also forget about
divisions ...

and thus also factoring or primes...

in fact , abolish number theory id say.

the nutty professor 3 -> out now !!

But if you watch the video,

<http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>

it will be (almost) immediately obvious that he's not serious -- it
was just a spoof. In other words, he's just kidding!

But he got taken literally, both by the news media, and by others as
well. Many sci.math regulars took it more seriously than they should
have for the simple reason that the idea was presented by a well
known, highly respected mathematician. In other words, "The Emperor's
Clothes" phenomenon.

I'll proudly point out that even before watching the video, I wasn't
fooled for a minute.

Nonsense. You called him a kook, as if he were serious about it.
Nowhere did you say it was a spoof. In fact, you argued the opposite.
See below.

No, I quickly qualified that in my next reply.

What I then said was:

"_If_ the USA today story is accurate, then the man is a kook".

I stand by that.

quasi

You make little sense. You now say it was a spoof and that you weren't
"fooled for a minute." But there is nothing in your posts from last
week indicating that you thought it was a spoof. Quite the opposite,
as the below (somehow clipped from your response above) shows:

--------
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:39:27 -0800 (PST), toni.lassila@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:

I think it's a troll made on purpose to draw attention.

Wow -- everyone is trying so hard to apologize for him.

So you are suggesting that he publicly declared "Down with fractions!"
and gave arguments to support it, all the while just trolling?

Not very credible, sorry.
--------------
.

Relevant Pages
Loading