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

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:47:51 -0800, The World Wide Wade
<aderamey.addw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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."

I wasn't fooled for a minute into taking his _argument_ seriously.

But there is nothing in your posts from last week indicating that you
thought it was a spoof. Quite the opposite,

Right -- based on the USA Today article, I thought he _was_ serious.
In fact, even after reading the transcript of DeTurck's speech, I
still thought he was serious, hence I was even more convinced that the
guy was just an off-the-wall kook. What I mean't by saying "I wasn't
fooled" was that I wasn't lured into giving his _idea_ any degree of
validity. His reputation as a respected mathematician did not
influence me -- I focused on the idea. That's what I mean't when I
said I wasn't fooled, nothing more.

My feeling is that the only reason his idea wasn't ripped to shreds by
the most of the sci.math regulars is precisely because of DeTurck's
status as a respected mathematician. It reveals an essentially
aristocratic perspective -- a kind of hero worship. The fact is, hero
worship in the math community is very common, even if we don't all
have the same heros. Recognizing that, it's important to be extra
careful to stay objective, keeping the focus on the idea, not the
status of the idea's presenter.

In any case, after watching the video, I instantly concluded that he
was just putting us all on. Now I'm not 100% sure that he was just
kidding, but if not, then he really _is_ a kook. Either way, in my
opinion, he is not to be taken seriously.

Moreover, if he _was_ kidding, then he may not be a kook, but he _is_
a _fool_ -- a fool for not realizing that others might very well take
him seriously, thus potentially damaging the US educational system.

quasi
.

Relevant Pages
Loading