Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:55:01 -0500
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
G. Frege wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:42:07 +0100, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think we've already agreed on taking _your_ definition als the workingIdiot, there is no "correct" one. It's just ONE possibility.
one - you'd rather say "correct" one ...
Is "idiot" relevant for a discussion about mathematics?
Is your presumption about what I'd "rather" say appropriate? The fact
that you put words in my mouth and pretended that I wanted them there
was pretty disrespectful and annoying.
Bad advertizing for mainstream mathematics as a _civilized_ activity,
again and again.
Somehow, I doubt that G. Frege is intending to advertise a damned
thing or that the "civilized" nature of mathematics is any more
relevant to this discussion than his use of the word "***".
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"[From now on] no simple dismissal of claims of counterexamples or
counter proofs. I may not consider such claims, but I won't just
dismiss them [...]" -- James S. Harris turns a new leaf
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: G . Frege
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- References:
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: G . Frege
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: G . Frege
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: G . Frege
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Prev by Date: Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Next by Date: Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Previous by thread: Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Next by thread: Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Index(es):
Loading