Re: defining log(A) for matrix A. with det =/= 0

On Dec 1, 6:56 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:32:43 +0200, "Ioannis" <morph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[snip]

As I said, I appreciate Helms and his work on
tetration, which is also a new mathematical
concept on which he, Ioannis Galidakis, Andrew
Robbins, and others are working. And yes, one of
tommy1729's favorite subjects is tetration.

I'm glad that Feldmann, Ullrich, and the other
mainstream mathematicians have ignored the threads
on tetration, a non-mainstream idea. I can only
imagine how much they'd belittle tetration if they
knew about those threads.

No need to imagine. David has belittled me as well, on tetration. Long time ago:

http://tinyurl.com/56tlse

Even after I apologized for the whole misunderstanding, he calls me "an
***", for example.

Good of you to include a link to the whole thread.
What I see there is you asking questions, three
mathematicians who can't understand what the heck
your questions mean, you insulting them for not
understanding your meaningless comments, your increasing
frustration with the fact that they can't read your mind -
at one point you call the people who are trying to help you racists.

And curiously, at that point things get unpleasant. Surprise.

it is almost always an issue of miscommunication

there are "standard" communications
the ones sanctioned in the halls of academia
and handed down through texts and demonstration

and there are "other" communications
those generated from somewhere else
either personal exploration
or attempts at foreign translation
or whyever they are generated

there is always a tension between these
because the "standard" is always moving
to adapt to the preferred language of approach
and the "other"s are regularly being integrated
as they demonstrate efficability

an important part of student study
is learning the (various and many) "standard" languages

it provides them a map
as all socially inherited knowledge does in language

however
one of the most important points
any student of math could learn
is that it is important for them to get good at "other" communications
too

there is a lot of historical lint and grime
that builds up in the standard languages
and the direction of the standard language
often constrains the ideas explored

a student needs to be able to
use any variable name they want to

it's an important part of substitution

a student should be able to come up with new properties
give them any names they make up
and explore them to their heart's content

they need to own their symbolic manipulations

they need to be able to define their own manipulations
and not feel hesitant that it is not standard

but once you start making a list
of all the important things needed
for a student to be a good (productive) mathematician
you end up specifying linguistic control

and that is the whole point here

behind all the other stuff built on top of it

ioannis came in asking a question
in a language he had arrived at
exploring problems he was interested in

some of that language was unclear
to those who were expecting one (of the many) "standard"s

(though why it would be unclear i can only speculate
since it seems clear enough to me to work from
and that's the working test for all language
despite any lingering formal ambiguities
which i also don't see
since b_n seems clearly defined in the proof part of the post)

the first response by david
was focused entirely on failing to meet an accepted syntax
though it was clear that he understood the meaning
and he did answer the question

others also answered
despite also complaining that the syntax was weird

that is part of the dynamic that usually occurs
where quibbles over syntax
(and yes pedantry)
get proffered as help to the student

but they do so in ways that are often confrontational ways
("meaningless"?
when it was clear even formally from the entire post?)

and others pile on

ronald bruck apparently didn't realise
that the initial post was capable of formal interpretation

irritation flares up on both sides
and the initial question may get lost
(it didn't in this example)

with foreign students
as ioannis even points out
this can be a frequent problem
but it is just as problematic for native speakers
when proposing new ideas

new ideas often occur in some milieu
and it is often difficult to predict
what needs explained from that environment
and what can be inferred reasonably

and it's important for anyone working in mathematics
to be able to adapt their linguistic understandings
to new forms and directions

lacks in this will inhibit ability to progress

when someone comes asking
"can we have x \in x?"
and the goal is mathematical understanding
then the goal is not achieved with
"no"
"idiot"
"don't freakin' use tex in sci.math!!@"

it is partially achieved with
"see foundation"
or
"not in zfc"

it is achieved even more fully with an explanation
starting from the trivial single axiom system
that obeys only the given law
to some additional description
showing that as one wants to give this more structure
choices need to be made
and how this might lead anywhere from atomism to zfc

traditionally in these groups
and generally in society
it is the first type of response that dominates

experts have learned a system
where it most certainly does not hold
and that has become an authority on which to judge

what kronecker did to cantor
hilbert later did to brouwer

the authorities change
but the flaw persists

ullrich is simply the kelvin of his times
regularly making authoritative and wrong statements
that inhibit some from posting more

it's that confidence in the authority
(of something that's always changing...)
and a generally crabby personality

some people get along with that personality fine

they just understand that learning around them
means waiting for someone to foolishly come in
with some half-baked idea
and watch as the tearing begins

if they have their own half-baked ideas
they keep 'em private
or swallow their mustard and preface their posts with
"i know this is the stupidest thing since sliced yams but..."

even when it isn't that stupid an idea

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.

Quantcast