Re: insults

On Dec 8, 2:52 am, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 4, 3:36 pm, salsaonline <salsa_onl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
.............................................................
Whatever you do, don't take too much offense when you
encounter the occasional insult. Let's face it,
mathematicians are not known for being great socialites.
If you want to work in this area, you're going to have
learn to let these things slide. Remember that your job
as a student is to get information out of people, not
to get into fights with them.

No.

That is not how human dynamics work.  That is nothing like
I have experienced, nor do I think that history represents
it.

I think it is something people wish would work, and it
comes from a very good desire: decrease the hostile
environment.

If one person stops, isn't that better than both of them
going at it?

It is not always better.

In my experience, it is not often better.

Tolerating bullying empowers the bullying.  It provides
an accepted venue for unhealthy actions.  It leads
evaluations to change and power structures to shift, in
the end benefiting the bully.  Hell, that's such a
universally common experience it's U. S. foreign policy.

It would not be in my advantage to let Ullrich tell
others that I am wrong about something I am not, or
that I have illustrated I know very little about a
field I have produced results in.

I have seen this intellectual cowardice before in many
guises.

Cowardice causes those who might defend to stay quiet.

Cowardice avoids fixing problems.

Cowardice lets disease grow.

The insult is that I had to stand up to David myself,
because none of you had the balls to defend against
this old careless bully.  But you did have the balls
to protest the defense.

What type of balls is them?

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

*****************************************************************************************

First of all, it's a refreshing thing to see Galathea writing as most
people have agreed on: it makes her posts more easily readable.

Second, and for the sake of justice and fairness, since I've also been
a participant in all this, please do allow me to make a resume of the
whole thing.

I am referring to the thread originally called "When do matrices B and
C commute?", by Alainverghote, from last Nov. 19. Anyone interested in
following the flow of the next stuff should open this thread in the
Drexel math forum (discussions >> sci.math):

http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=13

Please do pay attention to the fact that I usually included in each
quoted post the very first lines in the original one which belong to
the post been asnwered.

** The first post by Galathea was Nov. 20, at 2:22 pm, and it's the
following:
=====================================================

So tell me: What in the world
do you think that A^C is, if A and C are 2x2 matrices.

What _is_ "A to the power C"?

wouldn't that just be

exp(C ln(A))?

both exp and ln
may be defined on square matrices
using the power series
(though there may be convergence to consider)

===========================================================
Galathea's post begins at "wouldn't...", and she's answering a
question posted by David to Tommy's proposition to use A^C, with A,C
square matrices, for whatever. So far David only asked Tommy what did
he mean by A^C, and Galathea stepped in to answer David's question to
Tommy. So far nothing to bizarre or extrange.

** To the above, Amy666 (One of the alter-egos of Tommy1729) replied
at 5:04 pm, Nov.20:
===========================================================

What _is_ "A to the power C"?

wouldn't that just be

exp(C ln(A))?

yep thats it.

and before objections are made , i said det =/= [0;1]

both exp and ln
may be defined on square matrices
using the power series
(though there may be convergence to consider)

perhaps i should try to sell a book too , like david.

yeah , ill sell david ullrich a book about subjects like :

continu iterations ( gamma , Barnes G , tetration , moebius transforms
etc )

matrix powers ( A^C )

polysigned ( with credit to timothy )

large cardinal axioms ( it was strange nobody noticed these missing in
the ' disproofs ' of TST and aleph_aleph_0 is max , they assumed the
large cardinals could be proven to exist just with ZF ... )

================================================================
Here, tommy is trying, not very succesfully imfho, to laugh at David
and his "ignorance" in subjects like iterations, matrix powers,
polysigned [sic], etc. Anyone knowing David, and specially knowing
Tommy, will probably giggle or even open laugh outloud.
Nothing new, Tommy can't stand David and he's just making clear this
point.

** To the above, David posts on Nov. 21, at 7:47 am:
=================================================================

wouldn't that just be

exp(C ln(A))?

yep thats it.

That's funny - you need someone else to say what you meant.

Why is it that and not, say, exp(ln(A) C)?

And exactly what do you mean by ln(A)? I didn't
bother asking galathea, since this is your amazing
discovery, after all, but he was wrong in saying
that ln(A) can be defined by using a power series
(except under certain conditions. Can you tell us
_when_ ln(A) _can_ be defined using a power series,
and can you tell us what the definition of ln(A)
is for A not satisfying that condition? If you do
stumble on the definition you'll find that there
are many different choices for ln(A); which one
did you mean?)

=====================================================
David makes it clear that he's realized that not Tommy but Galathea
defined A^C, and even now he makes some trying to clarify stuff.
Nothing really outstanding so far, imo, some little stings here and
there, but now things begin to warm up and beyond.

** The next is Galathea's retort on Nov. 22, 12:17 am to David's claim
that she commited a mistake. For the sake of clearness and fariness I
shall copy the whole thing:
======================================================

[David]
If you do
stumble on the definition you'll find that there
are many different choices for ln(A); which one
did you mean?)

if you wanted a 1-on-1 conversation with tommy
email would be more appropriate than usenet

i think you have an error in your post

the correct thing to say is:
galathaea was _right_ in saying
that ln(A) could be defined using a power series
and even pointed out that you may need to consider convergence
depending on the particular matrix

of course
a lot of this begs some questions

if you don't know about matrix exponentiation
then it indicates you probably haven't read any
intro texts on lie algebras
(which almost all contain a good mention
including campbell-baker-hausdorff
and the geometric and arithmetic meanings)

and if you haven't read intro lie algebra texts
then your new book probably doesn't go into
solutions of differential equations
and the associated germs and such

that's okay

complex analysis often waits to explore those issues
( many don't want to have to build the whole fibration theory
foundation )
but it means your coverage of monodromy
is bound to be pretty superficial

generating trajectories won't be given a clear differential foundation

that's fine

usually they call that complex differential topology
or something similar
i know
not quite the same target audience

oh
and i see that you are now playing off my alleged error
as a challenge to tommy
which you think will hide your initial challenge
in a well-i-had-a-more-subtle-point move

if i was more bad hearted
i might point out domination patterns
and connect them to capabilities as a teacher
in ways that might subvert the intellectual authority of your book

but don't worry
i wouldn't actually support any of those horribly offensive positions
and i hope you don't also just assume i'm horribly wrong
particularly when it is an area i've pursued in some detail
(specifically in my generalised trigonometry
where the operation generalises
what happens on the 2d rotation matrix)

and maybe
along the way
you can stop acting like a little child with tommy
and start acting like a teacher

i hear that's what you do

(you've been corrected before
about another error you seem to like to continue with)

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

==================================================================
This time Galathea already says stuff to David that I cannot but take
as a direct and rather not-nice personal attack against him: from
"stop acting like a child" through "start acting as a teacher" (and
one could add "and don't you dare contradict me!!!" to make it sound
as my sometimes frightening grandma) and all the way until domination
patterns and capabilites as a teacher. I can hardly see how all this
was called for here, but perhaps I don't know some issues these two
had between them in the past.

** On nov 22, at 9:05 am David retorts back (only excerpts):
===================================================================

.............................................................
the correct thing to say is:
galathaea was _right_ in saying
that ln(A) could be defined using a power series

Really? Exactly how does that go.
.............................................................
if you don't know about matrix exponentiation

Why would you conclude that? Of course there's
no problem defining the exponential of a matrix;
I haven't said anything to the contrary.

Now explain exactly how I use power series to
define ln(A).
.............................................................
but don't worry
i wouldn't actually support any of those horribly offensive positions
and i hope you don't also just assume i'm horribly wrong
particularly when it is an area i've pursued in some detail

Fabulous. Then explaining how to use power series to
define ln(A) should be no problem.
.............................................................
=============================================================

I find it very interesting to note that David did NOT address any of
the personal attacks of Galathea, and only asked rather specific
questions, even if using some very, very light irony.
Perhaps this is due to the fact that those alleged attacks weren't as
nasty as I see them, perhaps because David just didn't want to be
nasty against Galathea for whatever reason.

** Galathea retors back on Nov. 22, at 2:54 pm:
=============================================================

Why would you conclude that? Of course there's
no problem defining the exponential of a matrix;
I haven't said anything to the contrary.

well
someone who wants to make fun of another
for writing

A^C
for A and C matrices

doesn't display an understanding of matrix exponentiation
.........................................................
Now explain exactly how I use power series to
define ln(A).

i don't think you do
.........................................................
....but now
once again
if this is so hard for you to see
how do you cover series definitions
and analytic continuation
in your book?

do you do it in a way
that doesn't make sense for matrices?

i'm saying all this about your book
because you still haven't taken back
your error about my position

it's a silly stand
but i love to properly corrected
and hate to be falsely corrected
particularly by someone already on teasing kick

so i'm just pointing out
if you really can't see any of it
it is not saying great things about your book

=====================================================

Galathea strikes back and forth, and all is apparently because she
feels she's been wrongly corrected on something she was right. It can
indeed be annoying to be corrected in something you think/know you're
right, but so far I can't see a single attack on Galathea.


The above correspondence continues on and on, and I think it is a good
example of miscomunications mixed with that rare blend of talents and
characteristics Galathea has been blessed with: lots of bad faith,
stubborness, hipocresy, intellectual dishonestity, narcissism and self-
righteousness (she actually calls "defence" to her verbal attacks and
gross abuse against David and many other chatters, while using very
ugly and despective adjectives ), mixed with irony and some sarcastic
remarks by David and by other chatters as well, who mingled in the
convo.

On Nov. 25, at 10:15 am Galathea uses profanity directly against
David, when at the end of this post she writes "you are one fucked up
individual"...but then you can read the whole thread if you will.

Regards
Tonio
.

Quantcast