Re: L_3/2
- From: amy666 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:37:53 EST
david wrote :
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:03:22 EST, amy666
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
i havent read all the replies yet.
Looks more like you haven't read any of them.
_Why_ haven't you read them? How can you not
see how ridiculous it is to ask a question,
whine about how you're willing to learn but
nobody's willing to teach you anything, and
then _say_ that you haven't read the replies you
_got_?
Over and over you _show_ that your claim that
you want to learn some math is simply not so.
Several people _have_ obviously read the whole
thread - it's not that hard to do. But _you_ haven't.
What seems most likely to me is that you want to
learn how to _sound like_ you know some math
so you can sound smart - in spite of repeated
dismal failures at that you keep trying. To be
fair, I suppose it could be that you do actually
want to _know_ some math. But you should
really stop saying you want to learn some math -
this is so obviously false that it bugs people
(people who are annoyed by self-aggrandizing
falsehoods, for example me).
what about L_1/2 ?
This is precisely as stupid a question as the first
one,
because we know that the Fourier series of an L^1
function need not converge ae (this is a well-known
fact and also mentioned several times in this thread)
and it's obvious that L^1 is contained in L^(1/2).
Look. You don't believe this, but it's true: You
really
need to _learn_ something about a topic before asking
"advanced" questions about it, unless you want to
make
a fool of yourself. We've all been told that there's
no
such thing as a stupid question - whether that's true
or
not, there certainly is such a thing as a question
that
shows that the person asking is so ignorant of the
fundamental concepts in the field that he has no
chance of really understanding the answer.
To put it in language you may understand: Note
first that "quadratic reciprocity" is a fairly
non-trivial
theorem in number theory (it's something Gauss
was very proud of, which shows that it's not just
a silly little exercise...)
Now imagine you know some number theory,
including of course quadratic reciprocity. You
see someone ask the following question:
"I need to know about quadratic reciprocity.
But I can't determine whether 4 is prime or
not - can anyone help? No book references
please."
What sort of impression would a question like
that make on you? A guy who says he needs to
understand quadratic reciprocity and who at the
same time shows that he doesn't know what a
prime number is?
Now say someone decides to try to answer your
question anyway, and says "4 is composite".
You reply "I'm not interested in that - not
what I asked. I need to know whether 4 is prime."
What sort of impression would _that_ make?
Someone points out that you could look up the
definition
of "prime" online. Someone else posts a _link_ to an
online definition of "prime" so you don't even have
to
figure out how Google or Wikipedia work. A little
later you say you haven't read all the replies, and
then you ask _again_ whether 4 is prime.
What sort of impression would _that_ make?
That _is_ the sort of impression you're making here,
with all three of your questions (first p = 3,
then p = 3/2, then p = 1/2.)
(Also the sort of impression you make on other
topics,
btw. Seems like the difference between set theory and
Fourier analysis is that with Fourier analysis you
don't
decide that something's wrong just because you don't
understand it. I don't know why that is - the current
thread would be a lot more fun if you announced
Tommy Fourier Analysis, which is the same as
standard Fourier analysis except that Fourier series
always converge.)
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal
proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up
to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
yeah you got a point.
i didnt have time to read all replies.
my questions were quite silly.
however one detail you might have overlooked :
i also asked about other series apart from fourrier.
from that perspective it still makes sense to wonder about L_x.
one the other hand thats quite general , perhaps too general to answer ...
regards
tommy1729
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: L_3/2
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: L_3/2
- Prev by Date: Re: Laurent polynomials
- Next by Date: What IS a differential equation?
- Previous by thread: cyclic quartics
- Next by thread: Re: L_3/2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
