Re: fixed point set theory
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:21:34 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 27, 11:36 am, amy666 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:07 am, amy666 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
maybe it wasnt clear but
Your stuff on such topics is virtually never clear,
and the reason for
that is just what I mentioned: your childish refusal
to learn the
basic principles, terminology, and notation of the
subject matter.
its important to realise
that if you want to be clear and to communicate with
people about this
subject then you need to learn its basic principles,
terminology, and
notation.
but i dont want to communicate about the standards !
im talking about new stuff and thus i have my own terminology.
im not here to learn ' old math ' , im here to bring you ' new math '.
But you're using old vocabulary (and in certain other postings) mixed
with UNDEFINED new notation. So either you need to establish a new
vocabulary of concepts and terminology by a method of primitives and
definitions and/or establish a glossary that translates your use of
old vocabulary to the new sense that uniquely intend.
Otherwise, as your postings continue to read as gobbleldygook.
MoeBlee
.
- References:
- Re: fixed point set theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: fixed point set theory
- From: amy666
- Re: fixed point set theory
- Prev by Date: Re: fixed point set theory
- Next by Date: Is FinallyFast.com Any Good?
- Previous by thread: Re: fixed point set theory
- Next by thread: Re: fixed point set theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
