Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform?

From: Eckard Blumschein (blumschein_at_et.uni-magdeburg.de)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:52:23 +0100

On 11/25/2004 12:17 PM, Han de Bruijn wrote:

> Why are you playing the misjudged genius, while people aren't that bad?
>

Thank you Han,

This is actually good news. The first reason for me to submit to
sci.physics.research was a rather rude tone here. Meanwhile, I do not
fear what I am calling the "Greenfield collection". However, I don't
expect much helpful criticism from it either. Perhaps, they didn't grasp
the essence of my question "Is Physics really a matter of belief?". So
they did not invade my next thread "Painful but inevitable resignation".

John Baez seems to be more intelligent. He and his crew rapidly blocked
any posting of mine if it anyhow related to my suggestion of IR+.
Admittedly, it already took me 18 months of fierce discussion mainly in
de.sci.physik and my appendix until Hendrik van Hees declared me correct
and apologized in public.

My primary field of interest is auditory function. Here I came up with
http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M277.html
Maybe, I am wrong. However, if I am basically correct with my suggestion
of an observer-bound time-scale, then it could be of more general
interest. Presently, I am trying to justify this scale. I already found
confirming evidence in various fields. You added 'upwind differencing'
to it. Thank you for that, too.

Those, like you and me, who do not hide problems are certainly aware
that proper physical description is often hampered by awkward
axiomatic-style mathematics. Just a very few writers of textbooks in
signal processing bothered about such trifles. Since the majority anyway
tends to plagiariz older incorrectness, it is just now that the level of
discussion on Cantor and the like has grown to intolerable height.

When I mentioned http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/deBruijn/ in
de.sci.mathematik, an opponent of Brouwer gave the advice not to confuse
you with Nicolaas Govert de Bruijn http://www.win.tue.nl/~wsdwnb/ who
was declared a "ganz hervorragender Mathematiker dieses Namens" (de
Bruijn).
When I appreciated the constructive style of someone, he asked me not to
consider him a constructivist for that reason.
As an outsider, I wonder if Hilbert's proponents are quoting him as follows:
Brouwer ist nicht, wie Weyl meint, die Revolution, sondern nur die
Wiederholung eines Putschversuches mit alten Mitteln, der seinerzeit,
viel schneidiger unternommen, doch gänzlich mißlang und jetzt zumal, wo
die Staatsmacht durch Frege, Dedekind und Cantor so wohlgerüstet und
befestigt ist, von vornherein zur Erfolglosigkeit verurteilt ist."

This is my humble translation:

Brouwer is not, as Weyl pretends, the revolution but just a the attempt
 to repeat a putsch by old means. This putsch was undertaken in much
more dashing manner at that time but nevertheless it ended unsuccessful.
This time it is doomed to fail from the very beginning especially
because the power of state has been so much well-armed and fortified by
Frege, Dedekind, and Cantor.

Is this really mathematics?

Kind regards,
Eckard

Relevant Pages
Loading