Re: Mike Helland Reading List

On Mar 26, 3:47 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:10 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You think the fields of math that you understand are essential to
grokking math.

They are...

So I understand algebra.

And from there I suppose I grok equations.

You say that you know a dozen fields that I don't know.

From there, you suppose that you grok equations.

You probably don't see the irony.



no thats the only one you understood, in fact I can disprove your
conjecture without a computer... sorry...

Then you don't know what a conjecture is.

Neither do you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture

I suggest you read up...

I suggest you read that webpage.

Did you make it to the second paragraph?

It says:

"In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term
"conjecture" to indicate a proposition which is presumed to be real,
true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast
with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a
testable statement based on accepted grounds."

Summary:

A hypothesis is falsifiable.

A conjecture is not. Without that difference, there would be no need
for the term "conjecture".

Yet you are absolutely sure you proved my conjecture wrong.

I've read dozens of Popper's books and essays. I understand term he
pioneered.

You don't.

You are working with a version of the scientific method that has been
outdated since the 1950s.


<snip>
You said you've falsified my conjecture.

The conjecture isn't falsifiable.

Semantics,

Definitions. That aren't on your side.

I predict you'll whine about it.


and more of you trying to hide behind said semantics
because you won't admit your wrong, no matter how dumb you look, hence
you are a fool...

I am a fool.

Yes.

Do you think that you are wise?

That's rich.
.