Government Conspiracy

  • 159 Replies
  • 10910 Views
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #120 on: February 03, 2013, 10:45:49 AM »
Everything has a limit.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39594
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #121 on: February 03, 2013, 11:15:55 AM »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.  -- Albert Einstein
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #122 on: February 03, 2013, 11:16:35 AM »
The universe isn't infinite dumbass. -- Science
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #123 on: February 03, 2013, 11:30:02 AM »
Everything has a limit.

Except sceptimatic's persistence.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #124 on: February 03, 2013, 08:48:06 PM »
You can make any mathematical statement you like, it doesn't make it true.

To the above, I don't see any valid reasoning behind it.  Can you explain your reasoning?

Clearly, he's adding characters.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #125 on: February 03, 2013, 09:49:13 PM »
Nothing about mathematics is "true" or "false" or relative to the world in any manner except by purposeful design or coincidence.  At times it relates to the world;  at other times it doesn't.  It certainly can't be used to say any "truth" about the world, in and of itself though.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #126 on: February 03, 2013, 09:51:31 PM »
Nothing about mathematics is "true" or "false" or relative to the world in any manner except by purposeful design or coincidence.  At times it relates to the world;  at other times it doesn't.  It certainly can't be used to say any "truth" about the world, in and of itself though.

in your opinion anyway. its a method for translating what we see around us. it can be applied to anything and everything. your views have become a little abstract.

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #127 on: February 04, 2013, 07:05:34 AM »
Nothing about mathematics is "true" or "false" or relative to the world in any manner except by purposeful design or coincidence.  At times it relates to the world;  at other times it doesn't.  It certainly can't be used to say any "truth" about the world, in and of itself though.

I guess that maybe you can't say math is "true" or "false", but it is internally consistent, and that consistency remains when you apply math to real world situations. I mentioned this in another thread, but if I can come up with an equation to describe a quantity, the rate of change of that quantity will be the derivative of that equation. It works every time (unless the original equation was wrong to begin with). If I know the hypotenuse of a right triangle and one of the angles, I know the length of the other two sides, whether that triangle is a real, physical triangle or an abstraction for analyzing an AC electrical system (yes, you can do this and it works).

So, math may not be "truth" in and of itself, but it is a very useful tool for finding and understanding truth.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 07:07:32 AM by nate5700 »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #128 on: February 05, 2013, 08:51:51 AM »
We don't discover mathematics, we invent it to solve problems.  Sometimes we invent it out of curiosity or thought experiment, and it later turns out to solve problems; 

Just because mathematics is consistent within a context, does not mean its consistent within itself overall (its not by necessity), or that its consistent with all of nature or all of truth.  There would be a lot less disagreement and work within mathematics if there was a consensus on any particular axiom within it.  As Descarte's saw, and we see again and again, there is never consensus and the burden of debt for science and math is too high to act reasonably within it, without faith.

The fact science can be done without mathematics can in one fel swoop remove its necessity and its necessitative connection to the world for most that would will it.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 08:53:31 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #129 on: February 05, 2013, 09:13:21 AM »
Just because mathematics is consistent within a context, does not mean its consistent within itself overall (its not by necessity), or that its consistent with all of nature or all of truth.  There would be a lot less disagreement and work within mathematics if there was a consensus on any particular axiom within it.  As Descarte's saw, and we see again and again, there is never consensus and the burden of debt for science and math is too high to act reasonably within it, without faith.

I just don't think I agree with this, if I understand what you're saying. Sure there may be some inconsistency in mathematical concepts that are under development, but, at least in my mind, a mathematical concept isn't "proven" until it's consistent with what we already know. As far as consistency with nature or truth, if you can quantify something, if you can correctly describe an observation mathematically, then the concepts apply and they are consistent. 1 + 1 = 2 whether you're talking about electrons or trees or distances in feet or ohms of electrical resistance. Math is just logic applied to numbers.

The fact science can be done without mathematics can in one fel swoop remove its necessity and its necessitative connection to the world for most that would will it.

I don't think this is possible, at least for the human brain. Some systems are too complex to understand without mathematics. Without the mathematical model, I don't think anyone would understand how an AC electrical transformer works. But you apply the math, and then we can use them to transmit power vast distances and turn people's lights on.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #130 on: February 05, 2013, 09:35:00 AM »
Just because mathematics is consistent within a context, does not mean its consistent within itself overall (its not by necessity), or that its consistent with all of nature or all of truth.  There would be a lot less disagreement and work within mathematics if there was a consensus on any particular axiom within it.  As Descarte's saw, and we see again and again, there is never consensus and the burden of debt for science and math is too high to act reasonably within it, without faith.

I just don't think I agree with this, if I understand what you're saying. Sure there may be some inconsistency in mathematical concepts that are under development, but, at least in my mind, a mathematical concept isn't "proven" until it's consistent with what we already know.
A mathematical concept is never proven, it is only taken axiomatically true.
Quote
As far as consistency with nature or truth, if you can quantify something, if you can correctly describe an observation mathematically, then the concepts apply and they are consistent.
Quantification of things is a methodology to abstract their properties for our examination in an abstract context.  This doesn't say that the abstract context necessarily corresponds to the world, just that we feel its good enough a lie for our use.  This has to be remembered.  The same way when I use a car, I remember that it is a lethal weapon and could kill and act appropriately.


Quote
1 + 1 = 2 whether you're talking about electrons or trees or distances in feet or ohms of electrical resistance. Math is just logic applied to numbers.
Incorrect.  In a trivial ring, 1+1=1.  A trivial ring can be used to examine many natural phenom

The fact science can be done without mathematics can in one fel swoop remove its necessity and its necessitative connection to the world for most that would will it.

I don't think this is possible, at least for the human brain. Some systems are too complex to understand without mathematics. Without the mathematical model, I don't think anyone would understand how an AC electrical transformer works. But you apply the math, and then we can use them to transmit power vast distances and turn people's lights on.
[/quote]
If we are too dumb to comprehend it, then why could we comprehend it using an abstract tool we invented? 

A good book on a similar subject is Science without Numbers.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #131 on: February 05, 2013, 10:04:33 AM »
A mathematical concept is never proven, it is only taken axiomatically true.

I suppose this is true. I did put "proven" in quotation marks when I said it, I think I was basically thinking something along those lines.

Incorrect.  In a trivial ring, 1+1=1.  A trivial ring can be used to examine many natural phenom

I'll have to look into this, I'm not familiar with the concept. Could be interesting.

If we are too dumb to comprehend it, then why could we comprehend it using an abstract tool we invented? 

Maybe it isn't correct to say we comprehend it. If we can abstract it, we can comprehend the abstraction though, and use it to solve problems. If your point is that that the abstraction works is something taken on faith or trust, that's probably fair. I guess I'm feeling defensive about it because that trust seems to reward us again and again, hence my lights are on and my computer works. (I keep using electrical examples because I'm an electrical engineer. Could you guess that?)

A good book on a similar subject is Science without Numbers.

That could be interesting too. I'll try to remember to look into that too. (Hopefully there's a Nook version)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #132 on: February 05, 2013, 10:19:50 AM »
Its old, I'm still working on getting a hard copy again myself.  Like anything, take the good from the bad with it ha.

Hey you are right;  It is one of our most useful sciences in relation to its abstract usability in every scenario.  It truly is a universal tool and language, but we must be on guard when following rote language and routine as fact.   Our shared belief in these concepts and precepts have lead to the wide range of society we have today that allows us to believe more than we could ever had in the past, by consequently limiting said belief.  I guess I'm a bit too transcendental to all scenarios and should be better about tailoring my posts to a wider audience.

I think we are in agreement for the most part though so I'll leave it at that.

Quantum Ab Hoc

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #133 on: February 05, 2013, 10:21:05 AM »
your are right its just a tool for understanding the world around us.

maths is not universal law
maths is used to understand the universe

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #134 on: February 05, 2013, 10:38:19 AM »
It truly is a universal tool and language, but we must be on guard when following rote language and routine as fact.

I like the description of math as a language. If your warning is that, like any language, math can be used to lie, I'd agree. (Fudge the numbers and you can make the math say whatever you want)

I think we are in agreement for the most part though so I'll leave it at that.

I think so, on this subject. Sometimes you have to have these discussions to get the ideas expressed in terms that we can agree on, so that we aren't talking past each other.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #135 on: February 05, 2013, 10:44:06 AM »
We don't discover mathematics, we invent it to solve problems.  Sometimes we invent it out of curiosity or thought experiment, and it later turns out to solve problems; 
Please stop talking about things you just don't know about. Ever since axiomatic systems were defined, we define (or to use your words, invent) a system of axioms, which is the set of claims that is to be held as true without any proof. Then we discover theorems, which are consequences of the axioms, and are true if and only if the axioms are true.

Just because mathematics is consistent within a context, does not mean its consistent within itself overall (its not by necessity), or that its consistent with all of nature or all of truth.  There would be a lot less disagreement and work within mathematics if there was a consensus on any particular axiom within it.  As Descarte's saw, and we see again and again, there is never consensus and the burden of debt for science and math is too high to act reasonably within it, without faith.
Any given axiomatic system in Mathematics, of which there are many, can fall into one of the following categories:
- It has been proven to be consistent (it is impossible to prove a given theorem and the opposite theorem)
- It has been proven to be inconsistent (a theorem and its opposite were both proven)
- It has been proven that the consistency question cannot be answered
- We don't know yet.

Mathematics does not have to be consistent (whatever that means) with nature or with truth (depending on what you call truth). It only has to be internally consistent. The phrase you concocted:

    "There would be a lot less disagreement and work within mathematics if there was a consensus on any particular axiom within it"

is the best example I have ever found of a complete ignorant talking about Mathematics. Mathematicians do not need or want consensus about axioms. Each area of Mathematics uses its own set of axioms, and whoever wants to create a new set of axioms is welcome to try.

The consensus you are talking about exists in Science, not in Mathematics, and it is closely related to Scientific Theories. It is only then that abstract mathematical concepts, which are true by definition, get applied to real world observations and experiments and all the need for consensus start to have some sense.

The fact science can be done without mathematics can in one fel swoop remove its necessity and its necessitative connection to the world for most that would will it.
A very small subset of our scientific knowledge can be worked without Mathematics. That does not give any support at all to your claim that... just a moment... what the hell are you trying to say in that phrase? Anyhow, most Science is intimately related to Mathematics, and loses all predictive power if you take the mathematical tools away. Science without Mathematics would be like what you see in this forum.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #136 on: February 05, 2013, 11:02:10 AM »
Incorrect.  In a trivial ring, 1+1=1.  A trivial ring can be used to examine many natural phenom

I'll have to look into this, I'm not familiar with the concept. Could be interesting.

This is just another attempt at confusing noobs with vague language and incorrect use of Mathematics.

You can define an axiomatic system where the only number that exists is 1, so therefore any operation made, whether it is addition, subtraction, multiplication, division or whatever you want, gives a result of 1.  This is a completely useless extreme case of a ring, which has no use to Mathematics, Science or anybody. There are slightly more interesting rings, where you at least have a 0 and a 1, and in those rings one plus one is not one.

The cheap trick that John Davis is trying to pull is the use of an axiomatic system that is not even remotely similar to the one almost every one uses all the time, but without saying it. Rings do not use the same axioms that your Maths teacher taught you at School, not by a long shot. It is like me saying that an army of a million soldiers was defeated by a single opposing unarmed soldier, and omitting the detail that the war was fought in another galaxy.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #137 on: February 05, 2013, 11:51:12 AM »
Our shared belief in these concepts and precepts have lead to the wide range of society we have today that allows us to believe more than we could ever had in the past, by consequently limiting said belief. 

What on earth does that mean?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #138 on: February 05, 2013, 11:55:42 AM »
Incorrect.  In a trivial ring, 1+1=1.  A trivial ring can be used to examine many natural phenom

I'll have to look into this, I'm not familiar with the concept. Could be interesting.

This is just another attempt at confusing noobs with vague language and incorrect use of Mathematics.

You can define an axiomatic system where the only number that exists is 1, so therefore any operation made, whether it is addition, subtraction, multiplication, division or whatever you want, gives a result of 1.  This is a completely useless extreme case of a ring, which has no use to Mathematics, Science or anybody. There are slightly more interesting rings, where you at least have a 0 and a 1, and in those rings one plus one is not one.

The cheap trick that John Davis is trying to pull is the use of an axiomatic system that is not even remotely similar to the one almost every one uses all the time, but without saying it. Rings do not use the same axioms that your Maths teacher taught you at School, not by a long shot. It is like me saying that an army of a million soldiers was defeated by a single opposing unarmed soldier, and omitting the detail that the war was fought in another galaxy.
So you are telling me I am saying that the truths in math are not universal but contextual based off axioms.  Hardly seems like I'm pulling a "cheap trick" at all, but instead am simply speaking plainly.

If a trivial ring was useless, it would not have existence.

For example, if we decide to define a state machine that lists the decimals of repeating decimals, we might find one such:
1->4->5-> THE TRIVIAL CASE (1)
or 1.451111...
1.45+ Sigma(1/10^n)

If trivial rings are trivial, so is Sigma(1/10^n).
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 11:57:23 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #139 on: February 05, 2013, 12:13:54 PM »

  Hardly seems like I'm pulling a "cheap trick" at all, but instead am simply speaking plainly.


John, you are incapable of speaking plainly.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #140 on: February 05, 2013, 01:53:28 PM »
So you are telling me I am saying that the truths in math are not universal but contextual based off axioms.  Hardly seems like I'm pulling a "cheap trick" at all, but instead am simply speaking plainly.
Just find me any Mathematics book whatsoever where the word "context" is used and we can continue some sort of discussion. If you are saying that "context" is the same as "axiomatic system", then you are the only one, to my knowledge, in the whole world who does.

Mathematics is not literature. You do not use synonyms taken from a dictionary. If you want to use the word "context" in a discussion about Mathematics, you define it in mathematical terms before you use it. And by the way, finite state machines are not axiomatic systems, either. And the existence of a recurring sequence of ones has nothing to do with rings in mathematics. If you want to learn about rings in Mathematics, try this.

So, the cheap trick is to try to confuse people with a mix of Mathematics and common language. You have tried for a long time and continue trying. "Speaking plainly" seems to be your equivalent to "speaking in common language", which is fine if you are not talking Mathematics.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #141 on: February 05, 2013, 04:48:20 PM »

  Hardly seems like I'm pulling a "cheap trick" at all, but instead am simply speaking plainly.


John, you are incapable of speaking plainly.
Ha. 

So you are telling me I am saying that the truths in math are not universal but contextual based off axioms.  Hardly seems like I'm pulling a "cheap trick" at all, but instead am simply speaking plainly.
Just find me any Mathematics book whatsoever where the word "context" is used and we can continue some sort of discussion. If you are saying that "context" is the same as "axiomatic system", then you are the only one, to my knowledge, in the whole world who does.

Mathematics is not literature. You do not use synonyms taken from a dictionary. If you want to use the word "context" in a discussion about Mathematics, you define it in mathematical terms before you use it. And by the way, finite state machines are not axiomatic systems, either. And the existence of a recurring sequence of ones has nothing to do with rings in mathematics. If you want to learn about rings in Mathematics, try this.

So, the cheap trick is to try to confuse people with a mix of Mathematics and common language. You have tried for a long time and continue trying. "Speaking plainly" seems to be your equivalent to "speaking in common language", which is fine if you are not talking Mathematics.
I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  If you can't extrapolate the meaning of "context" and realize its referring to "the current set of axioms" or an "axiomatic system" using critical thinking skills and, well, context, its unlikely you have much worth in this discussion or society aside from curating, the noblest profession.  However, I am referring to it more broadly than simply the axioms which includes the axioms.  I used to think like you do, but you are just arguing aside the point;  I care about the point enough that I can't really justify defense of lesser non important points.  That said, common courtesy will allow me to continue.

I know a sequence of ones "has nothing to do" with rings.  However, one can define this sequence of ones, as explained above, as a state machine, or a suitably complex ring denoting operations of decimal precedent and place.   From this state machine, we end at a terminal point that is, by itself, a trivial ring.  I cannot say it more plainly.  I have shown the one to be a necessary part of the other in a form of abstracting it, the necessary purpose of mathematics.  Words have multiple meanings, and they are sometimes used exclusively or inclusively to those other meanings when you talk to me or any educated person.  Deal with it.  I have an artistic license and wear no clothes.  So does the mathematician working towards something useful.  Now, if you want to engineer something, you can "use" math rotely.  However, if you want to learn something, or make something new, or be a productive member of the greater whole you must disregard such simplicities for a higher road and paint on a broader canvas by broader more simplified or self-defined rules.  Realize the rules are not rules, but just a set of discovered truths.   Once you start talking about the impossible, you are missing the point of mathematics completely.

How else can we build new ideas and belief and art, if we are only to work within the contexts of a rote set of symbology.

Furthermore, I'd be happy to produce a text using the word "context" if you'd like.  However, as explained above, its silly.  Common language and critical thinking is necessary if you wish mathematics to be anything more than a pursuit of ivory tower self esteem.  Ignoring what you obviously know the phrase to mean is sophomoric and an obvious attempt to duck out of argument before the lesson is learned.  If you knew enough to ask the question "does he mean axiomatic system by 'context' you knew enough to not bother asking it.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #142 on: February 05, 2013, 06:35:43 PM »

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.
See? you are working in Mathematics as if Mathematics were Literature. In Mathematics you cannot say "context" when you mean "axioms"; you cannot say "possibility" when you mean "probability"; you cannot say "frontier" when you mean "limit". If you want to write a novel, use whatever synonyms you want, whether they are precise or illustrative or metaphorical or even funny. But leave Mathematics to those of us who did not sleep through Maths classes at the university.

I know a sequence of ones "has nothing to do" with rings.  However, one can define this sequence of ones, as explained above, as a state machine, or a suitably complex ring denoting operations of decimal precedent and place.
You know a sequence of ones has nothing to do with rings, that state machines have nothing to do with axioms, and you even know that "a suitably complex ring denoting operations of decimal precedent and place" has nothing to do with a sequence of ones. You have not connected any idea with any other. You are just saying a lot of things to sound eloquent, even though eloquence has nothing to do with Mathematics. For starters, if you want to define a ring, check the definition of a ring and define all the elements a ring needs.

I have an artistic license and wear no clothes.  So does the mathematician working towards something useful.
...
How else can we build new ideas and belief and art, if we are only to work within the contexts of a rote set of symbology (sic).
Of course you know that mathematicians are doing great work as we speak. They even found a way to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, which had eluded every mathematician in more than 200 years. You are the one who thinks Mathematics is "a rote set of symbology". So, if you cannot see the art in Mathematics and do original work, that is your problem, not the mathematicians'. They understand their own symbols and axioms without any need for your nudity.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #143 on: February 06, 2013, 12:25:07 AM »

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.
See? you are working in Mathematics as if Mathematics were Literature. In Mathematics you cannot say "context" when you mean "axioms"; you cannot say "possibility" when you mean "probability"; you cannot say "frontier" when you mean "limit". If you want to write a novel, use whatever synonyms you want, whether they are precise or illustrative or metaphorical or even funny. But leave Mathematics to those of us who did not sleep through Maths classes at the university.
Indeed, you are so much better at me.  You should totally tell me down. 

I meant context which is why I said it, and I repeated it, and I did again.  I'm talking of the contexts of mathematics, not only the axiomatic systems which make up part of that set.  I am no longer going to acknowledge childish and silly arguments.  If you can't move beyond rote lecture you are using math wrong and you are not only making yourself dumber, but you are purposefully doing so by refusing to give any work on your side to read critically.  I know the precise terms to use, and I choose the words I choose for a reason.  I studied mathematics and computer science and I did not sleep through the classes.   However, the classes are really only for those that can't read a book, aren't they?


Quote
I know a sequence of ones "has nothing to do" with rings.  However, one can define this sequence of ones, as explained above, as a state machine, or a suitably complex ring denoting operations of decimal precedent and place.
You know a sequence of ones has nothing to do with rings, that state machines have nothing to do with axioms, and you even know that "a suitably complex ring denoting operations of decimal precedent and place" has nothing to do with a sequence of ones. You have not connected any idea with any other. You are just saying a lot of things to sound eloquent, even though eloquence has nothing to do with Mathematics. For starters, if you want to define a ring, check the definition of a ring and define all the elements a ring needs.

I have an artistic license and wear no clothes.  So does the mathematician working towards something useful.
...
How else can we build new ideas and belief and art, if we are only to work within the contexts of a rote set of symbology (sic).
Of course you know that mathematicians are doing great work as we speak. They even found a way to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, which had eluded every mathematician in more than 200 years. You are the one who thinks Mathematics is "a rote set of symbology". So, if you cannot see the art in Mathematics and do original work, that is your problem, not the mathematicians'. They understand their own symbols and axioms without any need for your nudity.
I know they are.  They do these great things by using the tool properly.   They are nude, but you are a fool.  Language need only be as suitably complex as to convey an idea distinctly enough for point and discussion.  It may be complex enough to convey several lines of ideas as well, some conflicting, some mathematical.  If I get the point across, it doesn't matter whether I break the rules.  The math police isn't going to arrest me, and so long as I do it up to par to the ivory tower of academia, I won't have any issue with any of my future publications.    Don't try to tell me to use a tool in an inferior way than it was intended while all the while arguing semantics from your lofty perch of self-satisfied glory.  Come to the flat earth site to feel good about yourself?  Might not work out so hot.  Its never fruitful or pleasing to try to dress yourself up through playing semantics king.

The context we are in is clearly not a mathematical journal, but instead is a public forum with a wide range of views and mathematical levels.  The points being argued don't change with further education.  However, the foundations and philosophy of mathematics clearly show I have made my argument and it is a distinct enlightened view.  Yours, however, seems to be one ignorant, willfully for point of fact.  We are all here to talk, make reasonable lengths (as I have again and again in the past while describing some math here), to parse and think about posts and their content, word choice (correct or not) or otherwise.

Its important to be polite and tailor your message to those reading it, but don't expect me to do it at all times;  especially when I must exercise my choice of words with responsibility.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 12:36:51 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #144 on: February 06, 2013, 01:13:55 AM »
The context we are in is clearly not a mathematical journal, but instead is a public forum with a wide range of views and mathematical levels.  The points being argued don't change with further education.  However, the foundations and philosophy of mathematics clearly show I have made my argument and it is a distinct enlightened view. 

Its important to be polite and tailor your message to those reading it, but don't expect me to do it at all times;  especially when I must exercise my choice of words with responsibility.

John, if you don't tailor your message to those reading it you are doing both yourself and your audience a disservice. It is the utmost courtesy for the writer to do all the hard work so the reader doesn't have to. If you are unable to expain yourself in plain, simple language you don't know the subject as you claim to.

Are you aware of the Sokal hoax?

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

A physics professor, fed up of the nonsense spouted by some academics, concocted a piece of nonsense of his own. He wrote an article which was liberally sprinkled with the sort of poppycock you write and was submitted to a journal called Social Text. Instead of the article being rejected the article was published because some people love style above content. That's the feeling I get when I read your words. You don't write to explain things you write to bolster your ego.

Remember John, most (perhaps all?) mathematicians couldn't give two figs for the foundations or philosophy of their subject, they simply get on with the job of creating new ideas.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #145 on: February 06, 2013, 01:50:42 AM »
I'm familiar with that, and its something I used to do religiously.  However, it is because I am tailoring to my audiences that I speak as such, as explained in previous post.  I will not entertain further explanation when the concept has clearly landed home enough.  The purpose is to relate the idea, and I have done such.  To try to box it in with the rules of math is to indulge oneself in rote learning rather than pure exploration or discussion.  I feel I have suitably discussed the idea to those with a math background or not;  I don't feel the need to return to this thread; 

However, any global conspiracy may at some point have Masters, but in the end we are all the fuel for this machine for living.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 01:52:45 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #146 on: February 06, 2013, 01:53:51 AM »
John Davis is just on a fuck load of drugs!!!

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #147 on: February 06, 2013, 05:56:17 AM »

I know they are.  They do these great things by using the tool properly.   They are nude, but you are a fool.  Language need only be as suitably complex as to convey an idea distinctly enough for point and discussion.  It may be complex enough to convey several lines of ideas as well, some conflicting, some mathematical.  If I get the point across, it doesn't matter whether I break the rules.  The math police isn't going to arrest me, and so long as I do it up to par to the ivory tower of academia, I won't have any issue with any of my future publications.    Don't try to tell me to use a tool in an inferior way than it was intended while all the while arguing semantics from your lofty perch of self-satisfied glory.  Come to the flat earth site to feel good about yourself?  Might not work out so hot.  Its never fruitful or pleasing to try to dress yourself up through playing semantics king.

So this is what you were arguing about all the time. I had seen a few pointers, but now your whole position is here, in black and white. You are envious of the people in the Ivory Tower.

You are fighting a losing battle against an institution that, in essence, does not exist. Those who understand that there is not much to learn in the division by zero and look for real advances to be made in Mathematics, who use and do not abuse the tool while looking for new knowledge, do not have secret meetings in secret towers. They publish their new understanding so anyone who is smart and dedicated enough can learn and contribute.

In fact, I know a few people from this Ivory Tower. They have dedicated their lives to making Mathematics more accessible, not less. They have been working hard with people who felt as excluded as you feel. And they have taught Mathematics to people who chose their careers based on their supposed inability to learn Mathematics.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #148 on: February 06, 2013, 01:05:15 PM »
Most of the people I have learned under and respect are part of the Ivory Tower.  On the other hand, I'm my own person with my own will and beliefs.  I have no hate for the ivory tower, or envy.  If anything, pity.  Just an overwhelming sadness.  It really is one of the few times since I woke up that I've felt such remorse for their state in the game.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #149 on: February 07, 2013, 02:00:21 AM »
Most of the people I have learned under and respect are part of the Ivory Tower.  On the other hand, I'm my own person with my own will and beliefs.  I have no hate for the ivory tower, or envy.  If anything, pity.  Just an overwhelming sadness.  It really is one of the few times since I woke up that I've felt such remorse for their state in the game.
If you respect them, why do you pity them? You could find out that when they talk about a ring, they actually know what a ring is, and that they do not confuse it with finite state machines. But please, pity them on your way to receiving whatever prize they have equivalent to a Nobel after you have invented or discovered anything whatsoever of note in the field.

Pitying your intellectual superiors is a certain euphemism for envy. Pity them after you have demolished their cherished tower, not before.