Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #414365 > unrolled thread

Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-01 11:38 +0000
    Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 12:11 -0700

#414365 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Archimedes Plutonium fails:

>Here is an example from the Internet in sci.math of Ad Hominem of a writer 
>who hates the person he is talking to, and no matter what the topic is, 
>the message is always the same-- I hate your guts.

>On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> But can you tell us what is wrong with the following proof that the
>> ellipse is a conic section? After all, you say the ellipse is not a
>> conic section and what Archimedes Plutonium says is true is true, right?

<several other ad hominems by Archie snipped>

>You're the one doing the ad hominem here, Archie. And I still see you
>still haven't learned not to attack me.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#414379

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 4:38:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium fails:
> 
> >Here is an example from the Internet in sci.math of Ad Hominem of a writer 
> >who hates the person he is talking to, and no matter what the topic is, 
> >the message is always the same-- I hate your guts.
> 
> >On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> >> But can you tell us what is wrong with the following proof that the
> >> ellipse is a conic section? After all, you say the ellipse is not a
> >> conic section and what Archimedes Plutonium says is true is true, right?
> 
> <several other ad hominems by Archie snipped>
> 
> >You're the one doing the ad hominem here, Archie. And I still see you
> >still haven't learned not to attack me.

Left to his own devices, AP has his various models of representations 
of various system usually that he tries to frame as effectively infinite 
while his constructions (and in the sense of classical constructions) 
would then if things were so easy make tractable various things.

Now that the putrid front-page hog is gone, AP should continue his 
essays in mathematics and forget the bad example of the putrid 
front-page hog troll, and get back to the developments from his 
foundation of "universe is one big dot" etc.

AP, you have to shed off what slings and arrows are to the man 
not the method, there's nobody's opinion you can attack because 
mathematics is only secondarily a matter of opinion, after fact.  
You can never convince their holders the rejection of their 
mathematical facts, only convince them the acceptance of others 
(mathematical facts).

Trying to single out some calculus professor to attack calculus 
is distasteful, don't insult the opinion of those who would 
accept mathematical developments simply for their own sake 
by simply insulting others.  

Then your educational advocacy can only so follow, it has to 
be the same for everyone because hypocrisy is anti-mathematical.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web