Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #414045 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-28 04:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-04 00:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 04:59 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:47 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 06:04 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 06:19 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 06:58 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 22:46 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 23:02 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 08:05 -0500
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 06:53 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 22:44 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:54 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 23:42 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 00:10 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 02:01 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:21 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 02:59 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 03:27 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 03:49 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 04:03 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 04:27 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 04:38 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 04:51 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 04:56 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 05:01 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 05:13 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 05:20 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-31 09:11 -0400
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 06:34 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-31 09:55 -0400
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 07:06 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:52 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 00:06 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 00:19 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 00:35 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 02:26 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 03:24 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 03:40 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 03:58 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 04:10 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 04:25 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 05:43 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 12:59 +0000
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 05:59 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 12:38 +0000
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 05:49 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 05:57 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 06:02 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 06:26 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 06:33 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 06:35 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 09:18 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 13:14 +0000
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 06:24 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 13:40 +0000
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 09:17 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0200
Re: Mathematical proof "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-31 20:24 -0500
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 20:43 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-02 17:31 -0500
Re: Mathematical proof Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-03 00:38 +0200
Re: Mathematical proof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 16:35 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-05-31 09:38 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 10:11 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Mathedman <Mathedman@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 08:38 -0500
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-03 21:28 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:57 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 00:09 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 04:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c44ea0b7-1b2c-4e02-8d7d-184e964535ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414574 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 13:10:22 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den måndag 4 juni 2018 kl. 12:58:32 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > On Monday, 4 June 2018 12:40:48 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > > > > > >Yes. It's one of many. I's the one carefully thought, > > > >well established and having 2000 years of billions > > > >successful applications. > > > >But, of course, others are possible. Stupidity was > > > >always possible. > > > > > > It is useful in its own regards and good for approximations, but that doesn't make non-euclidean ones stupid. > > > > > > No. They were made stupid by your stupidity. > > Considering I am more knowledgable, smarter and more intelligent than you Considering it - buhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f56116a-ae2a-44e7-836c-cc93397abdae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414576 |
Den måndag 4 juni 2018 kl. 13:26:02 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > On Monday, 4 June 2018 13:10:22 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > Den måndag 4 juni 2018 kl. 12:58:32 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > > On Monday, 4 June 2018 12:40:48 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Yes. It's one of many. I's the one carefully thought, > > > > >well established and having 2000 years of billions > > > > >successful applications. > > > > >But, of course, others are possible. Stupidity was > > > > >always possible. > > > > > > > > It is useful in its own regards and good for approximations, but that doesn't make non-euclidean ones stupid. > > > > > > > > > No. They were made stupid by your stupidity. > > > > Considering I am more knowledgable, smarter and more intelligent than you > > Considering it - buhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Laugh all you want, it is demonstrable I am much more knowledgable than you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf3d2q$adf$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #414590 |
Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> writes: >> Considering it - buhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. >Laugh all you want, it is demonstrable I am much more knowledgable than you. The type of laughter you hear is heard in asylums throughout the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14c120a5-340c-4bf0-9c53-c874d8b0fe69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414590 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 14:43:28 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den måndag 4 juni 2018 kl. 13:26:02 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > On Monday, 4 June 2018 13:10:22 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > Den måndag 4 juni 2018 kl. 12:58:32 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > > > On Monday, 4 June 2018 12:40:48 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yes. It's one of many. I's the one carefully thought, > > > > > >well established and having 2000 years of billions > > > > > >successful applications. > > > > > >But, of course, others are possible. Stupidity was > > > > > >always possible. > > > > > > > > > > It is useful in its own regards and good for approximations, but that doesn't make non-euclidean ones stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. They were made stupid by your stupidity. > > > > > > Considering I am more knowledgable, smarter and more intelligent than you > > > > Considering it - buhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. > > Laugh all you want, it is demonstrable I am much more knowledgable than you. So, do you want a quiting from your idiot guru Einstein showing you didn't know the basic definitions of your Shit? Of course, your lack of ability to distinguish between a theorem and the thesis of this theorem shows your "knowledge" even better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 12:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf3bsn$i6q$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #414557 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >On Monday, 4 June 2018 07:52:46 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: >> >That's how we can easily recognize - nobody >> >is using your bullshit. Everybody knows that >> >it's 2r. >> >> Except they are, in mathematics and real life. When you ask about >> distance on earth, you get it along the surface >It's usually by road, poor halfbrain. Though a sailor >will by default say about distance by sea. And a pilot would talk about distance by air. >And when it comes to poles, it is 2r. Oh really? The sea/air distance between the north and south pole is twice the radius of the earth? I don't think so! It's a good thing you are only a janitor and not a pilot. If you were a pilot flying from the North Pole to the South Pole, you'd underestimate the fuel needed and would crash in Australia or Argentina or some place like that. >Real assumptions are complicated. Too >complicated for your tiny fanatic half-brain. I guess non-Euclidean geometry is too complicated for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a76ff016-978c-48ef-9bc3-4a7b75a53626@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414589 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 14:38:54 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Monday, 4 June 2018 07:52:46 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >> >That's how we can easily recognize - nobody > >> >is using your bullshit. Everybody knows that > >> >it's 2r. > >> > >> Except they are, in mathematics and real life. When you ask about > >> distance on earth, you get it along the surface > > >It's usually by road, poor halfbrain. Though a sailor > >will by default say about distance by sea. > > And a pilot would talk about distance by air. > > >And when it comes to poles, it is 2r. > > Oh really? The sea/air distance between the north and south pole is twice > the radius of the earth? I don't think so! > > It's a good thing you are only a janitor and not a pilot. If you were a > pilot flying from the North Pole to the South Pole, you'd underestimate > the fuel needed and would crash in Australia or Argentina or some place > like that. > > >Real assumptions are complicated. Too > >complicated for your tiny fanatic half-brain. > > I guess non-Euclidean geometry is too complicated for you. So, do you want a quiting from your idiot guru Einstein showing you didn't know the basic definitions of your Shit? Of course, your lack of ability to distinguish between a theorem and the thesis of this theorem shows your "knowledge" even better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 05:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <169751df-03a9-4113-a0ae-a9e0c2266cb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414592 |
>So, do you want a quiting from your idiot guru Einstein >showing you didn't know the basic definitions of your >Shit? Einstein was a physicist, not mathematician, he has nothign to do with non.euclidean geometry and how it works. He just used it. >Of course, your lack of ability to distinguish between >a theorem and the thesis of this theorem shows your >"knowledge" even better. This shows you don't even have a basic understanding of what a theorem is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 06:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa668956-b5ae-488a-b7ef-58e5c49f4574@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414594 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 14:57:35 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >So, do you want a quiting from your idiot guru Einstein > >showing you didn't know the basic definitions of your > >Shit? > > Einstein was a physicist, not mathematician, he has nothign to do with non.euclidean geometry and how it works. He just used it. But you didn't know his basic definitions, and still waved arms and shouted of your incredible knowledge. > > >Of course, your lack of ability to distinguish between > >a theorem and the thesis of this theorem shows your > >"knowledge" even better. > > This shows you don't even have a basic understanding of what a theorem is. It's you don't having such a knowledhge, and you demonstrated it OK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37aa12f8-79b3-4057-963e-e17a72887409@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414597 |
>But you didn't know his basic definitions, and still waved >arms and shouted of your incredible knowledge. What he has is in physics, for mathematics I don't need to know his stuff. >It's you don't having such a knowledhge, and you demonstrated >it OK. Actually I ahve considerable knowledge in all of this, not perfect by any means, many know much more, but much more than you will ever have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 06:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe2f6ee7-e883-43f3-8a27-31f0217a0c06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414602 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:26:59 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >But you didn't know his basic definitions, and still waved > >arms and shouted of your incredible knowledge. > > What he has is in physics, for mathematics I don't need to know his stuff. You're an idiot, you don't need to know anything. > > >It's you don't having such a knowledhge, and you demonstrated > >it OK. > > Actually I ahve considerable knowledge in all of this You demonstrated it - you can't even distinguish between a theorem and the thesis of this theorem. Fuck off, halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b923507-977b-4ae5-9697-898e00204a0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414606 |
>You're an idiot, you don't need to know anything. You are the idiot and you know nothing, I know a hell of a lot more than you do in mathematics. >You demonstrated it - you can't even distinguish >between a theorem and the thesis of this theorem. >Fuck off, halfbrain. Comes from the biggest shithead here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adab3f12-941f-4b55-a67b-f1eae5c8862e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414607 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:17 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >You're an idiot, you don't need to know anything. > > You are the idiot and you know nothing, I know a hell of a lot more than you do in mathematics. You demonstrated it - you can't even distinguish between a theorem and the thesis of this theorem. Fuck off, halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf3e00$ifa$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #414592 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >On Monday, 4 June 2018 14:38:54 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> >> >On Monday, 4 June 2018 07:52:46 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: >> >> >That's how we can easily recognize - nobody >> >> >is using your bullshit. Everybody knows that >> >> >it's 2r. >> >> >> >> Except they are, in mathematics and real life. When you ask about >> >> distance on earth, you get it along the surface >> >> >It's usually by road, poor halfbrain. Though a sailor >> >will by default say about distance by sea. >> >> And a pilot would talk about distance by air. >> >> >And when it comes to poles, it is 2r. >> >> Oh really? The sea/air distance between the north and south pole is twice >> the radius of the earth? I don't think so! >> >> It's a good thing you are only a janitor and not a pilot. If you were a >> pilot flying from the North Pole to the South Pole, you'd underestimate >> the fuel needed and would crash in Australia or Argentina or some place >> like that. >> >> >Real assumptions are complicated. Too >> >complicated for your tiny fanatic half-brain. >> >> I guess non-Euclidean geometry is too complicated for you. >So, do you want a quiting from your idiot guru Einstein >showing you didn't know the basic definitions of your >Shit? You are really, really confused, poor janitor. Long distance sailors knew about the issues with triangles on spheres ever since they figured out that the earth was (approximately) a sphere. Kepler was tinkering with elliptical geometry in the 17th century. All this LONG before Einstein, who had nothing to do with that. Go ask your brother how long a trip from the North Pole to the South Pole would be if it was possible to sail that trip along a great circle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 06:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d30a6fa9-7292-4142-ba74-35fd249476a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414599 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:14:46 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Monday, 4 June 2018 14:38:54 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > >> > >> >On Monday, 4 June 2018 07:52:46 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >> >> >That's how we can easily recognize - nobody > >> >> >is using your bullshit. Everybody knows that > >> >> >it's 2r. > >> >> > >> >> Except they are, in mathematics and real life. When you ask about > >> >> distance on earth, you get it along the surface > >> > >> >It's usually by road, poor halfbrain. Though a sailor > >> >will by default say about distance by sea. > >> > >> And a pilot would talk about distance by air. > >> > >> >And when it comes to poles, it is 2r. > >> > >> Oh really? The sea/air distance between the north and south pole is twice > >> the radius of the earth? I don't think so! > >> > >> It's a good thing you are only a janitor and not a pilot. If you were a > >> pilot flying from the North Pole to the South Pole, you'd underestimate > >> the fuel needed and would crash in Australia or Argentina or some place > >> like that. > >> > >> >Real assumptions are complicated. Too > >> >complicated for your tiny fanatic half-brain. > >> > >> I guess non-Euclidean geometry is too complicated for you. > > >So, do you want a quiting from your idiot guru Einstein > >showing you didn't know the basic definitions of your > >Shit? > > You are really, really confused, poor janitor. This time. It was to Zelos and should be written in another message. > Long distance sailors knew > about the issues with triangles on spheres A nonsense, of course, they knew very well there is no triangle on a sphere. They still know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf3fgu$u0f$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #414601 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:14:46 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> >So, do you want a quiting from your idiot guru Einstein >> >showing you didn't know the basic definitions of your >> >Shit? >> >> You are really, really confused, poor janitor. >This time. No, all the time, poor janitor. > It was to Zelos and should be written in >another message. I believe Zelos once mentioned he has an advanced degree in mathematics. What do you have? A degree in mopology? >> Long distance sailors knew >> about the issues with triangles on spheres >A nonsense, of course, they knew very well there >is no triangle on a sphere. They still know. So what do they call it if they sail 1000 km due east, then 1000 km due north and then back to the starting point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b779cf11-43a3-429b-9efd-7c649efa408e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414609 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:40:53 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:14:46 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >> >So, do you want a quiting from your idiot guru Einstein > >> >showing you didn't know the basic definitions of your > >> >Shit? > >> > >> You are really, really confused, poor janitor. > > >This time. > > No, all the time, poor janitor. > > > It was to Zelos and should be written in > >another message. > > I believe Zelos once mentioned he has an advanced degree in mathematics. > What do you have? A degree in mopology? > > >> Long distance sailors knew > >> about the issues with triangles on spheres > > >A nonsense, of course, they knew very well there > >is no triangle on a sphere. They still know. > > So what do they call it if they sail 1000 km due east, then 1000 km due > north and then back to the starting point? It's not even a spherical triangle, poor idiot. Unless they start right on the equator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 17:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b1015fb$0$23745$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #414283 |
Silly Polish Drunkard mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Thursday, 31 May 2018 13:56:39 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: >>> Right, this is not, poor halfbrain. Euclidean geometry of >>> sphere is used, the usefulness of your non-euclidean >>> geometries exists only in your imagination. >> >> The geometry on the sphere is not euclidean you moron! > > > If the distance between poles is 2r - it is euclidean, Being Polish makes you a expert about distance between poles, doesn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 20:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <peq77s$ov0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414084 |
On 5/28/2018 8:53 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Monday, 28 May 2018 15:05:57 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 5/28/2018 6:59 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Monday, 28 May 2018 08:02:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: >>> >>>> He proved that given any axiomatic system with certain capabilities, the statements hodls true. ANY axiomatic system and it is true. How difficult is this? >>> >>> Well, "the sum of angles in a triangle is pi" was proven >>> a long time ago, and still you are providing a mumble of >>> triangles having 3 right angles. >> >> It was proven for a particular geometry. > > So? You snipped the so. Try reading it instead. >>> The reliability of "mathematical proof" has gone, Zelos. >>> Your moronic games have ruined it. >>> >> >> No. > > See, poor fool: your gurus have shown that we can prove > a statement, then switch some axioms and prove the opposite > statement. Right? It's certainly possible, of course, the two theories will be about different things so that's not a problem. > How do you expect any thinking person to rely on your proofs > after such a show? Tomorrow you will say "oh, Godel theorem, > yes, it was proven, but I have a different metatheory now..." > And Gödel's theorem will still be a theorem of the old metatheory (and most likely the new one as well). Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 20:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04a5d619-448b-493c-8f8a-e2d7fcb5638c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414344 |
On Friday, 1 June 2018 03:24:17 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 5/28/2018 8:53 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Monday, 28 May 2018 15:05:57 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 5/28/2018 6:59 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Monday, 28 May 2018 08:02:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >>> > >>>> He proved that given any axiomatic system with certain capabilities, the statements hodls true. ANY axiomatic system and it is true. How difficult is this? > >>> > >>> Well, "the sum of angles in a triangle is pi" was proven > >>> a long time ago, and still you are providing a mumble of > >>> triangles having 3 right angles. > >> > >> It was proven for a particular geometry. > > > > So? > > You snipped the so. Try reading it instead. > > >>> The reliability of "mathematical proof" has gone, Zelos. > >>> Your moronic games have ruined it. > >>> > >> > >> No. > > > > See, poor fool: your gurus have shown that we can prove > > a statement, then switch some axioms and prove the opposite > > statement. Right? > > It's certainly possible, of course, the two theories will be about > different things so that's not a problem. Nothing new. It was ancient Greeks called "sophists" first to show that it's definitely possible to prove just anything. It is smart, but doesn't serve the reliability well. > > How do you expect any thinking person to rely on your proofs > > after such a show? Tomorrow you will say "oh, Godel theorem, > > yes, it was proven, but I have a different metatheory now..." > > > > And Gödel's theorem will still be a theorem of the old metatheory (and > most likely the new one as well). And "communism is the best" is still a theorem of marksist-leninist theory. Isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 17:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pev5rn$9cm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414354 |
On 5/31/2018 10:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Friday, 1 June 2018 03:24:17 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 5/28/2018 8:53 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Monday, 28 May 2018 15:05:57 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 5/28/2018 6:59 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Monday, 28 May 2018 08:02:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> He proved that given any axiomatic system with certain capabilities, the statements hodls true. ANY axiomatic system and it is true. How difficult is this? >>>>> >>>>> Well, "the sum of angles in a triangle is pi" was proven >>>>> a long time ago, and still you are providing a mumble of >>>>> triangles having 3 right angles. >>>> >>>> It was proven for a particular geometry. >>> >>> So? >> >> You snipped the so. Try reading it instead. >> >>>>> The reliability of "mathematical proof" has gone, Zelos. >>>>> Your moronic games have ruined it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>> See, poor fool: your gurus have shown that we can prove >>> a statement, then switch some axioms and prove the opposite >>> statement. Right? >> >> It's certainly possible, of course, the two theories will be about >> different things so that's not a problem. > Nothing new. It was ancient Greeks called "sophists" > first to show that it's definitely possible to > prove just anything. > It is smart, but doesn't serve the reliability well. Why not? The things for which the axioms for the first theory are true will be reliably described by the first theory and the things for which the axioms of the second theory are true will be reliably described by the second. For example, if you are constrained to move on the surface of a sphere, spherical geometry will be the correct theory. If you are not so constrained, euclidean geometry will be the correct theory. >>> How do you expect any thinking person to rely on your proofs >>> after such a show? Tomorrow you will say "oh, Godel theorem, >>> yes, it was proven, but I have a different metatheory now..." >>> >> >> And Gödel's theorem will still be a theorem of the old metatheory (and >> most likely the new one as well). > > And "communism is the best" is still a theorem of > marksist-leninist theory. Isn't it? > Never heard of marksist-leninist theory so I can't comment on what its theorems are. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web