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

Groups > sci.physics > #606871 > unrolled thread

Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:07 -0800
    Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-28 14:36 -0600
      Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 17:24 -0800
        Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-28 21:05 -0600
          Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 08:03 -0800
    Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-11-28 13:47 -0700
      Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:25 -0800
        Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-11-28 15:16 -0700
          Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 14:45 -0800
          Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 20:32 -0500
            Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 03:28 +0000
              Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:49 -0500
                Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:56 +0000
                  Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:35 -0500
                    Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 16:53 -0800
                    Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:54 +0000
                      Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:47 -0500
                        Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 06:08 +0000

#606871 — Re: Why Math Works: Is math invented or discovered?

On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 2:58:40 AM UTC-4, Benj wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> 
> > > The answer is simple:
> 
> > While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
> 
> EXCELLENT!  Just freakin' EXCELLENT!  This needs to go on a "famous
> quotes" site somewhere!
> 
> Benj

Like birds, time flies. Then they ask me why I'm pals with Sir BenjJi!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#606880

On 11/28/2016 2:07 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 2:58:40 AM UTC-4, Benj wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>  The answer is simple:
>>
>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>
>> EXCELLENT!  Just freakin' EXCELLENT!  This needs to go on a "famous
>> quotes" site somewhere!
>>
>> Benj
>
> Like birds, time flies. Then they ask me why I'm pals with Sir BenjJi!
>
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
>

two more;

  "I never met an axiom I didn't like."

  "No Axioms for Old Physicists".





  "It's midnight already? Time flies when you're having fun, or I guess 
it's ten years since I last saw you—how time flies." This idiom was 
first recorded about 1800 but Shakespeare used a similar phrase, “the 
swiftest hours, as they flew,” as did Alexander Pope, “swift fly the years.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606965

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:36:13 PM UTC-5, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 2:07 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 2:58:40 AM UTC-4, Benj wrote:
> >> On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>  The answer is simple:
> >>
> >>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
> >>
> >> EXCELLENT!  Just freakin' EXCELLENT!  This needs to go on a "famous
> >> quotes" site somewhere!
> >>
> >> Benj
> >
> > Like birds, time flies. Then they ask me why I'm pals with Sir BenjJi!
> >
> > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
> >
> 
> two more;
> 
>   "I never met an axiom I didn't like."

That's just cute/catchy, but not mandatory.

>   "No Axioms for Old Physicists".

Why the Old? Just "No Axioms for Physicists" will suffice.

Ok YuriJi, you claim you are not SergioJi. Fine. I accept your word on
that.  So, btw, does anybody know what has happened to Sergio?! 
Btw Yuri, your mannerisms are very similar to those of Sergio. I mean
that as a compliment, with all due respect.

>   "It's midnight already? Time flies when you're having fun, or I guess 
> it's ten years since I last saw you—how time flies." This idiom was 
> first recorded about 1800 but Shakespeare used a similar phrase, “the 
> swiftest hours, as they flew,” as did Alexander Pope, “swift fly the years.”

In ancient Hindi/Sanskrit the word for TIME is WAQT. Waqt makes day or night...
Now, in years, that's significantly well before my beloved Shakes-His-Speare.

Yuri, are you sure you're not SergioJi?! He disappeared, about the
exact same time you appeared. Coincidence or conspiracy? Help me...

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606989

On 11/28/2016 7:24 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:36:13 PM UTC-5, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
>> On 11/28/2016 2:07 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 2:58:40 AM UTC-4, Benj wrote:
>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>  The answer is simple:

>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>>
>>>> EXCELLENT!  Just freakin' EXCELLENT!  This needs to go on a "famous
>>>> quotes" site somewhere!
>>>>
>>>> Benj

>>> Like birds, time flies. Then they ask me why I'm pals with Sir BenjJi!
>>>
>>> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
>>>

>> two more;
>>
>>   "I never met an axiom I didn't like."
>
> That's just cute/catchy, but not mandatory.

math guys should say that,

>
>>   "No Axioms for Old Physicists".
>
> Why the Old? Just "No Axioms for Physicists" will suffice.

checkout "no country for old men" excellent neo-western movie by the 
coen brothers, the bad guy was spanish with very bad haircut, no 
turbine, nor turban

>
> Ok YuriJi, you claim you are not SergioJi. Fine. I accept your word on
> that.  So, btw, does anybody know what has happened to Sergio?!
> Btw Yuri, your mannerisms are very similar to those of Sergio. I mean
> that as a compliment, with all due respect.

I may have the identical word set that Sergio has, and use the same 
return addy, cause I forgot about it, and may have used similar  or the 
same nyms as Sergio, like Ergios, etc, rotation of word (how stealty!)
but it is to only cause trouble with the large databases that record all 
this, so they can't tract too easily, why? because recording 
converstations of third parties and using that information used to be 
illegal. (take that, google, facebook, yahoo, etc)

Will I, Yuri, publically admit I am also Sergio ?  perhaps if enough 
money is sent by the people in this newsgroup to  makemerich@paypal.com 
so I can buy a new monitor. I still have this 35# lead glass huge 
monitor that generates low level xrays, and down the street they a flat 
screen 10" by 8" for $25 at a garage sale, but only 8 colors.

>
>>   "It's midnight already? Time flies when you're having fun, or I guess
>> it's ten years since I last saw you—how time flies." This idiom was
>> first recorded about 1800 but Shakespeare used a similar phrase, “the
>> swiftest hours, as they flew,” as did Alexander Pope, “swift fly the years.”
>
> In ancient Hindi/Sanskrit the word for TIME is WAQT. Waqt makes day or night...
> Now, in years, that's significantly well before my beloved Shakes-His-Speare.
>
> Yuri, are you sure you're not SergioJi?! He disappeared, about the
> exact same time you appeared. Coincidence or conspiracy? Help me...

I think Sergio is coming back, Yuri posted in here about 5 years ago, 
even back during Uncle Als time, I think even Sergio posted before then, 
NSA would paritally know.


>
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607035

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:05:56 PM UTC-5, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 7:24 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:36:13 PM UTC-5, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2016 2:07 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 2:58:40 AM UTC-4, Benj wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>  The answer is simple:
> 
> >>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> EXCELLENT!  Just freakin' EXCELLENT!  This needs to go on a "famous
> >>>> quotes" site somewhere!
> >>>>
> >>>> Benj
> 
> >>> Like birds, time flies. Then they ask me why I'm pals with Sir BenjJi!
> >>>
> >>> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
> 
> >> two more;
> >>
> >>   "I never met an axiom I didn't like."
> >
> > That's just cute/catchy, but not mandatory.
> 
> math guys should say that,

I kid/mock the math guys. But still, I love 'em. Especially when a still is involved.

> >>   "No Axioms for Old Physicists".
> >
> > Why the Old? Just "No Axioms for Physicists" will suffice.
> 
> checkout "no country for old men" excellent neo-western movie by the 
> coen brothers, the bad guy was spanish with very bad haircut, no 
> turbine, nor turban

I've heard of that movie. I've heard of a lot of movies. In fact, I've
never heard of a movie that was not simply absolutely great?! Never.

Like the tired tried old sitcom formula: One blonde girl, four guys orbiting her.

Need proof by example? Ok... M*A*S*H, Cheers, Seinfeld, Anger Management, 
TBBT, and so on... So it's 1:4 mathematical ratio. This will be on the test.

> > Ok YuriJi, you claim you are not SergioJi. Fine. I accept your word on
> > that.  So, btw, does anybody know what has happened to Sergio?!
> > Btw Yuri, your mannerisms are very similar to those of Sergio. I mean
> > that as a compliment, with all due respect.
> 
> I may have the identical word set that Sergio has, and use the same 
> return addy, cause I forgot about it, and may have used similar  or the 
> same nyms as Sergio, like Ergios, etc, rotation of word (how stealty!)
> but it is to only cause trouble with the large databases that record all 
> this, so they can't tract too easily, why? because recording 
> converstations of third parties and using that information used to be 
> illegal. (take that, google, facebook, yahoo, etc)

Not to worry or fear. Usenet is by default a public space/podium. Everybody
reads Usenet, yet nobody admits that it even exists in mainstream IPMM==media.

On the practical side, for me at least, it's always more interesting
to discuss with others with real actual names. Or at least, others
with a steady stable consistent userHandleID. In general, IME, being
anonymous does not make one more honest, nor does it liberate anyone.

Technologically, corporations mentioned above, have far better means
to traceRoute from where any message originated. Just yesterday, for
no good reason whatsoever, I for the first time cleared all my browser
history and its cookies. Resulted in needless headache. I did get to
experience all the machinations Google and Facebook use to convince me
that I myself am me. Ay Caramba! O(y)e bother... My smartestphone@# was
involved. My ancient long ago canceled verizon email account was involved. 

What's weird was I couldn't even use my gmail account for identification!

Here's a funny one. A X-Employer CEO, for I have many, after four five
years, calls me last month. Blah blah blah, from the selfish greedy
nutjob. Puts me on a conference call, instantly. Some CSC lady starts
asking me answers of my security questions, so that said nutjob, can
get access to the corporate servers. I provided my favorite ice cream
flavour answer. Repeatedly. She insisted I was wrong! I told her, her
database was wrong. I hung-up me m(y) iPhone! Haven't heard back since.

Funny part? They called me, from their phones to mine. Asked for me by my
name. I obliged. Then they had the audacity to conclude that I wasn't me?!

Just keep telling yourself... BigData is your friend. BigData loves you.

> Will I, Yuri, publically admit I am also Sergio ?  perhaps if enough 
> money is sent by the people in this newsgroup to  makemerich@paypal.com 
> so I can buy a new monitor. I still have this 35# lead glass huge 
> monitor that generates low level xrays, and down the street they a flat 
> screen 10" by 8" for $$25 at a garage sale, but only 8 colors.

Good luck with that crowd funding. As for me, I'm again job hunting. Again^3!

> >>   "It's midnight already? Time flies when you're having fun, or I guess
> >> it's ten years since I last saw you—how time flies." This idiom was
> >> first recorded about 1800 but Shakespeare used a similar phrase, “the
> >> swiftest hours, as they flew,” as did Alexander Pope, “swift fly the years.”
> >
> > In ancient Hindi/Sanskrit the word for TIME is WAQT. Waqt makes day or night...
> > Now, in years, that's significantly well before my beloved Shakes-His-Speare.
> >
> > Yuri, are you sure you're not SergioJi?! He disappeared, about the
> > exact same time you appeared. Coincidence or conspiracy? Help me...
> 
> I think Sergio is coming back, Yuri posted in here about 5 years ago, 
> even back during Uncle Als time, I think even Sergio posted before then, 
> NSA would paritally know.

The classic line: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they are not watching you.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606882

> > On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > > The answer is simple:
> > 
> > > While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics

There is one! Trust the observations.
-- 
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606891

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
> > > On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The answer is simple:
> > > 
> > > > While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
> 
> There is one! Trust the observations.

Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
The evidence of biased observations is all around us. It binds us...

Not only that, it is physically realistically impossible to observe all.

> -- 
> Virgil
> "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

In English: "With stupidity God fights itself in vain." (Schiller) 

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606927

In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
 Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
> > > > On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > The answer is simple:
> > > > 
> > > > > While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
> > 
> > There is one! Trust the observations.
> 
> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
 
Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
-- 
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606934

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 5:16:36 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 26, 1:30 am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > The answer is simple:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
> > > 
> > > There is one! Trust the observations.
> > 
> > Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>  
> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
> -- 
> Virgil
> "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

Without observers there exist no observations. All observations be biased.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606968

On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30Â am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50Â pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Â The answer is simple:
>>>>>
>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>
>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
>>
>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>
> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
>

Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is 
always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill 
one expectations is minimal.

Math is clearly both invented and "discovered". In short, one "invents" 
a mathematical system by postulating axioms. Those axioms then form the 
basis of a self-consistent system of facts and rules. Generally these 
facts are "discovered" through "proofs" that use the rules of your 
system springing from the axioms to discover new relationships and 
"truths".

But because of the self-consistent and causal nature of math systems, as 
soon as one proposes certain axioms, it is clear that this immediately 
sets in cement all "truths" and rules that follow from that choice. 
Hence the choice of axioms in effect immediately creates the entire 
mathematical system which must then be "discovered" in detail.

It is important to note that it has been shown that given such a system 
all things that are "true" in that system, CANNOT be proved using ONLY 
that system. In other words so long as you stay within that consistent 
array, there will always be true things that cannot be proved using that 
system. To prove them you must go OUTSIDE of the given system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606992

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
>> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30? am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50? pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ? The answer is simple:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>>
>>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
>>>
>>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>>
>> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
>>
> 
> Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is 
> always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill 
> one expectations is minimal.

Nonsense.

The number in a set is an absolute without either bias or uncertainty,
e.g. the number of golf balls in a bucket.

Measurements have uncertainty but not necessarily bias.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607095

On 11/28/2016 10:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>>>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30? am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50? pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ? The answer is simple:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
>>>>
>>>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>>>
>>> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
>>>
>>
>> Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is
>> always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill
>> one expectations is minimal.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The number in a set is an absolute without either bias or uncertainty,
> e.g. the number of golf balls in a bucket.
>
> Measurements have uncertainty but not necessarily bias.

Oh look muffy, The nutjob is following me around! He's SO obsessed with 
me. I think he's even more obsessed with me than HVAC!

So you don't think it's possible to count the number of golf balls 
incorrectly? Go back to engineering. Number in sets are pure fantasy, 
not reality. Kooker.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607130

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 10:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30? am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50? pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ? The answer is simple:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>>>>
>>>> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is
>>> always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill
>>> one expectations is minimal.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> The number in a set is an absolute without either bias or uncertainty,
>> e.g. the number of golf balls in a bucket.
>>
>> Measurements have uncertainty but not necessarily bias.
> 
> Oh look muffy, The nutjob is following me around! He's SO obsessed with 
> me. I think he's even more obsessed with me than HVAC!

Oh look, the kook is upset because I showed his nonsense to be nonsense.
 
> So you don't think it's possible to count the number of golf balls 
> incorrectly?

Doing something correctly or not was not the subject of you silly post
kook.

> Go back to engineering. Number in sets are pure fantasy, 
> not reality. Kooker.
 
Now the kook declares counting is fantasy.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607146

On 11/29/2016 6:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2016 10:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>>> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30? am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50? pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ? The answer is simple:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>>>>>
>>>>> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is
>>>> always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill
>>>> one expectations is minimal.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> The number in a set is an absolute without either bias or uncertainty,
>>> e.g. the number of golf balls in a bucket.
>>>
>>> Measurements have uncertainty but not necessarily bias.
>>
>> Oh look muffy, The nutjob is following me around! He's SO obsessed with
>> me. I think he's even more obsessed with me than HVAC!
>
> Oh look, the kook is upset because I showed his nonsense to be nonsense.
>
>> So you don't think it's possible to count the number of golf balls
>> incorrectly?
>
> Doing something correctly or not was not the subject of you silly post
> kook.
>
>> Go back to engineering. Number in sets are pure fantasy,
>> not reality. Kooker.
>
> Now the kook declares counting is fantasy.
>
>
Yep.. Shows how little you know of math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607150

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 6:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2016 10:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
> >>>>> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30? am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50? pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ? The answer is simple:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
> >>>>
> >>>> Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is
> >>>> always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill
> >>>> one expectations is minimal.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> The number in a set is an absolute without either bias or uncertainty,
> >>> e.g. the number of golf balls in a bucket.
> >>>
> >>> Measurements have uncertainty but not necessarily bias.
> >>
> >> Oh look muffy, The nutjob is following me around! He's SO obsessed with
> >> me. I think he's even more obsessed with me than HVAC!

I'm sensing that HVAC, Odd, and jimp are all the same one insane person.

> > Oh look, the kook is upset because I showed his nonsense to be nonsense.

You did no such thing jimp. But do keep feeding yourself your falsehoods.

> >> So you don't think it's possible to count the number of golf balls
> >> incorrectly?
> >
> > Doing something correctly or not was not the subject of you silly post
> > kook.

Exactly, if we wanted to do things incorrectly, we'd invent Physics. O wait...

> >> Go back to engineering. Number in sets are pure fantasy,
> >> not reality. Kooker.

So engineering is pure fantasy, not reality?! Jimp, you're losing your marbles.

> > Now the kook declares counting is fantasy.

More likely your bias blinds you jimp/chimp. Open your eyes.

> Yep.. Shows how little you know of math.

Pilot jimp, just stick to discussing planes and rockets. If you knew
any deeper topics, you would not be here calling others names/kooks.

BenjJi, jimp is stalking you. It's blantantly obvious. Stop it, jimp.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607166

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 6:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2016 10:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30? am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50? pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The answer is simple:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is
>>>>> always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill
>>>>> one expectations is minimal.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> The number in a set is an absolute without either bias or uncertainty,
>>>> e.g. the number of golf balls in a bucket.
>>>>
>>>> Measurements have uncertainty but not necessarily bias.
>>>
>>> Oh look muffy, The nutjob is following me around! He's SO obsessed with
>>> me. I think he's even more obsessed with me than HVAC!
>>
>> Oh look, the kook is upset because I showed his nonsense to be nonsense.
>>
>>> So you don't think it's possible to count the number of golf balls
>>> incorrectly?
>>
>> Doing something correctly or not was not the subject of you silly post
>> kook.
>>
>>> Go back to engineering. Number in sets are pure fantasy,
>>> not reality. Kooker.
>>
>> Now the kook declares counting is fantasy.
>>
>>
> Yep.. Shows how little you know of math.

Be sure to make a BIG point of that the next time the check out clerk
counts your items. Stamp your feet and call him/her a "gummint" shill
if you have to.

You will show them all.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607191

On 11/29/2016 8:54 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 11/29/2016 6:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2016 10:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30? am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50? pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The answer is simple:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is
>>>>>> always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill
>>>>>> one expectations is minimal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> The number in a set is an absolute without either bias or uncertainty,
>>>>> e.g. the number of golf balls in a bucket.
>>>>>
>>>>> Measurements have uncertainty but not necessarily bias.
>>>>
>>>> Oh look muffy, The nutjob is following me around! He's SO obsessed with
>>>> me. I think he's even more obsessed with me than HVAC!
>>>
>>> Oh look, the kook is upset because I showed his nonsense to be nonsense.
>>>
>>>> So you don't think it's possible to count the number of golf balls
>>>> incorrectly?
>>>
>>> Doing something correctly or not was not the subject of you silly post
>>> kook.
>>>
>>>> Go back to engineering. Number in sets are pure fantasy,
>>>> not reality. Kooker.
>>>
>>> Now the kook declares counting is fantasy.
>>>
>>>
>> Yep.. Shows how little you know of math.
>
> Be sure to make a BIG point of that the next time the check out clerk
> counts your items. Stamp your feet and call him/her a "gummint" shill
> if you have to.
>
> You will show them all.
>
>
You are just a joke and a stalker.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607214

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 8:54 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2016 6:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/28/2016 10:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/28/2016 5:16 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <2e35ad12-2393-4f80-863a-55c697f44e1a@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>  Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:30? am, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50? pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The answer is simple:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While Math may have its axioms, there are no axioms in Physics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is one! Trust the observations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good point, Virgil. I shall disagree, however. Observations are biased.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Observers may be biased, but, at least on average, observations aren't!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Observations are always biased. Some more so than others. There is
>>>>>>> always uncertainty even when the tendency for observations to fulfill
>>>>>>> one expectations is minimal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The number in a set is an absolute without either bias or uncertainty,
>>>>>> e.g. the number of golf balls in a bucket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Measurements have uncertainty but not necessarily bias.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh look muffy, The nutjob is following me around! He's SO obsessed with
>>>>> me. I think he's even more obsessed with me than HVAC!
>>>>
>>>> Oh look, the kook is upset because I showed his nonsense to be nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>> So you don't think it's possible to count the number of golf balls
>>>>> incorrectly?
>>>>
>>>> Doing something correctly or not was not the subject of you silly post
>>>> kook.
>>>>
>>>>> Go back to engineering. Number in sets are pure fantasy,
>>>>> not reality. Kooker.
>>>>
>>>> Now the kook declares counting is fantasy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yep.. Shows how little you know of math.
>>
>> Be sure to make a BIG point of that the next time the check out clerk
>> counts your items. Stamp your feet and call him/her a "gummint" shill
>> if you have to.
>>
>> You will show them all.
>>
>>
> You are just a joke and a stalker.

Keep telling yourself that kook then perhaps you can ignore me rubbing
your nose in your kook droppings.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web