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

Groups > comp.theory > #52980

Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/25/2022 3:06 PM, B.H. wrote:


> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 1:25:38 PM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 6/25/2022 8:22 AM, B.H. wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 1:07:00 AM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2022 3:04 PM, B.H. wrote:

  |   Your reply to Ben Asking you "What is a mathematician".
\ /
>>>>> I would say: Someone who studies formal/informal arguments based on wfs and proofs from ZFC.

  |   My reply to your reply.
\ /

>>>> So Paul Erdos wasn't a mathematician by your definition? In fact you
>>>> have ruled out virtually all of the Field Medal winners. Would you like
>>>> a second try?

  |   Your reply that includes presumptions that politics, bad grammar,
  |   and no facts are part of a mathematical debate or discussion.
\ /

>>> You are very incorrect, do you even know what ZFC is? Stepping up to the plate to smear me should not be done at all, and it looks like you have no idea how math/ZFC work, so at least you are too unprepared for right-wing fascist operational activity to be taken too seriously.

  |   My reply to your unwarranted attack and explaining what I mean.
\ /

>> Of course I know what ZFC is. I also know that virtually the only
>> mathematicians that directly use (or publish) WFF-only proofs are the
>> ones who are doing technical work in foundations or logic; even these
>> folks avoid that level of detail as much as possible. Most proofs use a
>> lot of verbiage and analogies to established theorems to convince the
>> reader.
>>
>> The various theories that most mathematicians work with usually claim
>> that there work could be traced back to ZFC but the demonstrations of
>> those claims are rarely made explicit and are usually based on the facts
>> that their theory is based on another theory ..... that is based on ZFC.
>> And in fact there are several groups who explicitly claim to /not/ be
>> using ZFC, e.g., the Intuitionists.
  |  You now go completely off the rails and don't address above points!
\ /

> You are now claiming to understand the exact point I made that you said was incorrect, not too subtle.

What points made above by you? I don't see any. None!

  |  Information seeking query to you.
\ /

>> And why the nasty reply? Don't let your self proclaimed personality
>> issues get in the way of these discussions. In fact, there are many open
>> threads in this forum where you have made claims and others have asked
>> you to back them up. The general result is that you don't. (Which
>> doesn't mean you can't but strongly suggests it.)

  |  Another no fact answer and more unwarranted abuse from you.
\ /

> Because you smeared me, and that makes me think you are a right-wing human-trafficking supporter who wants to kill me for being disabled.  My nastiness pales in comparison to yours, you might want to not engage in speech designed to murder innocent people; conspiracy to commit murder is a felony too, if I'm not mistaken, and you might want to read up on the felony murder statute, too.  That's right, I'm accusing you of a crime.
> 
> Your claim about people asking me to back up claims is false AFAIK.  Can you point to such a post in this thread?  I believe I've answered every serious debating point and beyond, that's in my interests.
> 
> You should steer clear of hate, defamation, and crime.

The quickest way to find examples is look for threads in this forum 
started by you that include at least three articles that were not 
written by you. I think in the laboratory this is called making titers 
to enrich the density of examples.

So an actual way for you to make progress is to select a standard 
refereed math journal that does not specialize in foundations or logic 
and count the proportions of articles that present "formal/informal 
arguments based arguments based on wfs and proofs from ZFC". I believe 
for most such journals, the proportion of articles that contain any WFFs 
used to make "complete" assertions will be less that fifteen percent and 
the number of articles that mention ZFC, specifically any axiom of ZFC, 
or talk about Choice will be less that one percent.

The reason that mathematicians well over a century ago were debating 
foundations, particularly various choice axioms, and secondarily various 
continuum hypotheses, was that these axioms and their implications were 
not well understood. Those days are long past and mathematicians today 
pay no more attention to foundational issues in their day to day work 
than they did in the middle-late nineteenth century. That is to say that 
they don't.

On a slightly different topic: Have you ever heard of a program called 
Perry? Talking to you reminds me a lot of interacting with it. Just curious.
-- 
Jeff Barnett

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Resolved:  Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 10:40 -0700
  Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 10:42 -0700
    Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 10:50 -0700
  Re: Resolved:  Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-22 19:25 +0100
    Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 07:03 -0700
      Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-23 23:52 +0100
        Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 16:07 -0700
          Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 02:28 +0100
            Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 01:00 -0700
              Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-24 04:50 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 08:38 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 21:38 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 14:04 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-24 23:06 -0600
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 07:22 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-25 11:25 -0600
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 14:06 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-25 16:40 -0600
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 17:21 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 01:02 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 17:26 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 14:44 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 07:47 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 22:26 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 17:57 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-27 02:15 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 18:27 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-27 02:54 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 08:51 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-27 21:56 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 15:56 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 08:03 -0700
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 21:49 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 21:17 +0100
                Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 04:44 -0700
              Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 21:14 +0100
            Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 08:35 -0700
              Re: Resolved: Even vs. Odd Latin Square Problem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 21:30 +0100

csiph-web