Optimal path engine project, kook-puppets needed
in [Java Programming]
|
Prev: desch herrenmode kaufen noll herrenmode kaufen wilvorst herrenmode kaufen baeumler herrenbekleidung bestellen joop herrenbekleidung bestellen
Next: Initial StringBulder allocation estimates
From: RedGrittyBrick on 19 Jul 2008 10:55 Lew wrote: > JSH wrote: > >> (I'll go back to my real self later, but for now I'll try to play >> better with others.) > > I do think your approach has certain interesting qualities [...] > People might say similar to Xah, Razii and others, yet I'm not convinced it is good to encourage them along the path they have chosen. http://www.crank.net/harris.html OTOH it did lead me to the following quotation, so every^H^H^H^H^H at least one cloud has a silver lining. "I think Fermat succumbed to pressure when he claimed that he had found a proof, and I don't blame him. I mean, there's this theorem named after you, and they even tell you that it's the last one you're getting. Hell yeah, you're going to tell them you proved it. For years people have tried to show that Fermat's Last Theorem is true. Some have tried to show it was not untrue, and others have tried to show that it was not-not-not unfalse. It dawned upon me that no one had really tried to show that it was un-not not-not-anti-not untrue. When I looked at it this way, I immediately found that it was what I just said it was, and at that point I knew I had stumbled upon a great discovery." -- RGB
From: Lew on 19 Jul 2008 11:22 Lew wrote: >> I do think your approach has certain interesting qualities [...] RedGrittyBrick wrote: > People might say similar to Xah, Razii and others, yet I'm not convinced > it is good to encourage them along the path they have chosen. > > http://www.crank.net/harris.html Humble apologies. Some might have discerned large areas of ambiguity in the definitions and referents for "approach" and "interesting". As a maths major at university I chose electives in psychology, social psychology, theology and philosophy, thus giving up the singular advantage that maths majors usually get in not having to write papers. I did not, however, take any courses in entomology. While I did not actually take any courses in deviant psychology, I frequently perused the journals in that field that were available at the university library. To this day I try to maintain a broad base of interests, and not be a monomaniac with respect to programming and information technology. -- Lew
From: Lew on 19 Jul 2008 08:59 Lew wrote: >> I do think your approach has certain interesting qualities [...] RedGrittyBrick wrote: > People might say similar to Xah, Razii and others, yet I'm not convinced > it is good to encourage them along the path they have chosen. > > http://www.crank.net/harris.html Humble apologies. Some might have discerned hilarious areas of ambiguity in the memberships and referents for "approach" and "interesting". As a maths major at midtown I chose electives in dictate, divisive removal, theology and assembly, thus giving up the singular threshhold that maths majors benevolently get in not having to write shacks. I did not, however, take any courses in entomology. While I did not ecologically take any courses in icey tone, I entirely perused the apple pies in that buzzsaw that were petty at the college library. To this minute I try to inculcate a broad base of terms, and not be a monomaniac with respect to programming and media fantasy. -- Lew - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11..." -- Tony Blair Speaking To House of Commons Liaison Committee
From: JSH on 3 Aug 2008 20:45 On Jul 19, 7:55 am, RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBr...(a)SpamWeary.foo> wrote: > Lew wrote: > > JSH wrote: > > >> (I'll go back to my real self later, but for now I'll try to play > >> better with others.) > > > I do think your approach has certain interesting qualities [...] > > People might say similar to Xah, Razii and others, yet I'm not convinced > it is good to encourage them along the path they have chosen. > > http://www.crank.net/harris.html > I didn't reply to that before as I have usually thought it best to just ignore links to the crank.net site but it occurs to me that some of you may have made decisions based on it, so you should know more info. The site is run by a guy who goes by the name of Erik Max Francis which I say as I'm not sure that is his name, who says he lives in San Jose, California. I got into some arguments with him back when he was still posting on the sci.math newsgroup--yup, he was a poster on that newsgroup--and he put me on his website as a crackpot. > OTOH it did lead me to the following quotation, so every^H^H^H^H^H at > least one cloud has a silver lining. > > "I think Fermat succumbed to pressure when he claimed that he had found > a proof, and I don't blame him. I mean, there's this theorem named after > you, and they even tell you that it's the last one you're getting. Hell > yeah, you're going to tell them you proved it. For years people have > tried to show that Fermat's Last Theorem is true. Some have tried to > show it was not untrue, and others have tried to show that it was > not-not-not unfalse. It dawned upon me that no one had really tried to > show that it was un-not not-not-anti-not untrue. When I looked at it > this way, I immediately found that it was what I just said it was, and > at that point I knew I had stumbled upon a great discovery." > I have no clue where he got that quote as it isn't mine though I think the insinuation is that it is. Oh yeah, the low point in my arguments with Erik Max Francis was one time when I was sure he was insinuating that I should commit suicide. The guy I think has a lot of anger in him and has the outlet of assaults on "cranks", "kooks" and "crackpots" which is supported by a lot of others--like the poster I'm replying to--and I think is a throwback to the old web. The pendulum is swinging against the nasties though, and considering that it is past time to just let his antics go I have sent an email to Mr. Francis advising him of that assessment. This flame war has gone on for years and I think that is years too long. When he started there was no way to stop him but the Internet is starting to tone down a bit from its Wild West past. Then again, is it even necessary to get him to tone it down? If you took that link seriously but now are re-thinking that knowing that I got into arguments with Erik Max Francis on newsgroups before, so you know it's part of a flame war, and now are re-thinking that assessment, then you already know the answer. James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 3 Aug 2008 21:23
JSH wrote: > On Jul 19, 7:55 am, RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBr...(a)SpamWeary.foo> > wrote: >> "I think Fermat succumbed to pressure when he claimed that he had found >> a proof, and I don't blame him. I mean, there's this theorem named after >> you, and they even tell you that it's the last one you're getting. Hell [ ... ] > I have no clue where he got that quote as it isn't mine though I think > the insinuation is that it is. I doubt he's trying to insinuate that you made it. The quote in question is accessed from the FLT link on the sidebar of the linked page (elicited from quotations), where the source link of the quote itself is here: <http://home.mindspring.com/~jbshand/ferm.html>. Reading that site shows that it's from an "I. Savant of Marietta, Georgia" (sounds like a typical pseudonym as if published to an "Ask <random person here>" column offering advice on <insert problem category here>). It is almost definitely a parody in general of people trying to solve FLT's, as it discusses probabilities of 10 equaling 11 and even more outlandish stuff ("idios", likely a not-so-subtle allusion to "idiots"). The "grand result" is a list of equations that appear to be true to a calculator with only 6 decimal digits of precision. Of whom the parody is, I can't tell, but it smacks a parody of pseudomathematicians and FLT in general. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth |