> > A very famous > > incident--so famous it makes it dead obvious you don't know what the > > hell you are talking about--is Gelfand's proof of Wiener's theorem > > using Banach algebras. > > I do know what I am talking about. I have written papers in Banach > spaces and Banach algebras.
In that case, you were deliberately misleading.
For the purposes of this discussion (which > is not about the hard facts of math) these two fields are essentially > different.
What the hell does this mean--for the purposes of this discussion we are going to pretend that Banach algebras have nothing whatever to do with Banach spaces, so we can continue to insult Stefan Banach? Tough. I won't play such a silly game.
> Frankly I don't mind you thinking I am wrong, and engaging in a > civilized discussion about how I am wrong, but don't throw abuse at me > like this.
You were not being honest by your own admission here. You *knew* that Banach's work had applications, and deliberately tried to make it appear otherwise.
> This is a discussion about the philosophy of math. Fankly I don't see > this discussion of worthy of anything more than having fun, and if it > ceases to be fun I don't want to be part of it.