|
|
Re: Warning to visitors to sci.math
Posted:
Mar 22, 2012 5:25 PM
|
|
On Mar 20, 8:09 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > But they are the oppressed people. It's only self-defense
> > for them to viciously attack their oppressors.
> > Anti-Cantorians unite! All you have to lose is your
> > chains!
> Hell with that. I'm with the status quo.
> PST is wrong! There! I said it!
> I don't know what it means, but I said it. TP should be very happy now.
Meanwhile, here's a point about this thread that I've been meaning
to say for some time now. Several times earlier in this thread,
posters referred to what I wrote as "nonmathematical" -- not only
that, but even what the _opponents_ of ZFC write were considered
more mathematical than what I wrote! And despite all the threads
about atheism/religion, politics, global warming, posts consisting
of only the word "idiot," and so on, my posts are still considered
the least mathematical of all.
It's painfully obvious that any post in which I seek to reduce
insults will be considered nonmathematical. It doesn't matter what
I post subsequently -- it could be ZFC or another theory, but no
matter how rigorous it is, if I began the post by saying that I
want to reduce insults, the post is "nonmathematical." (Strangely
enough, the insults themselves are still "mathematical.")
It was pointed out that the opponents' posts are mathematical
because "correcting" their "errors" can be a mathematical exercise,
and of course using ZFC to prove that what they are saying is in
error is very mathematical.
So where does this leave me? If there's a post in which a poster
contradicts ZFC or believes it to be inconsistent, is there
_anything_ that I can post in response, other than a criticism or
worse directed at the OP, which would be considered mathematical?
It appears that the answer is "no." Insulting the OP would make me
look bad in the eyes of the OP, but doing otherwise would be
"nonmathematical" and make me look bad in the eyes of the majority.
Thus, returning to Hughes's post, both ZF-Infinity+Mayberry/Euclid
and PST are mathematical theories, but attempting to using them to
reduce insults will be labeled nonmathematical.
> PST is wrong! There! I said it!
> I don't know what it means, but I said it.
Apparently, it means that PST is wrong when I appeal to it to
reduce insults. The majority finds nothing wrong with PST an an
alternate theory as long as I'm not using it to reduce insults.
On one hand, it sounds reasonable that here on sci.math, I should
make only mathematical posts. But if the only way I can make posts
that are considered mathematical is to add insults to those who
contradict ZFC...
Of course, the insulters don't want me to stop their insults at
all -- they want to keep insulting. So of course, the insults
declare my posts to be nonmathematical and off-topic for sci.math
so that I would stop and then they can keep insulting the OP. They
don't want to get rid of the OP's as they want someone to insult,
but me, they can do without. If all they have to do is say that my
posts are nonmathematical and then poof -- I'd disappear and they
can insult unchallenged -- they would do it in a heartbeat.
But of course I won't let the majority control me that easily.
And so I have no choice but to ignore the "nonmathematical" labels
applied to my posts.
|
|
