Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Discussion with WM - Frustration reaches boiling point (What is not clear?)
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jul 8, 2014 6:33 AM

 Ben Bacarisse Posts: 1,972 Registered: 7/4/07
Re: Discussion with WM - Frustration reaches boiling point (What is not clear?)
Posted: Jul 8, 2014 6:33 AM

PotatoSauce <kiwisquash@gmail.com> writes:

> On Monday, July 7, 2014 11:02:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>> As you've seen already, WM has decided to duck this question, maybe
>> because it directly contradicts what he's written elsewhere. For
>> example, in his book he shows explicit examples of surjections and
>> bijections between N and N, Q and Q and others. A specific example: he
>> says that f(x) = 1 when x = 1 and x-1 otherwise is surjective. An
>> explanation of why this is so but f(x) = x is not would be quite
>> something, but I suspect he'll just spark off a dozen new threads about
>> something else.
>>

>
> Oh, right, his proud best seller. Maybe he doesn't actually believe
> anything in his book -- he thinks of it as a proof that he is an
>
> Btw, I actually don't need his explanation anymore, because I
> understand it (no thanks to WM):

I've found that, eventually, it is easy to understand him. There's a
lot of obfuscation and hand-waving and redefining of terms, but the
mistakes become depressingly clear after a while.

I see that my predication is correct. New threads appear like the hydra
but there will be no explanation of why his f is surjective and your
identity function is not.

<snipped: explanation of WM's dual thinking>
--
Ben.