Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
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




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 UTC4, 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 x1 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 > expert enough to make comments about the standard mathematics. > > 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 handwaving 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.



