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



Re: not a good way to post
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 12:42 PM


"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message news:s_OdnXo3dAsMerPnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 11/3/2013 11:11 PM, David N Melik wrote: > > Three related posts in a row, when a couple seem to not say anything > > new, and the last does not even say anything mathematical but the name > > of something, is ridiculous. I would call it spamming, so now will not > > read what you describe... if you want people to read, please do not > > spam in a way that tries to get your subject lines more space (or any > > way) if they are all about the same thing. > > > > Please accept my apologies for the > other response. > > It had been late and I had been quite > tired. > > Among those professional mathematicians > who post in threads on this newsgroup, > it is not uncommon for primarily technical > solutions to have a sequence of posts > involving corrections. In the present > case, > > 1. > My first attempt at characterizing the > definition in question had been in another > thread and included a biconditional > > ( f( m ) = f( n ) <> Ak( k in L /\ a_k = b_k ) ) > > This biconditional did not correctly reflect > the antecedents in the definition in question. > > > 2. > Having checked the conditions allowing me > to break the biconditional above, the definition > in the first post about which you complained > had > > ... /\ ( a_k = b_k ) ) > f( m ) =/= f( n ) ] > > > in place of the incorrect biconditional. > > > 3. > The next post had been in response to checking > the assertion of ~P(x) to see that the Boolean > negation of the proposed interpretation also > served to differentiate elements as it should. > > It did not. > > In a different thread on the same subject there > had been discussion of implicit biconditionals > in definitions. So, the next correction > included > > > ... /\ ( a_k = b_k ) ) <> f( m ) =/= f( n ) ] > > There had also been a correction to another > part of the definition involving whether or not > a certain condition should be exclusive. > > That had also been a subject of discussion in > the thread which you had not read. > > > > 4. > The next post had been intended to convey > a summary and made reference to the fact that > I had considered the proposed definitions against > the statements in the paper, > > http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/TOPICS/canramsey/Rado.pdf > > which constituted the topic of the thread. > > Unfortunately, I made a small error in the summary > statement and made an additional post to correct > that error. > > > > I had been surprised at your post because I did not > see that this series of corrections had been problematic. > That does not excuse the vulgarity with which I responded. > > I am sorry for that. As I said, I was tired. Moreover, > I had been subjected to some statements in the other thread > implying motivations on my part which were unsavory and > incorrect. So, I had been momentarily unable to provide > you with a civil response. >
I doubt David's post was anything to do with any of your posts. (I guess he was referring to Graham Cooper's "me me me, look at me everyone, pay attention to ME. ME. ME!" posting style.)
Sorry, that's not quite right for Herc's style... should have been "ME ME ME, LOOK AT ME EVERYONE, PAY ATTENTION TO ME. ME. ME!!!". :)
Mike.



