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


fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: not a good way to post
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 9:56 PM


On 11/4/2013 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote: > "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. > > >
Thanks.
Then he deserved my apology all the more.



