Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: not a good way to post
Replies: 9   Last Post: Nov 9, 2013 1:30 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
fom

Posts: 1,969
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: not a good way to post
Posted: Nov 4, 2013 9:56 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 11/4/2013 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message
> news:s_OdnX-o3dAsMerPnZ2dnUVZ_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.





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.