Braininvat » January 24th, 2017, 1:28 pm wrote:The thread started rather auspiciously I thought as something that could be a learning resource for many members in related fields. Now personalities are in collision and this is hindering that original purpose. No more personal comments, please, no matter how justified they may seem. I do agree that the math requirements are high, and that it is frustrating for those who don't know what they don't know on the topic. The basic criterion of thread health is that member responses reflect that they have read the source material being cited. E.g. is someone here with formal training in higher mathematics says that you need to study some Model Theory, then you probably do.
someguy1 » January 24th, 2017, 11:23 pm wrote:You can dish out insults but you can't take accurate criticism. Plain for all to see. Have a nice life.
Wait ... you don't know whether the collection of functions from the complex numbers to themselves having a particular property is a set? And you are holding yourself up as an authority on foundations? You are embarrassing yourself now. The collection of functions from one set to another is a subset of the powerset of their Cartesian product, right? I just saved you from embarrassing yourself on Stackexchange.
And like I say, I refrained from calling you out on your ignorance till you started attacking someone else.
hyksos » January 24th, 2017, 12:35 pm wrote:
Scott,
I honestly and swear on my mother's grave that I am 1.) Not trying to flame you. 2.) Not trying to insult you. I do not know any other way to say this to you in a way that is "nice". So I will just say it, and you can accept my words or not.
Wait ... you don't know whether the collection of functions from the complex numbers to themselves having a particular property is a set? And you are holding yourself up as an authority on foundations? You are embarrassing yourself now. The collection of functions from one set to another is a subset of the powerset of their Cartesian product, right? I just saved you from embarrassing yourself on Stackexchange.
Braininvat » January 24th, 2017, 11:28 pm wrote: E.g. is someone here with formal training in higher mathematics says that you need to study some Model Theory, then you probably do.
in which we'd disagreed and had quite a great discussion as a result.
Since you've asked your own question, yes, your behavior's been outofline.
hyksos » January 25th, 2017, 8:25 am wrote:I fully invite someguy1 to act as Scott Mayer's personal math tutor on this forum.
So someguy1, Scott is all yours. You can have him. Take him under your wing.
Referring to another user as a "troll" with a "little tummy ache" would seem to qualify.hyksos » January 24th, 2017, 2:18 pm wrote:Oh yes well pardon me for "subset of ZFC". Let me be more precise so as to your cure the troll's little tummy ache on this fine point.
hyksos » January 26th, 2017, 12:06 am wrote:You are now just using your moderator powers here to push people around be abusive.

hyksos » January 18th, 2017, 5:44 am wrote:Mathematics does not operate by these social rules.
Mathematics is qualitatively different from all other scientific disciplines. I could list the reasons, but the one that sticks out the most is that the discipline of Higher Math is obsessive about very precise definitions.
Natural ChemE » January 25th, 2017, 6:15 am wrote:I mean, if you check my profile and someguy1's, we both have the same most active thread topic, in which we'd disagreed and had quite a great discussion as a result.
someguy1 » January 27th, 2017, 9:11 pm wrote:The one point I wanted to pin you down on was your claim that because there exists a model in which CH is true, that's the end of the story as far as you're concerned, and CH is true.
That's bad logic. There's a model of geometry that's Euclidean, but nonEuclidean geometry turns out to be a better model of the world we live in. There exists an Abelian group, but not all groups are Abelian.
Natural ChemE » January 27th, 2017, 9:22 pm wrote:... I'd spent a lot of time talking about constructivism because I think that it's needed to explicitly specify the model that we're talking about.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 12 guests