On 5/3/2022 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> On 5/3/2022 5:46 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/2022 5:21 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game.
>>>>>>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not
>>>>>> an infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative
>>>>>> number or that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before jumping to such outrageously uninformed conclusions you may
>>>>> want
>>>>> to learn how complex numbers are actually defined nowadays.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are defined to directly contradict the verified facts.
>>>> I really hate anything that directly contradicts the verified facts
>>>> because this can result in:
>>>> (a) Climate change making humans extinct quite soon,
>>>>
>>>> (b) Nazi "big lie" propaganda about election fraud is making very
>>>> significant inroads to transforming Democracy ion the USA to Fascism.
>>>>
>>>> (c) It directly resulted in many covid-19 deaths
>>>
>>> You should definitely call a doctor and ask for help, your mental
>>> state is utterly ill. What the f* are complex numbers related to
>>> your rants on politics?
>>>
>>>>> It is true that, at first, it was used without any proper definition
>>>>> better than "let's assume we can deal with sqrt(-1) as usual". The
>>>>> surprising point at that time is it works pretty well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can see what happens when we hypothesize (against the facts) that
>>>> square roots of negative numbers and parallel lines that meet exist
>>>> simply to see where this leads. I am sure that this is the intent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite you're wrong. The intent was to find *real* roots of degree 3
>>> polynomials even if square root of negative quantities appears at
>>> intermediary steps.
>>>
>>
>> None-the-less as I just said this whole think relies on accepting a
>> known false premise.
>
> Let me guess, you are some kind of "information engineer" and consider
> yourself also as "one of the greatest logicians Humanity ever had",
> right? There is a demented guy of this kind on sci.physics.relativity,
> his name is Maciej Wozniak. You guys should definitely mate (NOT).
>

I consider myself to have made significant unique advancements on the
single subject on the philosophical foundation of the notion of logical
truth.

One of my key breakthroughs is redefining the analytic / synthetic
distinction such that analytic means (the same as it did) any expression
of formal or natural language that can be verified as true entirely on
the basis of its meaning. "Dogs are animals"

The somewhat vaguely defined synthetic is renamed as empirical and it is
the same sort of thing as analytic that additionally requires sense data
from the sense organs as an aspect of the truth verification process.
"There is a dog in my living room right now."

This is the most important paper on the subject
Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman Quine
(Harvard University Press, 1953; second, revised, edition 1961)
https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf

Quine didn't seem to understand that bachelors are necessarily unmarried.

Meaning Postulates by RUDOLF CARNAP
https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
conclusively proved the complete basis of how we know that bachelors are
necessarily unmarried. Quine didn't want to hear this because it
contradicted his paper.

>>> You know *nothing* about history of Science, Peter. Guessing is quite
>>> absurd when it comes to History.
>>>
>>>>> *Then*, in the XIXth Century, Gallois showed how to define complex
>>>>> numbers rigorously.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've never heard of that, Peter, really?
>>>>>
>>>>> [for the record: C is the set of equivalence classes of polynomials
>>>>> on R by the relation p ~ q iff p - q = 0 [mod x^2+1], compatibility
>>>>> of + and * on R and C can be proven easily, R is naturally injected
>>>>> into C as a set of constant polynomials, i is the equivalence class of
>>>>> the polynomial x]
>>>
>>> No reaction? Well... Not a big surprise, your eyes cancel out any
>>> sensible arguments proving you wrong, as usual.
>>>
>>> Die in Hell, idiotic annoying crank. You deserve it.
>
> (bis)
>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer