On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:58:38 PM UTC+2, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> There is a newer post:
> http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/03/04/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-cauchys-kludge/
>
> "To use this quote to cast doubt on modern mathematics (and it seems clear, that this is what Gabriel wants to do) is typical creationist logic: “Hey, I found something in a book by Cauchy that’s flawed, hence Calculus is wrong” is exactly like saying “I found an error in Darwin’s book, hence the modern theory of Evolution is wrong”. Why do cranks always think, that one single book is the infallible foundation of a whole modern scientific field?
>
> Well okay, in the case of creationists that’s just projection, I assume. They have an infallible book, hence the opposition must have one as well. Gabriel, it seems, regards Plato’s works (as we’ll see) as his infallible bible, hence… modern mathematicians must use Cauchy’s works as their infallible bible? Is that the reasoning here? Who knows…"
>
> But why don't they never ever pick on Bossom Queen Karzinom?
> I want to see Bossom Queen Karzinom paper fold a Hendecagon.
>
> Am Mittwoch, 29. März 2017 20:49:19 UTC+2 schrieb shio...@googlemail..com:
> > http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/02/28/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-calculus-102-cauchy-sequences-and-the-real-numbers/

See how do the Trolish article written on Donkypedia may suddenly disappear without informing the true reasons behind their acts
BKK

On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 18:29:49 UTC-4, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:58:38 PM UTC+2, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> > There is a newer post:
> > http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/03/04/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-cauchys-kludge/

The crank Dennis Muller took that article down as well as any others that he had written about what he thought of me.

Either he realised that he is wrong or he was told so by someone a lot smarter than he.

> >
> > "To use this quote to cast doubt on modern mathematics (and it seems clear, that this is what Gabriel wants to do) is typical creationist logic: “Hey, I found something in a book by Cauchy that’s flawed, hence Calculus is wrong” is exactly like saying “I found an error in Darwin’s book, hence the modern theory of Evolution is wrong”. Why do cranks always think, that one single book is the infallible foundation of a whole modern scientific field?

I wouldn't call myself a creationist or an evolutionist and I have never thought any book is infallible.

That there are higher beings than us is easy to prove, but very difficult to understand.

Evolution is a bunch of rot and if forced to choose, I would go with Creationists.

> >
> > Well okay, in the case of creationists that’s just projection, I assume. They have an infallible book, hence the opposition must have one as well. Gabriel, it seems, regards Plato’s works (as we’ll see) as his infallible bible, hence… modern mathematicians must use Cauchy’s works as their infallible bible? Is that the reasoning here? Who knows…"
> >
> > But why don't they never ever pick on Bossom Queen Karzinom?
> > I want to see Bossom Queen Karzinom paper fold a Hendecagon.
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 29. März 2017 20:49:19 UTC+2 schrieb shio...@googlemail.com:
> > > http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/02/28/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-calculus-102-cauchy-sequences-and-the-real-numbers/
> See how do the Trolish article written on Donkypedia may suddenly disappear without informing the true reasons behind their acts

Wikipedia is a huge trash heap.

> BKK