Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):

> Crank David Petry wrote: [...]

> What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...

> You, David, are a BIG failure. ...

> ... Fuck off.

So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What a guy.

In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting, here's a brief outline:

1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce something of value for society.

2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific reasoning.

3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.

4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".

My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building a new foundation for mathematics.

And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even discussed.

I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.

David Petry presented the following explanation :
> Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
>
>> Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
>
>> What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
>
>> You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
>
>> ... Fuck off.
>
>
> So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he not
> understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly
> understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my
> reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What a guy.
>
> In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting, here's a
> brief outline:
>
> 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce
> something of value for society.
>
> 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that
> mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific
> reasoning.
>
> 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of
> scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
>
> 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is
> the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that
> makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments, and in
> mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what
> I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
>
>
> My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building
> a new foundation for mathematics.
>
> And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to
> college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this
> newsgroup fail to grasp any of them.

That is what cranks say when someone fails to agree with them.

David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> wrote:
> Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):

>> Crank David Petry wrote: [...]

>> What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...

>> You, David, are a BIG failure. ...

>> ... Fuck off.

> So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, ....

I think that's a fair comment for him to make.

> .... claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I
> promote, ....

That's not what he said. He said they make no sense. I understand what
you've written in this post, and I agree it makes no sense, i.e. it is so
divergent from accepted knowledge as to be incapable of being integrated
into it.

> .... but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then
> suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my
> position using this newsgroup.

I don't see any such implication. What you have written over a long time
is extraordinarily offensive to many people here (including me), so the
imprecation to "fuck off" is fully understandable.

> What a guy.

> In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting,
> here's a brief outline:

> 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to
> produce something of value for society.

Can you not see how this is offensive? You're suggesting that the work
of (some) mathematicians is worthless to society.

> 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that
> mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific
> reasoning.

This is even more than offensive. It's aggressive, directly saying that
pure mathematics is of no value. You could equally well argue that
cosmology or historical research are of no value, and you would be
equally wrong - you are saying that knowledge for its own sake is
worthless.

> 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization
> of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.

I wouldn't know about that, but if so, so what?

> 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current
> mathematics is the idea of falsifiability.

It may be an important idea in science, but for you to assert it is
important in maths requires you to produce a convincing argument. I
think the generally accepted criterion for correctness in maths is
consistency. You know this.

> A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the
> outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those
> experiments will be computational experiments.

So you want to restrict the scope of mathematics to what, essentially,
can be done on an abacus, yes? You want to declare maths done by pure
abstract reasoning as not maths at all.

One of the characteristics of cranks is that they declare what they don't
understand not to be maths. JG and AP do this. You are perilously close
to doing the same thing.

> And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with
> "falsifiable".

.... having declared that "falsifiable" means what can be done on an
abacus. What you are saying here is that we should declare a great number
of people's work to be meaningless. That is offensive.

> My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when
> building a new foundation for mathematics.

"When"? There would appear to be no need right now to build such a new
foundataion. The one we have is working well. Of course, if you
disagree, then go ahead and create another foundation.

> And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be
> taught to college freshmen.

Pretty much every crank there is would also believe his ideas should be
taught thus. What is it which distinguishes your ideas from those of a
crank?

> And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to
> grasp any of them.

That's not true. We grasp them and disagree vehemently with them.

> And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being
> even discussed.

I wouldn't worry about that. It's difficult indeed to prevent discussion
on Usenet. :-)

> I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.

I don't think you're at all puzzled. Your ideas are offensive to lots of
people here. You can't be surprised that some responses are, in turn,
also offensive.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 18:46:19 UTC+2, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> David Petry <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
> >> Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
>
> >> What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
>
> >> You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
> >> ... Fuck off.
> >
> > So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, ....
>
> I think that's a fair comment for him to make.

That's the only kind of comment he makes: it's rather fair to say that Messager and co. are (anti-)cranks at least as much as it is fair to say that Petry and co. are cranks. Two sides of the same Dunning-Kruger-to-be-charitable coin.

> > 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to
> > produce something of value for society.

> Can you not see how this is offensive? You're suggesting that the work
> of (some) mathematicians is worthless to society.

That is not what he is saying, what he is saying is rather and plain nazi: he asserts a *moral obligation* that is as absurd as it is arbitrary, i.e. that mathematics that is of no (apparent??) value is evil. (IOW, what he is saying does not necessarily imply there are mathematicians who are worthless, it is more radically saying that, should there be any, these would be doing evil.)

> > 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that
> > mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific
> > reasoning.
>
> This is even more than offensive. It's aggressive, directly saying that
> pure mathematics is of no value.

You keep misreading: that is rather along the lines of the above and it specifies what he means by "valuable". And of course it confirms itself to be a rather myopic and ideological view of maths, as the premise already was.

> you are saying that knowledge for its own sake is worthless.

Isn't it? The point being why should it be "worth" at all.

> > 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current
> > mathematics is the idea of falsifiability.
>
> It may be an important idea in science, but for you to assert it is
> important in maths requires you to produce a convincing argument.

There can be no such argument, that is just the apex of the same stinking progressionj: not simply that the only math is math for science, that math *is* (a) science.

Ouroboros ad nauseam...

Julio

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 9:46:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> David Petry <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
>
> >> Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
>
> >> What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
>
> >> You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
>
> >> ... Fuck off.
> > So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, ....
>
> I think that's a fair comment for him to make.
>
> > .... claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I
> > promote, ....
>
> That's not what he said. He said they make no sense. I understand what
> you've written in this post, and I agree it makes no sense, i.e. it is so
> divergent from accepted knowledge as to be incapable of being integrated
> into it.
>
> > .... but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then
> > suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my
> > position using this newsgroup.
> I don't see any such implication. What you have written over a long time
> is extraordinarily offensive to many people here (including me), so the
> imprecation to "fuck off" is fully understandable.
> > What a guy.
>
> > In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting,
> > here's a brief outline:
>
> > 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to
> > produce something of value for society.
> Can you not see how this is offensive? You're suggesting that the work
> of (some) mathematicians is worthless to society.
> > 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that
> > mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific
> > reasoning.
> This is even more than offensive. It's aggressive, directly saying that
> pure mathematics is of no value. You could equally well argue that
> cosmology or historical research are of no value, and you would be
> equally wrong - you are saying that knowledge for its own sake is
> worthless.
> > 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization
> > of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
> I wouldn't know about that, but if so, so what?
> > 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current
> > mathematics is the idea of falsifiability.
> It may be an important idea in science, but for you to assert it is
> important in maths requires you to produce a convincing argument. I
> think the generally accepted criterion for correctness in maths is
> consistency. You know this.
> > A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the
> > outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those
> > experiments will be computational experiments.
> So you want to restrict the scope of mathematics to what, essentially,
> can be done on an abacus, yes? You want to declare maths done by pure
> abstract reasoning as not maths at all.
>
> One of the characteristics of cranks is that they declare what they don't
> understand not to be maths. JG and AP do this. You are perilously close
> to doing the same thing.
> > And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with
> > "falsifiable".
> ... having declared that "falsifiable" means what can be done on an
> abacus. What you are saying here is that we should declare a great number
> of people's work to be meaningless. That is offensive.
> > My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when
> > building a new foundation for mathematics.
> "When"? There would appear to be no need right now to build such a new
> foundataion. The one we have is working well. Of course, if you
> disagree, then go ahead and create another foundation.
> > And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be
> > taught to college freshmen.
> Pretty much every crank there is would also believe his ideas should be
> taught thus. What is it which distinguishes your ideas from those of a
> crank?
> > And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to
> > grasp any of them.
> That's not true. We grasp them and disagree vehemently with them.
> > And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being
> > even discussed.
> I wouldn't worry about that. It's difficult indeed to prevent discussion
> on Usenet. :-)
> > I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.
> I don't think you're at all puzzled. Your ideas are offensive to lots of
> people here. You can't be surprised that some responses are, in turn,
> also offensive.
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

I have to thank you for your response, but I wonder to what extent you speak for all mathematicians. I mean, me suggesting that the purpose of mathematics is to provide a conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world is insulting and offensive???

Scientists often "offend" pseudoscientists, anti-scientists, and theologians, etc. But they don't worry about it much. They see it as their duty to seek the truth and not worry about who is offended by it. I wish the mathematicians would see it as their duty to seek truth, and especially, to recognize that "truth" is closely connected to "reality".

>So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank

Because you are one.

>claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup.. What a guy.

your position is garbage.

>1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce something of value for society.

Morals are about interaction between humans, mathematics and such has nothign to do with morality.

>2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific reasoning.

This is your stupid idea and that is all it is.

>3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.

predicate logic is used in many branches, What you call "Cantorian" just has the axiom of infinity which is as valid as any axiom we have.

>4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments,

How can you do experiments on abstract objects that has no physical form or properties?

>and in mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".

So you want something, computers, that are designed using mathematical logic and reason, to be what proves the very thing that was used to design and check it for errors? Do you not see how stupidly circular that is?

>My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building a new foundation for mathematics.

And it is a retarded idea.

>And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even discussed.

We grasp what you say, we just point out it is stupid, retarded and serves no useful purpose, hence violating your own #1 "rule".

On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 10:38:10 UTC-4, david...@gmail.com wrote:
> Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
>
> > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
>
> > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
>
> > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
>
> > ... Fuck off.
>
>
> So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What a guy.
>
> In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting, here's a brief outline:
>
> 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce something of value for society.
>
> 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific reasoning.
>
> 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
>
> 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
>
>
> My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building a new foundation for mathematics.
>
> And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even discussed.
>
> I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.

Of course you are called a crank if you do not submit to the Church Of Academia.

Mainstream mathematics is a cult. If you haven't learned this yet, well then I can't help you.

A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence..

To be a non-crank, you have to have syphilis in your brain as do all the high priests of mainstream math academia.

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 14:05:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 10:38:10 UTC-4, david...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
> >
> > > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
> >
> > > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
> >
> > > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
> >
> > > ... Fuck off.
> >
> >
> > So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What a guy.
> >
> > In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting, here's a brief outline:
> >
> > 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce something of value for society.
> >
> > 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific reasoning.
> >
> > 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
> >
> > 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
> >
> >
> > My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building a new foundation for mathematics.
> >
> > And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even discussed.
> >
> > I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.
> Of course you are called a crank if you do not submit to the Church Of Academia.
>
> Mainstream mathematics is a cult. If you haven't learned this yet, well then I can't help you.
>
> A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>
> To be a non-crank, you have to have syphilis in your brain as do all the high priests of mainstream math academia.

"Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.["

claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,

As you see you fit crank once agian.

David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 9:46:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ .... ]

> I have to thank you for your response, but I wonder to what extent you
> speak for all mathematicians.

I would think I speak for quite a few, though obviously not all.

> I mean, me suggesting that the purpose of mathematics is to provide a
> conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world is insulting
> and offensive???

It's an obvious falsehood. The purpose of maths is to extend
mathematical knowledge, regardless of any application to the real world
(whatever that is). Just consider what message you're sending to pure
mathematicians about their work. How can that message not be offensive?

> Scientists often "offend" pseudoscientists, anti-scientists, and
> theologians, etc.

But they don't set out to offend other scientists, at least, not as a
rule.

> But they don't worry about it much. They see it as their duty to seek
> the truth and not worry about who is offended by it.

But they do not set out artificially to limit the scope of science. If
some scientist wants to research, say, the large scale configuration of
galaxies, you don't get other scientists saying it's of no value.

You appear to be saying that only the maths you like is of any value.
Can you not appreciate this is an offensive attitude?

> I wish the mathematicians would see it as their duty to seek truth,
> ....

I think they do. And pure mathematics is very much a part of truth,
regardless of any application to the "real world", whatever that might
be.

> .... and especially, to recognize that "truth" is closely connected to
> "reality".

By which you mean, I think, your reality. Or that that last clause would
be better discussed in a philosophy group than here.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg Germany).

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 08:49:28 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 14:05:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 10:38:10 UTC-4, david...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
> > >
> > > > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
> > >
> > > > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
> > >
> > > > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
> > >
> > > > ... Fuck off.
> > >
> > >
> > > So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What a guy.
> > >
> > > In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting, here's a brief outline:
> > >
> > > 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce something of value for society.
> > >
> > > 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific reasoning.
> > >
> > > 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
> > >
> > > 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
> > >
> > >
> > > My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building a new foundation for mathematics.
> > >
> > > And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even discussed.
> > >
> > > I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.
> > Of course you are called a crank if you do not submit to the Church Of Academia.
> >
> > Mainstream mathematics is a cult. If you haven't learned this yet, well then I can't help you.
> >
> > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> >
> > To be a non-crank, you have to have syphilis in your brain as do all the high priests of mainstream math academia.
> "Crank is a pejorative term

That is YOUR definition and it fails quite badly given that not all who are against the mainstream are cranks.

As I said, it is necessary but insufficient. You are too stupid to understand this logic.

"A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence. "

is both necessary and sufficient.

lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 16:38:10 UTC+2 skrev david...@gmail.com:
> Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
>
> > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
>
> > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
>
> > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
>
> > ... Fuck off.
>
>
> So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What a guy.
>
> In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting, here's a brief outline:
>
> 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce something of value for society.
>
> 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific reasoning.
>
> 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
>
> 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
>
>
> My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building a new foundation for mathematics.
>
> And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even discussed.
>
> I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.
What does it mean for math to be "falsifiable"?

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 5:05:09 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Mainstream mathematics is a cult.

Right. You hit the nail on the head.

> If you haven't learned this yet, well then I can't help you.

Over the years, there have been people who want to "help" me, and I always discourage them. The reason is that these "helpers" so often make mistakes that people will blame on me, making my job harder.

So please, fight your own battles, and leave me to fight mine.

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:22:30 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 16:38:10 UTC+2 skrev david...@gmail.com:
> > Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
> >
> > > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
> >
> > > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
> >
> > > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
> >
> > > ... Fuck off.
> >
> >
> > So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What a guy.
> >
> > In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting, here's a brief outline:
> >
> > 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce something of value for society.
> >
> > 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific reasoning.
> >
> > 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
> >
> > 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
> >
> >
> > My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building a new foundation for mathematics.
> >
> > And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even discussed.
> >
> > I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.

> What does it mean for math to be "falsifiable"?

In (4) above, I gave a good explanation of what a falsifiable statement in mathematics is. Your question seems to be confused.

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 7:38:10 AM UTC-7, David Petry wrote:
> Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
>
> > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
>
> > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
>
> > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
>
> > ... Fuck off.
>
>
> So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What a guy.
>
> In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting, here's a brief outline:
>
> 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce something of value for society.
>
> 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific reasoning.
>
> 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
>
> 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
>
>
> My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when building a new foundation for mathematics.
>
> And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even discussed.
>
> I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.

I think Alan Mackenzie has given a pretty explanation for why people are so antagonistic to my ideas. It's because this is a very emotional issue for mathematicians (many? most?). And the emotion clouds their thinking. And it seems that there are few if any mathematicians with status in the mathematics community who can see beyond the clouds.

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 18:46:19 UTC+2, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > David Petry <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
> > >> Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
> >
> > >> What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
> >
> > >> You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
> > >> ... Fuck off.
> > >
> > > So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, ....
> >
> > I think that's a fair comment for him to make.
> That's the only kind of comment he makes: it's rather fair to say that Messager and co. are (anti-)cranks at least as much as it is fair to say that Petry and co. are cranks. Two sides of the same Dunning-Kruger-to-be-charitable coin.
> > > 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to
> > > produce something of value for society.
>
> > Can you not see how this is offensive? You're suggesting that the work
> > of (some) mathematicians is worthless to society.
> That is not what he is saying, what he is saying is rather and plain nazi: he asserts a *moral obligation* that is as absurd as it is arbitrary, i.e.. that mathematics that is of no (apparent??) value is evil. (IOW, what he is saying does not necessarily imply there are mathematicians who are worthless, it is more radically saying that, should there be any, these would be doing evil.)
> > > 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that
> > > mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific
> > > reasoning.
> >
> > This is even more than offensive. It's aggressive, directly saying that
> > pure mathematics is of no value.
> You keep misreading: that is rather along the lines of the above and it specifies what he means by "valuable". And of course it confirms itself to be a rather myopic and ideological view of maths, as the premise already was..
> > you are saying that knowledge for its own sake is worthless.
> Isn't it? The point being why should it be "worth" at all.
> > > 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current
> > > mathematics is the idea of falsifiability.
> >
> > It may be an important idea in science, but for you to assert it is
> > important in maths requires you to produce a convincing argument.
> There can be no such argument, that is just the apex of the same stinking progressionj: not simply that the only math is math for science, that math *is* (a) science.
>
> Ouroboros ad nauseam...
>
> Julio

Huzzah!

You mean the "the formerly known as 'me', now known as 'slur' "?

I don't know any particular opinion of said poster's, at all?

(That isn't usually generally shared.)

Got a bad opinion of them, or, let's say uncharitable.

Let's see, AP: the sci.math AP is much smaller than the analytic geometry AP.

I.e., there's an AI AP what is a strong analytic geometer.

Crank!

Hmm..., WM, ..., boring crank, won't see the light.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

I'm not a crank though kind of fringe.

I have schemata here for various kinds of interesting things.

Huge Crank!

No, those are mostly "boring NSA usenet guys".

>That is YOUR definition

That is the common definition that people adhere too and use it to mean. Yours is the outlier.

>and it fails quite badly given that not all who are against the mainstream are cranks.

There are several parts to it but being against mainstream is part of it. Add onto it your behavior, and you are definitely a crank.

>is both necessary and sufficient.

And just your personal opinion.

>Right. You hit the nail on the head.

He didn't because it isn't.

>In (4) above, I gave a good explanation of what a falsifiable statement in mathematics is. Your question seems to be confused.

How do you make experiments on concepts that does not physically exist? You cannot!

And using computers is extremely circular because they are built on mathematics and checked against the mathematical expectations.

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 1:34:46 PM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> David Petry <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 9:46:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ .... ]
> > I have to thank you for your response, but I wonder to what extent you
> > speak for all mathematicians.
> I would think I speak for quite a few, though obviously not all.
> > I mean, me suggesting that the purpose of mathematics is to provide a
> > conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world is insulting
> > and offensive???
> It's an obvious falsehood. The purpose of maths is to extend
> mathematical knowledge, regardless of any application to the real world
> (whatever that is). Just consider what message you're sending to pure
> mathematicians about their work. How can that message not be offensive?

Alan, the lightweight of math, pontificating, when he is in the wrong career. Alan should have gone into banking or accounting for math is beyond his IQ.

The purpose of math is it is a subset of Physics, where atoms have shape and size, hence comes geometry into existence. And because atoms are numerous in quantity, therefore comes into existance numbers and algebra. The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.

The world does not need a half pint piss head fool of math like Alan pontificating in sci.math.

Go to alt.math, Alan, where you will be at home.

David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 7:38:10 AM UTC-7, David Petry wrote:
>> Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):

>> > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]

>> > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...

>> > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...

>> > ... Fuck off.

>> So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he
>> not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could
>> possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to
>> defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What
>> a guy.

>> In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting,
>> here's a brief outline:

>> 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce
>> something of value for society.

>> 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that
>> mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific
>> reasoning.

>> 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization
>> of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.

>> 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current
>> mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is
>> a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible
>> experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be
>> computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should
>> equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".

>> My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when
>> building a new foundation for mathematics.

>> And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be
>> taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the
>> participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager
>> seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even
>> discussed.

>> I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.

> I think Alan Mackenzie has given a pretty [?good] explanation for why
> people are so antagonistic to my ideas. It's because this is a very
> emotional issue for mathematicians (many? most?). And the emotion
> clouds their thinking.

That's being very patronising. It is notable how you imply the
negativity towards your ideas is somehow the "fault" of mathematicians
rather than of yourself. If you abuse people in pretty much any
circumstances, they will act negatively towards you.

> And it seems that there are few if any mathematicians with status in
> the mathematics community who can see beyond the clouds.

That's crank-talk. The negativity towards your ideas is due to the
negativity of those ideas. You are not seeing further than pure
mathematicians - you want instead to prevent them seeing too far. Yet
you seem unable to recognise your negativity as a fault.

Why?

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:33:39 PM UTC-4, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> David Petry <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 7:38:10 AM UTC-7, David Petry wrote:
> >> Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
>
> >> > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
>
> >> > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
>
> >> > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
>
> >> > ... Fuck off.
>
> >> So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he
> >> not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could
> >> possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to
> >> defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What
> >> a guy.
>
> >> In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting,
> >> here's a brief outline:
>
> >> 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce
> >> something of value for society.
>
> >> 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that
> >> mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific
> >> reasoning.
>
> >> 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization
> >> of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
>
> >> 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current
> >> mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is
> >> a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible
> >> experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be
> >> computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should
> >> equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
>
>
> >> My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when
> >> building a new foundation for mathematics.
>
> >> And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be
> >> taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the
> >> participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager
> >> seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even
> >> discussed.
>
> >> I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.
> > I think Alan Mackenzie has given a pretty [?good] explanation for why
> > people are so antagonistic to my ideas. It's because this is a very
> > emotional issue for mathematicians (many? most?). And the emotion
> > clouds their thinking.
> That's being very patronising. It is notable how you imply the
> negativity towards your ideas is somehow the "fault" of mathematicians
> rather than of yourself. If you abuse people in pretty much any
> circumstances, they will act negatively towards you.
> > And it seems that there are few if any mathematicians with status in
> > the mathematics community who can see beyond the clouds.
> That's crank-talk. The negativity towards your ideas is due to the
> negativity of those ideas. You are not seeing further than pure
> mathematicians - you want instead to prevent them seeing too far. Yet
> you seem unable to recognise your negativity as a fault.
>
> Why?
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
everyone has a little atheist inside
i converted mine by
avoiding negation
in my programming
in my speech
in my writing
in my preferred formulas for graph coloring
by using my sublinear identity et cetera
daniel little d gres 2380 sats 1530 p l o t t h a t c u r v e t o b e m o r e a m a z e d t h a n m e

On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 00:33:52 UTC-4, david...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 5:05:09 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > Mainstream mathematics is a cult.
> Right. You hit the nail on the head.
> > If you haven't learned this yet, well then I can't help you.
> Over the years, there have been people who want to "help" me, and I always discourage them. The reason is that these "helpers" so often make mistakes that people will blame on me, making my job harder.
>
> So please, fight your own battles, and leave me to fight mine.

You misunderstand me. No one but you can help yourself. Everyone makes mistakes - even I have made mistakes in the past. Not what you think though! The point is that I make far less mistakes now than I ever did before. In fact, I am almost ALWAYS right these last few years.

Solidarity is a good thing and you are not without mistakes that you should be worried others' will be attributed to you. What people think is of no importance. You cannot convince those who will not see. Perhaps all you can do is sow the seeds and hope for a good outcome from those whose first priority is truth, no matter how inconvenient.

On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 12:33:39 UTC-4, Scott idiot Alan Mackenzie driveled:
> David Petry <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 7:38:10 AM UTC-7, David Petry wrote:
> >> Crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote (in another thread):
>
> >> > Crank David Petry wrote: [...]
>
> >> > What you are promoting makes absolutely no sense, ...
>
> >> > You, David, are a BIG failure. ...
>
> >> > ... Fuck off.
>
> >> So Jean Pierre Messager calls me a crank, claims that not only does he
> >> not understand the ideas that I promote, but that nobody could
> >> possibly understand them, and then suggests that I have no right to
> >> defend my reputation or clarify my position using this newsgroup. What
> >> a guy.
>
> >> In case anyone reading this doesn't know what ideas I'm promoting,
> >> here's a brief outline:
>
> >> 1) Mathematicians, like all humans, have a moral obligation to produce
> >> something of value for society.
>
> >> 2) The mathematics that is undeniably of value to society is that
> >> mathematics that can be understood as a formalization of scientific
> >> reasoning.
>
> >> 3) Intuitionistic mathematics is much closer to being a formalization
> >> of scientific reasoning than Cantorian mathematics.
>
> >> 4) An especially important idea that is missing from current
> >> mathematics is the idea of falsifiability. A falsifiable statement is
> >> a statement that makes predictions of the outcomes of feasible
> >> experiments, and in mathematics, those experiments will be
> >> computational experiments. And what I'm suggesting is that we should
> >> equate "meaningful" with "falsifiable".
>
>
> >> My claim is that those ideas should be taken into consideration when
> >> building a new foundation for mathematics.
>
> >> And furthermore, I believe that those ideas could (and should) be
> >> taught to college freshmen. And yet Messager and most of the
> >> participants in this newsgroup fail to grasp any of them. And Messager
> >> seems to be on a crusade to prevent those ideas from being even
> >> discussed.
>
> >> I'm a little puzzled about what's going on.
> > I think Alan Mackenzie has given a pretty [?good] explanation for why
> > people are so antagonistic to my ideas. It's because this is a very
> > emotional issue for mathematicians (many? most?). And the emotion
> > clouds their thinking.

> That's being very patronising.

This from the chief Patroniser! LMAO. You are an insignificant piece of shit Mackenzie. You know shit about mathematics.

> It is notable how you imply the negativity towards your ideas is somehow the "fault" of mathematicians
> rather than of yourself.

I am the only real mathematician on this newsgroup and while I do not agree with all of David's views, I am honest in pointing out where I do agree with him.

> If you abuse people in pretty much any circumstances, they will act negatively towards you.

The ONLY language that YOU and cranks like YOU understand, is the language of abuse.

> > And it seems that there are few if any mathematicians with status in
> > the mathematics community who can see beyond the clouds.
> That's crank-talk.

Nonsense.

**** A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****

> The negativity towards your ideas is due to the
> negativity of those ideas. You are not seeing further than pure
> mathematicians - you want instead to prevent them seeing too far. Yet
> you seem unable to recognise your negativity as a fault.

Typical crank projection.

>
> Why?
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 09:27:34 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 1:34:46 PM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > David Petry <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 9:46:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > [ .... ]
> > > I have to thank you for your response, but I wonder to what extent you
> > > speak for all mathematicians.
> > I would think I speak for quite a few, though obviously not all.
> > > I mean, me suggesting that the purpose of mathematics is to provide a
> > > conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world is insulting
> > > and offensive???
> > It's an obvious falsehood. The purpose of maths is to extend
> > mathematical knowledge, regardless of any application to the real world
> > (whatever that is). Just consider what message you're sending to pure
> > mathematicians about their work. How can that message not be offensive?
> Alan, the lightweight of math, pontificating, when he is in the wrong career. Alan should have gone into banking or accounting for math is beyond his IQ.
>
> The purpose of math is it is a subset of Physics, where atoms have shape and size, hence comes geometry into existence. And because atoms are numerous in quantity, therefore comes into existance numbers and algebra. The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
>
> The world does not need a half pint piss head fool of math like Alan pontificating in sci.math.
>
> Go to alt.math, Alan, where you will be at home.

mathematics is not part of physics you fucking idiot

>I am the only real mathematician on this newsgroup

Nope, you're not a mathematician AT ALL. You are as much a mathematician as flat earthers are physicists and creationists are biologists.

>The ONLY language that YOU and cranks like YOU understand, is the language of abuse.

The crank is you, archie, WM and David here.

>Nonsense.

It is very much in line with crankery.

"Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."

Learn what crank means.

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 01:20:33 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 09:27:34 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> > On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 1:34:46 PM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > David Petry <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 9:46:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > [ .... ]
> > > > I have to thank you for your response, but I wonder to what extent you
> > > > speak for all mathematicians.
> > > I would think I speak for quite a few, though obviously not all.
> > > > I mean, me suggesting that the purpose of mathematics is to provide a
> > > > conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world is insulting
> > > > and offensive???
> > > It's an obvious falsehood. The purpose of maths is to extend
> > > mathematical knowledge, regardless of any application to the real world
> > > (whatever that is). Just consider what message you're sending to pure
> > > mathematicians about their work. How can that message not be offensive?
> > Alan, the lightweight of math, pontificating, when he is in the wrong career. Alan should have gone into banking or accounting for math is beyond his IQ.
> >
> > The purpose of math is it is a subset of Physics, where atoms have shape and size, hence comes geometry into existence. And because atoms are numerous in quantity, therefore comes into existance numbers and algebra. The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> >
> > The world does not need a half pint piss head fool of math like Alan pontificating in sci.math.
> >
> > Go to alt.math, Alan, where you will be at home.
> mathematics is not part of physics you fucking idiot

I'm curious... there is a moderated sci.math.research group - one that crank Dan Christensen was kicked off. Why don't you go there?

You'll only ever be ridiculed on sci.math, but who knows, sci.math.research group also have certificates of memorisation in mainstream mythmatics. You'll fit right in with your fellow cranks!

**** A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****

Stop wasting your time here.

Buh, bye!