A few weeks ago, crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote:

> it is quite
> shamefull to mix David Petry and Henri Poincaré. David Petry is
> a complete crank, ... there is no doubt that if he [Poincare] had
> known later development he would have change his mind on Set
> Theory ...

It won't surprise anyone to hear me say that what Jean Pierre Messager
said is absolute pathetic rubbish. The question is, what motivates him
to be so nasty, arrogant and intolerant. He won't tell us.

But a few mathematicians have been forthright in telling me why
mathematicians are so resistant to the ideas I have been promoting.
It's racism! Possibly "tribalism" would more accurate.

Now might be a good time to discuss this issue, since a lot of people on
the radical left are accusing the mathematics community of being
racist and white supremacist (do a google search if you doubt that). I
simply don't know if the racism at the top of the pyramid translates down
to racism at the bottom, so I won't discuss that.

Briefly, here's the idea I have been promoting: there's a strong connection
between artificial intelligence and mathematics. Mathematics provides us
with a conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world, and the
whole point of artificial intelligence is to have computers reason about the
real world.

But there's more than that to artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence
will be self-aware. It will have model of itself. It will understand that it lives
inside a computer, and that that computer will be finite. It will understand
that it has an obligation to come up with answers in a timely manner. It will
know that when reasoning about the real world, it must always take
uncertainty into consideration. And it must be able to identify and eliminate
viruses.

So what I have always wanted to do is to build a foundation for mathematics
that will also serve as a complete foundation for artificial intelligence. And I
like to point out that this foundation would also be adequate for the
mathematics that is relevant to science and technology. And one conclusion that I think is forced, is that Cantor's theory of infinite sets
will be seen as a virus from the point of view of that foundation.

So that's an idea that I wanted to explore when I was in graduate school,
and it's something I have been promoting and trying to start a discussion
about in this newsgroup (sci.math). And the response I get? I'm told that
I'm a stupid, delusional, Nazi crank! (At least, that's the response I get in
this newsgroup. People were not so rude when I was in graduate school)

So a few mathematicians have explained to me why mathematicians are so
resistant to the idea. It's because some mathematicians see it as a threat
to their tribe. They believe that I must have evil intentions. They can't see it
any other way. And that's "tribalism", if not outright racism.

So, it might be a good idea to think about what I have said.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:08:40 AM UTC-8, david...@gmail.com wrote:
> A few weeks ago, crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote:
>
> > it is quite
> > shamefull to mix David Petry and Henri Poincaré. David Petry is
> > a complete crank, ... there is no doubt that if he [Poincare] had
> > known later development he would have change his mind on Set
> > Theory ...
>
>
> It won't surprise anyone to hear me say that what Jean Pierre Messager
> said is absolute pathetic rubbish. The question is, what motivates him
> to be so nasty, arrogant and intolerant. He won't tell us.
>
> But a few mathematicians have been forthright in telling me why
> mathematicians are so resistant to the ideas I have been promoting.
> It's racism! Possibly "tribalism" would more accurate.
>
> Now might be a good time to discuss this issue, since a lot of people on
> the radical left are accusing the mathematics community of being
> racist and white supremacist (do a google search if you doubt that). I
> simply don't know if the racism at the top of the pyramid translates down
> to racism at the bottom, so I won't discuss that.
>
> Briefly, here's the idea I have been promoting: there's a strong connection
> between artificial intelligence and mathematics. Mathematics provides us
> with a conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world, and the
> whole point of artificial intelligence is to have computers reason about the
> real world.
>
> But there's more than that to artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence
> will be self-aware. It will have model of itself. It will understand that it lives
> inside a computer, and that that computer will be finite. It will understand
> that it has an obligation to come up with answers in a timely manner. It will
> know that when reasoning about the real world, it must always take
> uncertainty into consideration. And it must be able to identify and eliminate
> viruses.
>
> So what I have always wanted to do is to build a foundation for mathematics
> that will also serve as a complete foundation for artificial intelligence.. And I
> like to point out that this foundation would also be adequate for the
> mathematics that is relevant to science and technology. And one conclusion that I think is forced, is that Cantor's theory of infinite sets
> will be seen as a virus from the point of view of that foundation.
>
> So that's an idea that I wanted to explore when I was in graduate school,
> and it's something I have been promoting and trying to start a discussion
> about in this newsgroup (sci.math). And the response I get? I'm told that
> I'm a stupid, delusional, Nazi crank! (At least, that's the response I get in
> this newsgroup. People were not so rude when I was in graduate school)
>
>
> So a few mathematicians have explained to me why mathematicians are so
> resistant to the idea. It's because some mathematicians see it as a threat
> to their tribe. They believe that I must have evil intentions. They can't see it
> any other way. And that's "tribalism", if not outright racism.
>
> So, it might be a good idea to think about what I have said.

You're a racist...

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:11:29 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> You're a racist...

That's why I post in this newsgroup. Intelligent feedback, good conversation,
stuff like that.

On 12/11/2021 12:08 PM, David Petry wrote:
>
> A few weeks ago, crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote:
>
> > it is quite
>> shamefull to mix David Petry and Henri Poincaré. David Petry is
>> a complete crank, ... there is no doubt that if he [Poincare] had
>> known later development he would have change his mind on Set
>> Theory ...
>
>
> It won't surprise anyone to hear me say that what Jean Pierre Messager
> said is absolute pathetic rubbish. The question is, what motivates him
> to be so nasty, arrogant and intolerant. He won't tell us.
>
> But a few mathematicians have been forthright in telling me why
> mathematicians are so resistant to the ideas I have been promoting.
> It's racism! Possibly "tribalism" would more accurate.
>
> Now might be a good time to discuss this issue, since a lot of people on
> the radical left are accusing the mathematics community of being
> racist and white supremacist (do a google search if you doubt that). I
> simply don't know if the racism at the top of the pyramid translates down
> to racism at the bottom, so I won't discuss that.
>
> Briefly, here's the idea I have been promoting: there's a strong connection
> between artificial intelligence and mathematics. Mathematics provides us
> with a conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world, and the
> whole point of artificial intelligence is to have computers reason about the
> real world.
>
> But there's more than that to artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence
> will be self-aware. It will have model of itself. It will understand that it lives
> inside a computer, and that that computer will be finite. It will understand
> that it has an obligation to come up with answers in a timely manner. It will
> know that when reasoning about the real world, it must always take
> uncertainty into consideration. And it must be able to identify and eliminate
> viruses.
>
> So what I have always wanted to do is to build a foundation for mathematics
> that will also serve as a complete foundation for artificial intelligence. And I
> like to point out that this foundation would also be adequate for the
> mathematics that is relevant to science and technology. And one conclusion that I think is forced, is that Cantor's theory of infinite sets
> will be seen as a virus from the point of view of that foundation.
>
> So that's an idea that I wanted to explore when I was in graduate school,
> and it's something I have been promoting and trying to start a discussion
> about in this newsgroup (sci.math). And the response I get? I'm told that
> I'm a stupid, delusional, Nazi crank! (At least, that's the response I get in
> this newsgroup. People were not so rude when I was in graduate school)
>
>
> So a few mathematicians have explained to me why mathematicians are so
> resistant to the idea. It's because some mathematicians see it as a threat
> to their tribe. They believe that I must have evil intentions. They can't see it
> any other way. And that's "tribalism", if not outright racism.
>
> So, it might be a good idea to think about what I have said.
>
>
>

why do you have evil intentions ?

On 12/11/2021 12:23 PM, David Petry wrote:
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:11:29 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You're a racist...
>
>
> That's why I post in this newsgroup. Intelligent feedback, good conversation,
> stuff like that.
>

agree!

Those that do not believe in negative quantities, are ones who believe that there are no vampires, just humans with fake teeth...

Utter crank, David Petry wrote:
>
> A few weeks ago, crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote:
>
> > it is quite
>> shamefull to mix David Petry and Henri Poincaré. David Petry is
>> a complete crank, ... there is no doubt that if he [Poincare] had
>> known later development he would have change his mind on Set
>> Theory ...
>
>
> It won't surprise anyone to hear me say that what Jean Pierre Messager
> said is absolute pathetic rubbish. The question is, what motivates him
> to be so nasty, arrogant and intolerant. He won't tell us.

Nothing rubbish. You are a crank who found an pathetic excuse for
your failure in math, while constructive mathematics was, and still
is, a vibrant field of research you deliberately ignored in favor
of endless whining.

Poincaré is a brilliant mind with incredible insight in math and
physics, even if he was wrong about Set Theory.

Pointing out that quoting you and him in the same message is a
disgusting shame is not "racism", you pathetic crank. Well, it
came from Wolfgang Mückenheim, who is also a crank.

> [snip rest of dementia and rant]

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:49:52 PM UTC-8, Python (Jean Pierre Messager) wrote:

> ... constructive mathematics was, and still
> is, a vibrant field of research you deliberately ignored

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that the constructivists are doing (or have done) what I wanted to do (i.e. to create a foundation for mathematics that also serves as a complete foundation or artificial intelligence). And also that I have ignored constructive mathematics.

Well, I believe you're simply wrong on both counts.

> [snip rest of dementia and rant]

Well guess what. I strongly suspect that you are suffering from severe mental illness.

David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

> But a few mathematicians have been forthright in telling me why
> mathematicians are so resistant to the ideas I have been promoting.
> It's racism! Possibly "tribalism" would more accurate.

"Racism" is hyperbole at best. Unless you're in a repressed racial
group, and that's the reason.

> Now might be a good time to discuss this issue, since a lot of people
> on the radical left are accusing the mathematics community of being
> racist and white supremacist (do a google search if you doubt that). I
> simply don't know if the racism at the top of the pyramid translates
> down to racism at the bottom, so I won't discuss that.

Or, just perhaps, mathematics transcends and is orthogonal to these
political notions. Whatever "a lot of people" means. Probably not a
one of them is mathematically clueful.

> Briefly, here's the idea I have been promoting: there's a strong
> connection between artificial intelligence and mathematics.
> Mathematics provides us with a conceptual framework for reasoning
> about the real world, and the whole point of artificial intelligence
> is to have computers reason about the real world.

Sounds very vague and questionable.

> But there's more than that to artificial intelligence. An artificial
> intelligence will be self-aware.

A very dubious claim. Consciousness, self-awareness, is not understood
at all. There is no test for consciousness in existence that could be
applied to a machine, and no such test even conceivable.

> It will have model of itself. It will understand that it lives inside
> a computer, and that that computer will be finite. It will understand
> that it has an obligation to come up with answers in a timely manner.
> It will know that when reasoning about the real world, it must always
> take uncertainty into consideration. And it must be able to identify
> and eliminate viruses.

OK, perhaps. That has little to do with mathematics as such.

> So what I have always wanted to do is to build a foundation for
> mathematics that will also serve as a complete foundation for
> artificial intelligence.

Why haven't you just gone ahead and done this? What was and is stopping
you?

> And I like to point out that this foundation would also be adequate
> for the mathematics that is relevant to science and technology. And
> one conclusion that I think is forced, is that Cantor's theory of
> infinite sets will be seen as a virus from the point of view of that
> foundation.

And now we get down to the nub. You dislike set theory so much, that
you weave a complicated web of rationalisation around that dislike,
probably just pretending to be interested in alternative foundations.

> So that's an idea that I wanted to explore when I was in graduate
> school, and it's something I have been promoting and trying to start a
> discussion about in this newsgroup (sci.math).

If you came up with some results first, people might take you more
seriously.

> And the response I get? I'm told that I'm a stupid, delusional, Nazi
> crank! (At least, that's the response I get in this newsgroup.
> People were not so rude when I was in graduate school)

Yet you were and are rude. You were telling mathematicians way back
then that their entire discipline was flawed. You're still saying that,
and it appears that the reason is no more than your dislike of set
theory.

> So a few mathematicians have explained to me why mathematicians are so
> resistant to the idea. It's because some mathematicians see it as a
> threat to their tribe. They believe that I must have evil intentions.
> They can't see it any other way. And that's "tribalism", if not
> outright racism.

These are the outpourings of a crank. No mathematicians see any
"threat", or anything like that, any more than they do from the work of
John Gabriel. What they see is a fruitless distraction from serious
mathematics, which they understandably don't want to get caught up in.

If you came up with some interesting and solid results, things might be
different. When are you going to come up with these results?

> So, it might be a good idea to think about what I have said.

I have done. I'm not entirely convinced is was a good idea, though.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On 12/13/2021 3:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> But a few mathematicians have been forthright in telling me why
>> mathematicians are so resistant to the ideas I have been promoting.
>> It's racism! Possibly "tribalism" would more accurate.
>
> "Racism" is hyperbole at best. Unless you're in a repressed racial
> group, and that's the reason.
>
>> Now might be a good time to discuss this issue, since a lot of people
>> on the radical left are accusing the mathematics community of being
>> racist and white supremacist (do a google search if you doubt that). I
>> simply don't know if the racism at the top of the pyramid translates
>> down to racism at the bottom, so I won't discuss that.
>
> Or, just perhaps, mathematics transcends and is orthogonal to these
> political notions. Whatever "a lot of people" means. Probably not a
> one of them is mathematically clueful.
>
>> Briefly, here's the idea I have been promoting: there's a strong
>> connection between artificial intelligence and mathematics.
>> Mathematics provides us with a conceptual framework for reasoning
>> about the real world, and the whole point of artificial intelligence
>> is to have computers reason about the real world.
>
> Sounds very vague and questionable.
>
>> But there's more than that to artificial intelligence. An artificial
>> intelligence will be self-aware.
>
> A very dubious claim. Consciousness, self-awareness, is not understood
> at all. There is no test for consciousness in existence that could be
> applied to a machine, and no such test even conceivable.
>
>> It will have model of itself. It will understand that it lives inside
>> a computer, and that that computer will be finite. It will understand
>> that it has an obligation to come up with answers in a timely manner.
>> It will know that when reasoning about the real world, it must always
>> take uncertainty into consideration. And it must be able to identify
>> and eliminate viruses.
>
> OK, perhaps. That has little to do with mathematics as such.
>
>> So what I have always wanted to do is to build a foundation for
>> mathematics that will also serve as a complete foundation for
>> artificial intelligence.
>
> Why haven't you just gone ahead and done this? What was and is stopping
> you?
>
>> And I like to point out that this foundation would also be adequate
>> for the mathematics that is relevant to science and technology. And
>> one conclusion that I think is forced, is that Cantor's theory of
>> infinite sets will be seen as a virus from the point of view of that
>> foundation.
>
> And now we get down to the nub. You dislike set theory so much, that
> you weave a complicated web of rationalisation around that dislike,
> probably just pretending to be interested in alternative foundations.
>
>> So that's an idea that I wanted to explore when I was in graduate
>> school, and it's something I have been promoting and trying to start a
>> discussion about in this newsgroup (sci.math).
>
> If you came up with some results first, people might take you more
> seriously.
>
>> And the response I get? I'm told that I'm a stupid, delusional, Nazi
>> crank! (At least, that's the response I get in this newsgroup.
>> People were not so rude when I was in graduate school)
>
> Yet you were and are rude. You were telling mathematicians way back
> then that their entire discipline was flawed. You're still saying that,
> and it appears that the reason is no more than your dislike of set
> theory.
>
>> So a few mathematicians have explained to me why mathematicians are so
>> resistant to the idea. It's because some mathematicians see it as a
>> threat to their tribe. They believe that I must have evil intentions.
>> They can't see it any other way. And that's "tribalism", if not
>> outright racism.
>
> These are the outpourings of a crank. No mathematicians see any
> "threat", or anything like that, any more than they do from the work of
> John Gabriel. What they see is a fruitless distraction from serious
> mathematics, which they understandably don't want to get caught up in.
>
> If you came up with some interesting and solid results, things might be
> different. When are you going to come up with these results?
>
>> So, it might be a good idea to think about what I have said.
>
> I have done. I'm not entirely convinced is was a good idea, though.
>

agree. its only a good idea if ones has a lot of spare time, and is in an institution for his safety.

lördag 11 december 2021 kl. 19:08:40 UTC+1 skrev david...@gmail.com:
> A few weeks ago, crank Jean Pierre Messager wrote:
>
> > it is quite
> > shamefull to mix David Petry and Henri Poincaré. David Petry is
> > a complete crank, ... there is no doubt that if he [Poincare] had
> > known later development he would have change his mind on Set
> > Theory ...
>
>
> It won't surprise anyone to hear me say that what Jean Pierre Messager
> said is absolute pathetic rubbish. The question is, what motivates him
> to be so nasty, arrogant and intolerant. He won't tell us.
>
> But a few mathematicians have been forthright in telling me why
> mathematicians are so resistant to the ideas I have been promoting.
> It's racism! Possibly "tribalism" would more accurate.
>
> Now might be a good time to discuss this issue, since a lot of people on
> the radical left are accusing the mathematics community of being
> racist and white supremacist (do a google search if you doubt that). I
> simply don't know if the racism at the top of the pyramid translates down
> to racism at the bottom, so I won't discuss that.
>
> Briefly, here's the idea I have been promoting: there's a strong connection
> between artificial intelligence and mathematics. Mathematics provides us
> with a conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world, and the
> whole point of artificial intelligence is to have computers reason about the
> real world.
>
> But there's more than that to artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence
> will be self-aware. It will have model of itself. It will understand that it lives
> inside a computer, and that that computer will be finite. It will understand
> that it has an obligation to come up with answers in a timely manner. It will
> know that when reasoning about the real world, it must always take
> uncertainty into consideration. And it must be able to identify and eliminate
> viruses.
>
> So what I have always wanted to do is to build a foundation for mathematics
> that will also serve as a complete foundation for artificial intelligence.. And I
> like to point out that this foundation would also be adequate for the
> mathematics that is relevant to science and technology. And one conclusion that I think is forced, is that Cantor's theory of infinite sets
> will be seen as a virus from the point of view of that foundation.
>
> So that's an idea that I wanted to explore when I was in graduate school,
> and it's something I have been promoting and trying to start a discussion
> about in this newsgroup (sci.math). And the response I get? I'm told that
> I'm a stupid, delusional, Nazi crank! (At least, that's the response I get in
> this newsgroup. People were not so rude when I was in graduate school)
>
>
> So a few mathematicians have explained to me why mathematicians are so
> resistant to the idea. It's because some mathematicians see it as a threat
> to their tribe. They believe that I must have evil intentions. They can't see it
> any other way. And that's "tribalism", if not outright racism.
>
> So, it might be a good idea to think about what I have said.

People are histoile toward you because you are a crank that demonstrably knows NOTHING about mathematics.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:16:50 PM UTC-8, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:

> People are histoile toward you because you are a crank that demonstrably knows NOTHING about mathematics.

There are two kinds of mathematics:

1) Mathematics is a conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world (i.e. mathematics is the language of science)

I know a lot about that kind of mathematics, and I'd like to know everything there is to know about it.

2) Mathematics is the game that mathematicians have chosen to play, and currently it is grounded in Cantor's theory of infinite sets.

I know more about that kind of mathematics than I really want to know.

Now why don't you (Zelos) show us how you can demonstrate that I know nothing about mathematics.

On 12/16/2021 2:05 PM, David Petry wrote:

> There are two kinds of mathematics:
>
> 1) Mathematics is a conceptual framework for reasoning
> about the real world
> (i.e. mathematics is the language of science)
>
> I know

I'm just not interested in reading what you claim to know.
I'm sure you know what it's like when you're not interested.
What do you (DP) do then?

> 2) Mathematics is the game that mathematicians have
> chosen to play, and currently it is grounded in
> Cantor's theory of infinite sets.
>
> I know

I'm just not interested in reading what you claim to know.
I'm sure you know what it's like when you're not interested.
What do you (DP) do then?

Do you (DP) intend to claim that there is no overlap
between "the game that mathematicians have chosen to
play" and "a conceptual framework for reasoning
about the real world"?

If you intend to claim that, are you planning to
support your claim at some point in the future?

( Note the difference between supporting a claim
( and insisting on everyone agreeing with you before
( you countenance addressing their points.

> Now why don't you (Zelos) show us how you can
> demonstrate that I know nothing about mathematics.

The point you are making seems to be that Zelos has
no way of knowing whether you are only _pretending_
to be a dumbass.

Consider that, from the point of view of someone
reading your posts, "being a dumbass" and "pretending
to be a dumbass" is a distinction that does not matter.

I wonder why you (DP) are not taking the simpler route
of demonstrating you know something about mathematics.
(Just kidding. I don't wonder that.)

torsdag 16 december 2021 kl. 20:05:32 UTC+1 skrev david...@gmail.com:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:16:50 PM UTC-8, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > People are histoile toward you because you are a crank that demonstrably knows NOTHING about mathematics.
> There are two kinds of mathematics:
>
>
> 1) Mathematics is a conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world (i.e. mathematics is the language of science)
>
> I know a lot about that kind of mathematics, and I'd like to know everything there is to know about it.
>
>
> 2) Mathematics is the game that mathematicians have chosen to play, and currently it is grounded in Cantor's theory of infinite sets.
>
> I know more about that kind of mathematics than I really want to know.
>
>
> Now why don't you (Zelos) show us how you can demonstrate that I know nothing about mathematics.

>There are two kinds of mathematics:

Nope, there is one kind. Mathematics

>1) Mathematics is a conceptual framework for reasoning about the real world (i.e. mathematics is the language of science)

That is not mathematics, that is your idea and nothing else.

>I know a lot about that kind of mathematics, and I'd like to know everything there is to know about it.

That is not mathematics, it is your idea of how you want mathematics and no one is buying it.

>2) Mathematics is the game that mathematicians have chosen to play, and currently it is grounded in Cantor's theory of infinite sets.

Not even this is correct. :)
And you really do hate infinite sets huh?

>I know more about that kind of mathematics than I really want to know.

Yet you clearly know NOTHING about it.

>Now why don't you (Zelos) show us how you can demonstrate that I know nothing about mathematics.

Simple, you cannot provide actual proof, you cannot understand that you can have different branches of mathematics that works on different axioms and all are still equally valid (assuming neither has internal contradictions) and much much else.