Skip to comments.
When is a proof? (A**-Clown, Double Barf Bag ALert, CODE RED)
Mathematics Association of America ^
| 1 June 2003
| Keith Devlin
Posted on 02/23/2004 1:50:49 PM PST by .cnI redruM
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: Dr. Frank fan; Luke Skyfreeper; .cnI redruM
I have to write a MathTest this afternoon, I guess I'll see if a I can pose some left wing questions to the students.
21
posted on
02/23/2004 2:37:16 PM PST
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
To: Dr. Frank fan
Would that include the part where he says, "Like right wing policies, for all that it appeals to individuals who crave certitude in life, the right wing definition of mathematical proof is an unrealistic ideal that does not survive the first contact with the real world."? OK, I'll grant there's a definite "lean" to that part of the article.
It still doesn't amount to anything near a super-gaggo mega-upchuck barf alert.
22
posted on
02/23/2004 2:38:25 PM PST
by
Luke Skyfreeper
(Michael <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php">miserable failure</a>Moore)
To: Luke Skyfreeper
My point is this. You don't have to be a lefty to effectively think in subjective terms. Sometimes that is a necessity, and we can do it just as well as the lefties.
23
posted on
02/23/2004 2:39:26 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(At the end of the day, information has finite value and may only come at a significant price.)
To: .cnI redruM
My point is this. You don't have to be a lefty to effectively think in subjective terms. Sometimes that is a necessity, and we can do it just as well as the lefties.Well, I don't have any judgment on that. My point is more basic: generally speaking, conservatives think, and liberals feeeeeeeeeeeel.
A difference in quality of policies generally results.
24
posted on
02/23/2004 2:42:09 PM PST
by
Luke Skyfreeper
(Michael <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php">miserable failure</a>Moore)
To: Luke Skyfreeper
It ["right wing policies" crack] still doesn't amount to anything near a super-gaggo mega-upchuck barf alert. If you say so. Your mileage may vary, of course. But I do think people can be forgiven for taking umbrage at it.
As for myself, again, all I'm saying is that it made me roll my eyes. Honestly I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they can't keep stuff like that out of what purports to be a serious essay on mathematics. But that's just the mathematician in me speaking, perhaps....
To: .cnI redruM
Uhhh....dude...could you repeat that?
To: sirshackleton
Eviscerate at your leisure. There is plenty here worthy of fulsome contempt.
27
posted on
02/23/2004 2:46:05 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(At the end of the day, information has finite value and may only come at a significant price.)
To: sirshackleton
BTW, Spicolli rules...
28
posted on
02/23/2004 2:47:42 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(At the end of the day, information has finite value and may only come at a significant price.)
To: .cnI redruM
There is plenty here worthy of fulsome contempt.Your juvenile ad-libbed title is a good place to start.
To: .cnI redruM
I disagree with the particulars of his 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' descriptions -- he seems to be equating them with 'concrete' and 'abstract', respectively, more than the 'perfect-to-the-letter' and 'warm fuzzy' way he describes them. I will say, though, that as a right-winger I feel uncomfortable espousing any position if I cannot document a methodical, objective means of supporting it, rather than mere intuition.
30
posted on
02/23/2004 2:48:45 PM PST
by
Sloth
(We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
To: ShadowDancer
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it.
31
posted on
02/23/2004 2:49:53 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(At the end of the day, information has finite value and may only come at a significant price.)
To: .cnI redruM
Is this the reason why cartoonist Aaron MacGruder can say, "I believe that Condi Rice is a murderer, therefore I can call her a murderer?"
-PJ
To: sjmiller
>
As time is finite, often one reads papers and says "that statement seems plausible", and one keeps reading.
Well, this is something
Wolfram's "New Kind of Science"
might contribute to.
An algorithmic
approach to reality
becomes "testable" --
become provable --
simply in execution.
Programs run, or don't.
They do exactly
what they're supposed to do, or
they don't. By building
his foundational
thinking on programs, and then
making them public,
"proof" becomes, kind of,
implicit in the "thinking."
"New" science, new "proofs" . . .
To: Political Junkie Too
Not only that, but according to Dr. Devlin, Aaron MacGruder can mathematically prove it.
34
posted on
02/23/2004 2:51:49 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(At the end of the day, information has finite value and may only come at a significant price.)
To: .cnI redruM
It's left wing "logic" like this that gives me a headache. Excuse me while I get an excedrin and a martini.
35
posted on
02/23/2004 2:52:39 PM PST
by
timydnuc
("Give me Liberty, or give me death"!)
To: Luke Skyfreeper
My point is more basic: generally speaking, conservatives think, and liberals feeeeeeeeeeeel. True, and I'm sure that more math profs would be politically conservative than artsy types; but in turn, more engineering profs would be politically conservative than the pure math or physics guys... because in engineering, it actually *matters* whether you're right or not. We don't live in a perfect, frictionless world, and engineers have to be aware of that. Similarly, public policy does not take place in a perfect world of the best intentions and common interests -- human nature & self-interest introduce other variables.
36
posted on
02/23/2004 2:54:48 PM PST
by
Sloth
(We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
To: Luke Skyfreeper
It's like trying to disprove |2|+|2|=|4|.
37
posted on
02/23/2004 2:55:23 PM PST
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :)
To: Political Junkie Too
Further comments.
Conservatives tend to be constrained by and adhere to objective truth; for liberals, truth is whatever furthers their agenda.
And thinking is a better basis on which to formulate policy than emotion. It gets better results.
38
posted on
02/23/2004 2:56:26 PM PST
by
Luke Skyfreeper
(Michael <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php">miserable failure</a>Moore)
To: .cnI redruM
In left-wing mathematics, on the other hand, proofs are unnecessary: just build a bomb in the privacy of your Montana cabin and mail it to those who hold opposing hypotheses. Ammonium nitrate beats logic anytime.
To: BlazingArizona
Ammonium nitrate beats logic anytime.Not true; else the pen would not be mightier than the sword.
Of course, the pen is often used to simply stir up emotion.
So perhaps emotion beats ammonium nitrate.
Whatever.
40
posted on
02/23/2004 2:59:19 PM PST
by
Luke Skyfreeper
(Michael <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php">miserable failure</a>Moore)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson