I have my doubts that you've done "work" but that is unimportant. The question was not and is not your persona and what it did and did not do in life. I addressed a completely nonsensical statement you've made. In reply you've brought everything you could possibly name without even an attempt at reasoning; mo implications, just new claims, no matter how unrelated. The level of logic you exhibited is below that of a sophomore: you don't know that that you don't know. I am referring to what you wrote in the posts on this thread and nothing more. If outside of this thread you exhibit brilliant logical abilities, your "work" in number theory won you the Fields medal and your "work" in mathematical economics won you a Nobel --- I am only happy for you.
But this is my last attempt to clarify the issue: I am not interested in your persona and care little about your Fields medal and your Nobel prize. Here, on this thread you posed a totally nonsensical claim and when asked to support it only made more nonsensical claims. Moving the target in a discussion is the last resort of a scoundrel.
Should you decide to be intellectually honest on some other thread, let's have a discussion. But this one is over.
Ah, yes the great droning of the never wrong TopQuack, looking down his crooked nose at others while he ignores that fact he is what he accuses others of being.
Should you decide to be intellectually honest...blah, blah, blah. I am sorry that my definitions cloud your ability to think. I’ve tried and cannot help you any further. Because you are an arrogant pin head who can’t see past his own bias.
Here is the one question you won’t answer because you are too dumb,
How is debt slavery capitalism?
Go to sleep, your brain cells don’t work.
Commie
Ok, it can be over, but, of course, you said you had no more time for this exchange last time. Do remember that you were the one who tried to impress the unsophisticated by dragging in math that had little or no application to the article as written, evidently in an atempt to deflect criticism from something that was poorly argued and researched. Your attempt to mischaracterize what I said in the last post indicates a fragile ego. One doesn’t have to have a Nobel (although none is given in math, which you ought to know)or a Fields medal to have done work in the areas I mentioned. In fact, you will find that there are quite a few on this board who have a background or profession that renders them immune from being bullied by a few phrases from some area of math or physics, for example. Talking about “partially ordered sets” might work to amaze the natives and silence people at DU, but not so much here.
As for your position, I leave it to others to decide whether they agree that the article’s claims outran its evidence and analysis by miles. In any event, I look forward to your next last post.