NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS

Science > Physics > NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 4

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Nth Complexity"
Date:	09 Sep 2005 06:05:41 PM
Object:	NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

By the way, zero is usually taken to be both positive and
negative.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
And you expect to teach OTHERS?!
-- Nth Complexity --
-- Have A Nice Day! --
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/search.php?query=Uncle+Al
"The teaching of science and mathematics must be purged of its
authoritarian and elitist characteristics, and the content of these
subjects enriched by incorporating the insights of the feminist,
queer, multiculturalist and ecological critiques." -- A.D.S.

--
Sent by nth_complexity from yahoo included in com
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	11 Sep 2005 02:59:13 PM

Schoenfeld:

========================
Dirk,

As you know I requested some time ago for you to withdraw certain pages
about me from your personal ridicule site. You've recently decided to
put them up again. Unfortunately for your subjects, your site gets high
google page-rank (because it is linked to by various other sites) and
searches for those peoples names gives your pages first.

Or possibly it's popular for the same reason that websites like
rotten.com are popular. People find the contents hard to imagine without
seeing it for themselves. I know that I found it hard to believe that
anyone as logically challenged as androsleaze or stowe could be anything
but anomalies until I started reading this newsgroup.

This may not
be an issue to some people, but for me it is a very big issue. I'm not
sure how much you understand about e-commerce, but online consumers are
by default skeptical of [4 WORDS REMOVED]. Such consumers usually
perform quick [2 WORDS REMOVED] to validate whether or not such an [1
WORD REMOVED] is legitamit and whether or not to commit to the purchase
of that [1 WORD REMOVED].

There is an obvious solution to your dilemna: Think before
you post.

Now your site, by association to header page article links, implies
your subjects are mentally retarded, psychopaths, autistic, ignorant,
incompetent, etc.

I'm afraid I don't really see the problem. Dirk didn't fabricate any
of the contents of the articles and there are links to the original
posts. Look at it this way. Others (such as myself) might be inclined
to less charitable and leave nothing to implication. My opinion on
charitability notwithstanding, I've suggested the solution above.

Your site obviously has the potential to act as a *massive* deterant
to a [1 WORD REMOVED] I plan to [2 WORDS REMOVED] very soon. I am not
making this up, this is a legitamit issue.

There are several ways to look at that. (1) Think before you post.
(2) If being wrong is a real problem, then first make sure you're
right and then apply (1). (3) Don't try to impress anyone with how
much you know unless you know enough to be impressive. Then follow
up with (2). (4) Don't rely on some misguided belief that everyone
is too stupid know the difference between knowledge and *****.
Once your argument degenerates to quote mining (especially from
textbooks that most every physicist used for coursework or worse,
undergraduate textbooks), you've crossed the line. Trying to *****
someone is merely a verbose way to call him/her an idiot in a way
which is less appealing than merely stating it.

The point of this email is primarily to make you AWARE of the impliciations
of your defamatory pages.

This is the sort of thing that can be avoided by exercising option
(2) mentioned previously. There is nothing defamatory about those pages.
A little research in advance would have provided the standard of proof
(at least in the u.s.):
``For today's plaintiff to prevail in a defamation action, he must
prove publication of the defamatory statement, identification of
the plaintiff, falsity, defamatory content, injury and fault.''
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0004.html
See number (4) above. Rule number (5) Never ask for favors using
an implied and empty threat. It's likely to recieve the same sort
of consideration that cryptome.org gives that sort of thing: ``No
court order has ever been served; any order served will be published
here -- or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be published
if comical but otherwise ignored.''

Obviously, it would benefit me greatly for
you to take down all these pages about me as soon as possible - but in
doing so, the fair thing is to request you remove that entire section.
Please don't make me waste my time or your time or your ISP's time with
this. At the risk of sounding threatening, which I'm not trying to be,
if you don't withdraw such pages I'll need to pester your ISP until
these arguably defamatory and fiscally damaging pages are withdrawn.

Is there some impediment to the obvious solution?
---

==============================
NOTE: In the interest of maintaining ones business/geographic identity
anonymous from the ever increasing parade of internet lunatics and
psychopaths, certain key words removed.

You're a real man of principle, john... Your interest only extends
as far as maintaining your own anonymity. When it comes to anyone
else, your interest is in whether or not you think you can halt
your detractors by posting their personal information. Hypocrisy is
not the best way to convince anyone that your motivations are based
on principles.

I still hold to that e-mail, and am pleased you decided to withdraw
your pages ridiculing me (you aren't as gutless as I put you for).
Though, I still recommend that you withdraw all those pages, as IMO, it
only acts to strengthen the crackpot usenet mentality you so vehemetely
oppose.

I fail to see how posting some of the more outrages lapses in
logical thinking, common sense, etc., could possibly encourage
emulation. I find it hard to believe that lots of people will
read dirk's fumbles page and then say to themselves, ``I hope
I'm that smart someday.'' If so, then perhaps they should be
relocated to antarctica until evolution catches up.
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	11 Sep 2005 08:27:42 PM

Bilge wrote:

Schoenfeld:

No, Google's page rank algorithm treats the web as a graph and weighs
each node (web page) as function of the number of incoming edges (among
various other factors). I don't know if 'rotten.com' is popular, but
that's your business not mine. Although if you wanted my advice I would
say that if such material pleases you, seek psychiatric help ASAP.

There is an obvious solution to your dilemna: Think before
you post.

That's poetic.

Now your site, by association to header page article links, implies
your subjects are mentally retarded, psychopaths, autistic, ignorant,
incompetent, etc.

I'm afraid I don't really see the problem.

Well primarily because the e-mail was not directed to you, and
secondarily, because you're too busy stuffing your mind with the
mind-poison found at 'rotten.com'.
[...]

``For today's plaintiff to prevail in a defamation action, he must
prove publication of the defamatory statement, identification of
the plaintiff, falsity, defamatory content, injury and fault.''

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0004.html

See number (4) above. Rule number (5) Never ask for favors using
an implied and empty threat. It's likely to recieve the same sort
of consideration that cryptome.org gives that sort of thing: ``No
court order has ever been served; any order served will be published
here -- or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be published
if comical but otherwise ignored.''

I never made any threat, I specifically stated that I was not trying to
make threat. Also I don't think US law applies here.

Make a mental note (you'll need to get some paper first), in that email
I specifically stated the 'fair thing to do' was to remove all pages
even the ones not referring to me. Your statements are mere lies.

David, some people say you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are
not perfect but you are doing alright.
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	11 Sep 2005 08:34:46 PM

PS: I've never posted personal details of anyone (other than their
name, if and only if they've used their name publically) on usetnet or
the web. I have never ever sought to defame someone on the web, and any
suggestion otherwise are outright lies.
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	10 Sep 2005 11:15:07 AM

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1126368227.352206.323080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

As usual you got it all wrong.
I don't oppose crackpot usenet mentality. I study and enjoy it.
If these forums didn't have people like you, I woulnd't even
be here.

Take care and mind the gap.

Or don't - and twist your ankle again.
Your choice.
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	10 Sep 2005 06:19:30 PM

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1126368227.352206.323080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

As usual you got it all wrong.
I don't oppose crackpot usenet mentality. I study and enjoy it.
If these forums didn't have people like you, I woulnd't even
be here.

hint: if you wanted to study crackpots, you need only study a mirror.

Take care and mind the gap.

Or don't - and twist your ankle again.
Your choice.

See.

Dirk Vdm

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	10 Sep 2005 10:13:06 AM

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

If you consider commutative rings (e.g. integers) or ordered fields
(e.g. reals) there is the additive identity axiom:
There exists y such that for all x, x + y = x
This is entirely insufficient to imply a single unique additive
identity y, although this seems to be the universal interpretation.

The axiom as stated there does not immediately state that
the additive identity is unique; that is a consequence of
this together with other axioms. It is easy to see that
commutativity of addition implies that the additive inverse
is unique.

For suppose that y is an additive identity and
y' is an additive identity.

Then since y is an additive identity,

y' + y = y'

(adding y to anything leaves that thing unchanged)

and, since y' is an additive identity,

y + y' = y

(adding y' to anything leaves that thing unchanged).

Now we wheel out the commutativity of addition.

y' = y' + y = y + y' = y

So any two objects which have the defining property
of an additive identity must be equal. Or, to put
that in plainer language, the additive identity
is unique.

(You might even see presentations with uniqueness
in there are part of the definition. It's a matter
of taste.)

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.
For example:
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = 10" is true, but it implies
a different y for every x.
OTOH,
"there exists y for all x such that x + y = 10" is clearly false as no
such y exists for all x.
.

User: "Robert Low"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	10 Sep 2005 01:28:52 PM

Schoenfeld wrote:

Robert Low wrote:

So any two objects which have the defining property
of an additive identity must be equal. Or, to put
that in plainer language, the additive identity
is unique.

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
additive identity. Yep, there's nothing to beat understanding
the things you're trying to talk about.
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	10 Sep 2005 06:18:36 PM

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

Robert Low wrote:

So any two objects which have the defining property
of an additive identity must be equal. Or, to put
that in plainer language, the additive identity
is unique.

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
additive identity.

I'm glad you could read what I said (and then snip it).

Yep, there's nothing to beat understanding
the things you're trying to talk about.

Yeah, like constructing a sentence which carries meaning.
.

User: "Robert Low"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	11 Sep 2005 03:43:03 AM

Schoenfeld wrote:

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

Robert Low wrote:

So any two objects which have the defining property
of an additive identity must be equal. Or, to put
that in plainer language, the additive identity
is unique.

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
additive identity.

I'm glad you could read what I said (and then snip it).

Actually, what you wrote was

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such
that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

A little further down, you also wrote
something which might conceivably have
indicated that you realised it didn't
imply existence, but given your track
record of making elementary mistakes
I thought it was worth pointing
that out explicitly.
I'd neglected to take into account your
other track record of being indignant
and offensive whenever your elementary
mistakes are pointed out.
Good luck in your future investigations.
And goodbye.
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	11 Sep 2005 05:34:59 AM

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

Robert Low wrote:

So any two objects which have the defining property
of an additive identity must be equal. Or, to put
that in plainer language, the additive identity
is unique.

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
additive identity.

I'm glad you could read what I said (and then snip it).

Actually, what you wrote was

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such
that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

hint: you made the error not me.
Here are your words:
| Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
| additive identity.
Will you admit to your error?

I'd neglected to take into account your
other track record of being indignant
and offensive whenever your elementary
mistakes are pointed out.

And your snide remarks aren't indignant or offensive? If you follow the
thread, you'll find I only retaliate and never instigate. Girls play
tit-for-tat, I simply retaliate exponentially. An eye for a head,
girlie - sure it'll leave the world decapitated but only if someone's
left to observe it.

Good luck in your future investigations.

Thanks, girlie.

And goodbye.

Good riddance.
.

User: "Dik T. Winter"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 05:55:14 AM

In article <1126434899.901678.323670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

....

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
additive identity.

....

hint: you made the error not me.

Here are your words:
| Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
| additive identity.

Will you admit to your error?

Do you think that "for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
guarantees the existence of an additive identity?

I'd neglected to take into account your
other track record of being indignant
and offensive whenever your elementary
mistakes are pointed out.

Good luck in your future investigations.

Thanks, girlie.

And goodbye.

Good riddance.

--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 07:55:42 AM

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126434899.901678.323670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

...

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
additive identity.

...

hint: you made the error not me.

Here are your words:
| Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
| additive identity.

Will you admit to your error?

Do you think that "for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
guarantees the existence of an additive identity?

As dirk would say, "in mathematics learn to be precise".
Axiom: Additive Identity
for all x there exists y such that x + y = x
guarantees an additive identity.

I'd neglected to take into account your
other track record of being indignant
and offensive whenever your elementary
mistakes are pointed out.

Good luck in your future investigations.

Thanks, girlie.

And goodbye.

Good riddance.

--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

User: "Dik T. Winter"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 08:39:54 AM

In article <1126529741.963349.218730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126434899.901678.323670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

...

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
additive identity.

...

hint: you made the error not me.

Here are your words:
| Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
| additive identity.

Will you admit to your error?

Do you think that "for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
guarantees the existence of an additive identity?

As dirk would say, "in mathematics learn to be precise".

Axiom: Additive Identity
for all x there exists y such that x + y = x
guarantees an additive identity.

Nope. The axiom is "there is an y such that for all x: x + y = x".
Something slightly different.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 09:49:50 AM

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126529741.963349.218730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126434899.901678.323670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Robert Low wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

...

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was thinking
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x" which doesn't guarantee
uniqueness at all.

Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
additive identity.

...

hint: you made the error not me.

Here are your words:
| Indeed, it doesn't even guarantee the existence of an
| additive identity.

Will you admit to your error?

Do you think that "for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
guarantees the existence of an additive identity?

As dirk would say, "in mathematics learn to be precise".

Axiom: Additive Identity
for all x there exists y such that x + y = x
guarantees an additive identity.

Nope. The axiom is "there is an y such that for all x: x + y = x".
Something slightly different.

Is that your way of dodging an error you made but tacticly did not
explicitly write?
The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
defines an additive identity for all x.
Your error was assuming that no such y existed because no such number
exists, but to get numbers you need a ring and the axiom above is not
compatable with that of a ring.
At least you were smarter than the coward Robert Low, and did not
explicitly state the error you were thinking.

--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

User: "Dik T. Winter"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 04:42:39 PM

In article <1126536590.827962.49680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

....

Axiom: Additive Identity
for all x there exists y such that x + y = x
guarantees an additive identity.

Nope. The axiom is "there is an y such that for all x: x + y = x".
Something slightly different.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c
For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

Your error was assuming that no such y existed because no such number
exists, but to get numbers you need a ring and the axiom above is not
compatable with that of a ring.

I am assuming nothing about numbers at all. I only look at the axiom
and sees that it does not define an additive identity.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 05:07:07 PM

"Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote in message news:IMq4B3.8ro@cwi.nl...

In article <1126536590.827962.49680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

...

Axiom: Additive Identity
for all x there exists y such that x + y = x
guarantees an additive identity.

Nope. The axiom is "there is an y such that for all x: x + y = x".
Something slightly different.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

Your error was assuming that no such y existed because no such number
exists, but to get numbers you need a ring and the axiom above is not
compatable with that of a ring.

I am assuming nothing about numbers at all. I only look at the axiom
and sees that it does not define an additive identity.

Of course not :-)
The statement
There is a y such that for all x: P(x,y)
merely implies the statement
For all x, there is a y such that P(x,y)
but not the other way around.
Finding a counterexample is always trivial.
But that is not at stake here.
You are now arguing with Schoenie about the definition
of "additive identity" because that is the only way he's got
left to save that little bit of face he thinks he surely must
have got left - somewhere down there ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 08:53:40 PM

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote in message news:IMq4B3.8ro@cwi.nl...

In article <1126536590.827962.49680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

...

Axiom: Additive Identity
for all x there exists y such that x + y = x
guarantees an additive identity.

Nope. The axiom is "there is an y such that for all x: x + y = x".
Something slightly different.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

Your error was assuming that no such y existed because no such number
exists, but to get numbers you need a ring and the axiom above is not
compatable with that of a ring.

I am assuming nothing about numbers at all. I only look at the axiom
and sees that it does not define an additive identity.

Of course not :-)
The statement
There is a y such that for all x: P(x,y)
merely implies the statement
For all x, there is a y such that P(x,y)
but not the other way around.
Finding a counterexample is always trivial.

But that is not at stake here.
You are now arguing with Schoenie about the definition
of "additive identity" because that is the only way he's got
left to save that little bit of face he thinks he surely must
have got left - somewhere down there ;-)

I explained to you already, i consider everyone here crackpots. I don't
care for your opinions (i mean seriously, you don't contribute anything
other than derision of others, at least I tried asking a question to
learn something and perhaps teach others as well). As I already told
you, I plan to leave these groups (after finishing of threads). I hope
I won't impact your crackpot study.

Dirk Vdm

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 08:51:37 PM

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126536590.827962.49680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

...

Axiom: Additive Identity
for all x there exists y such that x + y = x
guarantees an additive identity.

Nope. The axiom is "there is an y such that for all x: x + y = x".
Something slightly different.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

It is an additive identity by definition, the definition was for each x
there is y. That definition is not the same as there is y for each x.
If you DEFINE it the proper way (there is y for each x) then the
statement (for each x there is y) is a lemma NOT an AXIOM.

Your error was assuming that no such y existed because no such number
exists, but to get numbers you need a ring and the axiom above is not
compatable with that of a ring.

I am assuming nothing about numbers at all. I only look at the axiom
and sees that it does not define an additive identity.

It is the definition of the additive identity used in this case.
Will you admit your error ?

--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

User: "Dik T. Winter"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	13 Sep 2005 05:16:35 AM

In article <1126576297.288197.108240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

....

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
defines an additive identity for all x.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

It is an additive identity by definition, the definition was for each x
there is y.

What is the additive identity in the addition table above? In what
way does the addition table above fail the requirement: "for all x
there exists y such that x + y = x"?

Will you admit your error ?

When are you going to?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	13 Sep 2005 05:39:49 AM

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126576297.288197.108240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

...

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
defines an additive identity for all x.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

It is an additive identity by definition, the definition was for each x
there is y.

What is the additive identity in the addition table above? In what
way does the addition table above fail the requirement: "for all x
there exists y such that x + y = x"?

Your table has no relation to what I said. In fact, it doesn't even
have a relation to how additive identities are defined for
rings/groups/fields (another elementary error you've just made).
I'll repeat again, the AXIOM:
"Axiom: Additive Identity, for all x there exists y, x + y = x"
guarantees that an object 'y' exists for every single object 'x',
however the object 'y' is not an number.

Will you admit your error ?

When are you going to?

You have made the error, and in your attempt to cover it up, you have
made another error.

--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

User: "David Kastrup"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	13 Sep 2005 05:51:15 AM

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126576297.288197.108240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

...

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
defines an additive identity for all x.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

It is an additive identity by definition, the definition was for
each x there is y.

What is the additive identity in the addition table above? In what
way does the addition table above fail the requirement: "for all x
there exists y such that x + y = x"?

Your table has no relation to what I said. In fact, it doesn't even
have a relation to how additive identities are defined for
rings/groups/fields (another elementary error you've just made).

I'll repeat again, the AXIOM:
"Axiom: Additive Identity, for all x there exists y, x + y = x"

You got quantifier dyslexia, right?

guarantees that an object 'y' exists for every single object 'x',
however the object 'y' is not an number.

The word "number" as you use it is meaningless. Anyway, additive
identities are not something dependent on x. You got your quantifiers
wrong.
If you were able to read a simple table, you'd notice the difference.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	13 Sep 2005 05:57:07 AM

David Kastrup wrote:

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126576297.288197.108240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

...

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
defines an additive identity for all x.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

It is an additive identity by definition, the definition was for
each x there is y.

What is the additive identity in the addition table above? In what
way does the addition table above fail the requirement: "for all x
there exists y such that x + y = x"?

Your table has no relation to what I said. In fact, it doesn't even
have a relation to how additive identities are defined for
rings/groups/fields (another elementary error you've just made).

I'll repeat again, the AXIOM:
"Axiom: Additive Identity, for all x there exists y, x + y = x"

You got quantifier dyslexia, right?

You're as useless as rubber lips on a wood pecker.

guarantees that an object 'y' exists for every single object 'x',
however the object 'y' is not an number.

The word "number" as you use it is meaningless. Anyway, additive
identities are not something dependent on x. You got your quantifiers
wrong.

You're two letters off from being an asset to this thread.

If you were able to read a simple table, you'd notice the difference.

A guy with your IQ should have a low voice too.
hint: read properly.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

User: "David Kastrup"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	13 Sep 2005 06:47:49 AM

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

David Kastrup wrote:

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126576297.288197.108240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

...

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
defines an additive identity for all x.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

It is an additive identity by definition, the definition was for
each x there is y.

What is the additive identity in the addition table above? In what
way does the addition table above fail the requirement: "for all x
there exists y such that x + y = x"?

Your table has no relation to what I said. In fact, it doesn't even
have a relation to how additive identities are defined for
rings/groups/fields (another elementary error you've just made).

I'll repeat again, the AXIOM:
"Axiom: Additive Identity, for all x there exists y, x + y = x"

You got quantifier dyslexia, right?

You're as useless as rubber lips on a wood pecker.

guarantees that an object 'y' exists for every single object 'x',
however the object 'y' is not an number.

The word "number" as you use it is meaningless. Anyway, additive
identities are not something dependent on x. You got your quantifiers
wrong.

You're two letters off from being an asset to this thread.

If you were able to read a simple table, you'd notice the
difference.

A guy with your IQ should have a low voice too.

Oh, I have. When I am not singing alto in my choir for stylistic
reasons, I am singing bass. Easier on the voice than tenor. One
should just realize when shouting from the chest does not help in
making a particular approach go the distance.
Anyway, we all feel honored for you offering those pearls of wisdom
which your teachers must never have tired of telling you. You could
try calling your axiom something differently than "additive identity"
since that name is already taken, maybe something like "indifferent
companion". On the other hand, changing the name might make your
attempt to bluff your way out of the hole you are digging for yourself
more apparent on other fronts.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
.

User: "Dik T. Winter"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	13 Sep 2005 06:56:20 AM

In article <1126607989.297379.315960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <1126576297.288197.108240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

...

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
defines an additive identity for all x.

No it does not. Consider the following addition table:
+ a b c
a a c b
b c b a
c b a c

For each 'x' there is an 'y' such that 'x + y = x'. But there is not
an additive identity.

It is an additive identity by definition, the definition was for each x
there is y.

What is the additive identity in the addition table above? In what
way does the addition table above fail the requirement: "for all x
there exists y such that x + y = x"?

Your table has no relation to what I said. In fact, it doesn't even
have a relation to how additive identities are defined for
rings/groups/fields (another elementary error you've just made).

Your axiom does not talk about rings/groups/fields or whatever. You
just state an axiom and tell us that it defines an additive identity.
I provide an addition table that satisfies that axiom, and it does
*not* have an additive identity.

I'll repeat again, the AXIOM:
"Axiom: Additive Identity, for all x there exists y, x + y = x"
guarantees that an object 'y' exists for every single object 'x',
however the object 'y' is not an number.

Yes, there is an object 'y' for every single object 'x', just as in my
addition table, but it is not sure that there is a single object 'y'
that is valid for *all* objects 'x', so it is not sure that there is
an additive identity. I have no idea what you are meaning with:
"however the object 'y' is not an number".
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.

User: "Richard Tobin"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 10:05:09 AM

In article <1126536590.827962.49680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Schoenfeld <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"

defines an additive identity for all x.

It defines a thing like an additive identity for *each* x, but it
doesn't require that it's the same for each one, which is what is
meant by "additive identity".
-- Richard
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 10:39:36 AM

Richard Tobin wrote:

In article <1126536590.827962.49680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Schoenfeld <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"

defines an additive identity for all x.

It defines a thing like an additive identity for *each* x, but it
doesn't require that it's the same for each one, which is what is
meant by "additive identity".

That's exceedingly obvious (as was acknowledged by me over 12 times in
this thread). But strictly speaking, with that definition, the additive
identity DOES exist but it is obviously not a number.
note: rather than admitting his mistake, Robert Low simply ran away
like the coward he is.

-- Richard

User: "Richard Tobin"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 11:32:32 AM

In article <1126539576.946807.133560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Schoenfeld <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"

defines an additive identity for all x.

It defines a thing like an additive identity for *each* x, but it
doesn't require that it's the same for each one, which is what is
meant by "additive identity".

That's exceedingly obvious

So why did you make the false claim above?

But strictly speaking, with that definition, the additive
identity DOES exist but it is obviously not a number.

That doesn't sound like "strictly speaking" to me. On the contrary, it
sounds like you're making it u p as you go along.

note:

Sorry, not interested.
-- Richard
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	12 Sep 2005 09:01:14 PM

Richard Tobin wrote:

In article <1126539576.946807.133560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Schoenfeld <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:

The statement,
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"

defines an additive identity for all x.

It defines a thing like an additive identity for *each* x, but it
doesn't require that it's the same for each one, which is what is
meant by "additive identity".

That's exceedingly obvious

So why did you make the false claim above?

I DEFINED the 'additive identity':
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
There DOES exist additive identities for all x by DEFINITION. This
however is not a number since the axiom is different for
rings/groups/fields. You can deduce the the as a LEMMA from
rings/groups/fields, but this requires a different definition for the
Additive Identity.
You're the 3rd person to make this error. Will you run away like a
coward too?

But strictly speaking, with that definition, the additive
identity DOES exist but it is obviously not a number.

That doesn't sound like "strictly speaking" to me. On the contrary, it
sounds like you're making it u p as you go along.

note:

Sorry, not interested.

-- Richard

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	13 Sep 2005 07:06:57 AM

Schoenfeld:

I DEFINED the 'additive identity':
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"

There DOES exist additive identities for all x by DEFINITION. This

You are missing the point. What you've written means that if,
x_1 + y_1 = x_1
x_2 + y_2 = x_2
.
.
your definition does not require y_1 = y_2, etc. Obviously, I've
enumerated an element, y, for all x. By contrast, ``There exists
_a_ y, such that...'' implies y_1 = y_2, etc. The seconf definition
implies the identity is unique. Your definition doesn't. It might seem
like nitpicking, but you decided that nitpicking was important. One
way to make sure everyone picks nits, is to insist that it will
validate your position and shame your detractors.
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS	13 Sep 2005 08:20:39 AM

Bilge wrote:

Schoenfeld:

I DEFINED the 'additive identity':
Axiom: Additive Identity
"for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"

There DOES exist additive identities for all x by DEFINITION. This

You are missing the point.

No, I am making the SAME point you just made. That IS my point - the
axiom, defined with for-all quantifier first guarantees existence but
such additive identity is NOT a number. Originally, this was how I was
thinking the axiom was defined for rings in general and why I couldn't
understand Dorks proof, and why I asked him to elaborate (he simply
decided to unleash a set of personal attacks for obvious reasons
(reasons related to a cracked lids on a teapots)).

What you've written means that if,

x_1 + y_1 = x_1

x_2 + y_2 = x_2
.
.

your definition does not require y_1 = y_2, etc.

Thanks for repeating what I said 5 times already and for agreeing with
me.

Obviously, I've
enumerated an element, y, for all x. By contrast, ``There exists
_a_ y, such that...'' implies y_1 = y_2, etc. The seconf definition
implies the identity is unique.

Thanks for repeating what I said 5 times already and for agreeing with
me.

Your definition doesn't.

Thanks for repeating what I said 5 times already and for agreeing with
me.

It might seem
like nitpicking, but you decided that nitpicking was important. One
way to make sure everyone picks nits, is to insist that it will
validate your position and shame your detractors.

Thanks for repeating what I said 5 times already and for agreeing with
me.
.

Page 2 of 4

Post reply

Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS
Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS
Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS
Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS
Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS
Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS
Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS
Re: NOMINATION: Dirk Van de moortel for VVFWS

Re: Nomination for 'Kook of the Month' Makes bRay look sane
Re: NOMINATION: FartinS for Pathetic Anal Pineapple Award
Brilliant conversation of the year award - nomination for.
AFA-B Nomination - George E Hammond for Angstrom Award & Medal for advances in hyperdelusional physics
Nomination - George E Hammond for Red King's Rook's Pawn {Kook Chess Set}
NOMINATION: Tom Potter for the Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award
NOMINATION: "Uncle" Alan Schwartz for the Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award

NEWER

pg.1169 pg.647 pg.357 pg.196 pg.107 pg.58 pg.31 pg.16 pg.8 pg.4 pg.2

OLDER