|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. |> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives. |> |> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do |> not qualify to bother with.
Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Bill Taylor W.Tay...@math.canterbury.ac.nz --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Memes don't exist - pass it on. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. >|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives. >|> >|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do >|> not qualify to bother with.
>Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
>Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out >the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer :) And I feel like every Western archaeologist's wife should suck my dick for the one paragraph answer I could give to their two hundred years of stupidity and confusion in making such interpretations. And there's more: I'm not bragging nonsense! Anybody could see the simple truth of it after reading it.
In article <andl5a$it...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
Bill Taylor <math...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >Maleki <maleki...@hotmail.com> writes:
>|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. >|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives. >|> >|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do >|> not qualify to bother with.
>Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
>Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out >the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
Building the radio huts with sticks for antennas, drilling in military fashion with sticks for rifles...
-- "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Maleki wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 02:20:26 +0000 (UTC), > math...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote in >>Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out >>the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
> I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer :) And > I feel like every Western archaeologist's wife should > suck my dick for the one paragraph answer I could give
Interesting. So your basic internal conflict is a hatred of the west mixed with deep-seated sexual fantasies about western women. A Freudian could have a field day here.
> >|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. > >|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives. > >|> > >|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do > >|> not qualify to bother with.
> >Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
> >Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out > >the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
> I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer
[snip]
What is the assigned value of the null set?
Cargo cultism is the basis of each and all religions - "Lord, please change the nature of physical reality for my benefit. I will worship you and hurt myself in repayment." Science is equally simply stated - mathematically model reality with empirical boundary conditions, then go with the flow.
Cargo cultism can be accessed by any credulous moron with blood to bleed. The Third World is loaded with four billion scrofulous chumps, and the Second World with another billion. Science requires a working brain and significant personal committment. The First World contains about a billion sleek and clean folk. Of those, perhaps only 2% qualify as lightbringers - and it works.
America = a fantatistically wealthy ruling class, an expansive wealthy middle class, and a minor well-to-do underclass. The worst LA, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, New York... slums have individual homes, clean running water, sanitation, heat and air conditioning, Cable TV, public education, public transportation, public libraries...; subsidized rent, subsidized food, free legal representation, free medical care... Compare with a Brazilian favela.
America + god = Mexico or Arabia; a fantastically wealthy ruling class, a small well-to-do middle class, and a vast ulcerous underclass wailing to god as they carve their initials in their surviving children's flesh. Of course, Muslims literally carve their kids' flesh - but only the genitalia. It's God's will.
-- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 14:52:44 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <3D9B0835.50F71...@hate.spam.net> that:
>> I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer >[snip]
>What is the assigned value of the null set?
I want it out of their pockets, not yours. I have other plans for you :) You'll know better when you first touch your forehead down in recognition for Allah.
Maleki <maleki...@hotmail.com> wrote in message <news:jv0lpu4q7s2d1sfg70qisj5trobb8vsj4e@4ax.com>... > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 02:20:26 +0000 (UTC), > math...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote in > <andl5a$it...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> that:
> >|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. > >|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives. > >|> > >|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do > >|> not qualify to bother with.
> >Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
> >Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out > >the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
> I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer :) And > I feel like every Western archaeologist's wife should > suck my dick for the one paragraph answer I could give > to their two hundred years of stupidity and confusion > in making such interpretations. And there's more: I'm > not bragging nonsense! Anybody could see the simple > truth of it after reading it.
WTF is "two hundred years"? The cargo cults started after WWII.
The simple truth of the matter is apparently that there is some truth to the idea that anti-western and in particular anti-western Muslim males (though I don't know if that includes you) are motivated in part by sexual envy. Otherwise your schoolyard sexual boasting is hard to understand.
So what is your startling alternative theory? Or is all you have bragging nonsense?
On 2 Oct 2002 10:32:48 -0700, nullde...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in <2a0cceff.0210020932.70876...@posting.google.com> that:
>WTF is "two hundred years"? The cargo cults started after WWII.
Notion of Cargo Cultism is a sample of a mistake that's general trend in Westerners. The other sample of that trend is how Western archaeologists have been interpreting ornaments and food found in old graves for the past "two hundred" or so years. Same mistake by same people for same reason.
Maleki <maleki...@hotmail.com> wrote in message <news:r8cmpucedk4e7fgo44atnscbak23fbehhc@4ax.com>... > On 2 Oct 2002 10:32:48 -0700, nullde...@aol.com (Edward > Green) wrote in > <2a0cceff.0210020932.70876...@posting.google.com> that:
> >WTF is "two hundred years"? The cargo cults started after WWII.
> Notion of Cargo Cultism is a sample of a mistake that's > general trend in Westerners. The other sample of that > trend is how Western archaeologists have been > interpreting ornaments and food found in old graves for > the past "two hundred" or so years. Same mistake by > same people for same reason.
Is there any reason why you keep talking about mistakes but never explaining them? The suspense is killing me...
> > >|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. > > >|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives. > > >|> > > >|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do > > >|> not qualify to bother with.
> > >Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
> > >Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out > > >the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
> > I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer :) And > > I feel like every Western archaeologist's wife should > > suck my dick for the one paragraph answer I could give > > to their two hundred years of stupidity and confusion > > in making such interpretations. And there's more: I'm > > not bragging nonsense! Anybody could see the simple > > truth of it after reading it.
> WTF is "two hundred years"? The cargo cults started after WWII.
> The simple truth of the matter is apparently that there is some truth > to the idea that anti-western and in particular anti-western Muslim > males (though I don't know if that includes you) are motivated in part > by sexual envy. Otherwise your schoolyard sexual boasting is hard to > understand.
Well, you are right in a way; Sexual envy is a subset of general lifestyle envy, and yes, superficially, I think many people in the 3rd world do envy the western way, but that is not because of the superiority of the western ethos, its merely because of the excellent eloquence and subtlety of its propagandists (or should I say Spin-doctors), and its purchased sterile shine and class (make no mistake, culture and sophistication are almost as readily purchased as a big mac). I dont really think the choking of billions is something to brag about. I myself am Pakistani Muslim, but am also British, and in terms of personal wealth and lifestyle, have no right at all to point a finger at anyone, which is why I am not, I am merely making an observation. Since we are all mathematicians here, I am confident that a flame war will not erupt.
"Ali Khan" <alikhan...@btinternet.com> wrote in message <news:anhvgm$hoi$1@helle.btinternet.com>... > Well, you are right in a way; Sexual envy is a subset of general > lifestyle envy, and yes, superficially, I think many people in the 3rd > world do envy the western way, but that is not because of the > superiority of the western ethos, its merely because of the excellent > eloquence and subtlety of its propagandists (or should I say > Spin-doctors), and its purchased sterile shine and class (make no > mistake, culture and sophistication are almost as readily purchased as a > big mac). I dont really think the choking of billions is something to > brag about. I myself am Pakistani Muslim, but am also British, and in > terms of personal wealth and lifestyle, have no right at all to point a > finger at anyone, which is why I am not, I am merely making an > observation. Since we are all mathematicians here, I am confident that a > flame war will not erupt.
Not quite all ... note cross-posting.
One point ... I do not think western propagandists/marketers (same thing) necessarily spend much time trying to ...
What the heck am I saying! Check that. Of course they would want to instill a longing in the third world for western lifestyles ... growth market.
Hmm... have to agree with your "culture and sophistication" comment ... or again, at least that's a common marketing ploy. One reason I stopped reading "The New Yorker" magazine: I couldn't stand the adds ... they were all aimed at the affluent, and told them that only _they_ had the taste and refinement to purchase (mostly autos, cloths, perfumes, etc.) ... which fortunately they also had the money for. What a coincidence.
Sorry about the cross-posting, it was unintentional, I merely clicked the "reply to group button".
on a semi-tangential point:
The big picture is so confusing, it is best avoided. The reason I say this is that I honestly do not believe that a rational person can have a complete and sufficient model for the whole world given the assumptions that in my opinion a rational person must make, I.e. those of human equality, and the necessity for minimization of suffering. On the other hand, smaller scale models and morality guidelines can be established that extend to say your neighbourhood, and if you are really ambitious, your country, although even that is very hard.
anyway, this thread is becoming more and more non -mathematical
thanks guys
Regards
Ali
"Edward Green" <nullde...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > Well, you are right in a way; Sexual envy is a subset of general > > lifestyle envy, and yes, superficially, I think many people in the 3rd > > world do envy the western way, but that is not because of the > > superiority of the western ethos, its merely because of the excellent > > eloquence and subtlety of its propagandists (or should I say > > Spin-doctors), and its purchased sterile shine and class (make no > > mistake, culture and sophistication are almost as readily purchased as a > > big mac). I dont really think the choking of billions is something to > > brag about. I myself am Pakistani Muslim, but am also British, and in > > terms of personal wealth and lifestyle, have no right at all to point a > > finger at anyone, which is why I am not, I am merely making an > > observation. Since we are all mathematicians here, I am confident that a > > flame war will not erupt.
> Not quite all ... note cross-posting.
> One point ... I do not think western propagandists/marketers (same > thing) necessarily spend much time trying to ...
> What the heck am I saying! Check that. Of course they would want to > instill a longing in the third world for western lifestyles ... growth > market.
> Hmm... have to agree with your "culture and sophistication" comment > ... or again, at least that's a common marketing ploy. One reason I > stopped reading "The New Yorker" magazine: I couldn't stand the adds > ... they were all aimed at the affluent, and told them that only > _they_ had the taste and refinement to purchase (mostly autos, cloths, > perfumes, etc.) ... which fortunately they also had the money for. > What a coincidence.
>In article <RN3m9.140174$8o4.20...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, >Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"V.Gopal" <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message <a href="news://38af3945.0209301116.77a62c6c@posting.google.com...">news://38a f3945.0209301116.77a62c6c@posting.google.com...</a>
>>[snip]
>>> A smooth function
>>is a function with a continuous derivative.
>>Dirk Vdm
>In the math classes I took, it was a function where all derivatives are >continuous. But of course usage varies with context.
>On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:29:43 -0700, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> >wrote:
>>Bryan Reed wrote: >>> In article <RN3m9.140174$8o4.20...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, >>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>"V.Gopal" <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> A smooth function >>>> is a function with a continuous derivative.
>>> In the math classes I took, it was a function where all derivatives are >>> continuous. But of course usage varies with context.
>>It's interesting that C-infinity functions are often described >>as "infinitely many times continuously differentiable" when >>just "infinitely many times differentiable" is sufficient >>(the existence of the n+1-st derivative implies the continuity >>of the n-th derivative).
>I found out recently that I've been an idiot about exactly >this point all my life. In several variables the fact that >f has partial derivatives of all orders at every point >does not imply that f is continuous.
The point of that is that "partial derivatives" are NOT true derivatives. The derivative of a real valued function of several variables is its gradient.
More correctly, its the linear transformation T(x) corresponding to dot product of the gradient with the vector x.
>(Simple example: It's not hard to see that there exists >a function in R^2 which is smooth (all partials continuous) >except at the origin, which vanishes at the origin and >in a neighborhood of (coordinate axes minus the origin) >and which equals 1 on (diagonal minus the origin). It >follows that all the partials of f at the origin equal >0 although f is not continuous.)
>>Not that there's anything wrong >>with that. It just seems that, to an already awkward phrase, >>you wouldn't want to add words you don't have to add.
>Building the radio huts with sticks for antennas, drilling in >military fashion with sticks for rifles...
Whoa! Easy, easy there!
I think it would be a lot of fun to build 'radio huts' and drill in military fashion with sticks for rifles. (If you do not intend to shoot then sticks are just as good as rifles.)
Anyway, this peculiar affliction is common to all humanity and occurs in all ages. This is what Samuel Johnson once said about doctors of his day: "Doctors are especially given to mistaking subsequences for consequences."
We all do something similar in various circumstances. Madison avenue thrives on the fact that people often commit similar mistakes. That is why we are shown beautiful ladies with alcoholic beverages instead of belching, pot bellied, foul smelling slobs.
I wonder if God is a 'smooth function'!
-- "For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill." -- ?
george.i...@gallaudet.edu ("G.E. Ivey") writes: > The derivative of a real valued function of several variables is its > gradient.
> More correctly, its the linear transformation T(x) corresponding to > dot product of the gradient with the vector x.
Your first statement is rather bad, your second statement is rather bad for different reasons (is the linear transformation T or T(x)?) but is still not quite correct.
The truly correct statement is the following: On a Riemannian manifold (e.g., R^n with the usual dot product), the gradient of a function at x is defined by grad f(x) := G^{-1}(df(x)) where G : T_xM -> T*_xM is the vector space isomorphism defined by G(v)(w) := g(v,w) and g is the inner product. For the non-differential geometers, this is the same as grad f(x) := transpose(Df(x)) (remember that the transpose is an operation defined in terms of the dot product).
You'll note that the derivative Df(x)=df(x) is defined without reference to the metric.
Kevin Foltinek <folti...@math.utexas.edu> writes: >The truly correct statement is the following: > On a Riemannian manifold (e.g., R^n with the usual dot product), the > gradient of a function at x is defined by > grad f(x) := G^{-1}(df(x)) > where G : T_xM -> T*_xM is the vector space isomorphism defined by > G(v)(w) := g(v,w) > and g is the inner product. >For the non-differential geometers, this is the same as > grad f(x) := transpose(Df(x)) >(remember that the transpose is an operation defined in terms of the >dot product).
>You'll note that the derivative Df(x)=df(x) is defined without >reference to the metric.
A nice way to picture this (well, I like it), inspired (for me) by a remark of Edward Nelson's somewhere or other, is as follows.
On an n-manifold M (e.g., R^n, not yet equipped with a dot product), given a function f:M->R, we can look at the level sets M_t = f^{-1}(t). Suppose x is a point of M_0, that M_0 is an (n-1)-manifold near x, and that M_t is an (n-1)-manifold near x for t near 0. Then the partition of a coordinate neighborhood N of x in M into the level sets N_t = N\intersect M_t looks, to first order, like the partition of the tangent n-space V of M at x (which is of course just R^n again if M is R^n) into parallel "equally spaced" hyperplanes induced by some linear functional on V. That linear functional is df(x).
This is the "manifoldization" of an easy, but rarely discussed, geometric development of covectors in any affine space that is completely dual to the equally easy, and totally standard, geometric development of vectors. Namely, a (non-zero) geometric vector is an equivalence class of oriented line segments, where the segment from A to B is equivalent to the segment from A' to B' if and only if the line through A and B is parallel to the line through A' and B' and the line through A and A' is parallel to the line through B and B'; dually, a (non-zero) geometric covector is an equivalence class of "oriented scales" (ordered pairs of distinct parallel hyperplanes), where the scale from (hyperplane) P to (hyperplane) Q is equivalent to the scale from P' to Q' if and only if ... you do it. Geometric vectors and geometric covectors are paired by the (geometric) operation of "measuring an oriented segment with an oriented scale". A positive definite inner product imposes an isomorphism between the two spaces. Back in the manifold, that's where the gradient comes from.
> > A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical > > parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation. > > Everything in nature is smooth. No language is smooth. Nature is meant > > to enhance our capacity for sympathy, introspection and meditation. We > > can realize the exictence of God only by understanding 'The smooth'.
> Enough said. ;)
Not yet. Let me add one more - Any activity that proceeds on self-reference (if it is possible to proceed at all) then that activity is smooth.
> I think it would be a lot of fun to build 'radio huts' and drill in > military fashion with sticks for rifles. (If you do not intend to > shoot then sticks are just as good as rifles.)
> Anyway, this peculiar affliction is common to all humanity and > occurs in all ages. This is what Samuel Johnson once said about doctors of his day: "Doctors are especially given to mistaking > subsequences for consequences."
> We all do something similar in various circumstances. Madison avenue > thrives on the fact that people often commit similar mistakes. That > is why we are shown beautiful ladies with alcoholic beverages instead > of belching, pot bellied, foul smelling slobs.
> I wonder if God is a 'smooth function'!
God is not a 'smooth function'. HE FUNCTIONS smoothly and does not perform miracles (deism). His methods involve self-reference, continuous change in reference and continuous FORGETTING of the past. From human point of view everything HE does is intelligible - we can justify events but cannot foresee (unless by nature the event is statistically predictable with zero error.) We cannot describe his methods although we can justify the events. If anybody survives after the ship has sunk, he (the survivor) would definitely tell how it could have been saved - with so much of confidence that it would appear as if he had foreen the disaster!
In <anmjqq$71...@panix5.panix.com>, on 10/05/2002 at 07:52 AM, lrudo...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) said:
>On an n-manifold M (e.g., R^n, not yet equipped with a dot product), >given a function f:M->R, we can look at the level sets M_t = >f^{-1}(t). Suppose x is a point of M_0, that M_0 is an (n-1)-manifold >near x, and that M_t is an (n-1)-manifold near x for t near 0. Then >the partition of a coordinate neighborhood N of x in M into the level >sets N_t = N\intersect M_t looks, to first order, like the partition >of the tangent n-space V of M at x (which is of course just R^n again >if M is R^n) into parallel "equally spaced" hyperplanes induced by >some linear functional on V. That linear functional is df(x).
Without a metric, how do you map the tamgent space of M_t at t into the tangent space of M at x? Even with a metric, how do you do it, without assuming zero curvature?
The conventional approach of defining df(x) as an equivalence class of functions is simple and doesn't depend on a metric.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
Maleki <maleki...@hotmail.com> wrote in message <news:r8cmpucedk4e7fgo44atnscbak23fbehhc@4ax.com>... > Notion of Cargo Cultism is a sample of a mistake that's > general trend in Westerners. The other sample of that > trend is how Western archaeologists have been > interpreting ornaments and food found in old graves for > the past "two hundred" or so years. Same mistake by > same people for same reason.
Anybody who has been making the same mistake for 200 years would have to be a much older person.
Actually, Maleki, you are a grossly racist pile of smeg. Socks
> In <anmjqq$71...@panix5.panix.com>, on 10/05/2002 > at 07:52 AM, lrudo...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) said:
> >On an n-manifold M (e.g., R^n, not yet equipped with a dot product), > >given a function f:M->R, we can look at the level sets M_t = > >f^{-1}(t). Suppose x is a point of M_0, that M_0 is an (n-1)-manifold > >near x, and that M_t is an (n-1)-manifold near x for t near 0. Then > >the partition of a coordinate neighborhood N of x in M into the level > >sets N_t = N\intersect M_t looks, to first order, like the partition > >of the tangent n-space V of M at x (which is of course just R^n again > >if M is R^n) into parallel "equally spaced" hyperplanes induced by > >some linear functional on V. That linear functional is df(x).
> Without a metric, how do you map the tamgent space of M_t at t into > the tangent space of M at x? Even with a metric, how do you do it, > without assuming zero curvature?
It's not a mapping of tangent spaces into tangent spaces; it's a mapping of submanifolds of M into submanifolds of R^n. The only tangent space under consideration is the tangent space at x. A coordinate chart around x maps N to R^n; it may as well map N to T_xM (which is vector-space isomorphic to R^n).
In the coordinate neighbourhood N, suppose x is at the origin (i.e., x is mapped to the origin via the coordinate chart); without loss of generality, f^{-1}(0) = {(x1,...,x[n-1],0)} , and by the implicit function theorem, f^{-1}(t) = {(x1,...,x[n-1],g_t(x1,...,x[n-1]))} . In other words, each N_t is the graph of a function g_t:R^{n-1}->R .
If D_nf(0) is non-zero, then it is non-zero in a neighbourhood, and we can thus assume (by making a second-order change of the x[n] coordinate) that g_t(0,...,0) = D_nf(0) t .
Finally, we can make another second-order change of coordinates such that g_t(x1,...,x[n-1]) = D_nf(0) t .
I've left out some details, of course.
> The conventional approach of defining df(x) as an equivalence class of > functions is simple
as is the other conventional approach of defining df(x) as a linear mapping of equivalence classes of curves (tangent vectors), and maybe a few other conventional approaches. :-)
The picture presented by Lee is, I think, useful not so much in understanding df (probably because of the complexity of filling in all the details that I left out), but in understanding the linear algebra of a vector space and its dual.
|
