I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, Euclid, Newton, Einstein and for that matter every individual who contributed to the advancement of human knowledge was a human being just like any body - you or me. Mathematics has advanced on the basis of logic of sense of sight - we can find nothing wrong in mathematics as long as we try to understand it using the logic of sense of sight - judge the truth and falsity of each mathematical proposition by checking whether mind and eye reach a total agreement or not. We always find that whatever we have accepted as true in mathematics, our mind and eyes always reached total agreement. The act of making our mind and eye reach total agreement does not always constitute thinking, although in some cases it does. That part of mathematical logic, which cannot be understood by using the logic of sense of sight is revealed by geometry. Geometry contains certain knowledge that is incommunicable. If one tries to expalin it and in the process if many of our conventional ideas are proved wrong it is not going to have any effect on progress in technology. This way nobody brings any disgrace to any individual living or dead. No body can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest mathematician and any difference between one man to another man is negligible, even if you compare Newton and Einstein with Bob or Knox.
> I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, > Euclid, Newton, Einstein and for that matter every individual who > contributed to the advancement of human knowledge was a human being just > like any body - you or me.
[snip]
You are a goddamned spewing imbecile with psychotic delusions of competence.
vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message <news:38af3945.0211182125.7f331095@posting.google.com>... > I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, > Euclid, Newton, Einstein and for that matter every individual who > contributed to the advancement of human knowledge was a human being just > like any body - you or me. Mathematics has advanced on the basis of logic > of sense of sight - we can find nothing wrong in mathematics as long as > we try to understand it using the logic of sense of sight - judge the > truth and falsity of each mathematical proposition by checking whether > mind and eye reach a total agreement or not. We always find that whatever > we have accepted as true in mathematics, our mind and eyes always reached > total agreement. The act of making our mind and eye reach total agreement > does not always constitute thinking, although in some cases it does. > That part of mathematical logic, which cannot be understood by using the > logic of sense of sight is revealed by geometry. Geometry contains > certain knowledge that is incommunicable. If one tries to expalin it > and in the process if many of our conventional ideas are proved wrong > it is not going to have any effect on progress in technology. This > way nobody brings any disgrace to any individual living or dead. No body > can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest > mathematician and any difference between one man to another man is > negligible, even if you compare Newton and Einstein with Bob or Knox.
I have never met God or seen any of his work, do you have any references or examples? What are his academic qualifications? Not a very imformative post just a bunch of speculation without proof.
vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message <news:38af3945.0211182125.7f331095@posting.google.com>... > I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, > Euclid, Newton, Einstein and for that matter every individual who > contributed to the advancement of human knowledge was a human being just > like any body - you or me. Mathematics has advanced on the basis of logic > of sense of sight - we can find nothing wrong in mathematics as long as > we try to understand it using the logic of sense of sight - judge the > truth and falsity of each mathematical proposition by checking whether > mind and eye reach a total agreement or not. We always find that whatever > we have accepted as true in mathematics, our mind and eyes always reached > total agreement. The act of making our mind and eye reach total agreement > does not always constitute thinking, although in some cases it does. > That part of mathematical logic, which cannot be understood by using the > logic of sense of sight is revealed by geometry. Geometry contains > certain knowledge that is incommunicable. If one tries to expalin it > and in the process if many of our conventional ideas are proved wrong > it is not going to have any effect on progress in technology. This > way nobody brings any disgrace to any individual living or dead. No body > can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest > mathematician and any difference between one man to another man is > negligible, even if you compare Newton and Einstein with Bob or Knox.
God the greatest mathematician?? Come on! He had only one publication- that was 2000 years ago. It wasn't in a peer reviewed journal. It didn't have any footnotes and the basic mathematical result in it was that pi = 3.
On 18 Nov 2002 21:25:29 -0800, vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote:
>No body >can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest >mathematician and any difference between one man to another man is >negligible, even if you compare Newton and Einstein with Bob or Knox.
Even if there is a god, what evidence do you have that she was a mathematician??
Arfur Dogfrey <dogsch...@dog.com> wrote: >vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message ><news:38af3945.0211182125.7f331095@posting.google.com>... >> I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, >> Euclid, Newton, Einstein and for that matter every individual who >> contributed to the advancement of human knowledge was a human being just >> like any body - you or me. Mathematics has advanced on the basis of logic >> of sense of sight - we can find nothing wrong in mathematics as long as >> we try to understand it using the logic of sense of sight - judge the >> truth and falsity of each mathematical proposition by checking whether >> mind and eye reach a total agreement or not. We always find that whatever >> we have accepted as true in mathematics, our mind and eyes always reached >> total agreement. The act of making our mind and eye reach total agreement >> does not always constitute thinking, although in some cases it does. >> That part of mathematical logic, which cannot be understood by using the >> logic of sense of sight is revealed by geometry. Geometry contains >> certain knowledge that is incommunicable. If one tries to expalin it >> and in the process if many of our conventional ideas are proved wrong >> it is not going to have any effect on progress in technology. This >> way nobody brings any disgrace to any individual living or dead. No body >> can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest >> mathematician and any difference between one man to another man is >> negligible, even if you compare Newton and Einstein with Bob or Knox.
>God the greatest mathematician?? Come on! He had only one publication- >that was 2000 years ago. It wasn't in a peer reviewed journal. It didn't
To be fair, that was a compilation of His publications with editorial selection. 1500 pages for posterity.
>have any footnotes and the basic mathematical result in it was that pi = 3.
If you have a diameter of 10, what should be quoted for the circumference? C = pi*d = (3.1415926...)*10 = 30.
10 has one sig-fig, so the answer can only have one sig-fig no matter how many digits you write out for pi.
-- "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.
In article <arearc$3t...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com>, diego <d...@diego.com> wrote: >HI, >A mathematician is a man who makes mathematics >God is not a man so it is not a mathematician.
What if a cat managed to make some good mathematics, pawing at the keyboard to type it up in LaTeX?
-- "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.
V.Gopal wrote: > I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, > can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest > mathematician
This is complete bullshit based on wishful thinking and not one fact. I think you are seriously deranged.
Tell me do you talk to God? (and here is the important question). Does God talk to you? Have you heard Her voice? Does She sound like your mamma?
> God the greatest mathematician?? Come on! He had only one publication- > that was 2000 years ago. It wasn't in a peer reviewed journal. It didn't > have any footnotes and the basic mathematical result in it was that pi = 3.
And what about the Trinity. The would imply that 3 = 1 or 2 = 0, so it can only work in mod 2 arithmetic.
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:25:29 -0800, V.Gopal wrote:
> > No body can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the > > greatest mathematician
> That's fair enough, assuming that God exists - a big, > unprovable if.
To use a legitimate "Ad hominem", look at the other posts by this poster.
Essentially, he has changed the question to the Snerdish tautology. "Nobody can be the greatest anything, because you can't get to be equal to God."
Reminds mo of Sister Mary Paphinootia who was teaching the "Honors" kids at Catholic High school on Denver. I was teaching geometry, and Sister suggested that I should post the message "God is the Great Geometer" on the Bulletin board. I had to bite my lip at suggesting that maybe "Geometry is the Great God" or "God is the Great Penguin" Would be appropriate. The kids would have liked "Kill Holy Family!!" better, ( as a football cheer only, of course)
RJ Pease
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 11/13/02
> > I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, > > Euclid, Newton, Einstein and for that matter every individual who > > contributed to the advancement of human knowledge was a human being just > > like any body - you or me. Mathematics has advanced on the basis of logic > > of sense of sight - we can find nothing wrong in mathematics as long as > > we try to understand it using the logic of sense of sight - judge the > > truth and falsity of each mathematical proposition by checking whether > > mind and eye reach a total agreement or not. We always find that whatever > > we have accepted as true in mathematics, our mind and eyes always reached > > total agreement. The act of making our mind and eye reach total agreement > > does not always constitute thinking, although in some cases it does. > > That part of mathematical logic, which cannot be understood by using the > > logic of sense of sight is revealed by geometry. Geometry contains > > certain knowledge that is incommunicable. If one tries to expalin it > > and in the process if many of our conventional ideas are proved wrong > > it is not going to have any effect on progress in technology. This > > way nobody brings any disgrace to any individual living or dead. No body > > can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest > > mathematician and any difference between one man to another man is > > negligible, even if you compare Newton and Einstein with Bob or Knox.
> God the greatest mathematician?? Come on! He had only one publication- > that was 2000 years ago. It wasn't in a peer reviewed journal. It didn't > have any footnotes and the basic mathematical result in it was that pi =
3.
The earlier work, the one you're standing on, has plenty of footnotes, but the text has been badly corrupted by entropy. I think you're referring to the dog-eared copy of a a copy of the appendix and commentary written for and by the kindergarten class.
> > I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, > > Euclid, Newton, Einstein and for that matter every individual who > > contributed to the advancement of human knowledge was a human being just > > like any body - you or me. Mathematics has advanced on the basis of logic > > of sense of sight - we can find nothing wrong in mathematics as long as > > we try to understand it using the logic of sense of sight - judge the > > truth and falsity of each mathematical proposition by checking whether > > mind and eye reach a total agreement or not. We always find that whatever > > we have accepted as true in mathematics, our mind and eyes always reached > > total agreement. The act of making our mind and eye reach total agreement > > does not always constitute thinking, although in some cases it does. > > That part of mathematical logic, which cannot be understood by using the > > logic of sense of sight is revealed by geometry. Geometry contains > > certain knowledge that is incommunicable. If one tries to expalin it > > and in the process if many of our conventional ideas are proved wrong > > it is not going to have any effect on progress in technology. This > > way nobody brings any disgrace to any individual living or dead. No body > > can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest > > mathematician and any difference between one man to another man is > > negligible, even if you compare Newton and Einstein with Bob or Knox.
> I have never met God or seen any of his work, do you have any > references or examples? What are his academic qualifications? Not a > very imformative post just a bunch of speculation without proof.
The Book of Nature is his only _scientific_ publication. Based on that work alone, I'd say his qualifications are pretty impressive. Not an easy read, either.
"V.Gopal" wrote: > I believe, and everybody with capacity to think must realize that Zeno, > Euclid, Newton, Einstein and for that matter every individual who > contributed to the advancement of human knowledge was a human being just > like any body - you or me. Mathematics has advanced on the basis of logic > of sense of sight - we can find nothing wrong in mathematics as long as > we try to understand it using the logic of sense of sight - judge the > truth and falsity of each mathematical proposition by checking whether > mind and eye reach a total agreement or not. We always find that whatever > we have accepted as true in mathematics, our mind and eyes always reached > total agreement. The act of making our mind and eye reach total agreement > does not always constitute thinking, although in some cases it does. > That part of mathematical logic, which cannot be understood by using the > logic of sense of sight is revealed by geometry. Geometry contains > certain knowledge that is incommunicable. If one tries to expalin it > and in the process if many of our conventional ideas are proved wrong > it is not going to have any effect on progress in technology. This > way nobody brings any disgrace to any individual living or dead. No body > can become the greatest mathematician; only God is the greatest > mathematician and any difference between one man to another man is > negligible, even if you compare Newton and Einstein with Bob or Knox.
You need to consider the abstract knowledge and the usage as a form of intelligence. And comparing the creator to a knowledge is not allowed.
But, consider the relationship of existing in harmony with the use of abstraction in the sensory field. And then the concept of the spirit of your being is distinct from the usage of abstraction.
So, maintian the distinction, because it is only an allusion as a knowledge, that you wrote.
> I have never met God or seen any of his work, do you have any > references or examples? What are his academic qualifications? Not a > very imformative post just a bunch of speculation without proof.
I grabbed this off the net ages ago, can't remember where:
Top 10 reasons why God has a Ph.D., but did not get tenure:
1) He had only one major publication. 2) It was in Hebrew. 3) It had no references. 4) It wasn't in a referred journal. 5) It may be true that He created the world, but what has He done since? 6) The scientific community has had a hard time replicating His results. 7) He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects. 8) He expelled His first two students for learning. 9) His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top. 10) Although there were only 10 requirements, most students failed his tests.
|
