Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0O
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict J6'
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict J6'
You are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict
economics than you'll ever know. You just sit there having no clue whatsoever about how government works, how federal employees work, how stats work, how these charts are manipulated, how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobodyYou are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics.You mean YOU are just one of those buffoons who believes any tripe coming from those agenda filled left wing propaganda sites and totally incapable of using your elderly alzheimers brain to rationally analyze something. Similarly, I've forgotten more
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict J6'
You are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics..
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict
economics than you'll ever know. You just sit there having no clue whatsoever about how government works, how federal employees work, how stats work, how these charts are manipulated, how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobodyYou are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics.You mean YOU are just one of those buffoons who believes any tripe coming from those agenda filled left wing propaganda sites and totally incapable of using your elderly alzheimers brain to rationally analyze something. Similarly, I've forgotten more
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:05:29 PM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict
economics than you'll ever know. You just sit there having no clue whatsoever about how government works, how federal employees work, how stats work, how these charts are manipulated, how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobodyYou are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics.You mean YOU are just one of those buffoons who believes any tripe coming from those agenda filled left wing propaganda sites and totally incapable of using your elderly alzheimers brain to rationally analyze something. Similarly, I've forgotten more
.
See Bill? You're a lawyer. Help me with some words...
The best I see for his fool is, "Delusional." Got any better?
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict J6'
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be explained by
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 1:36:33 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict J6'
A documentary from a known liar, defending a prolific liar.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 1:20:37 PM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:get convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:05:29 PM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to
convict J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to
more economics than you'll ever know. You just sit there having no clue whatsoever about how government works, how federal employees work, how stats work, how these charts are manipulated, how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly becauseYou are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics.You mean YOU are just one of those buffoons who believes any tripe coming from those agenda filled left wing propaganda sites and totally incapable of using your elderly alzheimers brain to rationally analyze something. Similarly, I've forgotten
.
See Bill? You're a lawyer. Help me with some words...
The best I see for his fool is, "Delusional." Got any better?I don't know, but he's definitely unteachable. I suspect he didn't make very far in school. Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his worshippers would still have their tongue up his ass. Jack is living proof of that.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be explained
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 1:20:37 PM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:get convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:05:29 PM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to
convict J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to
more economics than you'll ever know. You just sit there having no clue whatsoever about how government works, how federal employees work, how stats work, how these charts are manipulated, how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly becauseYou are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics.You mean YOU are just one of those buffoons who believes any tripe coming from those agenda filled left wing propaganda sites and totally incapable of using your elderly alzheimers brain to rationally analyze something. Similarly, I've forgotten
..
See Bill? You're a lawyer. Help me with some words...
The best I see for his fool is, "Delusional." Got any better?I don't know, but he's definitely unteachable. I suspect he didn't make very far in school. Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his worshippers would still have their tongue up his ass. Jack is living proof of that.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: <snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?
Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little mathmyself....
and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 2:54:47 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:get convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 1:20:37 PM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:05:29 PM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to
convict J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to
more economics than you'll ever know. You just sit there having no clue whatsoever about how government works, how federal employees work, how stats work, how these charts are manipulated, how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly becauseYou are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics.You mean YOU are just one of those buffoons who believes any tripe coming from those agenda filled left wing propaganda sites and totally incapable of using your elderly alzheimers brain to rationally analyze something. Similarly, I've forgotten
opposite to what he put in his book. The questioner can't get a word in edgewise. That's Jack rOff. The more he's cornered, the longer the non-reply and more glamorous he paints himself..
See Bill? You're a lawyer. Help me with some words...
.The best I see for his fool is, "Delusional." Got any better?I don't know, but he's definitely unteachable. I suspect he didn't make very far in school. Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his worshippers would still have their tongue up his ass. Jack is living proof of that.
He's like that Ramaswamy guy that's been nowhere, done nothing, and is running for president. When questioned, he dodges and runs his mouth off a mile a minute with other bullshit. He's learned that from watching trump and the other dodges. Says things
Perhaps the best word is mental case...
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: <snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little math
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: <snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little math
And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: <snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little math
And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: <snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little
And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little
memory isn't faulty at all.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said. MyThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
I reject your premise.'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...So,
Claims the moron who literally voted for a president who has lied his entire career
about literally everything.
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?
On September 8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?It's an adage that probability is the area where a professional mathematician
is most likely to go wrong.
When the Monte Hall problem was first published, the writer received
a thousand letters of rebuke, including from many mathematicians.
--
Rich
There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
memory isn't faulty at all.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said. MyThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
So, I reject your premise.'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...
Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>> <snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little
memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said. MyThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 12:56:40 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
On September 8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?It's an adage that probability is the area where a professional mathematician
is most likely to go wrong.
When the Monte Hall problem was first published, the writer received
a thousand letters of rebuke, including from many mathematicians.
--
Rich
And it was a homework assignment in my Advanced Probability class in 1980. The key is the assumptions.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020
Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/
ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself. >> You are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict J6'
.
Or when any of us tried to teach him anything..
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little
My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
On 9/8/2023 3:18 PM, VegasJerry wrote:convictions....
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020
Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/
J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict
.You are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics..
Or when any of us tried to teach him anything..Is there anything you do not understand, Jerry?
On 9/11/2023 6:42 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 12:56:40 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
On September 8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?It's an adage that probability is the area where a professional mathematician
is most likely to go wrong.
When the Monte Hall problem was first published, the writer received
a thousand letters of rebuke, including from many mathematicians.
--
Rich
And it was a homework assignment in my Advanced Probability class in 1980. The key is the assumptions.So, there are "assumptions" in "understands" ... and "probability"?
More ...
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little
My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
My memory isn't faulty at all.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
So, I reject your premise.'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...
they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....but
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
My memory isn't faulty at all.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
..So, I reject your premise.'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
No, because I don't recall asking you to teach it, which was your claim.As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little
My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:12:26 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 6:42 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 12:56:40 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:So, there are "assumptions" in "understands" ... and "probability"?
On September 8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?It's an adage that probability is the area where a professional mathematician
is most likely to go wrong.
When the Monte Hall problem was first published, the writer received
a thousand letters of rebuke, including from many mathematicians.
--
Rich
And it was a homework assignment in my Advanced Probability class in 1980. The key is the assumptions.
More ...
Absolutely. One of the first comes up in defining the Sample Space.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:13:28 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:convictions....
On 9/8/2023 3:18 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>> Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020
Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever.That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/
J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OOk, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict
.Is there anything you do not understand, Jerry?You are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics..
Or when any of us tried to teach him anything..
Yea. Why can't you answer any questions.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:34:37 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a little
My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
No, because I don't recall asking you to teach it, which was your claim.Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Your faulty memory doesn't show I'm inaccurate. In fact, can you supply us with the reason then why I know so much about what you do, the class you offer, and how you are the one who set schedule? How else would I know these things?
On 9/12/2023 11:19 AM, VegasJerry wrote:convictions....
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:13:28 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/8/2023 3:18 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever. >>>>>>>>
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/ >>>>>>> That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0O >>>>> Ok, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict
..Is there anything you do not understand, Jerry?You are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics..
Or when any of us tried to teach him anything..
Yea. Why can't you answer any questions?
Why can you not form an interesting comment?.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:34:37 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
Your faulty memory doesn't show I'm inaccurate. In fact, can you supply us with the reason then why I know so much about what you do, the class you offer, and how you are the one who set schedule? How else would I know these things?No, because I don't recall asking you to teach it, which was your claim.As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
On 9/12/2023 12:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:12:26 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 6:42 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 12:56:40 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:So, there are "assumptions" in "understands" ... and "probability"?
On September 8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?It's an adage that probability is the area where a professional mathematician
is most likely to go wrong.
When the Monte Hall problem was first published, the writer received >>>> a thousand letters of rebuke, including from many mathematicians.
--
Rich
And it was a homework assignment in my Advanced Probability class in 1980. The key is the assumptions.
More ...
Absolutely. One of the first comes up in defining the Sample Space.There is that word "absolutely" again ... can we assume that you are "absolutely" correct in all your statements? Absolutely?
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:50:40 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:34:37 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps
a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
..but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts..
Because I have written about it many times. The question that I have is why you believe that I asked you.Your faulty memory doesn't show I'm inaccurate. In fact, can you supply us with the reason then why I know so much about what you do, the class you offer, and how you are the one who set schedule? How else would I know these things?No, because I don't recall asking you to teach it, which was your claim.As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
..So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute.
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall."Usual" is another interesting "word".
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:34:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:50:40 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:34:37 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
..So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute.
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
Because I have written about it many times. The question that I have is why you believe that I asked you.No, because I don't recall asking you to teach it, which was your claim. >>> Your faulty memory doesn't show I'm inaccurate. In fact, can you supply us with the reason then why I know so much about what you do, the class you offer, and how you are the one who set schedule? How else would I know these things?Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Because after we chatted about vector calculus once, you expressed to me the trouble you were having setting the schedule for a Calc 3 course and inquired of my interest in it.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:45:36 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:12:26 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2023 6:42 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:There is that word "absolutely" again ... can we assume that you are
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 12:56:40 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:So, there are "assumptions" in "understands" ... and "probability"?
On September 8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?It's an adage that probability is the area where a professional mathematician
is most likely to go wrong.
When the Monte Hall problem was first published, the writer received >>>>>> a thousand letters of rebuke, including from many mathematicians.
--
Rich
And it was a homework assignment in my Advanced Probability class in 1980. The key is the assumptions.
More ...
Absolutely. One of the first comes up in defining the Sample Space.
"absolutely" correct in all your statements? Absolutely?
Nope
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:50:01 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:convictions....
On 9/12/2023 11:19 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:13:28 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/8/2023 3:18 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020
Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/ >>>>>>>>> That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0O >>>>>>> Ok, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to convict
..Is there anything you do not understand, Jerry?You are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics..
Or when any of us tried to teach him anything..
Yea. Why can't you answer any questions?
Why can you not form an interesting comment?.
*** Still, (embarrassingly for you, again) *** NO ANSWER NOTED ****
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to be
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I said.Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
..So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute.
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....
"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
On 9/12/2023 2:02 PM, VegasJerry wrote:convictions....
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:50:01 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 11:19 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:13:28 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/8/2023 3:18 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
Learn exactly how they cheated Trump in 2020Except for the fact that it contained no evidence whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/ >>>>>>>>> That article is completely full of shit. The same Geolocation evidence which it claims is false for 2000mules is the EXACT SAME geolocation evidence the FBI used to arrest 1000 J6 protestors. Seems like it's accurate enough for the FBI to get
convict J6'ers...they are accurate enough to put in a documentary. So, go fuck yourself.https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-idUSL2N2XJ0O >>>>>>> Ok, you can take all your questioning any any agenda filled "fact" checking and shove it up your ass. All those lame attempts to cast doubt on the accuacy and metholdogy are just that....lame...and bullshit. If they are accurate enough to
...Is there anything you do not understand, Jerry?You are obviously just one of those people who will just believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd, and dismiss any irrefutable evidence to the contrary is regarded as "fake". I saw that when I tried to teach you some basic economics..
Or when any of us tried to teach him anything..
Yea. Why can't you answer any questions?
Why can you not form an interesting comment?.
*** Still, (embarrassingly for you, again) *** NO ANSWER NOTED ****
No interesting comment noted..
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
..but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts..
."Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one. >>>> Very interesting.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
I was asking questions that you do not answer.
Very BillB like ...
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:29:29 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
No interesting comment noted..
See? Still no answer...
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
..but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts..
"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one. >>>> Very interesting.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
On 9/13/2023 1:21 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:29:29 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
No interesting comment noted..
See? Still no answer...
Still nothing
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only to
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
..but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small amounts..
I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one. >>>>>> Very interesting.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a >>>> simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual
definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering
"absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
On 9/12/2023 9:13 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:34:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:50:40 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:34:37 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk >>>>>>>> wrote:Because I have written about it many times. The question that I have
Your faulty memory doesn't show I'm inaccurate. In fact, can youNo, because I don't recall asking you to teach it, which was yourExpecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics,On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth >>>>>>>>> wrote:But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim >>>>>>>>>> Norfolk wrote:Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' >>>>>>>>> in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill >>>>>>>>>> a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage >>>>>>>>>> at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based >>>>>>>>>> and will remain here.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim >>>>>>>>>>>> Norfolk wrote:And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in >>>>>>>>>>> the hell did I try to hire you?
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of >>>>>>>>>>>> my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was >>>>>>>>>>>> directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You >>>>>>>>>>>> tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a >>>>>>>>>>>> little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> probably the only one of us two who has actually used
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly >>>>>>>>>>>>> because nobody understands math or probability and
statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing >>>>>>>>>>>>> what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind
boggling perhaps only to be explained by you being some >>>>>>>>>>>>> moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic >>>>>>>>>>>>> canadian lens.
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands >>>>>>>>>>>>> math or probability and statistics"?
probability and statistics in real life.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping >>>>>>>>>> to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is >>>>>>>>>>> once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have >>>>>>>>>>> the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level
concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even
sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables.
Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had >>>>>>>>>> a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept
not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus
3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.
Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. >>>>>>>> An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case,
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise
statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily >>>>>>>>> agreed.
the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the >>>>>>>> meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...So, I >>>>>>>> reject your premise.
and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress,
you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with
various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....but they
are in there.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had >>>>>>> vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which
went much deeper, including into tensors.
claim.
supply us with the reason then why I know so much about what you do,
the class you offer, and how you are the one who set schedule? How
else would I know these things?
is why you believe that I asked you.
Because after we chatted about vector calculus once, you expressed to
me the trouble you were having setting the schedule for a Calc 3
course and inquired of my interest in it.
His "memory" is failing ... absolutely.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:21:35 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 1:21 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:29:29 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
No interesting comment noted..
See? Still no answer...
Still nothing
And that's all we usually get from you... nothing..
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one. >>>>>> Very interesting.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a >>>> simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual
definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering
"absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.No, you did not.
Does 1+1=10?
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you >>>> say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you >>>> are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one. >>>>>>>> Very interesting.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a >>>>>> simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering
"absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you >>>> say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you >>>> are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimalAh, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:18:53 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
advantage in the 'Say Red' game, despite at least 3 different proofs that it is not possible.Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you >>>>>> say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you >>>>>> are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a >>>>>>>> simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
I told you that Russel and Whitehead took 37 pages to prove that 1+1=2. If you consider that easy, then I would be interested what you consider hard. Especially since, if I recall correctly, it was you who insisted that the player could have an
It's an adage that probability is the area where a professional mathematician
is most likely to go wrong.
When the Monte Hall problem was first published, the writer received
a thousand letters of rebuke, including from many mathematicians.
And it was a homework assignment in my Advanced Probability class in 1980.
On 9/14/2023 8:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:21:35 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 1:21 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:29:29 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>
No interesting comment noted..
See? Still no answer...
Still nothing
And that's all we usually get from you... nothing..
Wash and rinse and still nothing
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
.No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you >>>> say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you >>>> are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps only
little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a
said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like IThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
.No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you >>>>>> say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you >>>>>> are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a >>>>>>>> simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:01:51 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/14/2023 8:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:21:35 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2023 1:21 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:29:29 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>
No interesting comment noted..
See? Still no answer...
Still nothing
And that's all we usually get from you... nothing..
Wash and rinse and still nothing
See?
On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps
a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know
I said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...likeThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
.No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual >>>>>> definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//I am not surprised that you did not "get it", Jerry.
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his tools of trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him, he is clever.
On September 11, Tim Norfolk wrote:
It's an adage that probability is the area where a professional mathematician
is most likely to go wrong.
When the Monte Hall problem was first published, the writer received
a thousand letters of rebuke, including from many mathematicians.
And it was a homework assignment in my Advanced Probability class in 1980.You play a match, consisting of N coin tosses. You've been suckered,
because it's loaded, and your chance of winning, on each toss, is p < .5
To win the match, you must win a majority of tosses. You lose on a tie.
Even money payoff.
You can choose N. It must be even. What number maximizes your winning chance, as a function of p? (N = 0 is disallowed)
--
Rich
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps
a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know
I said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...likeThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
I am not surprised that you did not "get it", Jerry..No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you >>>>>>>> say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you >>>>>>>> are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual >>>>>>>> definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>>>>>> "absolute"."Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his tools of
trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him, he is
clever.
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:00:40 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 10:26 AM, da pickle wrote:.
On 9/12/2023 9:13 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:34:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:50:40 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:34:37 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Because I have written about it many times. The question that I have >>>>> is why you believe that I asked you.On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:Your faulty memory doesn't show I'm inaccurate. In fact, can you
No, because I don't recall asking you to teach it, which was your >>>>>>> claim.On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. >>>>>>>> For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, >>>>>>>> you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with >>>>>>>> various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....but they >>>>>>>> are in there.
Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, >>>>>>>>> and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim >>>>>>>>>>>> Norfolk wrote:Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' >>>>>>>>>>> in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill >>>>>>>>>>>> a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage >>>>>>>>>>>> at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based >>>>>>>>>>>> and will remain here.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norfolk wrote:And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the hell did I try to hire you?
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably the only one of us two who has actually used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability and statistics in real life.
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because nobody understands math or probability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boggling perhaps only to be explained by you being some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> canadian lens.
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math or probability and statistics"?
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping >>>>>>>>>>>> to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is >>>>>>>>>>>>> once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level >>>>>>>>>>>>> concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even >>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had >>>>>>>>>>>> a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept >>>>>>>>>> not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus >>>>>>>>>> 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I >>>>>>>>>> said. My memory isn't faulty at all.
Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. >>>>>>>>>> An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, >>>>>>>>>> the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the >>>>>>>>>> meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...So, I >>>>>>>>>> reject your premise.
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise >>>>>>>>>>> statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily >>>>>>>>>>> agreed.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had >>>>>>>>> vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which >>>>>>>>> went much deeper, including into tensors.
supply us with the reason then why I know so much about what you do, >>>>>> the class you offer, and how you are the one who set schedule? How >>>>>> else would I know these things?
Because after we chatted about vector calculus once, you expressed to
me the trouble you were having setting the schedule for a Calc 3
course and inquired of my interest in it.
His "memory" is failing ... absolutely.
Now he adopts Jerry's standard dodge and run.
Says the guy that doesn't answer and always dodges...
LOL
On 9/15/2023 8:30 AM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:01:51 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/14/2023 8:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:21:35 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2023 1:21 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:29:29 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
No interesting comment noted..
See? Still no answer...
Still nothing
And that's all we usually get from you... nothing..
Wash and rinse and still nothing
See?Your glasses are fogged.
See? Still no answer...
On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps
a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know
I said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...likeThen your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as an
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
..No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual >>>>>> definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
I am not surprised that ....
.See again?
*** No Answer ***
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his tools of trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him, he is clever.
On 9/15/2023 8:30 AM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:00:40 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 10:26 AM, da pickle wrote:.
On 9/12/2023 9:13 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:34:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:50:40 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:34:37 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Because I have written about it many times. The question that I have >>>>> is why you believe that I asked you.On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:Your faulty memory doesn't show I'm inaccurate. In fact, can you >>>>>> supply us with the reason then why I know so much about what you do, >>>>>> the class you offer, and how you are the one who set schedule? How >>>>>> else would I know these things?
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:No, because I don't recall asking you to teach it, which was your >>>>>>> claim.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. >>>>>>>> For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, >>>>>>>> you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with >>>>>>>> various pollutants and particulates in small amounts....but they >>>>>>>> are in there.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, >>>>>>>>> and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a >>>>>>>>>> professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept >>>>>>>>>> not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus >>>>>>>>>> 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...like I >>>>>>>>>> said. My memory isn't faulty at all.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim >>>>>>>>>>>> Norfolk wrote:Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' >>>>>>>>>>> in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill >>>>>>>>>>>> a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage >>>>>>>>>>>> at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based >>>>>>>>>>>> and will remain here.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norfolk wrote:And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the hell did I try to hire you?
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack rothJust like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably the only one of us two who has actually used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability and statistics in real life.
wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because nobody understands math or probability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boggling perhaps only to be explained by you being some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> canadian lens.
Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math or probability and statistics"?
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping >>>>>>>>>>>> to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is >>>>>>>>>>>>> once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level >>>>>>>>>>>>> concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even >>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had >>>>>>>>>>>> a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. >>>>>>>>>> An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, >>>>>>>>>> the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the >>>>>>>>>> meaning of what I said by referring to it as an absolute...So, I >>>>>>>>>> reject your premise.
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise >>>>>>>>>>> statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily >>>>>>>>>>> agreed.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had >>>>>>>>> vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which >>>>>>>>> went much deeper, including into tensors.
Because after we chatted about vector calculus once, you expressed to >>>> me the trouble you were having setting the schedule for a Calc 3
course and inquired of my interest in it.
His "memory" is failing ... absolutely.
Now he adopts Jerry's standard dodge and run.
Says the guy that doesn't answer and always dodges...
LOL
One more time, Jerry.
Says the guy that doesn't answer and always dodges...
LOL
On 9/15/2023 12:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps
know a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I
like I said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
an absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
I am not surprised that you did not "get it", Jerry..No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual >>>>>>>> definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>>>>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his tools of >> trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him, he is >> clever.
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.I can gain an advantage in the "Say Red" game. I will never lose on as
many games as you want to play. That is all to my "advantage".
Do you have money?
[Don't bite at all, Tim ... just skip it. Walk away. Don't respond.]
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:59:53 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:perhaps only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/15/2023 12:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling
know a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I
like I said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
an absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
small amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in
I am not surprised that you did not "get it", Jerry..No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual >>>>>>>> definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering
"absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer. >>>>>>>>
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his tools of >> trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him, he is >> clever.
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.I can gain an advantage in the "Say Red" game. I will never lose on as many games as you want to play. That is all to my "advantage".
Do you have money?
[Don't bite at all, Tim ... just skip it. Walk away. Don't respond.]No, you can't. What you can do is possibly win for some time, just like with coin tosses.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:59:53 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On 9/15/2023 12:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps
know a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I
like I said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
an absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
I can gain an advantage in the "Say Red" game. I will never lose on asI am not surprised that you did not "get it", Jerry..No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate....
Very interesting.
I always like discussions including "absolutes".
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>>>>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual >>>>>>>>>> definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>>>>>>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer.
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up.
See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his tools of >>>> trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him, he is >>>> clever.
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.
many games as you want to play. That is all to my "advantage".
Do you have money?
[Don't bite at all, Tim ... just skip it. Walk away. Don't respond.]
No, you can't. What you can do is possibly win for some time, just like with coin tosses.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:59:50 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:59:53 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/15/2023 12:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling perhaps
know a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I
like I said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
an absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in small
No, you can't. What you can do is possibly win for some time, just like with coin tosses.I can gain an advantage in the "Say Red" game. I will never lose on asI am not surprised that you did not "get it", Jerry..No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".Very interesting.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
I always like discussions including "absolutes". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all >>>>>>>>>>>>> situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual >>>>>>>>>>> definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering >>>>>>>>>>> "absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer. >>>>>>>>>>>
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up. >>>>>>See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his tools of >>>>> trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him, he is >>>>> clever.
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.
many games as you want to play. That is all to my "advantage".
Do you have money?
[Don't bite at all, Tim ... just skip it. Walk away. Don't respond.]
I can win coin tosses 100% of the time. Not like you said it needs to be a fair coin. Details, Tim. That was sloppy work.
On 9/16/2023 10:59 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:perhaps only to be explained by you being some moron canadian who only sees the world through some idiotic canadian lens.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:59:53 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/15/2023 12:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted incorrectly because nobody understands math or probability and statistics, and also fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's actually being shown to the degree it's mind boggling
know a little math myself....and I bet between you and I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has actually used probability and statistics in real life.Would you care to place a wager that "nobody understands math or probability and statistics"?Just like a libtard you had to cut out that little part of my post that was inconventient to you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I
like I said. My memory isn't faulty at all.But, you notice how I specifically remember you being a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you couldn't find anyone...Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing scheduling.And you would be wrong again, on almost all counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you?Many years ago when you were lamenting not being able to fill a vector calculus position. It never got to any serious stage at all as while I like all forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain here.
1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my sentences hoping to criticize only part of it without context.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I would doubt that you have the necessary precision to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand math...even sometimes math professors I've destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's just say I gave you an answer that had a source of error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math.
an absolute...So, I reject your premise.Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of what I said by referring to it as
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I would have heartily agreed.
small amounts....but they are in there.Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes is sloppy.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants and particulates in
I can gain an advantage in the "Say Red" game. I will never lose on asI am not surprised that you did not "get it", Jerry..No, you did not.I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB like ... you"Usual" is another interesting "word".Very interesting.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used to have a course which went much deeper, including into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will end this one.
I always like discussions including "absolutes". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add "usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which "usual >>>>>>>>>> definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are considering
"absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer. >>>>>>>>>>
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up. >>>>>See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his tools of >>>> trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him, he is >>>> clever.
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.
many games as you want to play. That is all to my "advantage".
Do you have money?
[Don't bite at all, Tim ... just skip it. Walk away. Don't respond.]
No, you can't. What you can do is possibly win for some time, just like with coin tosses.I can play as many Say Red games as you want to play (for dollars) and I will never lose even one dollar to you. Not one no matter how many
games you want to play. Wanna bet?
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:11:09 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
I can play as many Say Red games as you want to play (for dollars) and I
will never lose even one dollar to you. Not one no matter how many
games you want to play. Wanna bet?
Set the precise conditions, and we will figure a way to do it.
On 9/16/2023 7:47 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:11:09 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
I can play as many Say Red games as you want to play (for dollars) and I >> will never lose even one dollar to you. Not one no matter how many
games you want to play. Wanna bet?
Set the precise conditions, and we will figure a way to do it.Define "figure a way to do it".
I can prove to you "to your satisfaction" that I can play as many Say
Red games with you (or anyone else) as you (or another) want to play and
I will never lose even one bet (dollar) to anyone. No matter how many
games you (or anyone else) wants to play. You or they can shuffle and
deal (but it has to be an honest game ... no cheating).
Do you want the explanation of how I gain the advantage in the game?
Wanna bet (no money involved) that I can gain the advantage in the game?
Are you going to put up more conditions before you decide that I am
correct and you are incorrect in your idea about the game?
Or are you just going to just leave the table?
[Anyone else want to bet?]
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/16/2023 7:47 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:11:09 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
I can play as many Say Red games as you want to play (for dollars) and I
will never lose even one dollar to you. Not one no matter how many
games you want to play. Wanna bet?
Set the precise conditions, and we will figure a way to do it.Define "figure a way to do it".
I can prove to you "to your satisfaction" that I can play as many Say
Red games with you (or anyone else) as you (or another) want to play and
I will never lose even one bet (dollar) to anyone. No matter how many games you (or anyone else) wants to play. You or they can shuffle and
deal (but it has to be an honest game ... no cheating).
Do you want the explanation of how I gain the advantage in the game?
Wanna bet (no money involved) that I can gain the advantage in the game?
Are you going to put up more conditions before you decide that I am correct and you are incorrect in your idea about the game?
Or are you just going to just leave the table?
[Anyone else want to bet?]I am on vacation this week, but will continue this.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 4:55:18 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/16/2023 7:47 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am on vacation this week, but will continue this.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:11:09 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>Define "figure a way to do it".
I can play as many Say Red games as you want to play (for dollars) and I >>>>> will never lose even one dollar to you. Not one no matter how many
games you want to play. Wanna bet?
Set the precise conditions, and we will figure a way to do it.
I can prove to you "to your satisfaction" that I can play as many Say
Red games with you (or anyone else) as you (or another) want to play and >>> I will never lose even one bet (dollar) to anyone. No matter how many
games you (or anyone else) wants to play. You or they can shuffle and
deal (but it has to be an honest game ... no cheating).
Do you want the explanation of how I gain the advantage in the game?
Wanna bet (no money involved) that I can gain the advantage in the game? >>>
Are you going to put up more conditions before you decide that I am
correct and you are incorrect in your idea about the game?
Or are you just going to just leave the table?
[Anyone else want to bet?]
Do you only have access to RGP while you are at work?
On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:59:50 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:59:53 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/15/2023 12:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:No, you can't. What you can do is possibly win for some time, just
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/15/2023 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:I can gain an advantage in the "Say Red" game. I will never lose on as >>>> many games as you want to play. That is all to my "advantage".
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:18:53 AM UTC-7, da pickle >>>>>>> wrote:I am not surprised that you did not "get it", Jerry.
On 9/14/2023 10:14 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-4, da pickle >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 9/13/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:26:04 AM UTC-4, da >>>>>>>>>>> pickle wrote:No, you did not.
On 9/12/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM UTC-4, da >>>>>>>>>>>>> pickle wrote:I was asking questions that you do not answer. Very BillB >>>>>>>>>>>> like ... you
On 9/12/2023 12:32 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:08:16 AM UTC-4, da >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pickle wrote:"Usual" is another interesting "word".
On 9/11/2023 8:49 PM, jack roth wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Tim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norfolk wrote:Very interesting.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jack roth wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:09:51 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Norfolk wrote:Which is exactly the point. There are absolutes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics, and expressing generalities as absolutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is sloppy.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-4, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jack roth wrote:But, you notice how I specifically remember you being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a professor AND doing scheduling. Oddly unusual for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math dept not to offer such a basic fundamental math >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cards....Calculus 3....perhaps it's just that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't find anyone...like I said. My memory isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faulty at all.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:09:48 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-4, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jack roth wrote:1. It's not fair or good logic to truncate my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentences hoping to criticize only part of it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without context.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Norfolk wrote:And you would be wrong again, on almost all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counts. When in the hell did I try to hire you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many years ago when you were lamenting not being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to fill a vector calculus position. It never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got to any serious stage at all as while I like all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forms of math, I'm West Coast based and will remain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:05:29 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
<snip>
<snip>how data across the board is interpreted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly because nobody understands math or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability and statistics, and also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally incapable of analyzing what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually being shown to the degree it's mind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boggling perhaps only to be explained by you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being some moron canadian who only sees the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world through some idiotic canadian lens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you care to place a wager that "nobody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understands math or probability and statistics"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like a libtard you had to cut out that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little part of my post that was inconventient to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you the fact that I was directing it to BillB. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, ya, I know you teach math. You tried to hire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to teach Vector Calculus. You see, I know a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little math myself....and I bet between you and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, I'm probably the only one of us two who has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually used probability and statistics in real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life.
Still, your claim was "nobody understands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math...". That is once again complete hyperbole. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would doubt that you have the necessary precision >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly use upper-level concepts, based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your sloppiness in argument.
2. In my experience nobody does understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math...even sometimes math professors I've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed at poker tables. Having said that, let's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just say I gave you an answer that had a source of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error...say 99% +/- 1% understand math. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then your memory is bad. We had not offered 'Vector >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calculus' in decades by the time that I was doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduling.
Only a moron mathematician could assume anything is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an absolute. An engineer has no absolutes. Just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negligible, it doesn't really change the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I said by referring to it as an absolute...So, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject your premise.
'nobody' doesn't have a margin of error. That is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precise statement. Had you said 'most people', I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have heartily agreed.
Expecting things said in conversation to be absolutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is moronic. For example, when you ask for a glass of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water from a waitress, you just ask for water, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ask for a glass a water with various pollutants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and particulates in small amounts....but they are in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
As for the classes, we did of course have Calculus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> III, which had vector calculus and a lot more. We used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have a course which went much deeper, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into tensors.
Ok....so, as usual, I'm completely accurate.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A very interesting discussion. It appears that Tim will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end this one.
I always like discussions including "absolutes". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does 1+1=2 "absolutely"?
So simple a statement ... hummmmm
Or not?
Yes, for the usual definitions of addition. Proved by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russell and Whitehead in the Principia, using 37 pages, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I recall.
Are we limited to only the "usual definitions of addition" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to answer a
simple question?
Absolutely?
Does that word include the "usual definitions of addition" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all
situations without more "words"?
All right, if you insist. When you write 1+1=2, are you >>>>>>>>>>>>> using the symbol '+' in the addition of integers, or in one >>>>>>>>>>>>> of those stupid internet puzzles?
say there are "absolutes in mathematics" but then add
"usual" when you
are asked about it ... and no "words" so we can know which >>>>>>>>>>>> "usual
definitions of addition" in which "mathematics" you are >>>>>>>>>>>> considering
"absolute".
Go ahead and answer with an "absolutely accurate" answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Simple
I did. The reason that I gave 'usual' is because that symbol >>>>>>>>>>> is used for a great many things within Mathematics, including >>>>>>>>>>> vector addition, and group operations in Abelian groups.
Does 1+1=10?
Specify binary or decimal
Ah, you finally see difficulty ... thanks for finally fessing up. >>>>>>>See again?
*** No Answer ***
Just dodge.
//NEXT//
Tim obviously did.
Just like the Say Red example ... words are everything.
He only talks about improving probability of winning ... not ever
mentioning guaranteed probability of not losing. Words are his
tools of
trade and seeming ... magical. You should actually listen to him,
he is
clever.
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that
we discussed.
Do you have money?
[Don't bite at all, Tim ... just skip it. Walk away. Don't respond.]
like with coin tosses.
I can win coin tosses 100% of the time. Not like you said it needs
to be a fair coin. Details, Tim. That was sloppy work.
I do not need to cheat, Mav ... I will not lose even once. He will run
now.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
.On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
.On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
.On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing?.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
.On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing?.
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.
On September 15, Tim Norfolk wrote:
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.
A dealer holds a stack of 100 cards, face down, each containing a
different number. Your job is to guess the highest.
He picks up the top card, looks at it. You may choose that one. If you reject, he pulls the next card, examines it, and announces whether it's
the highest yet. If so, you may choose that one, or again reject.
This process continues through the stack. If you reject the first 99 cards, you take the last one.
Can you improve over 1%?
--
Rich
On September 15, Tim Norfolk wrote:Sounds very Monte Hall-ish.
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.A dealer holds a stack of 100 cards, face down, each containing a
different number. Your job is to guess the highest.
He picks up the top card, looks at it. You may choose that one. If you reject, he pulls the next card, examines it, and announces whether it's
the highest yet. If so, you may choose that one, or again reject.
This process continues through the stack. If you reject the first 99 cards, you take the last one.
Can you improve over 1%?
--
Rich
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.
A dealer holds a stack of 100 cards, face down, each containing a
different number. Your job is to guess the highest.
He picks up the top card, looks at it. You may choose that one. If you
reject, he pulls the next card, examines it, and announces whether it's
the highest yet. If so, you may choose that one, or again reject.
This process continues through the stack. If you reject the first 99 cards, >> you take the last one.
Can you improve over 1%?
Sounds very Monte Hall-ish.
On September 18, jack roth wrote:
It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed.
A dealer holds a stack of 100 cards, face down, each containing a
different number. Your job is to guess the highest.
He picks up the top card, looks at it. You may choose that one. If you
reject, he pulls the next card, examines it, and announces whether it's >> the highest yet. If so, you may choose that one, or again reject.
This process continues through the stack. If you reject the first 99 cards,
you take the last one.
Can you improve over 1%?
Sounds very Monte Hall-ish.
It is, but far more complicated. The exact solution, that is.
The general strategy underlying the solution is comprehensible.
--
Rich
A dealer holds a stack of 100 cards, face down, each containing aCan you improve over 1%?
different number. Your job is to guess the highest.
He picks up the top card, looks at it. You may choose that one. If you
reject, he pulls the next card, examines it, and announces whether it's >> >> the highest yet. If so, you may choose that one, or again reject.
This process continues through the stack. If you reject the first 99 cards,
you take the last one.
Sounds very Monte Hall-ish.
It is, but far more complicated. The exact solution, that is.
The general strategy underlying the solution is comprehensible.
My guess is it's the exact same solution as Monte Hall, just more iterations. But,
I haven't bothered to work anything out....
On 9/18/2023 1:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
.
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing?.
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
This is the Say Red thread, Jerry. Are you in or out?
A dealer holds a stack of 100 cards, face down, each containing a
different number. Your job is to guess the highest.
He picks up the top card, looks at it. You may choose that one. If you
reject, he pulls the next card, examines it, and announces whether it's >> >> the highest yet. If so, you may choose that one, or again reject.
This process continues through the stack. If you reject the first 99 cards,
you take the last one.
Can you improve over 1%?
Sounds very Monte Hall-ish.
It is, but far more complicated. The exact solution, that is.
The general strategy underlying the solution is comprehensible.
My guess is it's the exact same solution as Monte Hall, just more iterations. But,
I haven't bothered to work anything out....
No, it's different. In Monte's game, he knows what's behind which
door, and always shows you a pig. He's sneaky.
In this game, the dealer is a robot, no choices. Very different.
However, you're onto something - the iterations idea is important.
I will describe the general strategy later. You should be able to suss
it, without the algebra, which is eventually unavoidable.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 4:55:18 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/16/2023 7:47 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:11:09 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
I can play as many Say Red games as you want to play (for dollars) and I
will never lose even one dollar to you. Not one no matter how many
games you want to play. Wanna bet?
Set the precise conditions, and we will figure a way to do it.Define "figure a way to do it".
I can prove to you "to your satisfaction" that I can play as many Say Red games with you (or anyone else) as you (or another) want to play and I will never lose even one bet (dollar) to anyone. No matter how many games you (or anyone else) wants to play. You or they can shuffle and deal (but it has to be an honest game ... no cheating).
Do you want the explanation of how I gain the advantage in the game?
Wanna bet (no money involved) that I can gain the advantage in the game?
Are you going to put up more conditions before you decide that I am correct and you are incorrect in your idea about the game?
Or are you just going to just leave the table?
Do you only have access to RGP while you are at work?[Anyone else want to bet?]I am on vacation this week, but will continue this.
On September 18, jack roth wrote:
A dealer holds a stack of 100 cards, face down, each containing aCan you improve over 1%?
different number. Your job is to guess the highest.
He picks up the top card, looks at it. You may choose that one. If you >> >> reject, he pulls the next card, examines it, and announces whether it's
the highest yet. If so, you may choose that one, or again reject.
This process continues through the stack. If you reject the first 99 cards,
you take the last one.
Sounds very Monte Hall-ish.
It is, but far more complicated. The exact solution, that is.
The general strategy underlying the solution is comprehensible.
My guess is it's the exact same solution as Monte Hall, just more iterations. But,No, it's different. In Monte's game, he knows what's behind which
I haven't bothered to work anything out....
door, and always shows you a pig. He's sneaky.
In this game, the dealer is a robot, no choices. Very different.
However, you're onto something - the iterations idea is important.
I will describe the general strategy later. You should be able to suss
it, without the algebra, which is eventually unavoidable.
If you want a little brain exercise, try the 4 card case of J, K, Q, A.
Same game, same rules, guess the ace. What strategy maximizes
your EV?
To solve this, you have to consider all possible sequences of 4 cards.
Which is some work, but doable. Next, try it for 100 cards -
--
Rich
On September 19, RichD wrote:
A dealer holds a stack of 100 cards, face down, each containing a
different number. Your job is to guess the highest.
He picks up the top card, looks at it. You may choose that one. If you >> >> reject, he pulls the next card, examines it, and announces whether it's
the highest yet. If so, you may choose that one, or again reject.
This process continues through the stack. If you reject the first 99 cards,
you take the last one.
Can you improve over 1%?
Sounds very Monte Hall-ish.
It is, but far more complicated. The exact solution, that is.
The general strategy underlying the solution is comprehensible.
My guess is it's the exact same solution as Monte Hall, just more iterations. But,
I haven't bothered to work anything out....
No, it's different. In Monte's game, he knows what's behind whichLet's say you reject the first 10 cards, then the dealer announces
door, and always shows you a pig. He's sneaky.
In this game, the dealer is a robot, no choices. Very different.
However, you're onto something - the iterations idea is important.
I will describe the general strategy later. You should be able to suss
it, without the algebra, which is eventually unavoidable.
"highest card yet". Do you take it? There are 90 cards left, the
high card is probably ahead, so you wait.
Then on the 20th card, another announcement. hmmmm...
80 cards to go, let's wait...
You continue this way, rejecting. Eventually you reach the 70th
card, and say "That's far enough, the next announcement, I'll
grab it." uh, at that point, the high card is probably BEHIND you, brainiac -
So you're looking for a magic number N, somewhere in between.
The optimal strategy is to reject the first N cards, IGNORING
THE DEALER, then pick the next announced high card.
Computing N, depending on the deck size, involves a ton of
algebra. Anyway, with optimal play, you can reach about 30%
winning chance. 1% --> 30%, isn't that astounding?
--
Rich
No, but I'm in Vegas, having fun.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/18/2023 1:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
.
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing?.
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
This is the Say Red thread, Jerry. Are you in or out?
See? He *STILL* can't answer.
On 9/19/2023 3:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/18/2023 1:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
.
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing? >>> .
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
This is the Say Red thread, Jerry. Are you in or out?
See? He *STILL* can't answer.
You would think that Tim ...
would not use the Jerry to disappear completely..
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Hy does he run ... you too Jerry ... and Bill seems to have disappeared
too. No one can take a bet on a gambling group.
Sad ...
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:03:48 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/19/2023 3:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/18/2023 1:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
.
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing? >>>>> .
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
This is the Say Red thread, Jerry. Are you in or out?
See? He *STILL* can't answer.
You would think that Tim ...
*** AND HE STILL CAN'T ANSWER ***
(Has he no shame or embarrassment?)
.
.
.
would not use the Jerry to disappear completely..
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Hy does he run ... you too Jerry ... and Bill seems to have disappeared
too. No one can take a bet on a gambling group.
Sad ...
See?
On 9/22/2023 2:05 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:03:48 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/19/2023 3:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/18/2023 1:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
.On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer..
I really did not think he would just leave the table.
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing? >>>>> .
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
This is the Say Red thread, Jerry. Are you in or out?
See? He *STILL* can't answer.
You would think that Tim ...
*** AND HE STILL CAN'T ANSWER ***
(Has he no shame or embarrassment?)
.
.
.
.would not use the Jerry to disappear completely..
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Hy does he run ... you too Jerry ... and Bill seems to have disappeared >> too. No one can take a bet on a gambling group.
Sad ...
See?
We all see, Jerry ....
neither you nor Tim can answer.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 2:59:18 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/22/2023 2:05 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:03:48 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/19/2023 3:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/18/2023 1:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
.
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer. >>>>>>>>>> I really did not think he would just leave the table..
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing? >>>>>>> .
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
This is the Say Red thread, Jerry. Are you in or out?
See? He *STILL* can't answer.
You would think that Tim ...
*** AND HE STILL CAN'T ANSWER ***
(Has he no shame or embarrassment?)
.
.
.
would not use the Jerry to disappear completely..
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Hy does he run ... you too Jerry ... and Bill seems to have disappeared >>>> too. No one can take a bet on a gambling group.
Sad ...
See?
We all see, Jerry ....
Then why can't you answer?
.
.
.
.
neither you nor Tim can answer.
That doesn't not answer why YOU can't answer.
Care to try again?
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 2:59:18 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/22/2023 2:05 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:03:48 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/19/2023 3:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/18/2023 1:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
.On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer. >>>>>>>> I really did not think he would just leave the table..
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing?.
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
This is the Say Red thread, Jerry. Are you in or out?
See? He *STILL* can't answer.
You would think that Tim ...
*** AND HE STILL CAN'T ANSWER ***
(Has he no shame or embarrassment?)
.
.
.
.would not use the Jerry to disappear completely..
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Hy does he run ... you too Jerry ... and Bill seems to have disappeared >> too. No one can take a bet on a gambling group.
Sad ...
.See?
We all see, Jerry ....
Then why can't you answer?
.
.
.
.
neither you nor Tim can answer.That doesn't not answer why YOU can't answer.
Care to try again?
On 9/22/2023 5:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 2:59:18 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/22/2023 2:05 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:03:48 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/19/2023 3:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/18/2023 1:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
.On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:57 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/18/2023 1:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
.On 9/16/2023 11:04 AM, jack roth wrote:
Apparently this is too complicated for him to just answer. >>>>>>>>>> I really did not think he would just leave the table..
Apparently he really is going to run away.
Heh. For two "runaway champions" (plus Irish Mick & Pooperjay999) of cowardly dodging,
** Can't answer **, and just plain - disappearing - ; it's fun watching you tiring to 'chest bump.'
Are going to bet me, Jerry? Or are you joining Tim and disappearing?.
See? He STILL can't answer those questions I asked...
Where he "DISAPPEARED."
This is the Say Red thread, Jerry. Are you in or out?
See? He *STILL* can't answer.
You would think that Tim ...
*** AND HE STILL CAN'T ANSWER ***
(Has he no shame or embarrassment?)
.
.
.
would not use the Jerry to disappear completely..
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Hy does he run ... you too Jerry ... and Bill seems to have disappeared >>>> too. No one can take a bet on a gambling group.
Sad ...
See?
We all see, Jerry ....
Then why can't you answer?
.
.
.
.
neither you nor Tim can answer.
That doesn't not answer why YOU can't answer.The parrot sock puppet squawks
Care to try again?
You would think that Tim ... would not use the Jerry to disappear completely.
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:34:49 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:thru traffic on the I-5 alone is way more than enough to keep me from making the trip. I never realized just how much I truly hated traffic and would seek to avoid it until I no longer had to drive in it.
No, but I'm in Vegas, having fun.Well, give us a trip report since you are having fun. Some of us can't understand what's so fun about Vegas anymore.
I actually don't think I've had fun there in many years....but it's gotten progressively worse. It really wasn't till I retired and could go any time I wanted that I realized I just didn't want to go there anymore. Same thing with Commerce...Driving
It's a weird paradox affecting me that now that I've finally got to the point I can do anything I want, I no longer desire those temporary escapes.
On 9/23/2023 12:37 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Still running, Tim ... and JerryYou would think that Tim ... would not use the Jerry to disappear completely.
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:21:25 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:thru traffic on the I-5 alone is way more than enough to keep me from making the trip. I never realized just how much I truly hated traffic and would seek to avoid it until I no longer had to drive in it.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:34:49 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
No, but I'm in Vegas, having fun.Well, give us a trip report since you are having fun. Some of us can't understand what's so fun about Vegas anymore.
I actually don't think I've had fun there in many years....but it's gotten progressively worse. It really wasn't till I retired and could go any time I wanted that I realized I just didn't want to go there anymore. Same thing with Commerce...Driving
young women were wearing. I was actually propositioned by a very attractive hooker last night, while playing video poker.It's a weird paradox affecting me that now that I've finally got to the point I can do anything I want, I no longer desire those temporary escapes.I hadn't been in 4 years, because of Covid. My brother had never been, so I had us stay in the Golden Nugget. We are both having fun, playing table games and people watching. Last night, the place looked like a hookers' convention with the outfits that
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:54:56 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/23/2023 12:37 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Still running, Tim ... and JerryYou would think that Tim ... would not use the Jerry to disappear completely.
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Are you really that dense? I told you that I would be back online with time when I get home.
On 9/23/2023 6:05 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:54:56 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/23/2023 12:37 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Still running, Tim ... and JerryYou would think that Tim ... would not use the Jerry to disappear completely.
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Are you really that dense? I told you that I would be back online with time when I get home.How much TIME does it take to just say:
"I was wrong about the Say Red game, John ... you were right, you can
gain an advantage in the Say Red game."
Worse than Jerry. If you really want to be a man ... make a bet ...
this is RGP. But no, you are too tired and need rest. Fake
On 9/23/2023 12:37 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
You would think that Tim ... would not use the Jerry to disappear completely.
Say Red ... Tim is WRONG ... I can gain an advantage.
Still running, Tim ... and Jerry
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 4:03:34 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:Driving thru traffic on the I-5 alone is way more than enough to keep me from making the trip. I never realized just how much I truly hated traffic and would seek to avoid it until I no longer had to drive in it.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:21:25 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:34:49 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
No, but I'm in Vegas, having fun.Well, give us a trip report since you are having fun. Some of us can't understand what's so fun about Vegas anymore.
I actually don't think I've had fun there in many years....but it's gotten progressively worse. It really wasn't till I retired and could go any time I wanted that I realized I just didn't want to go there anymore. Same thing with Commerce...
that young women were wearing. I was actually propositioned by a very attractive hooker last night, while playing video poker.It's a weird paradox affecting me that now that I've finally got to the point I can do anything I want, I no longer desire those temporary escapes.I hadn't been in 4 years, because of Covid. My brother had never been, so I had us stay in the Golden Nugget. We are both having fun, playing table games and people watching. Last night, the place looked like a hookers' convention with the outfits
I've lost count how many times I've been to vegas, but unless things have drastically changed, the uglier, fatter, older women hang out in downtown. And, the hookers downtown aren't nearly the quality that propositions you at Bellagio or in that area.Usually, the hookers downtown are rather swarthy urbanites. And, word to the wise, if you want these leeches not to solicit you, don't play video poker by walkways....which IMO, you must have been doing. Also, if you make the mistake again of staying
Now if you really want to see you women dressed rather naked and are very hot and in shape, go to Vegas on Halloween weekend and stay at something like the Wynn...or maybe Venetian. But, if you are the type that really likes a high quality broad hit onyou in a casino just for kicks, dress well, put on a nice watch and then go hang out by yourself at that lounge with the interesting table sculpture by the table games at Bellagio.
|
| Today, a federal court in Georgia greenlit a lawsuit
| against Dinesh D'Souza, Salem Media, Regnery Publishing,
| True The Vote, and True the Vote's Catherine Engelbrecht
| and Gregg Phillips (along with D'Souza Media) for peddling
| manufactured lies that the 2020 presidential election was
| stolen by "ballot mules" engaged in election fraud.
| ...
<https://protectdemocracy.org/work/judge-rules-against-dinesh-dsouza/>
--bks
|
| Today, a federal court in Georgia greenlit a lawsuit
| against Dinesh D'Souza, Salem Media, Regnery Publishing,
| True The Vote, and True the Vote's Catherine Engelbrecht
| and Gregg Phillips (along with D'Souza Media) for peddling
| manufactured lies that the 2020 presidential election was
| stolen by "ballot mules" engaged in election fraud.
Ya, we call that lawfare bullshit.
...
jack roth <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| Today, a federal court in Georgia greenlit a lawsuit
| against Dinesh D'Souza, Salem Media, Regnery Publishing,
| True The Vote, and True the Vote's Catherine Engelbrecht
| and Gregg Phillips (along with D'Souza Media) for peddling
| manufactured lies that the 2020 presidential election was
| stolen by "ballot mules" engaged in election fraud.
Ya, we call that lawfare bullshit.
...
"We"? You and your tapeworm?
jack roth <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| Today, a federal court in Georgia greenlit a lawsuit
| against Dinesh D'Souza, Salem Media, Regnery Publishing,
| True The Vote, and True the Vote's Catherine Engelbrecht
| and Gregg Phillips (along with D'Souza Media) for peddling
| manufactured lies that the 2020 presidential election was
| stolen by "ballot mules" engaged in election fraud.
Ya, we call that lawfare bullshit.
...
"We"? You and your tapeworm?
--bks
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:55:13 PM UTC-7, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:.
jack roth <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| Today, a federal court in Georgia greenlit a lawsuit
| against Dinesh D'Souza, Salem Media, Regnery Publishing,
| True The Vote, and True the Vote's Catherine Engelbrecht
| and Gregg Phillips (along with D'Souza Media) for peddling
| manufactured lies that the 2020 presidential election was
| stolen by "ballot mules" engaged in election fraud.
Ya, we call that lawfare bullshit.
...
"We"? You and your tapeworm?I think he is referring to the voices.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 161:16:06 |
| Calls: | 12,094 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,772 |