• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged rlopez2's thread to discuss recent history

rlopez2 said:
Also, skepticals, I have a very simple question for you. How exactly does it make a difference if a demonstrable truth is "used" or not by whomever?
Click to expand...

We have in turn our own simple question? Why do you refuse to answer questions....are you special given you self appointed supremacy?
 
The etymology of a word is the reason for the lack of mathematical understanding? When I was learning about fractions in school, etymology wasn't even mentioned.
Click to expand...

I qualified my statement when I said "partially". I am not obsessing over anything. Moreover, this is not just an etymological issue but an important cultured term used as a concept in a logical science, so when they chose that name was for a reason. In the physical and logical sciences people don't talk like politicians. It just doesn’t make any sense to talk/be like that.

I mean, I suppose you could, but nothing meaningful would be achieved.
Click to expand...

I had never heard or expected someone claiming to be a Mathematician to talk like that. If you can't expect nothing meaningfully to happen when you add those written things seeminly looking to visual people like numbers that means that they are not numbers. End of the story!

You seem to be "visually damaged". Visual folks tend to be like that. They tend to mistake understanding with "seeing". They seem to notice the crass difference between those two conscious states. Moreover, something I like about the sciences is that it is not about what you or I think, but -what it is-, what could be proven. At times when I have told people who consider themselves to be Mathematicians that functions are not equations (which is a much more common and pernicious misbelief), (in fact, this is exactly what functions are not) and then I explain why, they have, in all cases, "understood" me.

I would suggest when you find a Mathematician who would find the term "meta mathematics" weird (to me it sounds like "the physics of immaterial substances" or "the philosophy of philosophy"), you ask him/her why is it that denominators are not numbers. They are, as the term means: "namers", of however many indicates the "numerator" of that "denominator" thing you have (which also explains why the division by 0 is undefined in plain Arithmetic). In German they use the word „Zähler“ which quite literally means "counter" (of the "denominator" thing).
 
Also, skepticals, I have a very simple question for you. How exactly does it make a difference if a demonstrable truth is "used" or not by whomever?
Click to expand...
We have in turn our own simple question? Why do you refuse to answer questions....are you special given you self appointed supremacy?
Click to expand...
You did finally "understand" me about USG 8xing the genocide of Nazis, but you (in general) keep downplaying, bending and twisting what I have said so artfully that at times you have made me think of explaining those matters in new ways.
Again, many, most people may think about something in certain ways and it may still be wrong. and about having given myself some sort of "self appointed supremacy" (you are some sort of patriot or politician kind of person, aren't you?), whatever I say I say very explicitly and in a falsifiable way. For example, a simple 3rd grade Math showed to you what I meant, right?
 
rlopez2 said:
I would suggest when you find a Mathematician who would find the term "meta mathematics" weird (to me it sounds like "the physics of immaterial substances" or "the philosophy of philosophy"), you ask him/her why is it that denominators are not numbers.
Click to expand...

As we've already established, any competent mathematician would point out that that's a stupid question.

Dave
 
rlopez2 said:
You did finally "understand" me about USG 8xing the genocide of Nazis, but you (in general) keep downplaying, bending and twisting what I have said so artfully that at times you have made me think of explaining those matters in new ways.
Click to expand...

Actually, downplaying the importance of your mathematical fiction is difficult, if not impossible. You've come up with a number which is greater for the USA than for Nazi Germany, then arbitrarily claimed that number to be an objective measure of moral worth. The entire argument is a non sequitur, and is therefore of no importance whatsoever.

rlopez2 said:
For example, a simple 3rd grade Math showed to you what I meant, right?
Click to expand...

No, you lied repeatedly in claiming that you'd posted the "3rd grade Math" behind your assertion, resulting in the need to resort to a combination of questioning and guesswork in order to work out what you were talking about. It may seem tautological, but your general disinclination to explain what you're talking about results in you failing dismally at explaining what you're talking about.

Dave
 
rlopez2 said:
You did finally "understand" me about USG 8xing the genocide of Nazis, but you (in general) keep downplaying, bending and twisting what I have said so artfully that at times you have made me think of explaining those matters in new ways.
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all - you never presented that number or how you would have created it. Again you are just rambling and spewing random comments which make no sense and answer no questions.

You appear to be saying silly things for no reason.

I created a number too and showed how I did so - and you refused to address it.

I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.
 
Wait I have to find a mathematician who doesn't know enough about maths to know what metamathematics is and he's the expert? Hell, I only have 2 years, mainly applied, maths at university level and I know. And I do not consider myself a mathematician. I don't know how that can make sense to anyone.

Maybe a minute on Wikipedia or MIT OCW might help you more than posting here. As I posted earlier use of denominator is middle school level maths.
 
Actually, downplaying the importance of your mathematical fiction is difficult, if not impossible. You've come up with a number which is greater for the USA than for Nazi Germany, then arbitrarily claimed that number to be an objective measure of moral worth.
Click to expand...

By your reactions, you and some other seem to have taken the time to actually calculate those "two numbers" as measurably tractable reflections of the degree of genocide by both USG and Nazi Germany, based on the very definition of what people/governments, wars and genocide mean.

To me, and I would even say, most other people those numbers say all there is to be said and more:

a) Nazis didn't go to lie their heads off at the UN
b) they called things by their name ,Lebensraum'
d) Nazis fought forces that could and did defend themselves on an equal basis for once, instead of honoring the tried and true glorious move of going around the glove messing with Negritos.
d) To my amazement, congress rep. Charles Rangel (a veteran himself) openly admitted right at the Riverside Church (on the same podium used by MLK many times) that Nazis never carpet bombed civilian populations for the fun of it to the extent that "freedom lovers", the U.S. and British governments have.

As you seem to be implying, the only difference, is that when freedom lovers 8x the worst aspect of Nazism, they do it from a moral high ground, because they are "good Christians", right? How exactly does abusively, genocidally invading a country based on frabications and lies speak well of USG's moral high ground?
 
Last edited:
rlopez2 said:
By your reactions, you and some other seem to have taken the time to actually calculate those "two numbers" as measurably tractable reflections of the degree of genocide by both USG and Nazi Germany, based on the very definition of what people/governments, wars and genocide mean.
Click to expand...

Nope. I haven't bothered to calculate either of those two numbers, because, as I've explained with clear examples (something you might consider trying one day), they are not "measurably tractable reflections of the degree of genocide". In fact, since you include German deaths in the denominator of the fraction rather than the numerator, if the Nazis had killed more of their own population in their acts of genocide, you would consider them less culpable.

rlopez2 said:
To me, and I would even say, most other people those numbers say all there is to be said […]
Click to expand...

Wrong. To all rational people those numbers say nothing of importance. They are no more relevant to the moral position of either nation than any other two numbers picked at random and plugged into a fraction.

Dave

ETA:

rlopez2 said:
a) Nazis didn't go to lie their heads off at the UN
Click to expand...

I'd try to explain to you what a stupid statement that is, but I suspect you wouldn't understand the explanation. Look up "causality" some day.
 
Last edited:
rlopez2 said:
By your reactions, you and some other seem to have taken the time to actually calculate those "two numbers" as measurably tractable reflections of the degree of genocide by both USG and Nazi Germany, based on the very definition of what people/governments, wars and genocide mean.

To me, and I would even say, most other people those numbers say all there is to be said and more:

a) Nazis didn't go to lie their heads off at the UN
b) they called things by their name ,Lebensraum'
d) Nazis fought forces that could and did defend themselves on an equal basis for once, instead of honoring the tried and true glorious move of going around the glove messing with Negritos.
d) To my amazement, congress rep. Charles Rangel (a veteran himself) openly admitted right at the Riverside Church (on the same podium used by MLK many times) that Nazis never carpet bombed civilian populations for the fun of it to the extent that "freedom lovers", the U.S. and British governments have.

As you seem to be implying, the only difference, is that when freedom lovers 8x the worst aspect of Nazism, they do it from a moral high ground, because they are "good Christians", right? How exactly does abusively, genocidally invading a country based on frabications and lies speak well of USG's moral high ground?
Click to expand...
Wow. That's some hyperbolically delusional retconning right there.
If you want to attract other than nutty fruitbars to your cause, you should consider toning those aspects of your "arguments" down... substantially. [emoji53]

And as a bonus tip... being a GREAT deal more concise in your posts would perhaps help. You tend to run-on with wall-o-text replies which meander far afield without actually addressing the topic.
HTH HAND. [emoji4]
 
rlopez2 said:
<snip wall of unreadable text>
Click to expand...

Look, at this point you have had various members and mods point out how your posting style borks everything.

Given your last post, I have no clue who said what to whom. Or even what you said.

So I am willing to break the 11th commandment and offer to explain how the internet really works FOC. Whatever it takes. Because your posts are a nightmare.

I wouldn't just be helping you, I would be helping everyone else as well, so I am willing to absorb that time cost.

It is up to you.

If you are game, I am willing to show you how.

If not, you are on your own.

I leave the choice to you. But a word of warning. Your posts to date have been so garbled, I have no clue what the point is.

I may not agree with whatever point you make, or I might if I could figure out what point you thought you made, but agree or not, I am willing to assist sorting out your formatting.

It's up to you. I may think that your ideas whatever they are are crazy. That is irrelevant. If you need assistance to present them I am willing even though I certainly do not agree with them. Given I have no clue what they are. Impartial assistance is part of my daily toil.
 
Nope. I haven't bothered to calculate either of those two numbers, because, as I've explained with clear examples (something you might consider trying one day), they are not "measurably tractable reflections of the degree of genocide".
Click to expand...

Since you are so smart you should be able to clearly see that you are not making sense.

In fact, since you include German deaths in the denominator of the fraction rather than the numerator, if the Nazis had killed more of their own population in their acts of genocide, you would consider them less culpable.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Once again all the Math is in that Intercept link that I posted for your delight
 
ETA:
a) Nazis didn't go to lie their heads off at the UN
Click to expand...
I'd try to explain to you what a stupid statement that is, but I suspect you wouldn't understand the explanation. Look up "causality" some day.
Click to expand...

You apparently can't even see the point in my sarcasm.
 
I find your reactions to my points (and all I say I do in flasifiable ways, which might be what bothers you) so unhinged that at times I wonder if you notice to the extent that you are making fun of yourself.

In fact, do you remember those two Canadian comedians who pranked, owned Sarah Palin teling her it was Sarközy (the French president) talking to her. It became so weird that at times even the comedians thought they were the ones being somehow pranked by Palin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom