Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
Ok, my absolutely last post on this issue. Forwarded message:
Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd) From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 98 19:50:35 EST
Anyone who would tell their dying wife, via their son, to wait a moment until he had finished his calculations is not a nice person.
Do you have proof that Gauss did that? This sounds like another one of those urban legends the envious sheeple like to invent about celebrities, like the claim that Leonrado da Vinci was a cocksucker.
It is a commen citation in several of his biographies. The first place I saw it was in a science history book that Isaac Asimov wrote (you know who he is I assume, known for writing world-class sci-fi and one of the best bio-chemistry textbooks around in the 70's and early 80's) back in the late 70's. It's the same book where he talks about Torricelli (he invented the mercurey barometer) and how he sent his brother-in-law into the bandit infested hills to actualy test the device. There seems to have been some indication that Torricelli had an alterior motive in this action. Unfortunately I think I have attempted to read a large fraction of the 300+ books that Asimov wrote at one time or another since about 1965 when I really started to read sci-fi and as a result they all seem to run together. I looked in the couple of Asimov books that I actualy own but unfortunately it isn't in either of them. I will look at the library I keep at the shop next time I go out there but it is equaly likely it was destroyed in my house fire 3+ years ago. If somebody out there knows which book this is I would appreciate the citation. I will add this to my 'hunt-list' that I keep as I tour the many bookstores here in Austin. If I find it I'll holler.
argument you can make is to cite Bolyai's claims that Lobachevsky was not a real person but a "tentacle" of Gauss, created to persecute Bolyai (gee, that sounds vaguely familiar...), and you can't find any more dirt on Gauss, then it proves to me that he was indeed a remarkably nice person.
What the hell are you talking about here? I made no such claims at all.
You're citing janos Bolyai, who claimed exactly that. Unfortunately, the poor chap went insane.
No, I am citing the translator of Bolyai's book; Dr. George Bruce Halsted. If you want to discuss this further and intelligently it might do you well to have actualy read the book, which by your own admission you never have. Don't be a miser, spend the $6.00 US. I *might* take your comments a hell of a lot more seriously if just once you would cite a single reference to *any* of your comments or claims. It is interesting that when it comes down to proof you don't have the time to do the research nor do you *ever* fill any request for references.
You're confused, Jim. Farkas Bolyai (the father) never claimed to have invented non-euclidean geometry.
Your twisting words and dangerously approaching straight out lying. Both Farkas Bolyai and Gauss worked together on non-euclidian geometry. Let me quote the translators notes for the book: " But to prove Euclid's system, we must show that a triangle's angle-sum is exactly a straight angle, which nothing human can ever do. However, this is anticipating, for in 1799 it seems that the mind of the elder Bolyai, Bolyai Farkas, was in precisely the same state as that of his friend Gauss. Both were intensely trying to prove what now we know is indemonstable. ..." As to my making mistakes, big fucking deal. Everyone does. The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to do anything other than figure out what happened and why. If I'm wrong I'll admit it (and I am at least once a day). I am also willing to do the research (as best I can with what resources I have) and also willing to cite it. All I ask from those who wish to debate issues with me is equal treatment, in short the opportunity to review their sources and an honest opportunity to refute those sources. You seem to have a personal motive in everything you submit and further *never* cite any sort of source that can be reviewed and repudiated or supported. To put it bluntly, you lack honesty in your dealings with others. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
Ok, my absolutely last post on this issue.
(Pointing to the horse) "He's dead, Jim."
Anyone who would tell their dying wife, via their son, to wait a moment until he had finished his calculations is not a nice person.
Do you have proof that Gauss did that? This sounds like another one of those urban legends the envious sheeple like to invent about celebrities, like the claim that Leonrado da Vinci was a cocksucker.
It is a commen citation in several of his biographies. The first place I saw it was in a science history book that Isaac Asimov wrote (you know who he is I assume,
You're getting desperate, Jim, and resorting to cheap personal shots again. Yes, I know who Isaac Asimov was. In fact, I met him in person. He made many little mistakes in his "popular science" writings. I don't consider him to be a credible source as far as personal gossip about dead science personnages is concerned. Any other citations for your bizarre accusation?
argument you can make is to cite Bolyai's claims that Lobachevsky was n a real person but a "tentacle" of Gauss, created to persecute Bolyai (gee, that sounds vaguely familiar...), and you can't find any more dir on Gauss, then it proves to me that he was indeed a remarkably nice per
What the hell are you talking about here? I made no such claims at all.
You're citing janos Bolyai, who claimed exactly that. Unfortunately, the poor chap went insane.
No, I am citing the translator of Bolyai's book; Dr. George Bruce Halsted. If you want to discuss this further and intelligently it might do you well to have actualy read the book, which by your own admission you never have. Don't be a miser, spend the $6.00 US.
It's not the money, it's my time. I am indeed being miserly with my time, Jim. Sorry, I don't think it's worth my time to read the rants of an insane person claiming that Lobachevsky was not a real person, but a "tentacle" of Gauss. We get more than enough of those on the cypherpunks list, from Timmy May &co.
I *might* take your comments a hell of a lot more seriously if just once you would cite a single reference to *any* of your comments or claims. It is interesting that when it comes down to proof you don't have the time to do the research nor do you *ever* fill any request for references.
You're lying, Jim. For example, you've asked me for a reference to the national origins act, which barred inter alia Japanese-born immigrants from 1924 to 195x; something you should have been able to verify for yourself. I gave you a reference to a Russian book on US history, knowing that being an ignorant American you can only read English. If you like, I can cite a number of Russian books on history of math as well, which won't do you any good.
Your twisting words and dangerously approaching straight out lying.
And I've just caught you straight out lying.
Farkas Bolyai and Gauss worked together on non-euclidian geometry. Let me quote the translators notes for the book:
" But to prove Euclid's system, we must show that a triangle's angle-sum is exactly a straight angle, which nothing human can ever do. However, this is anticipating, for in 1799 it seems that the mind of the elder Bolyai, Bolyai Farkas, was in precisely the same state as that of his friend Gauss. Both were intensely trying to prove what now we know is indemonstable. ..."
Probably hundreds of mathematicians since Euclid's times have tried and failed to prove the 6th axiom as a theorem that follows from the other axioms. Farkas may have been one of the hundreds of people who wasted time trying to prove a false statement during two millenia. Gauss, Lobachevsky, and Janos Bolyai (the son) all proved that this axiom is independent of the others and pondered what kind of geometry would arise if it were omitted. Do you understand the difference? Do you have any evidence that Farkas's waste of time in 1799 contributed to either Gauss's or Janos Bolyai's impressive results 20+ years later?
As to my making mistakes, big fucking deal. Everyone does. The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to do anything other than figure out what happened and why. If I'm wrong I'll admit it (and I am at least once a day). I am also willing to do the research (as best I can with what resources I have) and also willing to cite it. All I ask from those who wish to debate issues with me is equal treatment, in short the opportunity to
You should cut down on personal attacks and flaming.
review their sources and an honest opportunity to refute those sources. You seem to have a personal motive in everything you submit and further *never* cite any sort of source that can be reviewed and repudiated or supported.
Again, you're lying. Have you tried to refute the national origins act? My sources are Russian books on the history of math. Since you can't read Russian, there's no point for me to site them for you.
To put it bluntly, you lack honesty in your dealings with others.
Jim, why do you insist on turning any discussion into a barrage of personal attacks, cheap shots, and outright lies? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (2)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Jim Choate