Re: Chez Watt: Prime Idiocy

On 5 Jul 2006 22:45:39 -0700, in talk.origins , "topmind"
<topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
<1152164739.707880.35740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I can now understand why you haven't attempted any math in support of your
assertions.

I was going to save it til later when I could write it up nice and
clean, but you kept pressuring on that point, so I slopped it out. I
figured criticism for slop was better than criticism for ommission. As
they say in the software business, "if you really want it badly, that
is what you get". There is a disclaimer that the lists are only
illustrations and not real values somewhere around that, which was
conviniently snipped by you. Trying to make another mountain out of a
mole hill? Mole hills are all you have, I guess.


Mark

-T-

My dear twit,
If you are so "sloppy" that you can make a list of the first (few!)
primes including 1 and excluding 2 and 5, you set yourself up for
mockery. And for essentially zero consideration of anything you are
floundering around trying to say in such "slop". Advice: don't _use_
"primes" if you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. That
same advice seems to generalize to a _lot_ of stuff you want to talk
about, with apparently equal ignorance.

I was illustrating the encoding process because that is what they
wanted.

Is that what you were doing? That was perhaps your intention (although,
frankly I think that is giving you more credit than you are due) but the
reality is that all you did was illustrate just how lacking in any kind
of mathematical understanding you are.

I was not illustrating anything detailed about the nature of
primes themselves. Thus, accurate primes were technically *superfluous*
to the purpose of *my* illustration.

And yet, superfluous as they were, and as trivial as they were, you
made no less than five mistakes:

Why can't you spend such time, anal-ness, and effort on something
useful, like providing a clean, unambiguous definition of "hypothesis"?


Why? Because you are not mentally swift enough to tackle such issues,
so instead chase the low-hanging but dried useless fruit, like an
impulsive monkey who cannot plan for the big juicey stuff near the top
of the tree.


Wow, you must be really pissed off as yourself.

Hmmm. Prime Ate.


Wow, stupid AND an ass. You are quite the double threat.


The feeling's mutual.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how is Haskell not robust?
    ... but I think Clean semantics are more precise as they're defined directly ... in terms of graph rewriting, not lambda calculus (as in Haskell). ... -- The list of all primes in ascending order ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: Chez Watt: Prime Idiocy
    ... clean, but you kept pressuring on that point, so I slopped it out. ... "primes" if you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. ... useful, like providing a clean, unambiguous definition of "hypothesis"? ... I'm sure your coconut radio will ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt: Prime Idiocy
    ... clean, but you kept pressuring on that point, so I slopped it out. ... There is a disclaimer that the lists are only ... "primes" if you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Cardnality of integers > Cardnality of integers
    ... let sp_1=set of primes but not those that have composite index. ... the plane, even if i can not express it in your terms. ... help me clean it up? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Chez Watt: Prime Idiocy
    ... figured criticism for slop was better than criticism for ommission. ... There is a disclaimer that the lists are only ... "primes" if you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. ...
    (talk.origins)