Re: simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros

On Nov 17, 11:45 am, Madhu <enom...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

| In a previous post I challenged your accepted usage and showed it to
| be plainly wrong. But go on then, sit in denial land and pretend I
| didn't do that.

In your previous post you cited a certain usage of `pathological' in
biology. Do you think that shows that the established usage in
mathematics for so many centuries has been wrong? I have explained I
was using it in the sense used in mathematics. It must be clear I was
not using it in a biological sense. Showing one perspective you not
invalidated my usage or the perspectiv.

I presented *both* the biological and mathematical usages of
'pathological'. I did the for three reasons: one, to demonstrate my
understanding of both by highlighting the differences. two, to show
that your own usage of it is incorrect. three, to illustrate that you
cannot hope to understand the usage of it in mathematics without an
understanding of the words origins.

(mathematical) pathological phenomena could (IMO) be better described
as "counter-intuitive" and this I believe is a very important point,
since it means it is simply a subjective value judgement driven by the
knowledge and experience levels of the person making the claim. Like
many borrowed terms, it suffers from a lack of clarity and when used
by an undisciplined party their actual intent can be better described
by the original definition.

So, it is *not* clear in what sense you are using terms, since you use
subjective ones instead of objective, and then refuse to qualify your
position.

In my opinion, you are misusing these terms because you have a nasty
habit of assuming that correlation implies causation. You might on
occasion make a point that is valid, but since they're based on
vacuous premises there is no reason whatsoever to construe your points
as anything other than a prejudiced rant.

You clearly have no understanding of the terminology you're trying to
hide your ignorance behind.

You continue to harp on your
misunderstanding, and representing a misintention even after I've shown
what my intention and meaning was. You are just a troll trolling
comp.lang.lisp for the first time

My misunderstanding? That you demonstrated by responding to part of my
point in isolation in order to be able to label my conclusion faulty?
That you can't label as faulty unless you dishonestly cherry pick only
part of my point?

I suggest before you refer to me as a troll you do some research on
the term and compare it to your own behaviour.

|> | I suppose I could've read the archives to determine this, but I
|> | thought this might be more fun and/or enlightening.
|>

As this indicates.

Indicates what?

|> And get your kicks from "mocking me". That is trolling me and wasting
|> my time.
|
| Nonsense. If you thought this was a waste of your time you'd do
| something else. I'd recommend that, BTW

Indeed.

<snip>

| Demonstrate, or capitulate.

[earlier]

| There's plenty of material already for you to respond to, and yet you
| choose not to.

If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging in
dialectic debate. I assumed you made a misunderstanding and made an
honest attempt to correct it. But it is clear you are not interested in
accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation upon accusation of
false claim on false claim, wronga assumption upon wrong assumption with
the intent that I should respond to each of those.

I have made only a smaller number of claims, that I have framed a
variety of ways in a hope that I would somehow reach you.

I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
facile, and that any interesting qualities they might have are
unverifiable due to your refusal to disclose them.

Your uninterest in engaging in dialectic debate over a point you make
in public again confirms that there is no substance behind your claim.
If substance was there, you'd be keen to discuss it. As it stands you
appear only to be interested in appearing to have something
interesting to say in order to inflate your own ego.

Pop.

You started posting for the first time in comp.lang.lisp with the
explicit intention of mocking me and supply more and more verbiage which
has no basis. Adding crap does not make your original false accusation
right, or correct the wrong assumptions you have made. You have
demonstrated beyond doubt that your only honest intention is to troll
and you wonder why I don't reply?

Ridicule is the only retort against irrationality.

Calling me a troll and asserting that I'm mistaken does not undo my
'accusation', it only makes you look like an idiot as you continue to
cling to the very same false thought pattern that got you into this in
the first place.

Where do you know Ron Garret from BTW ?

I don't. Again, you're making the mistaken inference that correlation
implies causation.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What languages have huge standard libraries?
    ... >>> neither folklore nor mathematics, but current usage in the context in ... >>> programming languages. ... > words and phrases evolves, and is determined by usage, not ... This is a forum focused on technology. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros
    ... burst of no less than than than four preposterous remarks each just ... |> | In a previous post I challenged your accepted usage and showed it to ... |> was using it in the sense used in mathematics. ... If you accepted my explanation and my intent is clear, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: The complete infinite binary tree has only countably many infinite paths.
    ... intention or that of any others here? ... But baiting a crank seems no more a study of "crank ... mathematics - I can just find it somewhat interesting to see what can be ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: what does "serialization" mean?
    ... My usage of palindrome as regards strings was incorrect vis a vis ... uninterested in your wide command of recreational mathematics. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Is the logical statement a category error?
    ... Statements and strings have no place in logic or mathematics as their ... substantively link them to the category in which meanings are conveyed. ... with no intention to deceive or to express nonsense. ... The 'statement' cannot be both a physical and a meaning placemark. ...
    (sci.logic)