> It truly breaks my heart to see any of the math snipped out yet again.
A false statement. I posted a link to the evidence, which cannot be summarized to satisfy your short attention span. Your unwillingness to read it only reveals your shallow grasp of modern technical topics.
Here is a short list of topics that cannot be converted into bumperstickers, your preferred medium of expression:
Special and General Relativity
Quantum Physics et. al.
Cosmology
Biology
Modern Set Theory
This list is by no means complete, but the last entry overlaps with the topic of this conversation, for reasons that will not be obvious to you unless and until you overcome your distaste for evidence.
> I do wish you well and I'm sorry if my requirement for rigorous statements in math seems pointless to you.
Excuse, me, what? I have posted links to the evidence that proves your position to be false, but you won't read it. You are to modern times what a religious fundamentalist is to science -- the primary obstacle to human progress.
Am I saying your unwillingness to absorb ideas outside your short attention span is itself an obstacle to human progress? No, actually, I'm saying you should avoid drawing conclusions without first examining the evidence.
It isn't only that you won't read the evidence that proves your position to be wrong -- that is simply sad, not fatal. It is that you draw conclusions without first examining the readily available evidence.
> A set of theorems (of which I accept all you've named) without the definitions of exactly how and why they apply to the give problem is no more mathematics than a bunch of bricks is a chimney.
Wow. You just dismissed the validity of all the topics in my list above, each of which produce everyday valid conclusions derived from very complex logical and mathematical antecedents.
A false statement. I posted a link to the evidence, which cannot be summarized to satisfy your short attention span. Your unwillingness to read it only reveals your shallow grasp of modern technical topics.
Here is a short list of topics that cannot be converted into bumperstickers, your preferred medium of expression:
This list is by no means complete, but the last entry overlaps with the topic of this conversation, for reasons that will not be obvious to you unless and until you overcome your distaste for evidence.> I do wish you well and I'm sorry if my requirement for rigorous statements in math seems pointless to you.
Excuse, me, what? I have posted links to the evidence that proves your position to be false, but you won't read it. You are to modern times what a religious fundamentalist is to science -- the primary obstacle to human progress.
Am I saying your unwillingness to absorb ideas outside your short attention span is itself an obstacle to human progress? No, actually, I'm saying you should avoid drawing conclusions without first examining the evidence.
It isn't only that you won't read the evidence that proves your position to be wrong -- that is simply sad, not fatal. It is that you draw conclusions without first examining the readily available evidence.
> A set of theorems (of which I accept all you've named) without the definitions of exactly how and why they apply to the give problem is no more mathematics than a bunch of bricks is a chimney.
Wow. You just dismissed the validity of all the topics in my list above, each of which produce everyday valid conclusions derived from very complex logical and mathematical antecedents.
Get professional help.