Difference between revisions of "Talk:Math and the Bible"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Joke Source: Many great works would be rejected if "trust but verify" meant scrutinizing (without a sense of humor) everything else the person wrote.) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:::::A work should be judged on its merit, not based on whether someone disapproves of comedy found elsewhere by the same author. Many great works would be rejected if "trust but verify" meant scrutinizing (without a sense of humor) everything else the person wrote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 30 May 2015 (EDT) | :::::A work should be judged on its merit, not based on whether someone disapproves of comedy found elsewhere by the same author. Many great works would be rejected if "trust but verify" meant scrutinizing (without a sense of humor) everything else the person wrote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 30 May 2015 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::::*''"A work should be judged on its merit, not based on whether someone disapproves of comedy found elsewhere by the same author.''" I'm not disapproving of his comedy, as there is no comedy anywhere on his site. He is dead serious. | ||
| + | ::::::*I'm judging the merit of his work by his writing about Cantor's diagonal argument. | ||
| + | ::::::*A stopped clock may be right twice a day. But even at these occasions, it is not a good source for the correct time! | ||
| + | ::::::*I stand by my previous headline: the source is a joke, though it is not funny at all | ||
| + | ::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 30 May 2015 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 07:00, May 30, 2015
Infinity
Nahum 2:9 is quite enlightening: here, "infinity" is used to describe the great, but certainly limited treasures of Nineveh, while Nahum 3:9 talks about the boundless assistance given by Egypt.... "Infinity" in the Bible could be more of a literary than mathematical concept.
BTW: a superficial search in the Iliad came up with six occurrences of "infinite/infinity"... --AugustO 04:50, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
Not a Joke Source
Is this a joke? What kind of source is http://descmath.com/diag/ancients.html ? Andy, please read what the author writes about himself ( http://descmath.com/aboutme.html ), and then come up with a better source! --AugustO 13:28, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
- The cited page about the Ancients appears serious. People can have a sense of humor on other pages without detracting from educaTional work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)
- I have no doubt that the author was serious - but it is hard to take him serious:
| “ | I switched my major from arts to mathematics, and within two years flunked out of school. My main problem was that my work on the Calculus put me on the losing side of an argument that had been raging in the mathematics community for the last century. This conflict, of course, is the schism between logicists and intuitionists. Yes, that's right, "The Calculus in Perspective" bears the ugly moniker of intuitionism. As such it is basically unpublishable. | ” |
| “ | Anyway, after losing my argument. I failed school and spent the next decade a half working custodial and clerical jobs for near minimum wage. In the 90s I was fortunate to find a company that let me hack on their computers as part of my minimum wage data entry job. Since then, I have been able to pay rent by working with companies willing to hire second rate programmers at below market rates. | ” |
- --AugustO 13:45, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
- August, perhaps our disagreement here reflects our different "worldviews". I think brilliant insights can emanate from sources that may be disfavored by "experts". I welcome the best of the public. But non-Christian approaches tend to favor censorship, and tend to favor rejecting anything not approved by the atheistic-leaning "establishment". I welcome the inclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Bible despite how the experts cannot identify the source.--Andy Schlafly 15:59, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
- As usual, I'm the advocate of diligence: quoting the first one you find to agree with you on the internet isn't proper research, it's just laziness. Your reasoning boils down to "hey, look at this guy, I like his opinion, he must be the best of the public"
- I don't know what to make of your line "But non-Christian approaches tend to favor censorship" - I'd say that my approach follows the idea of "trust, but verify".
- "I welcome the inclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Bible despite how the experts cannot identify the source." Who doesn't welcome the inclusion? The authorship and the sources of many parts of the Bible are inviting lively debate. I just find your idea of the divine authorship of this particular Epistle especially nonsensical. --AugustO 16:22, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
- --AugustO 16:22, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
- A work should be judged on its merit, not based on whether someone disapproves of comedy found elsewhere by the same author. Many great works would be rejected if "trust but verify" meant scrutinizing (without a sense of humor) everything else the person wrote.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
- "A work should be judged on its merit, not based on whether someone disapproves of comedy found elsewhere by the same author." I'm not disapproving of his comedy, as there is no comedy anywhere on his site. He is dead serious.
- I'm judging the merit of his work by his writing about Cantor's diagonal argument.
- A stopped clock may be right twice a day. But even at these occasions, it is not a good source for the correct time!
- I stand by my previous headline: the source is a joke, though it is not funny at all
- --AugustO 03:00, 30 May 2015 (EDT)