tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.comments2023-01-20T13:20:22.583-05:00RecursivityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12270125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-49157473425638515602023-01-06T15:14:30.743-05:002023-01-06T15:14:30.743-05:00You didn't actually provide any numbers!
And ...You didn't actually provide any numbers!<br /><br />And you didn't provide the calculation for the particular claim.<br /><br />Two strikes already.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-32037137309027843162023-01-03T14:47:01.570-05:002023-01-03T14:47:01.570-05:00I already gave an example how to do the calculatio...I already gave an example how to do the calculation for a toy example. What's the problem?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-78714437324805237732023-01-03T12:26:35.743-05:002023-01-03T12:26:35.743-05:00Why do creationists always want to reverse the bur...Why do creationists always want to reverse the burden of proof?<br /><br />If the calculation is so easy, as ID creationists keep saying, why can none of them actually do it?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4666407222198251852023-01-02T20:28:29.157-05:002023-01-02T20:28:29.157-05:00@Jeffrey Shallit you are an intelligent individual...@Jeffrey Shallit you are an intelligent individual, I'm sure you can do the calculation using a CSI approach that does justice to Dembski's formulation and comes out correctly. You're just waiting for something to nitpick and declare ID defeated yet again :)<br /><br />@Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen your comment seems to have disappeared, but I have it in email. You're basically missing the specification portion of what I described. Plates randomly colliding as I describe will most often not be concisely describable, unlike the large smiley face.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-44465572718377724362023-01-02T15:15:56.867-05:002023-01-02T15:15:56.867-05:00Another ignorant sucker hornswoggled.Another ignorant sucker hornswoggled.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41189258301619895322023-01-02T15:13:08.481-05:002023-01-02T15:13:08.481-05:00Dear Unknown:
The journal you published your pape...Dear Unknown:<br /><br />The journal you published your paper in claims to be concerned with the following topics:<br /><br />*training in-service mathematics teachers on IT through in-service courses,<br />*training pre-service mathematics teachers on IT through undergraduate programs,<br />*understanding how students learn mathematics and solve problems,<br />*identifying what student learn and think in mathematics,<br />*assessing and evaluating mathematics curriculum,<br />*designing and producing distance learning tools for teachers and students.<br /><br />Yet your paper covers none of these. This appears to be misconduct by someone.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-25723382346476151242022-11-23T07:53:11.449-05:002022-11-23T07:53:11.449-05:00Seems like you've missed the 8th anniversary.Seems like you've missed the 8th anniversary.SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-14796374746107237952022-11-18T03:16:24.285-05:002022-11-18T03:16:24.285-05:00Seems you've missed this year's aniverssar...Seems you've missed this year's aniverssarySPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-28536793551491835172022-09-22T01:46:17.706-04:002022-09-22T01:46:17.706-04:00It seems you've missed the "The Robert Ma...It seems you've missed the "The Robert Marks Evasion: 8-year anniversary"SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-16718527027511362762022-09-16T20:59:50.747-04:002022-09-16T20:59:50.747-04:00the point of intersection two dots will either coi...<b>the point of intersection two dots will either coincide or not as the case may be". </b><br /><br />Someone doesn’t understand the meaning of intersection — among almost everything else it seems.deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08279929296814513986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-22105248238611058262022-09-12T22:41:27.852-04:002022-09-12T22:41:27.852-04:00Oh, no; you failed to commemorate the 8th annivers...Oh, no; you failed to commemorate the 8th anniversary!Glenn Branchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13748310825103452079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24506186560193211992022-09-09T10:27:53.648-04:002022-09-09T10:27:53.648-04:00Did you not understand "Time for you to go el...Did you not understand "Time for you to go elsewhere"?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74987141388495206162022-08-06T11:12:48.040-04:002022-08-06T11:12:48.040-04:00As a 'mathematician'? I see you have a lot...As a 'mathematician'? I see you have a lot in common with Leonard Euler in so far as he worked for Catherine the Great, whilst you undoubtedly have worked in the Kremlin.<br />Unlike Leonard Euler is the fact that he was mathematically honest.<br />Puuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!Alastair Batemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395447443056931757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-57709552993790604722022-08-04T12:40:12.727-04:002022-08-04T12:40:12.727-04:00You seem extremely confused. Being a square has ...You seem extremely confused. Being a square has virtually nothing to do with being the sum of two squares.<br /><br />I am afraid I have no possible remedy for this level of confusion and word salad like "both therefore plot as a series of dots which must either diverge and never meet or converge and at the point of intersection two dots will either coincide or not as the case may be". <br /><br />Time for you to go elsewhere. Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-77241213849559588222022-07-29T09:14:52.284-04:002022-07-29T09:14:52.284-04:00My dear Jeffrey, for a mathematics professor you c...My dear Jeffrey, for a mathematics professor you couldn't have picked a worse example to produce a smoke screen to cloud the issue.<br />The Fibonacci numbers and the squares are in the context of our discussion discrete quantities, namely integers, and would both therefore plot as a series of dots which must either diverge and never meet or converge and at the point of intersection two dots will either coincide or not as the case may be. In the case you have given they coincide exactly.<br />The coincidence is not just chance, far from it, but due to the most important of ALL MATHEMATICAL THEOREMS, the Pythagoras theorem.<br />You will find if you take the trouble to investigate that the Fibonacci numbers have factors that result in a continuous, alternating and innate modularity of 4n+1 then 4n+3 ad infinitum. Hence as Fermat stated all numbers of modularity 4n+1 are the sum of two squares. Now every integer is the difference of two squares. FACT. So all the F.Nos that include a factor of modularity 4n+3 can only be the difference of two squares.<br />Now we have 89,144,233 were 89 and 233 have modularity 4n+1 so that 89=8^2+3^2 and 233=13^2+8^2. Now 144 has factor 3 of modularity 4n+3 so that 144=13^2-5^2 alias 13^2=12^2+5^2 the second primitive Pythagorean triple. Can you spot the pattern for the base numbers. So if we express every F.No. as the square root squared then every one forms a Pythagoras equation. Pythagorean triples are the templet for the Fermat equation and there is an infinity of infinite series of them, all a consequence of Fermats 4n+1 theorem and the maths for producing them being well defined, known and wholly dependent on triangular numbers no less. Where's the maths for the Fermat triples?<br /><br />Now z^(2n+1) can be expanded by the binomial theorem as (a+b)^n as many times as there are binary partitions of (a+b)=z. Likewise for z=(c-d). These expansions are characteristied by precisely defined coefficients that are generated in a precise prescribed manner by the combination formula and by precisely prescibed finite difference formulas that terminate in a constant term that is a precisely prescribed factorial.<br />Now x^(2n+1)+y^(2n+1) is divisible by (x+y) ALWAYS giving binomial number expansions of the form x^2-xy+y^2 and x^4-x^3y+x^2y^2-xy^3+y^4 for the 3rd and 5th powers respectively. I call these expansions 'slip knot equations' because just as pulling the two ends of the knot causes the knot to disappear, so too does multiplying through the expansion by x and y where we just raise the power of the first and last terms and we get duplicate internal terms but of opposite sign which all cancel out just leaving the original expression we started with before division by (x+y).<br />What else can the algebra do? What else would a truly knowledgable mathematician expect?<br />The two are truly the mathematical antithesis of each other and if this doesn't constitute proof then I don't know what does since it is an absolute truth.<br />So to answer your question 'What are mathematically different beasts'. Why the binomial theorem expansion and the binomial number expansions and NO your generalisation for the F.Nos and squares do not qualify as 'mathematically different beasts'.<br />Perhaps the FICTIOUS Frey equation and Fermat triples qualify to be descibed as 'mathematically different beasts' but then I must step back and leave that one upto you since the Frey equation is part of your mathematical reality but certainly not part of mine.<br />So fine I'm a crank and what I do is crackpottery or in some one elses eyes a crock of pooh but fine cause like a pig I'm happy to wallow in the mire that is my mathematical realisations of reality and truth and not those of intellectual elitists who live in abject fear of being proved wrong and would never, ever admit to it.Alastair Batemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395447443056931757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-13720974016635111012022-07-29T04:31:47.899-04:002022-07-29T04:31:47.899-04:00I see lots of babble, but still no calculation. W...I see lots of babble, but still no calculation. Why are ID advocates so afraid to produce some numbers? William Dembski did one calculation in his book, and it was off by 60 orders of magnitude.<br /><br />Provide the calculation showing that, and I quote, "a picture of Mount Rushmore with the busts of four US Presidents contains more information than a picture of Mount Fuji".<br /><br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-68744073527548574212022-07-28T20:29:09.130-04:002022-07-28T20:29:09.130-04:00So, what is your complaint? We can use an approxi...So, what is your complaint? We can use an approximation of Kolmogorov complexity to calculate an information measure for the photos. As we discuss previously in this thread, we can also use Kolmogorov's randomness deficiency metric, which is the same thing as ASC. There's no problem with Dr. Mark's claim. It's well supported by Kolmogorov's well known work.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-58571138453210703202022-07-28T19:59:51.540-04:002022-07-28T19:59:51.540-04:00"Also you are wrong. Less compressible does n..."Also you are wrong. Less compressible does not mean more Kolmogorov information, since compression is just an upper bound on Kolmogorov information."<br /><br />Yes, thank you for telling me a basic result of Kolmogorov complexity that I teach every year in my course, which is that compression algorithms can only provide an upper bound. <br /><br />"compression doesn't tell you at all which has more Kolmogorov information"<br /><br />Every compression algorithm gives you a computable approximation, which is provably the best we can do. It is unreasonable to expect more, and the compression algorithms we have have proved very useful -- much more useful than Dembski's nonsense. See, for example, Ming Li's work on chain letters.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-68757778927817702722022-07-28T19:55:11.390-04:002022-07-28T19:55:11.390-04:00"So why do you think a picture of Mt. Rushmor..."So why do you think a picture of Mt. Rushmore is less compressible than Mt. Fuji?"<br /><br />Why did you stop beating your wife?<br /><br />If your question is based on a lie, don't expect an answer.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61319297888869320802022-07-28T19:49:58.453-04:002022-07-28T19:49:58.453-04:00Also you are wrong. Less compressible does not me...Also you are wrong. Less compressible does not mean more Kolmogorov information, since compression is just an upper bound on Kolmogorov information. One compression algorithm may say Mt. Rushmore is less compressible than Mt. Fuji, and another algorithm may say the reverse, and a third may say they are equal. So, compression doesn't tell you at all which has more Kolmogorov information.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-59166427713962474152022-07-28T19:47:51.269-04:002022-07-28T19:47:51.269-04:00So why do you think a picture of Mt. Rushmore is l...So why do you think a picture of Mt. Rushmore is less compressible than Mt. Fuji?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24976609174136303582022-07-28T17:32:45.368-04:002022-07-28T17:32:45.368-04:00If you're talking about Kolmogorov information...If you're talking about Kolmogorov information, it's not computable in general. But one could estimate it by taking the particular photographs in question and trying to compress them. Larger result = more information.<br /><br />Marks's claims about "meaningful information" are gobbledygook, since there is no rigorous definition of what "meaningful information", nor any agreement about how to compute it. If there were, he could do the calculation he asserted.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-46335182969595552172022-07-28T15:56:03.122-04:002022-07-28T15:56:03.122-04:00How would you do the calculation Dr. Shallit?How would you do the calculation Dr. Shallit?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29166847490742741232022-07-28T15:35:37.203-04:002022-07-28T15:35:37.203-04:00I listened to it.
Marks could not justify his c...I listened to it. <br /><br />Marks could not justify his claim at all. All he did was reassert it by saying, "It's obvious."<br /><br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-26574480986836379982022-07-28T15:31:14.209-04:002022-07-28T15:31:14.209-04:00Wow, four mistakes in one sentence.
They misspell...Wow, four mistakes in one sentence.<br /><br />They misspelled my name.<br /><br />I'm not in Toronto.<br /><br />Actually, I didn't make any claims at all about Mount Rushmore versus Mount Fuji at all. I asked for Dr. Marks to demonstrate his claim with a calculation.<br /><br />And the discussion was not about the mountains, but rather <b>pictures</b> of the two mountains.<br /><br />So incredibly sloppy, but that's what we expect from "Mind Matters News".Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.com