Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:35:16 UTC No. 16583540

>>16583533
John Gabriel is a known schizo retard. He's been active on the internet for decades.
Here's a blog post from 2010 about him
http://www.goodmath.org/blog/2010/02/04/a-crank-among-cranks-debating-john-gabriel/

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:47:11 UTC No. 16584213

>>16583533
I love watching math contrarians explain their theories like I like watching schizophrenic people explain why the earth is hollow and filled with lizard people. It's painful but captivating. I just can't look away from the trainwreck

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 02:27:57 UTC No. 16584232

>>16583540
>do you agree with these 4 starting premises, yes or no
>IM NOT PLAYING GAMES WITH YOU
>i need you to answer, so that we can be sure we are talking about the same thing
>WHY ARE YOU SO SENSITIIIVE, THIS IS A BLOG NOT AN EMAIL
You know you’re a total shithead when it’s the crank who comes out looking good

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 02:32:40 UTC No. 16584235

>>16584232
Eh I get it. The crank just keeps insisting the same wrong stuff over and over regardless of how many times the other guy explains. I think most math grads have spent a painful amount of time trying to talk sense into cranks with all civility, but it wears you down over time. At a certain point, the moral calculus of cutting your losses on the crank and just trying to convince 3rd party witnesses of your side becomes more and more enticing. I agree that the other guy lost his cool and looked like a bit of a dick, but I'd wager that no amount of time spent trying to convince Gabriel of the flaw in his premises would have sufficed.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:25:53 UTC No. 16585012

>>16583540
I went to the original post and sadly, the guy writing the blog is wrong about why the schizo is wrong.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:39:58 UTC No. 16585122

>>16583533
just got recommended one of his videos too and was about to make a post. this guy is fascinating.
also found his reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/user/Redditisashitheap/

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:46:21 UTC No. 16585126

Is there a scientific explanation for why these schizo retards alway think they're mega geniuses?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:24:28 UTC No. 16585179

>>16585126
Because from the outside, schizo retards and mega geniuses look quite similar until you start testing their ideas. We have this romantic idea in our head that the scientific community is some crazy oppressive force and only the brave, bold, and brilliant have the courage to speak truth to that power.

In reality, you don't need to be brilliant. Just brave and bold.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:23:24 UTC No. 16585672

>>16584235
>The crank just keeps insisting the same wrong stuff over and over
this is the stuff cranks are made of
>regardless of how many times the other guy explains.
in this case the other guy, the blogger, did not understand the crank. the blogger extended the crank's bullshit (equating reals with nodes in the tree) to something the crank never said (equating reals with paths in the tree), then keeps flip-flopping between the two. at one point the blogger agrees with crank's point #2, which is just wrong, the tree not only does not represent all reals, it does not even represent all rationals. at another point blogger asks the crank what is the number immediately before 1/3, instead of asking which node represents 1/3 (it's one of the rationals the crank tree cannot represent). the crank would at least be driven to come clean about thinking there's such a thing as the last node of an infinite path if he was correctly asked.
>I think most math grads have spent a painful amount of time trying to talk sense into cranks with all civility, but it wears you down over time.
WHY do math grads do this? why is it so easy to troll all STEM graduates with shit like flat earth, 1=0.999..., perpetuum mobiles etc.? I would understand putting down asinine ideas with short quips, but getting to the point where it's tiresome just should not happen, unless they are driven to this behavior.
and the reason is that they have delusions of grandeur. they will show their superior intelligence to the unwashed plebs and the plebs will finally see, and grant them the respect they always felt to be due to them but which the world never gave for some reason. non-trolls like this crank or Mandlbaur of the 12000 rpm fame are simply more serious cases of the same derangement.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:54:53 UTC No. 16585916

>>16585672
>and the reason is that they have delusions of grandeur.
I'm inclined to believe at least some of us are goaded into these debates because we want to help educate people... if perhaps not the crank, then the audience of the debate. I know I've gotten into these talks in good faith because I thought someone was just struggling to understand a difficult concept

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:34:29 UTC No. 16586012

>>16585916
it might happen. but I went totally cynic recently and interpret any sign of incomprehension as being feigned and the sign of trolling. sometimes I kinda wish no one would reply to anything.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 01:08:17 UTC No. 16586217

>>16584235
>I'd wager that no amount of time spent trying to convince Gabriel of the flaw in his premises would have sufficed
yea, considering 2010 was a good 15 years ago, you could make that bet
>>16585672
>and the reason is that they have delusions of grandeur
duh? A grad would agree with you on that, else they'd be transitioning to a teacher. Programs are fueled by the last gasp of students treading water before they sink or swim, thinking that you'll "make it" is how you even get to that point.
as to responding to random fucks spouting dumb shit, it's because the curtain has already been pulled. Half the population considers correlation as fact uncritically and can get easily duped into esoteric bullshit. Calling out bullshit for what it is, esp in the field you have personal experience, is done by anyone with a large enough capacity for self-criticism above situational awareness.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 01:22:39 UTC No. 16586223

>>16584235
>The crank just keeps insisting the same wrong stuff over and over regardless of how many times the other guy explains.
That's Cranks 101. You should have seen /sci/ a while back when most glorious and upright person of unparalleled supreme genius John Mandlbaur was making 600+ posts a day for almost a year trying to convince everyone that angular momentum was a hoax. There was no discourse, no intelligence, just post after post of screaming at strangers on the internet about MUH BALLS ON STRINGS and MUH MILLION RPMS. You'd have people pulling out their hair trying to demonstrate that even his basic algebra was wrong and he'd respond by publishing "papers" on his blog about how algebra was a scam invented by the Isaac Newton and the Sinister Science Society.

There are people who believe the sky is Black Watch plaid, and no amount of rational arguments will ever convince them otherwise.

Cult of Passion at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 02:27:41 UTC No. 16586249

>>16585179
Imagine being the first guy to promote the number zero, and the responses about "How can nothing be a thing? Listen to yourself, schizo-meds-lmao!"

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 04:04:42 UTC No. 16586292

>>16585179
>from the outside, schizo retards and mega geniuses look quite similar
Not really. You can usually sniff out crazy the same way people sniff out any scam if your IQ is above room temp.

The retards who fall hook, line, and sinker for the latest THE TRUTH ABOUT MATH AND SCIENCE THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW bait videos are the same suckers who will believe the IRS wants them to pay a $10,000 bill using Fortnite gift cards.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 04:07:53 UTC No. 16586296

>>16585672
>why is it so easy to troll all STEM graduates with shit like...
because those STEM graduates are autistic about what they know they know as well as what they know to believe & the schizotrolls are autistic about shit the believe to know as well as what they believe to believe

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:47:03 UTC No. 16586393

>>16586223
yea, but at least Mandlbaur was honestly insane. he wasn't a troll by any measure. or El Arcón/whatshisname, although he was a bit borderline and did troll a bit/keep upthe charade in his saner moments.
anyway, these people are okay. flat earthers, 1 = 0.999ers etc. are obvious trolls and make me think of violence.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:07:37 UTC No. 16586727

>>16583533
>New Calculus
The following is an excerpt from Peter J. Olver's alternative calculus lecture notes (https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~olver/ln_/cc.pdf):
>"I started thinking about the topological definition of continuity, [12]. In brief, a function is said to be continuous if and only if the inverse image of any open set is open. This sounds very simple — and certainly simpler than the limit-based definition used in calculus. And I started wondering why not try to develop basic calculus using this as the starting point, and, possibly, eliminating all references to limits, epsilons, and deltas while still retaining rigor. And, after some thought, I realized it could be done. Continuity is basic, and limits, including limits of sequences, and derivatives follow from it in a reasonably straightforward manner, while bypassing epsilons and deltas entirely! You will see the results of this line of reasoning below.
>Not only can the development be made completely rigorous, I believe it is more elementary and eminently more understandable by the beginning mathematics student, who will be better able to appreciate the rigor behind the calculational tools. Moreover, this approach introduces them to the basics of point set topology at an early stage in their mathematical career, rather than having to start from scratch in a later course in the subject or in preparation to study real analysis".
I sure hope the "new calculus" of the distant future, "Neo-Stewart", will be something along this lines, maybe together with some non-standard analysis (a là R. F. Hoskins, i. e., https://archive.org/details/standardnonstand0000hosk) or more filters instead of limits. There's also honors calculus textbooks from the past like Thurston's which argue that it is more elegant and at the same time easier and more illuminating to think in terms of [math]\epsilon[/math]-neighborhoods instead of the traditional but dry full [math]\epsilon{-\delta}[/math] statements:
>>16515492