From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 14:58:44 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199801100237.UAA11439@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <5BT3ie33w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:

>
> Ok, my absolutely last post on this issue.

(Pointing to the horse) "He's dead, Jim."

> > > Anyone who would tell their dying wife, via their son, to wait a moment
> > > until he had finished his calculations is not a nice person.
> >
> > Do you have proof that Gauss did that?  This sounds like another one of
> > those urban legends the envious sheeple like to invent about celebrities,
> > like the claim that Leonrado da Vinci was a cocksucker.
>
> It is a commen citation in several of his biographies. The first place I saw
> it was in a science history book that Isaac Asimov wrote (you know who he is
> I assume,

You're getting desperate, Jim, and resorting to cheap personal shots again.

Yes, I know who Isaac Asimov was.  In fact, I met him in person. He made many
little mistakes in his "popular science" writings. I don't consider him to be
a credible source as far as personal gossip about dead science personnages is
concerned.

Any other citations for your bizarre accusation?

> > > > argument you can make is to cite Bolyai's claims that Lobachevsky was n
> > > > a real person but a "tentacle" of Gauss, created to persecute Bolyai
> > > > (gee, that sounds vaguely familiar...), and you can't find any more dir
> > > > on Gauss, then it proves to me that he was indeed a remarkably nice per
> > >
> > > What the hell are you talking about here? I made no such claims at all.
> >
> > You're citing janos Bolyai, who claimed exactly that.  Unfortunately, the
> > poor chap went insane.
>
> No, I am citing the translator of Bolyai's book; Dr. George Bruce Halsted.
> If you want to discuss this further and intelligently it might do you well to
> have actualy read the book, which by your own admission you never have.
> Don't be a miser, spend the $6.00 US.

It's not the money, it's my time.  I am indeed being miserly with my time, Jim.
Sorry, I don't think it's worth my time to read the rants of an insane person
claiming that Lobachevsky was not a real person, but a "tentacle" of Gauss.
We get more than enough of those on the cypherpunks list, from Timmy May &co.

> I *might* take your comments a hell of a lot more seriously if just once you
> would cite a single reference to *any* of your comments or claims. It is
> interesting that when it comes down to proof you don't have the time to do
> the research nor do you *ever* fill any request for references.

You're lying, Jim.  For example, you've asked me for a reference to the
national origins act, which barred inter alia Japanese-born immigrants from
1924 to 195x; something you should have been able to verify for yourself.
I gave you a reference to a Russian book on US history, knowing that being
an ignorant American you can only read English. If you like, I can cite
a number of Russian books on history of math as well, which won't do you
any good.

> Your twisting words and dangerously approaching straight out lying.

And I've just caught you straight out lying.

> Farkas Bolyai and Gauss worked together on non-euclidian geometry. Let me
> quote the translators notes for the book:
>
> " But to prove Euclid's system, we must show that a triangle's angle-sum is
> exactly a straight angle, which nothing human can ever do.
>   However, this is anticipating, for in 1799 it seems that the mind of the
> elder Bolyai, Bolyai Farkas, was in precisely the same state as that of his
> friend Gauss. Both were intensely trying to prove what now we know is
> indemonstable. ..."

Probably hundreds of mathematicians since Euclid's times have tried and failed
to prove the 6th axiom as a theorem that follows from the other axioms. Farkas
may have been one of the hundreds of people who wasted time trying to prove
a false statement during two millenia.

Gauss, Lobachevsky, and Janos Bolyai (the son) all proved that this axiom
is independent of the others and pondered what kind of geometry would
arise if it were omitted.

Do you understand the difference? Do you have any evidence that Farkas's
waste of time in 1799 contributed to either Gauss's or Janos Bolyai's
impressive results 20+ years later?

> As to my making mistakes, big fucking deal. Everyone does. The difference
> between you and me is that I am not trying to do anything other than figure
> out what happened and why. If I'm wrong I'll admit it (and I am at least
> once a day). I am also willing to do the research (as best I can with what
> resources I have) and also willing to cite it. All I ask from those who wish
> to debate issues with me is equal treatment, in short the opportunity to

You should cut down on personal attacks and flaming.

> review their sources and an honest opportunity to refute those sources. You
> seem to have a personal motive in everything you submit and further *never*
> cite any sort of source that can be reviewed and repudiated or supported.

Again, you're lying.  Have you tried to refute the national origins act?

My sources are Russian books on the history of math.  Since you can't read
Russian, there's no point for me to site them for you.

> To put it bluntly, you lack honesty in your dealings with others.

Jim, why do you insist on turning any discussion into a barrage of personal
attacks, cheap shots, and outright lies?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps