Definitive proof ;-)

[Tony Raven]

Ian Smith wrote on 21/03/2007 21:46 +0100:
>
> Ekul/Luke is showing signs of dottiness too. It seems that anything
> said by someone that knows about quantum mechanics is not to be
> believed outside the fields of quantum mechanics, even if the
> statement makes no direct reference to the field.

Quantum mechanics is irrelevant anyway. Ziggy's statement was quite
definite and unqualified:

"There is no such thing as a negative probability."
<[email protected]>

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Ziggy]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:18:56 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian Smith wrote on 21/03/2007 21:46 +0100:
>>
>> Ekul/Luke is showing signs of dottiness too. It seems that anything
>> said by someone that knows about quantum mechanics is not to be
>> believed outside the fields of quantum mechanics, even if the
>> statement makes no direct reference to the field.
>
>Quantum mechanics is irrelevant anyway. Ziggy's statement was quite
>definite and unqualified:

Just as was yours where, in response to:

> It therefore seems likely that helmets will prevent some number of
> head injuries each year and reduce the seriousness of some other
> number.
>
> Of course, both numbers might be quite small but I doubt that they
> are actually zero.

You said:

>Save us all a lot of trouble and go and Google the group and read up at
>http://www.cyclehelmets.org. We've done all this to death many times
>before and the simple summary is you are wrong for a whole load of
>reasons I won't go into again in deference to the sanity of the rest of
>the group.

And yours was unequivocaly wrong, as I believe everyone now admits that there
ARE cases where a helmet will save your life.

Wittering on about an obscure and little used suggestion of negative probability
that you have singularly failed to show the smallest understanding of in an
attempt to divert attention form Smith and Taylor using the term in a way that
demonstrated that they do net even have a basic GCSE level grasp of probability
theory is naught but a childish distraction technique.

 

[Ziggy]

On 21 Mar 2007 21:46:19 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Mar, [email protected] <> wrote:
>>
>> Ziggy seems to be as intractable as TrollB; best to treat with them
>> the same - i.e. not at all.
>
>Agreed. Have already reached same conclusion and am acting on it.

You have been shown to be both a liar and a weasel so many times that even you
realise that you are only making a complete idiot of yourself coming back for
more and more punishment.

Well, you seemed to have realised that until you decided to post what you have
below ;-)
>
>Ekul/Luke is showing signs of dottiness too. It seems that anything
>said by someone that knows about quantum mechanics is not to be
>believed outside the fields of quantum mechanics, even if the
>statement makes no direct reference to the field. Thus, if Dirac made
>a statement about, say, breeding goats, the statement will be wrong,
>but if Ziggy were to make the same statement, it would be correct.
>Possibly the statement is both true and not true at the same time,
>which is obviously the sort of thing that can happen at the quantum
>level.
>
>As another example, if Dirac makes a statement about, say, negative
>probability, this is plainly not true other than in the field of
>quantum mechanics, even if his statement is not referring to quantum
>mechanics. Or possibly it's wrong ONLY if he's not referring to
>quantum mechanics. Or something.
>
>Obviously, this is tricky to grasp, but it's a complex field that very
>few people (Feynman, Dirac, Ziggy and Luke/Ekul) understand.

You want yet more punishment?

OK, I'll oblige.

NOBODY other than a total cretin, reading what you posted, will believe for one
moment that when I wrote:

> There is no such thing as a negative probability.

And you replied:

>What is the probability that x increases the chance of Y?

>If X actually decreases the chance of Y occurring, there is a
>non-positive non-zero probability, so what would you call it?

that you were refering to some esoteric piece of probability theory.

Rather, they will see that you obviously thought that if X decreases the chance
of Y occurring it is a negative probability.

And that shows that you have not the vaguest grap of probability theory, indeed
have so little idea that you did not even realise how gloriously and completely
wrong you were.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
>I wrote:
>There is no such thing as a negative probability.

Ahem. Elsewhere, you've been arguing very vigorously - in a desperate
attempt to claim that you weren't just chasing a straw man - that a
literal [1] interpretation of what people wrote must be adhered to, no
matter how much a little context or sense would suggest otherwise.

So why doesn't that apply to you? You wrote that; apply your own
standards, insist on the literal interpretation, and admit it was flat
wrong.

[1] And, indeed, nonsensical, but that's another matter.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>>>Thanks. Now, could you please establish the relevance of quantum
>>>mechanics to this discussion?
>>Is there one?
>>Incidentally, if you examine Dirac's statement more closely you will see
>>it is not particular to quantum mechanics.
>We'll take that as a no, then.

But since Dirac's statement isn't particular to quantum mechanics and this
whole "negative probability" thing is a distraction you introduced anyway...

>The fact it that two posters independently made statements that indictated
>that helmet wearing could not save a life.

More accurately, they indicated it to one kook who was desperately trying
to save his straw man. They didn't indicate it to me, or (as far as I can
make out) to anyone else except dear Luke who is on the other old favourite
kook track where he'll pin himself to any argument going.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Is there one? This is merely an amusing aside; not only has Ziggy used the
>>old distraction technique of picking on some piece of language used
>>colloquially and picking at the terminology as if it were being used
>>formally,
>Is this an educated discussion or not? If it is, then it is ridiculous
>to suggest that Ziggy is using any distraction technique.

It's not ridiculous, and it's the truth, to boot. Seizing on some
meaningless terminological ****le is a classic distraction technique.

>>Incidentally, if you examine Dirac's statement more closely you will see
>>it is not particular to quantum mechanics.
>Have you any meaningful references to negative probability published
>since 1950 by anyone who is not a specialist in quantum mechanics?

.... wearing a blue hat, facing North... ?

Who cares? It's a distraction; it's merely an amusing aside to notice that
Ziggy couldn't even get it right.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>The interpretation was not 'creative' it was the simple English.
>>Rubbish. Someone talking about the largest and best studies _cannot_ be
>>talking about a particular subclass of impacts.
>Where does this 'largest and best studies' come from?

jtaylor wrote "at least that's what the best and largest studies show us"
in the article you have provided a pointer to about half a dozen times
now.

>They were both simply denying a statement I made.

More accurately, they didn't work out you had constructed this fantasy
scenario, and denied the statement they expected you to be making - that
the net effect was positive. That's not an unreasonable mistake to make,
since plenty of people have that impression, but you're the first person
to come up with this particular inanity.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.

 

[Ziggy]

On 22 Mar 2007 03:08:12 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
>>I wrote:
>>There is no such thing as a negative probability.
>
>Ahem. Elsewhere, you've been arguing very vigorously - in a desperate
>attempt to claim that you weren't just chasing a straw man - that a
>literal [1] interpretation of what people wrote must be adhered to, no
>matter how much a little context or sense would suggest otherwise.

There is nothing in the slightest bit desperate or straw mman about it.

Both Raven and Taylor made statements that unequivocaly indicated that wearing a
helmet would never save your life.

Not only was that wrong, it was absolutely relevant to the subject at hand.

>So why doesn't that apply to you? You wrote that; apply your own
>standards, insist on the literal interpretation, and admit it was flat
>wrong.

In the same way that you could be wrong if you provided some equations about
cyclist covering certain distances at certain speeds in certain times because
you did not factor in relativity considerations.

You could be wrong, but anyone pointing that out and insisting you admitted your
equations were 'flat wrong' would, rightly, be ridiculed as an absurd pedant
with an axe to grind.

Similarly here, if you want to be extraordinarily pedantic about it, then it was
wrong. But insisting that be formally admitted to as if it were some egregious
error in the logic of the argument whilst ignoring the much more certain
indication that *in the context of the argument* Smith and Taylor showed a
complete ignorance of the concept of probability theory.

>[1] And, indeed, nonsensical, but that's another matter.

Nonsensical by your franklyridiculous idea that interpreting a statement to mean
what it actually says is in some way invalid.

 

[Ziggy]

On 22 Mar 2007 03:10:56 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But since Dirac's statement isn't particular to quantum mechanics and this
>whole "negative probability" thing is a distraction you introduced anyway...

Rather, the Dirac/Feynman idea of -ve probability is a distraction.

It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on probability as it applies to the
matter under discussion.

Smith and Taylor, on the underhand, demonstrated a total misunderstanding of
probability theory AS IT APPLIES TO THE MATTER AT HAND.

That you continue to ignore concentrating instead on some esoteric irrelevancy.

>>The fact it that two posters independently made statements that indictated
>>that helmet wearing could not save a life.
>
>More accurately, they indicated it to one kook who was desperately trying
>to save his straw man. They didn't indicate it to me, or (as far as I can
>make out) to anyone else except dear Luke who is on the other old favourite
>kook track where he'll pin himself to any argument going.

That is not 'more accurate'. It is tendentious waffling.

Their statements unequivocaly indictated that helmet wearing could not save a
life.

They were exactly WRONG.

And whereas they may have been wrong simply by careless phraseology, and, had
they admitted as much would not have risked any loss of credibility, your dogged
persistance in arguing, over several days, that what they wrote was not wrong,
merely shows that you are several sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

[Ziggy]

On 22 Mar 2007 03:13:19 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Is this an educated discussion or not? If it is, then it is ridiculous
>>to suggest that Ziggy is using any distraction technique.
>
>It's not ridiculous, and it's the truth, to boot. Seizing on some
>meaningless terminological ****le is a classic distraction technique.

When someone makes a statement about the probability of an event, and in the
very same sentence shows that they have no grasp of probability theory AS IT
APPLIES TO THAT EVENT, it is hardly a distraction technique.

Rather, it is your dogged insistance on ignoring that significant error and
concentrating instead on an extremely rarely mentioned and highly esoteric idea
THAT HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER TO THE MATTER AT HAND and that you do not show
the slightest indication of understanding, that is the 'distraction technique'.
>
>>>Incidentally, if you examine Dirac's statement more closely you will see
>>>it is not particular to quantum mechanics.
>>Have you any meaningful references to negative probability published
>>since 1950 by anyone who is not a specialist in quantum mechanics?
>
>... wearing a blue hat, facing North... ?

In other words, NO.

You have no idea what negative probability is. You are just using something
Raven discovered in a google search which neither you nor he understands to draw
attention away from the actual meat of the matter.

 

[Ziggy]

On 22 Mar 2007 03:18:48 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>The interpretation was not 'creative' it was the simple English.
>>>Rubbish. Someone talking about the largest and best studies _cannot_ be
>>>talking about a particular subclass of impacts.
>>Where does this 'largest and best studies' come from?

>jtaylor wrote "at least that's what the best and largest studies show us"
>in the article you have provided a pointer to about half a dozen times
>now.

Yes, I see it, but if you make a statement in response to a previous statement
you cannot claim that a sub clause mentioning 'largest and best studies' somehow
changes the sense of the main clause.

Your continuing, over several days now, to try and persude that people did not
say what they clearly did makes me wonder about your grasp of reality.

Had you said that they did not *mean* what they said, then I could accept that
(although it would not be relevant to your or Smith's assertion that their
saying it was a fantasy on my part).

However, trying to pretend they didn't say it moves your postion quite firmly to
East Ham.

>>They were both simply denying a statement I made.
>
>More accurately,

There is no need to be 'more accurate'.

The made statements and those statements were simply WRONG.

Your insistance that you have to add words they did not use, or assume they were
talking about something other than what the context indicated they were talking
about is nothing but pointless sophisty.

They made statements.

With no creative interpretation and as a matter of simple English, they were
WRONG.

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Mar 2007 03:13:19 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Who cares? It's a distraction; it's merely an amusing aside to notice that
>Ziggy couldn't even get it right.

He's practicing one of the more egregious forms of trolling -
pretending to be on one side of an debate ("I'm anti-helmet, really I
am") while

a) making arguments that support the other; and

b) distorting statements that reflect the balanced view such that they
appear to fail against a).

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Mar, 13:24, [email protected] wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2007 03:13:19 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Who cares? It's a distraction; it's merely an amusing aside to notice that
> >Ziggy couldn't even get it right.
>
> He's practicing one of the more egregious forms of trolling -
> pretending to be on one side of an debate ("I'm anti-helmet, really I
> am") while
>
> a) making arguments that support the other; and
>
> b) distorting statements that reflect the balanced view such that they
> appear to fail against a).


I've lost the will to live: Does anyone know how to buy a house in
Scotland, specifically Aberdeen?

Sniper8052

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:31 +0100:
>
> I've lost the will to live: Does anyone know how to buy a house in
> Scotland, specifically Aberdeen?
>

No but I can tell you how to use a kill file......or is that a sensitive
subject with the Met these days ;-)


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Ziggy]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:37:41 GMT, Ambrose Nankivell <firstname+'n'@gmail.com>
wrote:

>My apologies. You wasted all those five minutes replying to me, and I
>can't be arsed to refute your idiotic pointless soul destroying rubbish.

Of course, you can't, because there is no sensible way to refute them.

It seems to had decided, for some weird reason of your own, to join the idiot
tendancy and try prove that black was white.

Fortunately, it also seems you have come rapidly to your senses and realised
that you don't want to join Smith and Damerell in the asylum.

Well done!

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Mar, 13:35, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:31 +0100:
>
>
>
> > I've lost the will to live: Does anyone know how to buy a house in
> > Scotland, specifically Aberdeen?
>
> No but I can tell you how to use a kill file......or is that a sensitive
> subject with the Met these days ;-)
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
> wildly inaccurate..."
> Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy


That was a serious question - Can't be bothered to use the kill file,
can I just kill him?

Sniper8052

 

[Ziggy]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:24:19 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>He's practicing one of the more egregious forms of trolling -
>pretending to be on one side of an debate ("I'm anti-helmet, really I
>am") while
>
>a) making arguments that support the other; and
>
>b) distorting statements that reflect the balanced view such that they
>appear to fail against a).

What part of:

I don't like helmets.
I have never worn a helmet.
I hope I'm never compelled to wear a helmet.

Did you find difficult to understand?


There are circumstances where a helmet could save your life.

There are more circumstances where it could end it.

Why can you not just admit that perfectly reasonable statement and let it stand?

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> I've lost the will to live: Does anyone know how to buy a house in
> Scotland, specifically Aberdeen?

Yes. Probably just as well to start here... http://www.aspc.co.uk/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Carol Hague]

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 22 Mar, 13:35, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:31 +0100:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I've lost the will to live: Does anyone know how to buy a house in
> > > Scotland, specifically Aberdeen?
> >
> > No but I can tell you how to use a kill file......or is that a sensitive
> > subject with the Met these days ;-)

>
> That was a serious question - Can't be bothered to use the kill file,
> can I just kill him?

Yes, but then you'll have to arrest yourself ; -)

--
Carol
"Never trust a man wearing leather shorts and a plastic dressing gown"
- Spray, "The Dangerous Sports Club"

 

[Ziggy]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:01:14 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On 22 Mar, 13:35, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:31 +0100:
>>>
>>>
>>> [Apropos MattB]
>>> > I've lost the will to live: Does anyone know how to buy a house in
>>> > Scotland, specifically Aberdeen?
>>>
>>> No but I can tell you how to use a kill file......or is that a sensitive
>>> subject with the Met these days ;-)
>>
>> That was a serious question - Can't be bothered to use the kill file,
>> can I just kill him?
>
>Oi! There's a queue, you know? I'm in front of you!

Come on guys, play nice, you can all join the idiot tendency.

Just hold up you hand, state that black is white, and have your photo taken with
Raven, Smith and Damerell.