Definitive proof ;-)

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:51:38 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 21:30:28 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Illustrate.
>
> You are getting truly desparate when you have to resort to playing with words.

Eh? "Illustrate" and "prove" are fundamentally different. That's not
playing with words, that's being clear what you mean. You experiment
does not and did not PROVE anything.

> >No, it was not. It was to illustrate that your postulated (thought or
> >otherwise) experiment did not produce a conclusion useful to the
> >advancement of the debate. It did that.
>
> How could suggesting an experiment that would 'illustrate'
> something that I was already fully convinced of possible achieve
> ANYTHING?

As previously noted, you are not teh sum total of all that matters in
teh universe.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 21:42:12 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
>> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > and desperately trying to show that there is *never* a case where a
>> > > helmet may save your life.
>>
>> > I have never seen Tony present that argument. Can you provide a
>> > reference or quote for this? Or is it a slander?
>>
>> 'Tony wrote, in response to Ziggy's statement that 'it seems likely that
>> helmets will prevent some number of head injuries each year and reduce
>> the seriousness of some other number':
>>
>> "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."'
>>
>> You, by the way, responded to that. So I think you may have seen Tony
>> present that argument.
>
>Tony's argument does not appear to me to be what you calim. I have
>elaborated elsewhere.

Oh, good grief.

You really can't understand basic English at all, can you?

How on earth can you not understand:

"it seems likely that helmets will prevent some number of head injuries each
year and reduce the seriousness of some other number"

followed by:

"you are wrong for a whole load of reasons"

Can possible be anything other than contradictory of the statement that a helmet
might save your life?

You really are decending into the most egregious weaseling to try and get
yourself out of the hole you've dug.

When you've dug yourself into a hole the first thing to do is: STOP DIGGING.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> > > Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Are you a politician Ian? If not, please stop behaving as
> > > > > though you are on Question Time. It is possible to debate
> > > > > intelligently.
> > > >
> > > > It is also possible to say what you actually mean. I'm not sure why
> > > > ziggy won't. Almost every post says one thing, then next sentence
> > > > says another thing. Yet you accuse _me_ of being the politician?
> > >
> > > Where have I accused you of being the politician?
> >
> > It is implicit in the question "Are you a politician Ian?".
>
> No, it isn't. You inferred it. I did not imply it.

Yes, I inferred it because it was implicit in teh question.

> I'm sorry if you took it that way.
>
> > > Indeed. Could you give clear examples, please?
> >
> > I have done so. They are in google. I don't intend to drag them out
> > again.
>
> That will be a 'no' then.

I thought there was a good chance you would take "yes" to be "no", but
as noted, I can't be bothered to repeat what I have already said. It
IS already in google, if you can't be bothered to check for yourself,
you are of course at liberty to decide that "yes" means "no", exactly
as I am at liberty not to repeat myself indefinitely.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:56:26 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 21:34:11 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Are you a politician Ian? If not, please stop behaving as
> >> > > though you are on Question Time. It is possible to debate
> >> > > intelligently.
> >> >
> >> > It is also possible to say what you actually mean. I'm not sure why
> >> > ziggy won't. Almost every post says one thing, then next sentence
> >> > says another thing. Yet you accuse _me_ of being the politician?
> >>
> >> Where have I accused you of being the politician?
> >
> >It is implicit in the question "Are you a politician Ian?".
>
> Oh dear.
>
> It's that problem you have with understanding simple English again, isn't it,
> Ian?

Look up what "implicit" means ziggy.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:37:24 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ian Smith wrote on 19/03/2007 19:06 +0100:
> >>>
> >>> There is no such thing as a negative probability.
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>
> >
> >I wonder what Ziggy knows that Richard Feynman [1] and Paul Dirac don't.
> >
> >[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.1562
>
> I wonder if Tony knows that his link doesn't work.

Odd. It works for me, but to get to the detail a subscription is
required. I trust that Tony, whose argument now appears to be that cycle
helmets [0] operate [1] at the quantum level [2], will elaborate for
such a mere mortal as I who is only related to a maths genius rather
than actually being one myself.

Cheers,
Luke

[0] plural: helmets exist in pairs which move together, however far
apart they are
[1] or fail to operate.
[2] one can either know the helmet's location or velocity but one cannot
know both simultaneously
--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> > > That may, in your opinion, be the case. Sadly, that was not said and so
> > > you are, as a matter of fact, wrong.
> >
> > Yes it is what was said - note the quote above "prevent some number
> > of" (your quote - you selected it). Note that this is NOT prevent a
> > particular case. It is nonsense to talk of action preventing a number
> > of injuries if the action causes more injuries.
>
> If an action prevents five injuries and causes ten then the action has
> prevented a number of injuries and caused a number of injuries.

I still do not believe it would be reasonable to characterise that
action as having prevented a number of injuries. It may have
prevented some particular injuries, but it has not prevented a number
of injuries. The same number of injuries have occurred, and then
some.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> > Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:

> > > > Where have I accused you of being the politician?

> > > It is implicit in the question "Are you a politician Ian?".
> >
> > No, it isn't. You inferred it. I did not imply it.
>
> Yes, I inferred it because it was implicit in teh question.

No. It wasn't. It was a straight question. I've apologised already for
being unclear. It's a pity you continue to refuse to help to advance the
discussion.

Cheers,
Luke



--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:56:26 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 19 Mar 2007 21:34:11 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:

> > >> Where have I accused you of being the politician?
> > >
> > >It is implicit in the question "Are you a politician Ian?".
> >
> > Oh dear.
> >
> > It's that problem you have with understanding simple English again,
> > Iisn't it, an?
>
> Look up what "implicit" means ziggy.

Please do not confuse 'implicit' and 'inferred'. If you insist on doing
so, then please look up the meaning of the verb 'to accuse'.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[David Hansen]

On 19 Mar 2007 05:54:01 -0700 someone who may be [email protected]
wrote this:-

>Having attended so many cycle accedidents as a medic, I can see
>first hand the difference between wearing one or not.

Having read the rest of the thread arrogance does seem to feature in
some posts.

>Seeing head
>injurys on cyclists on a daily basis, I know wearing a helmet doesn'
>stop head injury, but the 'dampening' effect it has is often the
>difference between recovery and perminant injury.

Others have referred you to www.cyclehelmets.org.uk and those with
an open mind tend to come away from a study of that with a rather
different attitude. Indeed in another place someone was recounting
how they had come to the debate a decade ago thinking that a cycle
helmet had saved their life and anyone who disagreed with wearing
these gadgets was stupid.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:37:24 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I wonder what Ziggy knows that Richard Feynman [1] and Paul Dirac don't.

I wonder if Ziggy's "medical training" extended to knowing who the
former was and what his contribution to physics was? Of course it
was not "simple physics"...


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:45:05 GMT someone who may be
[email protected] (Ziggy) wrote this:-

>As someone who clearly knows a great deal more about science and mathematics
>than you do

An expert is someone who knows how little they know about a subject.
People who think they know a lot about a subject are not experts in
it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 22:03:48 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:51:38 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2007 21:30:28 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Illustrate.
>>
>> You are getting truly desparate when you have to resort to playing with words.
>
>Eh? "Illustrate" and "prove" are fundamentally different. That's not
>playing with words, that's being clear what you mean. You experiment
>does not and did not PROVE anything.

As you said, thought experiments rarely do. Only a desperate pedant would try
and distract attention from the rubbish he was spouting by trying to highlight
such an irrelevant distinction.

>As previously noted, you are not teh sum total of all that matters in
>teh universe.

As also previously noted (but, or course, ignored by you), the experiment was
directed at me as a riposte to the one I suggested.

But I suppose that's far too subtle for you.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:35:28 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 21:21:51 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:01:19 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 19 Mar 2007 20:42:41 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:29:10 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You seem to be on the same side as I am on the general helmet
> >> >> debate. You say there's no one who claims that a helmet can never
> >> >> save your life, so what exactly is your point?
> >> >
> >> >At this stage, mainly that you're a silly twit, if truth be told.
> >>
> >> And now you've gone past rudeness to ad hominems.
> >
> >Not quite (though I'm within a hairs-breadth, I agree).
>
> You don't think that "mainly that you're a silly twit" constitutes an
> ad-hominem?

I don't believe that 'I am seeking to demonstrate that you're a silly
twit' in response to the question 'what are you doing' is ad-hominem.
I believe it is within a hairs-breadth of it (as I said), so obviously
it can be argued either way.

> >I established that you had nothing useful to offer in the topic you
> >believe yourself to be arguing about some time ago, yes.
>
> But you just kept on and on and on and on regardless?

I was attempting to establish something different from what you were
attempting to establish. That doesn't automatically mean that what I
was doing was pointless, despite the implication in your question.

> >> I merely complained that you had ignored the message reference
> >> where someone had said there was a zero possibility of a helmet
> >> saving my life after you had accused me of fabricating such a
> >> person.
> >
> >Ah. I ignored the message I replied to? I see. You might need to
> >explain that one again.
>
> You said that a poster or posters who were claiming that a helmet
> would never save my life were a figment of my imagination.
>
> I them posted a message reference to a poster who had said exactly that.
>
> At first you ignored the reference.

It took some time for me to reach my computer, and some further time
for me to read it, and yet more time for me to respond to it. You
can describe that as at first I ignored it if you want.

> Then you claimed he didn't say what he had said.

So, I didn't ignore it. But you just said I did (before you said I
ignored it at first). But that can't be right, because you've
repeatedly said you don't say contradictory things. So did I ignore
it, or did I not ignore it?

> And the fact that you had replied to the post

Ah, so now I replied to the post I ignored and replied to, yes?

> It's irrelevant to your ignoring it

Oh, but now I ignored it again. Right.

No, sorry, I don't understand. I'll try again:

1: You don't say contradictory things.
2: I ignored your post.
3: I replied to your post.
4: I replied to your post.
5: I ignored your post.

Nope, sorry. You'll have to run that by me again. Did I ignore your
post? Did I reply to your post? Do you say contradictory things?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ekul Namsob]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:45:05 GMT someone who may be
> [email protected] (Ziggy) wrote this:-
>
> >As someone who clearly knows a great deal more about science and mathematics
> >than you do
>
> An expert is someone who knows how little they know about a subject.

True.

> People who think they know a lot about a subject are not experts in
> it.

False.

'A lot' is a relative term.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 22:07:18 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>Look up what "implicit" means ziggy.

Try and understand the difference between a question and a statement.

If you are asked "what is your constituency", you can reasonably infer that your
are considered a politician.

If you are asked "are you are a politician", you can't.

There is no implication whatsoever in there.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:58:35 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:37:24 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Ian Smith wrote on 19/03/2007 19:06 +0100:
> >>>
> >>> There is no such thing as a negative probability.
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >I wonder what Ziggy knows that Richard Feynman [1] and Paul Dirac don't.
> >
> >[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.1562
>
> I wonder if Tony knows that his link doesn't work.
> I suppose it's a bit hard for a plonker to put a link into a post.


It works for me, so notwithstanding that you apparently have a fault
with your computer but choose instead to blame someone else for your
system's failure, I shall quote it for you:

"Feynman’s approach to negative probability in quantum mechanics

"Feynman introduces the concept of negative probability in the context
of Young’s double-slit experiment and in doing so sheds a new light on
the problem. However, there are, as Feynman notes, conceptual problems
as well as insights associated with this point of view. The micromaser
which-path (Welcher-Weg) detector eliminates these conceptual
difficulties. We also emphasize that the concept of negative
probability yields useful insight into the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
(EPR) problem."


Btw, can you explain why calling Tony a plonker is not ad-hominem.
I'm sure it isn't, because you've recently made clear how much you
deplore ad-hominem argument.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ziggy]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:19:44 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:45:05 GMT someone who may be
>[email protected] (Ziggy) wrote this:-
>
>>As someone who clearly knows a great deal more about science and mathematics
>>than you do
>
>An expert is someone who knows how little they know about a subject.
>People who think they know a lot about a subject are not experts in
>it.

That's a little unfair.

It was I who suggested that Clive knows more about mathematics that Ian
(although considering Ians opinions on -ve probability that wouldn't be
difficult). He never made any such claim himself.

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 22:22:12 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't believe that 'I am seeking to demonstrate that you're a silly
>twit' in response to the question 'what are you doing' is ad-hominem.
>I believe it is within a hairs-breadth of it (as I said), so obviously
>it can be argued either way.

Only by a weasel.

Either you do believe what you say, in whcih case it is an ad-hominem, or you
are trying to demonstrate something you do not believe.

Hardly adult or honourable behavious in either case.

>I was attempting to establish something different from what you were
>attempting to establish. That doesn't automatically mean that what I
>was doing was pointless, despite the implication in your question.

Ian, read my lips: "There is no argument".

You're arguing with yourself (and losing).

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:57:56 GMT, [email protected] (Ziggy)
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:46:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>that one day not wearing a helmet could cost me my life.
>>
>>And that "possibility" is, um, zero (or perhaps negative) -
>>statistically; at least that's what the best and largest studies show
>>us.
>
>In the first place, may I suggest that you learn something about statistics?
>

You could; it isn't needed.

>There is no such thing as a negative probability.
>

Of course there is not a negative probability - but how else would
one, in a conversational way, imply that the inverse result of an
implied probability was really the case? Go ahead and pick nits...I
can too; I didn't use the term "probability"...

 

[Ziggy]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:18:02 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:37:24 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>I wonder what Ziggy knows that Richard Feynman [1] and Paul Dirac don't.
>
>I wonder if Ziggy's "medical training" extended to knowing who the
>former was and what his contribution to physics was? Of course it
>was not "simple physics"...

And you'll never know, will you, because no matter what I say now I *could* have
looked it up on Wikipedia or somesuch after you asked the question?

As, indeed, you may have just done yourself

I suspect that you may have done just that because to describe Feynman's
contibution to physics in the singular is odd, indeed.

And his trick at the shuttle inquirey with the liquid nitrogen is worthy of
mention.