Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Arithmetic, Algebra, and Benezet



At least two astute people have recently expressed discontent with
the formatting and/or style of my post of 5 Feb 2002 20:46:00-0800
titled "Arithmetic, Algebra, and Benezet":

1. Tom O'Haver, in his Physhare post of 7 Feb 2002 07:59:00 EST wrote
(my CAPS):

O'HAVER-O'HAVER-O'HAVER-O'HAVER-O'HAVER-O'HAVER
"I have printed out and studied Richard Hake's recent post. Although
I am still somewhat unsure of who said what and when and where (I
HAVE STILL NOT MASTERED HAKE'S COMPLEX SYSTEM OF FORMATTING), I
think I understand the basic gist. And I agree with the main points."
O'HAVER-O'HAVER-O'HAVER-O'HAVER-O'HAVER-O'HAVER

2. Sanjoy Mahajan, in his Math-Learn post of 07 Feb 2002 02:05:19+0000, wrote:

MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN
". . . . I fear that . . . (Richard Hake's). . . arguments against
Wayne Bishop's claims are difficult to pull out from the details. . .
."
MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN-MAHAJAN

I am submitting this post as a possible assist to O'Haver, Mahajan,
and others. My formatting method is designed to allow multiple
responses R (as R1, R2, R3, etc.) to CORRESPONDING multiple comments
C (as C2, C2, C3, etc. Though unusual, the formatting is actually
quite simple.

The design will, I think show up in the drastically abbreviated
OUTLINE form of Hake (2002) given in the APPENDIX. I hope the OUTLINE
will make it clear that:

(a) I attempt to counter Bishop's comments (C3a, C3b, C3c, C3d) by my
responses by my responses (R3a, R3b, R3c, R3d), and

(b) I attempt to counter Bishop's comments (C4a, C4b, C4c, C4d, C4e)
by my responses (R4a, R4b, R4c, R4d, R4e).

Doubtless some will think that the OUTLINE form of my post makes a
lot more sense than the original and should therefore be distributed
as widely as possible.

Nevertheless. I should like to suggest that IF you reply to this post
you NOT hit the reply button and thereby transmit your reply and a
repeat of this long post to all 5 discussion lists and all 16 "cc's."
All of the latter are, by now, probably sick of this matter and do
not wish to be bothered (my apologies).

In my opinion, the finger-jerk hit-reply-button syndrome is the bane
of discussion lists. Why can't list members take the few extra
seconds to copy and paste addresses in the "To" and "cc" slots? Such
practice would avoid the need for my largely ignored. . .(so why do I
keep making them??). . . posting suggestions:

#5. Quote or repeat only the relevant sections of the post to which
you are responding and not the complete post (AS MAY OCCUR WHEN YOU
HIT THE "REPLY" BUTTON).

#12. EXAMINE THE ADDRESS IN THE "TO" SLOT. Do you really want to
send your intimate love letter out to the entire list of subscribers?


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>


REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2002 my Math-Learn/PhysLrnR/Phys-L/Physhare/POD post of 7
Feb 2002 07:59:00 EST, tiled "Arithmetic, Algebra, and Benezet";
online at the
archives of:

Math-Learn
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/message/1977>,

Phys-L
<http://mailgate.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=phys-l&F=&S=&P=22634>

PhysLrnR
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=physlrnr&F=&S=&X=69F1AB621BA319AE2A&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=4307>;

Physhare
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=physhare&F=&S=&P=2868>

POD
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=pod&F=&S=&P=4288>





xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
APPENDIX (Outline of Hake 2002)
Re: Arithmetic, Algebra, and Benezet

I have set off most quotes by bracketing them with the authors NAME, as

NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME
Name wrote "Blah, blah, blah.
NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME-NAME

................................
................................

The following are my responses (R) to four Math-Learn comments(C) on Benezet:


111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1-C1
REX BOOGS on 31 Jan 2002 18:15:34+1000, wrote:

BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS
"Blah, blah, blah. . ."
BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS

R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1-R1.
I agree completely with the perceptive Rex Boogs . . .



2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
C2-C2-C2-C2- C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2-C2
REX BOGGS wrote on 1 Feb 2002 17:02:43+1000:

BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS
"Blah, blah, blah. . ."
BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS-BOOGS

R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2-R2
R2. I disagree that. . . . According to Jack Lochhead (2001):

LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD
"Blah, blah, blah. . ."
LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD-LOCHHEAD



33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3-C3
. . . . WAYNE BISHOP wrote on 31 Jan 2002 07:15:15-0800:

BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP
C3a. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."

C3b. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."

C3c. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."

C3d. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."
BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP


R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3-R3
R3a. Bishop seems to imply. . .

R3b. As an antidote to Bishop's erroneous . . .

MAHAJAN&HAKE-MAHAJAN&HAKE-MAHAJAN&HAKE-MAHAJAN&HAKE
"Blah, blah, blah. . ."
MAHAJAN&HAKE-MAHAJAN&HAKE-MAHAJAN&HAKE-MAHAJAN&HAKE

R3c. In my opinion, Bishop's comment "C2c". . . I quote Sherman Stein (1996):

STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN
"Blah, blah, blah. . ."
STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN-STEIN

R3d. I wonder if Bishop could document. . . In any case, Lou Talman's
comment of 31 Jan 2002 13:03:07-0700 . . .

TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN
"Blah, blah, blah. . ."
TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN


4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4-C4
C4. On 31 Jan 2002 23:37:32 -0800, Wayne Bishop wrote . . .

BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP (My CAPS)
C4a. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."

C4b. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."

C4c. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."

C4d. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."

C4e. "Blah, blah, blah. . ."
BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP-BISHOP

R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4-R4
R4a. While it is true . . . .

R4b. "Miniscule evidence"? . . . .

R4c. If Wayne would take time . . .

R4d. As indicated in the Stein quote. . .

R4e. I think Michael Paul Goldenberg's 01 Feb 2002 08:15:42-0500 post
constitutes a sensible rebuttal to Bishop's point "C4e":

GOLDENBERG-GOLDENBERG-GOLDENBERG-GOLDENBERG-GOLDENBERG
"Blah, blah, blah. . ."
GOLDENBERG-GOLDENBERG-GOLDENBERG-GOLDENBERG-GOLDENBERG

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>