Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Mike Oakes' Your Observations Are Without Any Significant Content Remark - Doctorow

Expand Messages
  • Osher Doctorow
    From: Osher Doctorow, Ph.D. osher@ix.netcom.com, Sunday Feb. 4, 2001 11:22AM I do not know who Mike Oakes is, since he lists no affiliation except
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 4, 2001
      From: Osher Doctorow, Ph.D. osher@..., Sunday Feb. 4, 2001 11:22AM

      I do not know who Mike Oakes is, since he lists no affiliation except
      Mikeoakes2@..., but Mike, read part of your email, especially your
      quotation "Contradiction. This reductio ad absurdum shows that your
      observations are without any significant content. Please, also, look back
      over your article and notice how the notation oscillates between G(y) and
      F(x), and F(y) and G(x). How are we supposed to make any sense at all of
      such a posting?" of 10:13AM today (your time). I now ask the following
      question to Mike Oakes, but also to primenumbers. How can a
      scientist/mathematician (other than what Canadians and American sometimes
      refer to as a "wimp") reply seriously to such an email in good conscience?
      The scientist/mathematician (SM for short) might remark that
      science/mathematics derives much of its accuracy and utility from not being
      embroiled in human emotions, especially emotions which result in such an
      extreme accusation of "your observations are without any significant
      content." This is the first part of my reply. The second part of my reply
      concerns logic. You mention in your email to "I'm afraid that absestos
      [your typo] underwear is needed at this point." If this is where your
      logic is located, it might explain how you use an unrelated analogy to come
      up with an unrelated contradiction. The third part of my reply concerns
      my interchange of y and x once, which was a typographical error. At the age
      of 62, I do make typographical errors which I did not make at the age of 18
      or 16 (say), and it is possible that you may have to wait about 40 years
      before this becomes explicable to you. I am my own secretary and intern,
      which recent events have convinced me is the best way. University
      departments and corporations have their own secretaries and interns often
      (graduate students included), so they are often found to not make
      typographical errors. The fourth part of my reply concerns not seeing the
      forest for the trees. Primes-L was a Canadian-centered list, and I assume
      that so is prenumbers@yahoogroups.com. One nice thing about Canada is the
      forest, and seeing the forest despite the tree is one thing that the
      Kwakiutl, Haida, and I think many other Canadians are quite proficient at,
      and I urge you to imitate them. I distinguish between Ingenious Followers
      (who do not see the forest because they are looking at one tree) and
      Creative Geniuses (who see the forest even though it has individual trees),
      though I happen to think that training can improve these abilities. The
      former type are much more common among both students and
      faculty/researchers. I urge you therefore to search closely for the
      "spirit" or
      idea behind my work rather than for the typgraphical error or the novelty of
      my work which seem to have aroused such excessive responses from you. As
      for my own contribution, of course there is room for improvement and
      modification. I would look for inequalities of polynomials differing by one
      degree, explanations of why 3 or less degrees are applicable (not as
      difficult as it may seem, I think), etc. (What did you expect me to say,
      "thank you for your insulting email, and I agree to your illogic and your
      evaluation of me as essentially without significant content - even insects
      get better evaluations.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.