Tetration Forum
trouble? was: Iteration exercises: f(x)=x^2 - 0.5 ; Fixpoint-irritation... - Printable Version

+- Tetration Forum (https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum)
+-- Forum: Etc (https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Community (https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: trouble? was: Iteration exercises: f(x)=x^2 - 0.5 ; Fixpoint-irritation... (/showthread.php?tid=656)



trouble? was: Iteration exercises: f(x)=x^2 - 0.5 ; Fixpoint-irritation... - tommy1729 - 06/06/2011

(06/06/2011, 12:47 PM)Gottfried Wrote: Thank you for the double exclamation. They don't introduce a determinant of an infinite sized matrix but make much noise, which I do not like as you know from earlier conversations of mine in sci.math. So I'll stop that small conversation on your postings here as I don't have to say much more relevant at the moment for the other occasional and interested reader.

Gottfried

? do you feel insulted ? are you angry at me ? what earlier conversations on sci.math ? did we have a fight at sci.math ?

you seem annoyed , i did not intend to bother you.

Moderators note: This is now something for the community thread


RE: trouble? was: Iteration exercises: f(x)=x^2 - 0.5 ; Fixpoint-irritation... - Gottfried - 06/08/2011

(06/06/2011, 10:18 PM)tommy1729 Wrote:
(06/06/2011, 12:47 PM)Gottfried Wrote: Thank you for the double exclamation. They don't introduce a determinant of an infinite sized matrix but make much noise, which I do not like as you know from earlier conversations of mine in sci.math. So I'll stop that small conversation on your postings here as I don't have to say much more relevant at the moment for the other occasional and interested reader.

Gottfried

? do you feel insulted ? are you angry at me ? what earlier conversations on sci.math ? did we have a fight at sci.math ?

you seem annoyed , i did not intend to bother you.

Moderators note: This is now something for the community thread

Hmmm, that Henryk's move gives my answer now a weight which I just didn't intend. Well I'll do my best to clear things up without weighting it now even more.



@tommy : no we did not have a fight at sci.math - I'm even not interested in such fights which we can continuously observe there (or in which we can engage for no cost and reputation, if we like). I like to calmly and serene consider mathematical problems, structures, discoveries and beauties. Any loud socializing or even antisocializing attitude displeases me there - since my youth days through my student's and then professional's time I always was a nightly worker/thinker: the world around me sleeps and I can consider and meditate in quietness and in any depth that I like.

The conversation in sci.math (~2007(?)) I was loosely referring to, was, that I told you, that I was focused on a very difficult question (my first contact with the question of iterate exponentiation) and I disliked any defocusing, obfuscating and distracting behave: I said, that for successfully hunting, after some serious guess for the general direction, you must concentrate on one track, and that I were sceptical, that with your way of thinking, writing and alarming the world, you would ever achieve much.
And that I wouldn't like to accompany your way or be accompanied by such a behave - thus avoiding to escalate to "fights"; that this was not unwise one could see if one has counted the frequent quarrels popping up in sci.math. (and in wikipedia and even here in the forum)

So to come back to the current thread: in the very difficult problem of how to "normalize" the matrix-method for the alternating iterations series to get meaningful results: been confronted with an arbitrary/at most loosely related topic like determinants (of which a form for infinite matrices is not commonly defined - if at all) in the style of keyword-calling and on the other hand that well-known double-exclamation I have to decide, which I give more weight on the first glance: the unsafe relevance of a loosely thrown topic or the well-known behave of being loud - the latter helped for the decision. (That's the reason why I said "thanks": because it helped...)

----------------

@All: there are some more aspects why I don't like to interfere with "tommy1729" and older pseudonyms ("amy666", as far as I remember) - in the internet many many and much different personalities meet - nobody would care to talk with everyone, as well as to detail it out if not.

One last remark, only meant to stir a bit an often surfaced thing (as I assume: a usenetwidespread communication/thinking paradigm): it does not need "fighting" to cause non-conversation, sometimes it is simply disinterest, sometimes awaiting, sometimes other simple reasons, even positive(!) ones. It would show sort of emotional poverty if "fighting" was the sole thinkable affect,- and if it shows up as first/main assumption one might attribute this as: "consequently" ... (But let it be good for now, the last move was somehow a bit of sarcasm...)

Gottfried


RE: trouble? was: Iteration exercises: f(x)=x^2 - 0.5 ; Fixpoint-irritation... - tommy1729 - 06/08/2011

i always supported gottried both in this forum and in sci.math.

"!!" does not mean im yelling , loud , "defocusing, obfuscating and distracting behave" ," alarming the world " or not thinking in the correct way.

describing me like that is not very flattering.

the " fights " i had were usually caused by other people being oversensitive or belittling and insulting me.

and often dishonest ppl as one can witness here on the wiki-discussion ( i gave evidence ).

i remember being at sci.math

if i gave a proof , it was called either trivial or unclear.

if i had an idea , it was called stupid.

if i had a conjecture , it was called useless.

if i posted about numbertheory or tetration i got either ignored or insulted.

not to mention posters like musatov , inverse19 or neilist.

i even got into fights about spelling , they then would insult me and stalk me in the new threads that followed.

some ppl pointed out some mistakes i made , but could not handle it if i pointed out theirs.

and worse , those nonflattering things always occur up first on search engines rather than mathematics.

every long thread on sci.math has fights !

every short thread is somewhat ignored !

all i intended to do on wiki is add my 2sinh method.

one can argue that others ppl method deserves to be on that page too.

but i dont prevent or disagree with that.

( i tried to modify other pages too , similar fights )

i was dissapointed by wiki and sci.math so i came to this forum WHERE I BELONG.

i respect everyone and get some respect back.

judging me on sci.math is silly , most of those ppl would not even exist on a MODERATED FORUM for obvious reasons.


if you are angry at someone just because he had a few fights on sci.math WAY BACK IN 2007 WITH OTHER PPL (!) or if he mentions DETERMINANTS WICH ARE ALWAYS RELEVANT IN MATRIX DISCUSSIONS , i find that somewhat ... emotionally unstable.

going back to 2007 is imho far fetched.

i never had a fight with you on sci.math and im pretty sure that if your already offended with in your opinion unrelated determinants , then -by god - the name-calling i had to read in sci.math would have upset you too ! ... you already admitted you dont like sci.math behaviour btw.

i hope you are not suggesting that all fights on sci.math were my own responsibility ?

some ppl actually left sci.math because they disagreed with the way posters replied to me.

( e.g. galathaea )

i dont know what sci.math has to do with this forum anyways.

i havent had any fight in this forum since i registered in may 2009 , you had to look in 2007 or longer ago in sci.math.

the fact that i did not have any fights since may 2009 shows that , when surrounded by polite ppl rather then sci.math ppl , i am myself polite and getting along with all of you.

i wished you good health when you were ill and i invited you ( all members ) to a tetration meeting at my expense and welcomed you back after your absense.

maybe you were frustrated about me saying things without formal proof , but lets face it , there are many things about tetration that have no formal proof yet and not every post contains a proof to say the least.

you can disagree with my view about determinant but i see no reason to fight.

and i certainly did not start a fight by mentioning determinant , i was trying to help !

im kind a dissapointed that after all those years , you act like this.

thanks a lot

tommy1729

edit : have to say that some ppl on sci.math are ( most of the time ) polite helpfull mathematicians , in particular robert israel.


RE: trouble? was: Iteration exercises: f(x)=x^2 - 0.5 ; Fixpoint-irritation... - bo198214 - 06/08/2011

Oh guys.
Hey, I dont think there is need to invest so much energy in these topics.
Imho on this forum you had no troubles with each other and I hope we continue with that.

Tommy, I dont think you can force Gottfried to investigate the ideas *you* consider interesting. If he doesnt want to, you should respect that.
The mere throwing of keywords may perhaps not be so helpful for him.

If you can show how your ideas substantially lead to some results which would help with Gottfried's considerations, I think he would be happy to hear about that.

Then another point:
This forum is not the right place to discuss stuff that happened on other boards.

PS: @Tommy: You can introduce your 2sinh method on our Hyperoperations Wiki, if you want.


RE: trouble? was: Iteration exercises: f(x)=x^2 - 0.5 ; Fixpoint-irritation... - tommy1729 - 06/09/2011

i do not force anyone.

imho my reply was relevant and not just keywords and rather underrated.

i had no formal proof so you dont have to agree with me , but do not be amazed if i turn out to be correct ; math is not subjective.... and then how would you feel ?

bo says i need to respect ppl if they do not want to consider my idea.

i never forced anyone to do so , and i did respect everyone.

but frankly , replying hostile to someones idea and effort to help does not appeal respectful to me.

bacause of the hostility and disintrest in my idea i refuse to elaborate further , also because i have other math intrests that are urgent , my apologies to the ones intrested.

i know this forum is not the right place to discuss stuff that happens on other boards ( although i do feel so if related to tetration ).

as for my 2 sinh method i rather see it on the official wiki , which is being blocked as you know and that is unfortunately beyond your powers.

i recall reading stuff elsewhere that is supporting my idea but only statistically ( analytic with prob 1 ) though i forgot where :/

tommy1729