Reply To: For Non-Math People Only

Thanks everyone for the replies! New day, new rules! (that means you Squeak. In case you stayed off because of the title. I’ll make an exception next time.)

Everyone: it is coup d’eCtat. And I think it means a conquering of a new field of mathematics with ecstasy (the feeling, not the drug), at least in context. I wasn’t sure if he’d made it up so I included it.

Writersoul: If you think YOU feel dumb, it is NOTHING compared to how I felt while reading this book. I’m actually supposedly supposed to get something out of it.

And the Hankie of Death is “a quick and easy way to distinguish those points corresponding with irrational numbers from the ones corresponding with rationals.” This quickly and easily took 3 pages, which was actually pretty good for this book.

OneOfMany

Very impressive. You get a brownie point, +1, whatever it is you like to get. 🙂

writersoul

I have to look it up in the real book and see if your analysis makes sense.

Curiosity

LOL, they are. (I copied and pasted) (note how this is all one sentence)

p.55

talmud: Great job!

Especially on Creduda and Mutatis Mutandis.

just my hapence: Very very impressive.

Vicious Infinite Regress -Thank you! Yeah I have gaps, that’s probably why the theory troubles me so much in the first place.

I like your clear definitions.

Apodictic Hygiene – Thanks. He probably means being careful about constructing a logical argument.

Vermiculate – I like that.

Horriplatively – wow impressive.

Mutatis Mutandis – Thanks

Surd – It’s one of those things you know if you spend time around math people. I don’t have anyone to talk about this stuff with most of the time.

JMH, wow. Full marks. +90 (except coup d’ectat). Incredibly impressive. Brilliant. B”N I will quote from the book today or tomorrow so you can see the ones we haven’t figured out yet in context.