zdzis1 wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:27:30 -0700, kT wrote:

On May 14, 12:02 pm, zdzis1 wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:01:50 -0700, kT wrote:
On May 14, 10:23 am, Poetic Justice -n-
Dog.com wrote:
kT wrote:
On May 14, 9:53 am, "Godzilla Pimp" wrote:
Fortunately, it's impossible.
You're right, man will never fly.
Now if you will excuse me, I've got to catch a flight to LA.
two guys in a garage might someday invent manned flight, are you
headed to the airport to wait for that invention to be made?
No, I've already learned enough from studying the history of manned
flight to know that anyone who claims that a solar powered world is
impossible, is a complete crackpot. I'm doing condensed matter
physics so that world becomes a reality,
Are you sure you're doing condensed matter physics? You have a tendency
for confusing areas, so if you managed to confuse Model Theory with
Mathematical Modelling maybe your are not actually doing condensed
matter physics but condensed milk physics?
I'm more of a solid state and exotic matter guy, I'm not much into soft
matter. I know about those things though, just as I know about model
theory and mathematical models, and quite a few other things I've run
across in the 30 odd years or so I've been in professional research.

You may know about those other things, but definitely not about models.

[removing alt.politics.bush]

I make models all the time, real and virtual. I even have a model shop.

You confused Model Theory with Mathematical Modelling, remember?

No I didn't. I said 'start here'. You are confusing words and phrases
with mathematical expressions, relations and equations. They're just
words. The question is rather, exactly what are words anyways, and how
can we quantify words such that we can build equipment to analyze them?

Would it be possible for you to share a research paper you wrote?

Everybody here knows who I am and what papers I wrote on what subjects.

The big question is, who are you, and what have you done lately?

I would
be especially interested in your work on solid state.
Actually you surprised me - I had been wondering wheter kT is a
refrerence to statisticical physics - and what do you know! it is! So how
much energy do you actually hold? You should be carefull with these
things - you blew up once, it may happen again.

You know, there are machines that correct word spelling errors.

Yes, I did happen to have a little blow up at the Ultimart once.

Does that make you uncomfortable, to be around someone like me who has
lived the greater portion of my life in the wilderness, and demonstrably
has run around with one of the roughest crowds in the Atlantic Ocean?

You know, that place out there where there are no laws, only outlaws?

I prefer to let nature takes its course with respect to soft matter, you
know, compost and dirt and stuff. It's good for the environment, keeps
the water and the air clean, plants love it.

do they love it as much as they love CO2?

Well, yes, they do, if you don't kill them first.

Start with the leaves, every fall. You know about trees, right?

Yes I do. I count tree-rings if I can't sleep.

You done killed da tree fer money. You think that makes you a tough guy?

Watch out for the gorillas.

[removing alt.politics.bush]

I make models all the time, real and virtual. I even have a model shop.
No, you don't.

You confused Model Theory with Mathematical Modelling, remember?

No I didn't. I said 'start here'. You are confusing words and phrases
with mathematical expressions, relations and equations. They're just
words. The question is rather, exactly what are words anyways, and how
can we quantify words such that we can build equipment to analyze them?
Hmm, there are at least two possibilities:
1) you had some profound reason why you suggested I started learning
mathematical modelling by reading something totally unrelated and
unusable in modelling
2) you just confused two areas of mathematics

Ockham says 2)

Would it be possible for you to share a research paper you wrote?

Everybody here knows who I am and what papers I wrote on what subjects.
I don't! Please, post some links to your papers, pretty please ...

The big question is, who are you, and what have you done lately?
I am a nobody.

I would
be especially interested in your work on solid state. Actually you
surprised me - I had been wondering wheter kT is a refrerence to
statisticical physics - and what do you know! it is! So how much energy
do you actually hold? You should be carefull with these things - you
blew up once, it may happen again.

You know, there are machines that correct word spelling errors.
Really? I must get myself one of these ...

Yes, I did happen to have a little blow up at the Ultimart once.

Does that make you uncomfortable, to be around someone like me who has
lived the greater portion of my life in the wilderness, and demonstrably
has run around with one of the roughest crowds in the Atlantic Ocean?
Thanks God I am NOT around you. But if I were I'm sure I would be very
uncomfortable. Now take your medication.

You know, that place out there where there are no laws, only outlaws?
And your one of those outlaws ... wow ... tell me more!

Start with the leaves, every fall. You know about trees, right?

Yes I do. I count tree-rings if I can't sleep.

You done killed da tree fer money. You think that makes you a tough guy?
Yes!
Watch out for the gorillas.
I am! You won't be alble to get close.

z

On May 15, 4:39 pm, zdzis1 wrote:

[removing alt.politics.bush]

I make models all the time, real and virtual. I even have a model shop.

No, you don't.

I thought you were a troll, the evidence has become much clearer now.

I appreciate your concern, really, I promise I'll very careful not to
cut my fingers on the imaginary table saw.

So tell us o' astute one, where, pray tell, do you think computing
machines and semantical languages have their origin and description?

I'll give you a hint :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_model_theory

You are so clueless it's laughable. Watch out for those gorillas.

I make models all the time, real and virtual. I even have a model
shop.

No, you don't.

I thought you were a troll, the evidence has become much clearer now.

I appreciate your concern, really, I promise I'll very careful not to
cut my fingers on the imaginary table saw.
I'll try to be as clear, consistent and logical as you a

So tell us o' astute one, where, pray tell, do you think computing
machines and semantical languages have their origin and description?
In a small Russian village - they were constructed as a means of keeping
cattle from running away, but after a while it turned out that they
developed inteligence of their own.

I'll give you a hint :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_model_theory
Now you nailed it! This is going to help me tremendously in understanding
mathematical modelling and climate models. Thanks a lot!
I have a link which may be even more helpful for anyone trying to learn
about mathematical modelling. Start he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stew

enjoy!

and yes, you confused Model Theory with Mathematical Modelling

You are so clueless it's laughable. Watch out for those gorillas.
Don't worry, I'll be watching out for you.

z

On May 15, 6:19 pm, zdzis1 wrote:

[snip]

I'll give you a hint :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_model_theory

Now you nailed it! This is going to help me tremendously in understanding
mathematical modelling and climate models. Thanks a lot!

I doubt it, we've already determined from the evidence of your posts
that you are unskilled and unaware of it. Not only do you consistently
misspell it, you've demonstrated that you have very little skill in
it.

and yes, you confused Model Theory with Mathematical Modelling

And you are an absolutist as well. Model theory is a superset of just
about everything mathematical, and I'm not exactly new to this stuff :

See for instance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kleene

Computational mathematical modeling is an extremely narrow field
embedded in a much larger and richer tapestry of mathematics and
physics, and until you develop an appreciation for some of that, and
all that we don't know even know yet, you aren't going anywhere soon.

Don't even try to get me going on set theory.

kT wrote:
On May 15, 6:19 pm, zdzis1 wrote:

[snip]

I'll give you a hint :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_model_theory
Now you nailed it! This is going to help me tremendously in understanding
mathematical modelling and climate models. Thanks a lot!

I doubt it, we've already determined from the evidence of your posts
that you are unskilled and unaware of it. Not only do you consistently
misspell it, you've demonstrated that you have very little skill in
it.



RAIN MAN


and yes, you confused Model Theory with Mathematical Modelling

And you are an absolutist as well. Model theory is a superset of just
about everything mathematical, and I'm not exactly new to this stuff :

See for instance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kleene

Computational mathematical modeling is an extremely narrow field
embedded in a much larger and richer tapestry of mathematics and
physics, and until you develop an appreciation for some of that, and
all that we don't know even know yet, you aren't going anywhere soon.

Don't even try to get me going on set theory.

kT wrote:
Now you nailed it! This is going to help me tremendously in understanding
mathematical modelling and climate models. Thanks a lot!
I doubt it, we've already determined from the evidence of your posts
that you are unskilled and unaware of it. Not only do you consistently
misspell it, you've demonstrated that you have very little skill in
it.
huh? ... have you heard about British English and the doubling of 'l'?

and yes, you confused Model Theory with Mathematical Modelling

And you are an absolutist as well. Model theory is a superset of just
about everything mathematical, and I'm not exactly new to this stuff :

See for instance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kleene
What are you saying? Are you the late Kleene? Did you take your medication
as I told you?

Computational mathematical modeling is an extremely narrow field
embedded in a much larger and richer tapestry of mathematics and
physics, and until you develop an appreciation for some of that, and
all that we don't know even know yet, you aren't going anywhere soon.
So your climate modellers aren't going anywhere, and neither is anyone else
who does any kind of modelling. It's as simple as that: model theory is not
used in mathematical modelling. You can be a great applied mathematician
and never have heard about model theory. But how would YOU know it. And by
the way - I don't believe you know anything about model theory either. You
can just copy and paste, but you do not understand a word.

Don't even try to get me going on set theory.
.... because you don't have any idea about it and will not be able to say
anything?

z

On May 16, 4:29 am, zdzis1 wrote:

Why did you change the followup link? Are you dishonest?

Computational mathematical modeling is an extremely narrow field
embedded in a much larger and richer tapestry of mathematics and
physics, and until you develop an appreciation for some of that, and
all that we don't know even know yet, you aren't going anywhere soon.

So your climate modellers aren't going anywhere, and neither is anyone else
who does any kind of modelling. It's as simple as that: model theory is not
used in mathematical modelling.

I never said it was. I said start there. That's where I started, but
you seem unwilling to start at all, only to proudly proclaim on the
usenet that 'MODELS DON'T WORK'. That's your contribution thus far.

I gave you that link to demonstrate to you that models do indeed work.

You can be a great applied mathematician
and never have heard about model theory. But how would YOU know it. And by
the way - I don't believe you know anything about model theory either. You
can just copy and paste, but you do not understand a word.

Your understanding of statistics appears to be at about this level :

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/index.htm

This is not the kind of mathematical modeling that climate scientists
use to model the earth and its environment, this is what they do to
analyze the OUTPUT of the models, which is even a much smaller slice
of the mathematical modeling paradigm. Your understanding of
mathematics as a whole is extremely limited, I just threw out a few
links to try to get you to recognize that.

Don't even try to get me going on set theory.

... because you don't have any idea about it and will not be able to say
anything?

I've already written and published what I had to say about it.

kT wrote:

On May 16, 4:29 am, zdzis1 wrote:

Why did you change the followup link? Are you dishonest?

Computational mathematical modeling is an extremely narrow field
embedded in a much larger and richer tapestry of mathematics and
physics, and until you develop an appreciation for some of that, and
all that we don't know even know yet, you aren't going anywhere soon.

So your climate modellers aren't going anywhere, and neither is anyone
else who does any kind of modelling. It's as simple as that: model theory
is not used in mathematical modelling.

I never said it was. I said start there. That's where I started, but
you seem unwilling to start at all, only to proudly proclaim on the
usenet that 'MODELS DON'T WORK'. That's your contribution thus far.

I gave you that link to demonstrate to you that models do indeed work.

You can be a great applied mathematician
and never have heard about model theory. But how would YOU know it. And
by the way - I don't believe you know anything about model theory either.
You can just copy and paste, but you do not understand a word.

Your understanding of statistics appears to be at about this level :

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/index.htm

This is not the kind of mathematical modeling that climate scientists
use to model the earth and its environment, this is what they do to
analyze the OUTPUT of the models, which is even a much smaller slice
of the mathematical modeling paradigm. Your understanding of
mathematics as a whole is extremely limited, I just threw out a few
links to try to get you to recognize that.

Don't even try to get me going on set theory.

... because you don't have any idea about it and will not be able to say
anything?

I've already written and published what I had to say about it.
It's not working. You can give as many explanation as you want for your
blunder, but it will not change anything.

z

ps have you looked up "British"?

zdzis1 wrote:

[snip]

It's not working. You can give as many explanation as you want for your
blunder, but it will not change anything.

There was no blunder on my part, your blunder was 'models don't work'.

As my link suggested, they do.

Your additional blunder is your changing of the followup headers, which
also suggests an intrinsic dishonesty on your part. Why is that?

ps have you looked up "British"?

I only use dictionaries for spelling, not meaning.