I think you meant to say that integers are good for counting things. There are lots of other numbers with other purposes, but integers are the ones to use for counting.N101N said:
I'm curious. How many of these have you actually studied and understood? How much actual theoretical physics research have you done? Published peer-reviewed papers?
On the contrary, mathematical expressions are meaningful marks on paper which can be understood by those with the necessary training. To everyone else they may look like they are meaningless, because to them they are meaningless; this is not because of any lack of meaning of the marks on paper, but purely because of lack of understanding by the person viewing them.
I meant the unrestricted-unformalized-unaxiomatized arithmetic counting as the reliable and sensible mathematics possessing exactness, logical purity and conceptual clarity. These attributes vanish when the narrow logical boundaries of basic operations only including natural numbers are exceeded. The language of mathematics is an extremely primitive language, nevertheless, it is the language of logic as well as the language of science (ever since Descartes, Leibniz, Newton). I say poor science.
I think I have a fairly decent overview not to be misled easily. I have no problem accepting scientific theories and propositions (preferably kept free from distractive mathematics) as long as they are in line with my preconceptions, but I don`t give a damn for flippant expressions like scientific knowledge, scientifically proven, objectivity, proof, evidence, fact. I aim at understanding the material world in an ontological sense and it is impossible to do that in the mathematical framework.
What I am against is the logical method hammered out by unadulterated mathematicians like Euler, d`Alambert, Lagrange, Laplace, Fourier, Gauss, Poisson, Dirichlet, Weierstrass, Cantor, Cauchy, Riemann, Lebesgue, Hamilton, Hermite, Hilbert and others. A thorough exploration of the hardly penetrable paradoxical mess was first initiated by Frege and then exploded in the twentieth century generating a ton of literature with many unpalatable discoveries. Despite numerous significant exceptions, logic (founded by the very great Aristotle) is a German dominion dating back to Leibniz, Kant and Hegel.
Constituting an undefined and uninterpreted system, mathematical expressions have no meaning, no context and no reference to anything external. The qualitative interpretation of the ambiguous syntactic structure occurs through indoctrinated conventionalism, associations outlined in vaguely formulated theorems and preposterous fantasy. The assignment of meaning is an entirely personal affair.
"Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things." - Henri Poincaré
“Mathematics may be defined as the subject where we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” - Bertrand Russell
I am sure that the honorable participants of this thread will wholeheartedly agree with Poincaré and Russell (!?!)
I take that to mean 'No, I have never studied or tried to understand any of those topics but I have read general woffle about them'.N101N said:
OK, you are not a scientist and have no interest in science. If you were, you would have to accept things which contradict your preconceptions. That is what scientists do, although sometimes this takes a while.
I think you will find that thus far the mathematical framework is the only successful way of understanding the physical universe. Any alternative would have to fully include the results of maths, because maths is supremely successful - so much so that its success is itself a mystery to some.
I am puzzled why someone who rejects maths and physical science has audio as a hobby. Without these you are necessarily incapable of designing, debugging or characterising an electronic circuit. Maybe your hobby consists of hanging around audio websites and sharing with us your 'insights'?
That's interesting, and is completely opposite to how I experience things. For instance, when I analyze a circuit: if I can calculate its properties, it greatly increases my understanding.
Jan
Hi dadod - What are you referring to from my statement? Which specific part are you saying is mislabeled?
As IT guy you should know, post #24, the plot shows LG and your amp data says OLG.
Why would I know "as an IT guy"? To the contrary, that specifically identifies that I have no formal electronics training. My background is in MIS and Accounting. I'm on this forum to try to educate myself.
In that respect, thank you. I misinterpreted the results of the Tian method Loop Gain analysis. I now see that the plot represents Loop Gain and not Open Loop Gain. I'll need to do some more reading on this to better understand how to use it.
In that respect, thank you. I misinterpreted the results of the Tian method Loop Gain analysis. I now see that the plot represents Loop Gain and not Open Loop Gain. I'll need to do some more reading on this to better understand how to use it.
This was a good example of CFA that I was beginning to understand. Too bad there's so many that live for semantics and pi$$ing contests. Seriously some of you guys ruin threads by entertaining this crap.
Not going to change or apologize my choice of words. Like three pages of asinine discourse and the thread is six pages WTH. Forums.
Last edited:
It is a given that on a public forum people will pop up and say daft things, things which might confuse or mislead a newbie. Would you prefer such contributions to be
1. censored i.e. deleted by the Mods
2. left unanswered, so creating confusion and perhaps giving the impression that everyone agrees
3. answered, with the risk of diverting the thread
You appear to object to '3', so which is your preferred option?
1. censored i.e. deleted by the Mods
2. left unanswered, so creating confusion and perhaps giving the impression that everyone agrees
3. answered, with the risk of diverting the thread
You appear to object to '3', so which is your preferred option?
So it was just sheer luck that the latest Mars Rover actually got exactly where we hoped it would?
And, on a lesser scale, when I calculate the current in a resistor and then measure it being just what I calculated, that was sheer luck and coincidence?
Jan
Indeed. Don't forget that there's people here who are deliberately and knowingly spreading misinformation and false info, for fun, out of misplaced anger, whatever.
A reasonable intelligent person like N101N will immediately see the conflict between his opinions and the real world, so the only conclusion can be that he is deliberately misleading the audience.
Should we just let that go?
Jan
Just stick to the topic already. Guys trying to get all Michio Kaku when there was a practical discussion about an amplifier. Why bother discussing anything but the amplifier? So many threads you have to wade through pages of this garbage. Enough already. Guy is a kook IMO pretty easy to see that so maybe back to the thread topic at some point? Or is everyone disproving nonsense more important?
Unfortunately in audio it is not easy for some to see nonsense when it is put in front of them. Far too many people actually believe and propagate nonsense; others merely propagate it for reasons known only to themselves. If nonsense was left unanswered then things would only get worse.
One of the things I like about this site is that if I say something daft I will be corrected.
One of the things I like about this site is that if I say something daft I will be corrected.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.