|
|
#33
02-19-2007, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Uniform Distribution Puzzle/Breaking Sticks
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What would cheer me up is if you got out of my thread. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough, I'll do that. I realize I'm violating it by posting this, but it's intended to reassure you rather than irritate you. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, BS. It's intended to get the last word. You better make a new thread explaining yourself. You owe it to every reader of this forum. You intentionally misled them all, just because you were mad about my "0 points" comment. An explanation is the least you owe people. 
|
|
#34
02-21-2007, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Uniform Distribution Puzzle/Breaking Sticks
This post is a reply to this post. Specifically, I am responding to this paragraph:
[ QUOTE ] I would sincerely appreciate it if you would thaw your tone a bit. I might be wrong on my math, and you might be right. But we're discussing an approach to solving the problem. I hope you'll agree that there's no question of me lying or posting nonsense or trying to mislead anyone. You are welcome to be as outspoken as you like on your thread, but this thread is for getting the math right, not proving any person good or bad. [/ QUOTE ] My posts in the other thread are tone-free. I am only making formal mathematical statements and proofs, and I have asked you to do the same. In that thread, I have not tried to prove you a good or bad person. As for this: [ QUOTE ] I hope you'll agree that there's no question of me lying or posting nonsense or trying to mislead anyone. [/ QUOTE ] I do not agree. I still think you were trying to mislead me and the other readers of this thread. At the very least, I am not convinced otherwise. You said here that [ QUOTE ] the gist of the complaint seems to be that the missing step and hint were too hard. [/ QUOTE ] Again, this was a non-mathematical statement in a thread supposedly intended for mathematics only. This statement grossly misrepresents my view on the issue, but I politely refrained from responding. In the future, please do not misrepresent me. Either quote this post, or do not refer to my views at all. Here is my view. You did not intend for your posts in this thread to be hints on any level, tricky or not. You intended those posts to satisfy three conditions: <ul type="square"> [1] You wanted them to appear to be genuine attempts at communicating some aspect of your thought process. [2] You wanted reasonable people to have little to no chance of deducing your actual thought process from those posts. [3] You wanted reasonable people to, in fact, draw false conclusions from your posts and to be misled into thinking you meant something that you did not.[/list]I believe you did this because you were angry over this post, in which I told you "0 points." You later claimed and continue to claim that this is not the case, and that you were merely giving hard hints in the fun spirit of discussing a puzzle. I believe that this is a fabrication designed to conceal your true motivations which were petty and childish and a waste of my time. I believe that there is evidence supporting my view of these events and I believe that readers with enough mathematical background will be able to read this thread and at least conclude that my view is not entirely unreasonable. In any event, I at least remain unconvinced that my view is wrong. Edit: Although I have these views, I am still interested in serious, objective mathematical discussions about this problem. I must insist that they be formal, precise, and rigorous, or I will be unable to participate. But if they are rigorous, then I happy to participate. Please do not interpret my probing replies and insistence on precision as anything other than what it is. I would like to discuss this problem, but I will not spend any more time trying to decipher anything which is not rigorous.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
