A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I still say that calculus should be taught with infintesimals. If the other technique comes in handy for a tiny number of practitioners of esoteric science, there is no reason to complicate things for everyone else. Teach it later.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm...what precisely do you mean with this claim? What is this other technique?

Hopefully you do realize there is no way out of this, other than to admit your ineptitude and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting to wonder if we are talking about two different things. I'm saying that the using rigorous definition of limits is not necessary to show how to calculate derivatives.

[/ QUOTE ]
Without the rigorous definition of limits, what is the slope of the tangent line at x=0 for the function f(x) = x sin(1/x)? How about x^2 sin(1/x)?

Or, more practically, how do you teach the future engineer how to compute a derivative when the function involved is not an elementary function? (Meaning not the composition of exponents, logarithms, rational functions, etc.) Or how about when the function is completely unknown, except experimentally?

There is a difference between calculating derivatives that appear on a multiple choice test, and calculating derivatives "for real."

And no, I don't think that we are talking about different things at all. I just think that your exposure to mathematics is embarassingly limited, given your current reputation in the "poker world." Otherwise you wouldn't make such inane comments.

Do you know what it is like to hear a piano that is grossly out of tune? It is unmistakeable, even to the untrained ear. Your commentary regarding mathematics and rigor resonates in the same fashion as the untuned piano.

You are a smart man, David. Please understand that you overstep your bounds when you comment on these matters.

[felson]

Perhaps we could use another thread for Sklansky lies, with refutation.

[felson]

It was ridiculous of DS to write a list of the ten smartest people in history and then suggest that his father may deserve a place in it.

Such a list can only be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads to worldwide fame. Thus, DS's ambitious claim about his father throws the validity of the entire list into question.

Edit: the list would also be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads one either to worldwide fame, or to be known by DS. I reject this also.

[David Sklansky]

Stop getting so technical on me. Do you disagree with the following:

Newton and Leibniz calculated derivatives by at first pretending that the slight increase in x and y was finite and then when they were done called the increase zero. Or something along those lines.

Some mathmeticians found that technique logically unrigorous and set about getting the same answers using reasoning involving epsilons and a rigorous definition of limits. Or something along those lines.

First yeatr calculus students have more trouble with this second technique.

Abraham Robinson showed that Leibniz and Newton's logic was in fact not unrigorous.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
It was ridiculous of DS to write a list of the ten smartest people in history and then suggest that his father may deserve a place in it.

Such a list can only be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads to worldwide fame. Thus, DS's ambitious claim about his father throws the validity of the entire list into question.

Edit: the list would also be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads one either to worldwide fame, or to be known by DS. I reject this also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to read this a few times before I got it. You are saying that if I believe my father could be anywhere on this list, I can't simultaneously purport to really know who should be on it. Because there could easily be other non world famous people who deserved it that I would not have heard of.

Well DUH. Is this the best any of you can do? The probability algorithm, the Vietnam argument and this. All three statements were OBVIOUSLY not expected to be taken as gospel but rather just a throwing out some ideas.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was ridiculous of DS to write a list of the ten smartest people in history and then suggest that his father may deserve a place in it.

Such a list can only be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads to worldwide fame. Thus, DS's ambitious claim about his father throws the validity of the entire list into question.

Edit: the list would also be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads one either to worldwide fame, or to be known by DS. I reject this also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to read this a few times before I got it. You are saying that if I believe my father could be anywhere on this list, I can't simultaneously purport to really know who should be on it. Because there could easily be other non world famous people who deserved it that I would not have heard of.

Well DUH. Is this the best any of you can do? The probability algorithm, the Vietnam argument and this. All three statements were OBVIOUSLY not expected to be taken as gospel but rather just a throwing out some ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you are claiming victory in a thread where I have shown you to be a shameless liar.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was ridiculous of DS to write a list of the ten smartest people in history and then suggest that his father may deserve a place in it.

Such a list can only be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads to worldwide fame. Thus, DS's ambitious claim about his father throws the validity of the entire list into question.

Edit: the list would also be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads one either to worldwide fame, or to be known by DS. I reject this also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to read this a few times before I got it. You are saying that if I believe my father could be anywhere on this list, I can't simultaneously purport to really know who should be on it. Because there could easily be other non world famous people who deserved it that I would not have heard of.

Well DUH. Is this the best any of you can do? The probability algorithm, the Vietnam argument and this. All three statements were OBVIOUSLY not expected to be taken as gospel but rather just a throwing out some ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you are claiming victory in a thread where I have shown you to be a shameless liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused again. Are you talking about the post I haven't even read yet?

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was ridiculous of DS to write a list of the ten smartest people in history and then suggest that his father may deserve a place in it.

Such a list can only be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads to worldwide fame. Thus, DS's ambitious claim about his father throws the validity of the entire list into question.

Edit: the list would also be valid if extreme intelligence inevitably leads one either to worldwide fame, or to be known by DS. I reject this also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to read this a few times before I got it. You are saying that if I believe my father could be anywhere on this list, I can't simultaneously purport to really know who should be on it. Because there could easily be other non world famous people who deserved it that I would not have heard of.

Well DUH. Is this the best any of you can do? The probability algorithm, the Vietnam argument and this. All three statements were OBVIOUSLY not expected to be taken as gospel but rather just a throwing out some ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you are claiming victory in a thread where I have shown you to be a shameless liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused again. Are you talking about the post I haven't even read yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess so. Please get back to me.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well DUH. Is this the best any of you can do? The probability algorithm, the Vietnam argument and this. All three statements were OBVIOUSLY not expected to be taken as gospel but rather just a throwing out some ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its tough when dodgy lines of thought are dismissed as just throwing out ideas.

If you want us to expose real logical fallacies then you'll have to be more rigourous.

There was a really dodgy post from you on pascal's wager but no doubt that would be dismissed as well.

chez

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well DUH. Is this the best any of you can do? The probability algorithm, the Vietnam argument and this. All three statements were OBVIOUSLY not expected to be taken as gospel but rather just a throwing out some ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its tough when dodgy lines of thought are dismissed as just throwing out ideas.

If you want us to expose real logical fallacies then you'll have to be more rigourous.

There was a really dodgy post from you on pascal's wager but no doubt that would be dismissed as well.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I would like to know what percent of DS's posts are to be taken as "gospel." I set the line at 10%.

In fairness, most of what DS says is logically correct, and he does take some heat due to misunderstanding.

But when his legitimate errors are exposed, he dismisses them as uninteresting. I guess they must really be uninteresting, because he sometimes finds a way to repost them later.