DrKrettin

 

 

I'm virtually illiterate mathematically so I've no idea what any of those different distributions are.

That got me to wonder whether one could be mathematically illiterate, or whether it had to be mathematically innumerate. I guess that has a more specific meaning related to number manipulation.

This issue turns up at regular intervals. About 30 years ago, I was involved in a company set up by an acquaintance. He had an invention which claimed to save around 10% on fuel costs in cars with petrol engines. The basic principle was to inject water vapour into the engine along with petrol. It was even featured on BBC TV on a prestigious program about advances in science, whose name I forget. A lot of research went into this because the financial significance was huge. It transpired that there was no measurable advantage in doing this, and the company failed. But the idea keeps turning up. Maybe this time it is different.

 

NO GRAMMATICAL FAULTS.

 

THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WROTE ,WAS JUST THE THING THAT I WOULD TELL.

 

....

 

.

I can't decide which is greater: your arrogance or your stupidity. What do you think?

 

I think just the same for you ,sorry.

 

You don't have to be sorry, but you are being utterly ridiculous. I think we have had this conversation before. Your command of English is very poor, but your conceit prevents you from seeing it. Another repeated example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I am beginning to suspect that you are incapable of actually reading English. At least, you don't bother to read posts before replying.

Look - you challenged Strange to find grammatical errors. I found plenty. I just replied to that. Then you say it doesn't matter. Hooray. It still needs to make sense and to have a point. Good luck with that.

 

REALLY I DO NOTT CARE THESE FAULTS .. I HAVE LIVED STRICTLY ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES DURING WHOLE OF MY LIFE.

 

I AM GIVING CARE TO ONLY MEANINGS

 

 

But you said this was official version which was submitted to nature physics.

Submitting it in that format which is barely literate is very stupid. Your choice.

These are BASIC spelling errors.

Euclidean is correct, but euclid is not

treatment is correct but tretament is not

interpretation is correct, but interperetations is not

These spelling erros do not matter much on a forum, but an abstract is far more important.

Arete makes a much more important point, that the abstract does not actually qualify as an abstract. I was just focussing on blue89's specific challenge to find a grammatical error.

I think you were very very lax, there are very few sentence segments that are acceptable English.

I agree with you, but I didn't want to be too unkind. Abstracts are notoriously difficult to read, so I was giving him a lot of slack. The problem is that they are not individual errors, it needs to be completely re-written.

 

What do you mean with underlined of your words at last sentence?.

I mean that I could find more mistakes if I were really critical. The whole abstract needs to be re-written (in my opinion).

This is an interdisciplinary scientific research project to have a new form for treatment of cancer illness via modernizing its radiotherapy part under partial convenience of functional analysis’ completeness principle. I intended to take better results partially for cure of this illness and because of being systematized form of the same treatment,I do not expect to take worse results in comparison to existing treatment.however, it is clear that it would not be possible to explore whole of the real treatment via implementing this project even it be improved. In modern mathematics, there exist many type of functions and sequences or functional sequences.the project includes typically two methods and both of two methods based upon functional analysis’ application. And according to results of implemention,even if we take very little better results for tretament of cancer ,it will be possible to give the newest interperetations about euclid space especially about whether there exists a real space or spaces out of Euclid. this literature is rudiment and improvable.

I have marked in red what is simply not acceptable English, and I am not being very critical.

For what it's worth, I think there is a surprising number of people here trying to help in a friendly manner, in what is clearly a waste of time.

Nobody would question your massive intelligence, but it is clear that your command of English is very poor. You can't even understand very simple statements from Strange.

Strange required me to pay. I have implied that I had had no option to do this.

 

No he didn't! He suggested just a SMALL amount which you do not have to pay. Read his post carefully !!!!!

(sorry - didn't see post by Klaynos. I would be surprised if he knew what pro bono meant)

I think Strange has shown extraordinary kindness in his willingness to proof-read a small selection of your paper. It is very much to your disadvantage not to accept this offer.

A more meaningful concept of god is the concept of rational thought. In Greek, this is "logos" which also means "word". So the "In the beginning was the Word" makes far more sense when correctly translated. This is Stoic philosophy.

I think blue89 needs to be a little more "elegant" in how he expresses himself.

In Christianity there are seven deadly sins.

One of the them is proud, proudness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

 

 

I am surprised that you give a reference to wiki but don't appear to have read it yourself. The modern word "pride" does not have the same connotations as the original sin which is better translated as "hybris". If you were proud of your child winning a sporting medal, that would hardly constitute a cardinal sin, would it?

On the other hand, posting that you have a degree from Istanbul and therefore by inference you must be right is seriously ludicrous.

That calculation looks as if it might be independent of the numbering system, so would be valid in, say, hexadecimal. If so, I guess it would work there for n=5 and until a coefficient had more than 1 digit in hex.

It's the old argument about survival of genes. A man can transmit his genes most effectively by mating as widely as possible and producing as many offspring as possible. A woman is restricted to producing one per year, so her strategy has to be to make sure that each child has the best chance of survival. This involves having a male mate who will protect them. This would make women more monogamous than men. etc.

 

 

What part of the argument statement is this supposed to challenge? Sight is sight, a process that involves photons hitting light sensitive sensors and then processed in the brain, and subject to mistakes like optical illusions

Yes, thank you for that. I am not challenging anything, other than having a question which I now find impossible to formulate. It involves the issue of knowledge, and the connection between it and the senses.

Well, I recently saw some footage of orcas playing with a see lion, throwing it about as if they were playing basketball. The commentator said this was the nearest thing he knew of to cruelty outside our species. But I wonder about the kitten. The real question is whether the kitten was aware that a butterfly could experience pain. If so, then it is cruelty, but I question that.

Cats are known to toy with mice rather than kill them outright. but this is probably because they never learned how to kill, rather than being cruel on purpose. Something I have never understood is how anybody can love a cat - as animals it is perfectly obvious that they are phenomenally selfish, probably autistic (if that's possible). What people see as affection I see as learned behaviour for their own benefit, and is totally false. But there I suspect I am in a minority with that opinion. I even prefer people to cats.

the kindest person is going to be kinder then the kindest animal.

That is probably true, but as already stated, probably irrelevant because you just don't meet many kind people. The converse could also be said:

the cruellest person is going to be crueller then the cruellest animal.

Where in the animal kingdom do you find cruelty other than in our species?

Animals are easier to love than humans. Loving humans is hard work, whereas loving a dog is usually a doddle. You could argue that this is a cop-out.

Is anyone else here solipsistic, or is it only me?

(this is supposed to be an intellectual joke)