From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

It's about Banach spaces, Banach is a Polish, almost self-taught, mathematician, not to be confused with Bananach which is yellow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjo1ACFm5WI

Is this line of thinking about defining sharks with the properties of
sheep or about identifying common properties of sharks and sheep than may
lead to the general concept of animals?

Thanks in advance for a non-slandering answer.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/11/2025 7:02 PM, Python wrote:

It's about Banach spaces, Banach is a Polish, almost self-taught, mathematician, not to be confused with Bananach which is yellow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjo1ACFm5WI

Is this line of thinking about defining sharks with the properties of
sheep or about identifying common properties of sharks and sheep than
may lead to the general concept of animals?

No, poor stinker. You don't need Banach
spaces for general concept of animals.
And neither any other mathematics.

Just 4-5 years of training in speaking
common language (before even basic school
starts) is almost always enough.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 10/11/2025 7:02 PM, Python wrote:

It's bout Banach spaces, Banach is a Polish, almost self-taught,
mathematician, not to be confused with Bananach which is yellow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjo1ACFm5WI

Is this line of thinking about defining sharks with the properties of
sheep or about identifying common properties of sharks and sheep than
may lead to the general concept of animals?

No, poor stinker. You don't need Banach
spaces for general concept of animals.
And neither any other mathematics.

Just 4-5 years of training in speaking
common language (before even basic school
starts) is almost always enough.

came out, that you polaks are the worst scumbags on the face of the
earth.

the head of the state, a terrorist, recently saying that

"EYyUEYu|EYu#_EYu+EYu+EYu+EYu>EYu|EYu#EYu|_EYyaEYu|EYyUEYu|_EYuiEYu+EYu+EYyUEYu|_EYuaEYyUEYu+EYu#EYu<EYu|__EYu|EYyC_EYu+EYu+EYyU_EYyUEYu|EYu<EYyU_EYu|EYyU_EYyaEYu<EYyC_EYu>EYu|EYu+EYyaEYu+_EYyeEYu+_
EYuoEYu|EYu#_EYu+EYu+EYu+EYu>EYu|EYu#EYu|_EYu|EYyC_EYyUEYu|EYu<EYyU_EYu|EYyU_EYyaEYu<EYyC_EYu>EYyeEYu|EYu|EYyU" (by gearmony and Russia)

you wankers should for long be partitioned between the entitled adjacent countries and Russia.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/11/2025 10:02 AM, Python wrote:

It's about Banach spaces, Banach is a Polish, almost self-taught, mathematician, not to be confused with Bananach which is yellow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjo1ACFm5WI

Is this line of thinking about defining sharks with the properties of
sheep or about identifying common properties of sharks and sheep than
may lead to the general concept of animals?

Thanks in advance for a non-slandering answer.

Banach is an algebraist and geometry is sort of neglected in
many modern algebraic theories.

"Isomorphism" is a very usual sort of word, while as well it
has particulars in both algebra, and, separately, topology.
The "intensional" vis-a-vis the "extensional" helps to relay
that intensionality is strong-equals while extensionality simply
means not-different or in allusion, for example "a shark among sheep",
that's metaphor, and metaphor may eventually fail, while there's
a strong metonymy in theory when there are discrete individuals in
a universal continuum.

It's often topology and function theory which most gets bent in
definitions in mathematics these days, since algebra won't give
and geometry won't give, then, the idea of natural continuity
and natural infinity makes for that, getting back to Banach,
that in modern mathematics like ZF, one may show a contradiction
between Banach and finite combinatorics, for example, since one
is like a Pythagorean and another like a Cantorian, one "almost all"
rational the other "almost all" transcendental, both thus, "wrong".

The, "universals and particulars", with regards to, "teleology and
ontology", has that most theories these days are bastard sorts of
logicist positivism and they're fictionalist nominalists, which is
deemed unfortunate since Derrida reads Husserl and his geometry
is like Leibnitz or even Hilbert sort of "perfect", that there's
no such thing of "real truth" or "aboslute idealism" in fictionalist
nominalist logicist positivism the usual scientism, not even itself.

This can be repaired, ..., usually that with regards to Goedel it
demands a sort of axiomless natural deduction and axiomless geometry,
to be discovered, then that it's quite usual.

The disease after the calling the quasi-modal the classical, when
already 2800 years ago there was the modal relevance logic to be
classical, not all need share.

Mathematics has meanwhile a great crisis and so does physics,
for example since Pythagoreans and Cantorians refute each other,
and since Dark Matter / Dark Energy falsified the usual premier
theory of cosmology, and QM gets broken by some continuum mechanics,
and gravity may not violate causality.

This can be repaired, after an axiomless geometry then for something
like a strong mathematical universe hypothesis after a clock hypothesis,
and a fall-gravity.

It reminds of Mitch on sci.logic. (Smith, not Raemsch.)




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2