|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Prisoner at WarPrisoner at War Date: Oct 3, 2007 07:00
On Oct 2, 8:40 pm, Andrzej Rosa yahoo.com> wrote:>
>
> I hoped that I could substitute jogging with excessive smoking...
Depends on your goals, of course!
> Plus increased muscle tonus, for example. You have full right to
> react this way to symphatetic ("anaerobic") overtraining. If you
> keep at overtraining eventually you'll end up in parasympathetic
> overtraining, just like you'd get from excessive jogging.
OIC.
> So I can't take up jogging? Great news!
Well, only for a week -- just read some more Shakespeare instead of
working out. Give 'em muscles a rest.
|
| Show full article (8.18Kb) |
|
| | 159 Comments |
|
|
Author: Andrzej RosaAndrzej Rosa Date: Oct 3, 2007 08:57
Dnia Wed, 03 Oct 2007 o 16:00 GMT Prisoner at War napisał(a):
> On Oct 2, 8:40 pm, Andrzej Rosa yahoo.com> wrote:>>
>>
>> I hoped that I could substitute jogging with excessive smoking...
>
> Depends on your goals, of course!
Isn't running about being short of breath? If so, smoking works just
fine.
[...]
> A manic depressive weightlifter??
I'm not a weightlifter. I just work out regularly, but I don't compete.
> Are you on steroids or something???
No.
> I always figured on exercise being a great antidote to
> moodiness and such. If you're not overtraining, then maybe you're
> undertraining??
Neither. I'm just lucky this way.
|
| Show full article (7.23Kb) |
|
| | 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: Prisoner at WarPrisoner at War Date: Oct 3, 2007 09:26
On Oct 3, 11:57 am, Andrzej Rosa yahoo.com> wrote:>
>
> Isn't running about being short of breath? If so, smoking works just
> fine.
Hehe, so I've had it wrong all along!
> I'm not a weightlifter. I just work out regularly, but I don't compete.
You don't have to compete officially to be a weightlifter. I follow
all the official rules -- no lifting of butt or foot, etc. -- so my
gyms lifts are what I'd be lifting if I competed officially.
You're a runner even if you don't race, by the same estimation...heck,
I'm a smoker even if I don't smoke, since all that shit from cars and
smokers comes to me anyway....
>
>
> I was thinking about Goedel, but I think that the first actual proof
> was Turing's. But I'm not sure (and I do not care enough either way, to
> try and understand what Google has to say about the matter).
|
| Show full article (6.12Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Andrzej RosaAndrzej Rosa Date: Oct 3, 2007 11:05
Dnia Wed, 03 Oct 2007 o 18:26 GMT Prisoner at War napisał(a):
> On Oct 3, 11:57 am, Andrzej Rosa yahoo.com> wrote:[...]
>> I'm not a weightlifter. I just work out regularly, but I don't compete.
>
> You don't have to compete officially to be a weightlifter. I follow
> all the official rules -- no lifting of butt or foot, etc. -- so my
> gyms lifts are what I'd be lifting if I competed officially.
Go then, and compete. You can do token lifts in squat and deadlift if
all you care about is your bench. _Then_ I'll call you a weightlifter,
but until you have an official result to post, you are another talker,
who likes to play with weights on his free time, just like me.
> You're a runner even if you don't race, by the same estimation...heck,
Sure. And everybody is a winner too. We all deserve medals.
> I'm a smoker even if I don't smoke, since all that shit from cars and
> smokers comes to me anyway....
|
| Show full article (7.62Kb) |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Oct 3, 2007 11:40
> What??? Go ask a mathematics professor at your local college. You do
> get some Platonists or Platonist t ypes -- a la Pythagoras -- who
> believe in the literal existence of numbers, but the vast majority of
> mathematicians today know that math is all made up, and made up to
> describe aspects of our physical world in useful ways (leaving aside
> so-called "pure" mathematics which "point" to nothing in the material
> world at all and yet which still make sense according to their own
> internal logic). That means language (description connotes language).
>
Speaking as a mathematican, wrong. Philosophical positions vary all over
the map, but the view you describe is not the majority one.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Prisoner at WarPrisoner at War Date: Oct 3, 2007 12:29
On Oct 3, 2:05 pm, Andrzej Rosa yahoo.com> wrote:>
>
> Go then, and compete. You can do token lifts in squat and deadlift if
> all you care about is your bench. _Then_ I'll call you a weightlifter,
> but until you have an official result to post, you are another talker,
> who likes to play with weights on his free time, just like me.
I'm a weightlifter because I lift weights at respectable, upper
beginner-lower intermediate level poundages. It's all very simple.
I'm not a hard-core lifter, not competitive lifter, but a real lifter
all the same given my level of athletic performance.
> Sure. And everybody is a winner too. We all deserve medals.
Whoa, that's quite an overbite there -- talk about mood swings!
No, not everybody is a winner, because winners have to win. But
everybody who runs and lifts -- for real, not some little skip between
the parking lot and Walmart carrying groceries -- is a runner and
lifter.
|
| Show full article (9.45Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Prisoner at WarPrisoner at War Date: Oct 3, 2007 12:40
On Oct 3, 2:40 pm, Gene Ward Smith chewbacca.org> wrote:>
>
> Speaking as a mathematican, wrong. Philosophical positions vary all over
> the map, but the view you describe is not the majority one.
I admit to not having taken a poll of mathematicians the world over,
but the books I've read on the subject by mathematicians -- everything
from Morris Kline's OOP college text "Mathematics for the Non-
Mathematician" and "Overcoming Math Anxiety" to "Innumeracy" and
"Goedel, Escher, Bach"
-- suggest or say outright that modern
mathematicians recognize that math is an intellectual creation of
human beings..the Bible (math) was written by man, not handed down
from God (nature)....
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Oct 3, 2007 12:48
> I think you're missing the forest for the trees...a dog is naturally
> color-blind...no matter how many equations you show him, he will never
> know colors...
Dogs seem to lack a green color cone. They are similar to humans who suffer
from a from red-green color-blindness (like my fathe
--such people are
actually common), but they can see color. Note that from the point of view
of animals (the tetrachromats) with four types of cones, we would count as
color-blind also.
|
| |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Oct 3, 2007 12:54
> I admit to not having taken a poll of mathematicians the world over,
> but the books I've read on the subject by mathematicians -- everything
> from Morris Kline's OOP college text "Mathematics for the Non-
> Mathematician" and "Overcoming Math Anxiety" to "Innumeracy" and
> "Goedel, Escher, Bach" -- suggest or say outright that modern
> mathematicians recognize that math is an intellectual creation of
> human beings..the Bible (math) was written by man, not handed down
> from God (nature)....
>
Morris Kline's views have been roundly rejected by many in the mathmatics
community, and "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" in paticular has
gotten scathing reviews. His positions are not the mainstream, and his
books seem to have misled you about what mathematicians in general tend
to think on these issues.
As for Goedel, Escher, Bach, Hofstadter is a cog-sci professor and while
he is a clever fellow I don't think he's the best place to go to find out
what mathematicians think so-called "mathematicals" are.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Prisoner at WarPrisoner at War Date: Oct 3, 2007 13:02
On Oct 3, 3:54 pm, Gene Ward Smith chewbacca.org> wrote:>
>
> Morris Kline's views have been roundly rejected by many in the mathmatics
> community, and "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" in paticular has
> gotten scathing reviews. His positions are not the mainstream, and his
> books seem to have misled you about what mathematicians in general tend
> to think on these issues.
Really! Wow, I can't believe it...makes so much sense....
So mathematicians are really latter-day Platonists??? Do they also
think numbers have a literal physical existence somewhere, or that
mathematical/logical laws are universal, timeless, and "out there"
awaiting "discovery"??
> As for Goedel, Escher, Bach, Hofstadter is a cog-sci professor and while
> he is a clever fellow I don't think he's the best place to go to find out
> what mathematicians think so-called "mathematicals" are.
Hmm. Could you recommend some, then?
I'm going to have to visit a math professor soon, then...this is a
real "paradigm shift" for me....
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
