On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:21:42 GMT, "k p Collins"
} I =AGREE=, and not that, thus far, having received
} ample opportunity to do so, you've not pointed to
} anything that I've discussed as 'being in error'.
} I Invite you to try to find Error in anything that
} I've posted.
In <AhvPb.17594$q4.2672 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, in response
to a straightforward question about the correlation dimension of a
time series, you responded with:
} You're missing some crucial data that cross-correlates
} your 'time' series to the cerebellar topology.
Not only is that wrong, it's so far from logical that it calls into
question your very intellectual and cognitive capabilities.
The shape of a part of the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever,
even in the greatest stretch of imagination, to do with calculation of
cD from an arbitrary time series. If you think it does, you're wrong.
If you think you have some "theory" concocted which shows this, you're
as wrong as a football bat.
If you really need someone to tell you that, Ken, you have a problem
far more serious than simply wanting to talk about your pet "theory"
in every conversation. It is far more than simply wrong to think that
mathematics is influenced by anatomy.
That was just the first one. I could continue, but that could be
construed as purposefully humiliating you. I will not do that in
response to a direct or implied question. However, if people,
presumeably students whether formally or informally, ask specific
questions, and you respond to them with information that is so
obviously disconnected from the subject matter that your response is
confusing at best and quite irrelevant, I will not hesitate to do so.
If that is the only way to bring the fact of it to your attention
(directly telling you apparently doesn't and only feeds your
insistence at continuing) and thus prevent undeserved confusion on the
part of the questioner, I have no problem whatsoever in doing just