FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance

palma, adriano p adriano.palma at
Sun Mar 15 08:47:04 EST 1998

I suggest without any sarcasm that all members of F.O.M. refrain from
purely polemical snipes.
It is my belief that we all learned something from all contributions to
the list whether we do in point  of fact agree with their content or

If we all go to a purely polemical style of work when writing
contributions posted to all members, the entire level of the list
delines dramatically.

I surmise that *that* would be a wrong idea for the list itself.
F.O.M. has presented much by way of clairifcations and even
oncontrovesial views there have been some materaials worthwile.

I propose to keep dissent and disagreement more strictly on
mathemcatical, logical, foundational, and philosophical issues.

With my best wishes to all of you.

adriano palma

Stephen G Simpson wrote:
> Torkel Franzen writes:
>  > my little piece may perhaps serve as a reminder that the best way
>  > to make people aware that an epochal advance has been made is not
>  > to underline that it is an epochal advance, but to patiently
>  > present and explain the work in such a way as to allow those
>  > qualified to judge (although not necessarily experts in the field)
>  > to arrive at this conclusion for themselves.
> Thank you very much for that advice.  I'm so glad that you are finding
> something of value on the FOM list.  I apologize for my carelessness
> in not explaining everything to you immediately, and for using a
> technical term that you were not able to find on the World Wide Web.
> In the future I'll strive harder to meet your high standards.
> (sarcasm intended)
> -- Steve

Phone +886 5 242-8181 FAX +886 5 272-1203

More information about the FOM mailing list