QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 29th July 2009, 5:30am)
QUOTE(JohnA @ Tue 28th July 2009, 9:25am)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 28th July 2009, 10:32pm)
At any rate, the lack of TeX support was the main thing that kept me from developing more knols this year. But the formula editor is very nice — one of the few WYSIWYG editors I've seen that is actually easier than Marking It Up Yourself (MIUY). And the TeX images line up and size up seamlessly with the rest of the text — unless you've grown fond of that ransom note math effect that MediaWiki gives you on most ¬Apple browsers.
Some of my math and logic knols —
Jon Awbrey
They display the same qualities of expositional opacity combined with statements designed to infer the greatest possible insult to people's intelligence, as the rest of your works that were on Wikipedia.
Well done! You've simultaneously reduced the pool of people who can appreciate Peirce and increased the desire of people to remain ignorant of him by one and it only took 10 minutes.
Thanks for your review. Were there specific bits that struck you as especially opaque or intelligence insulting?
Jon Awbrey
All of them. You have a special gift for explaining concepts that impart neither ideas, rationales or intellectual bridges which enable any inquiring person to comprehend what the fuck you're talking about.
In all cases you insult the reader with bafflegab that its all so obvious:
QUOTE
The only people who can understand your articles are the few people who don't need to read about them because they've already been formally trained in Peirceian logic.
QUOTE
Extracting the dual graphs from their composite matrix, we get this picture:
http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz...isibleframe.jpgIt is easy to see the relationship between the parenthetical representations of Peirce's logical graphs, that somewhat clippedly picture the ordered containments of their formal contents, and the associated dual graphs, that form a species of rooted trees to be described in greater detail below.
In the case of our last example,
a moment's contemplation of the following picture will lead us to see that we can get the corresponding parenthesis string by starting at the root of the tree, climbing up the left side of the tree until we reach the top, then climbing back down the right side of the tree until we return to the root, all the while reading off the symbols, in this case either “(†or “)â€, that we happen to encounter in our travels.
It leads me inevitably to the conclusion that your sole purpose in writing the articles is to baffle the reader, blind the seeker, confound the inquirer and stroke your own ego by making sure that whatever insight you're supposedly trying to give remains with you and no-one else.
ETA: Oh yes, and the only references made are to Peirce's own writings (out of print long ago) or to your own writings where the opacity tends rapidly towards black hole. Not only are you safe from criticism in that Ivory Tower but also from any purpose of education which actually involves learning.