On Colin Leslie Dean

[Anthem]

I've been told that I'm no longer allowed to say, for whatever reason, that Colin Leslie Dean is Ladyjane. So I'm not saying that. But I am going to post this on Colin from someone at Yahoo! Answers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 613AAouaH9

Who is this colin leslie dean.
I see his name all over the net for philosophy erotic poetry science religion literary criticism. I see members post here for views on his books. So any one now anything about this colin leslie dean

Annabella is correct.

What we know about Colin Leslie Dean is that he is a self-promoting wanna-be poet from Australia who posts queries here on YA (using fictitious profiles) about his own non-celebrity.

Which makes me wonder....is he at it again???

Given the horrendous grammar and similar sentence structure, and knowledge of all Colin's attempted areas of expertise, I would assume that "Mary" is also Colin Leslie Deanface. Comparing Ladyjane's horrendous grammar and sentence structure to the works of Colin, and how ''she' promotes this unknown, terrible philosopher, and also how Ladyjane knows all of his 'fields', I feel comfortable announcing that I am 99% sure that Ladyjane is Colin, with an error of up to +1%.

How bad a writer do you have to be to promote yourself with fake profiles in order to get any recognition at all?

[Magsj]

It is very suspect, and the repetitive nature of the threads/posts are annoyingly futile.

I guess numbers are never used in LJ's life: as their very conception has been denied in 'her' threads!

[ladyjane]

how ''she' promotes this unknown, terrible philosopher,

this terrible philosopher who cant spell has shown spelling is no sign of intelligence by proving the greatest mathematician of the 20th century made an invalid proof-not a bad effort for such a terrible philosopher

and who says spelling is a sign of intelligence

[Carleas]

Is there a published philosopher or mathematician that agrees with Dean? Is he cited anywhere? Is he even mentioned anywhere besides his own works and internet fora?

Edit: Misspelling fixed.

[ladyjane]

I there a published philosopher or mathematician that agrees with Dean? Is he cited anywhere? Is he even mentioned anywhere besides his own works and internet fora?

it looks like he is that far ahead of the field it will take some time for the rest to catch up
when you are dealing with people who just sock up the standard line through their education
who never question what they are taught
it aint surprising deans views are a head of the field
as he shatters standard views and for lazy thinkers this is hard to understand

take godel for 76 years every one has just reqirgitated the standard view and nevver bother to question the proof
it was sitting there in vivid view that he used invalid axioms but their eyes where closed by the standard view
when dean is dealing with thinkers of that low calibre it aint surprising they need time to catch up with his ideas

[Anthem]

I there a published philosopher or mathematician that agrees with Dean? Is he cited anywhere? Is he even mentioned anywhere besides his own works and internet fora?

No. He's a nobody, and more importantly, wrong.

[Carleas]

LadyJane, there is value in the academic process. These boards are filled with amateurs, all of whose ideas could be so novel as to be beyond current understanding. But there isn't enough time in the world to read the works of every schmoe who thinks she's on to something. Getting official, academic recognition is valuable because it weeds out crackpots with delusions of grandeur (and I include myself among those as-yet-weeded-out).

See, a good argument is undeniable at some point. Saying that we just don't get it because it's so advanced doesn't hold water when no one gets it. There's at least as good a chance that there's nothing to get. The arguments you've made to support Dean are either inconsistent, or too poorly expressed to be deciphered. I don't mean to indicate anything about your abilities as a philosopher by pointing that out, because lord knows there are a lot of folks in China to whom I couldn't explain fuck-all. But, if you're the only person that has ever heard of Dean, the only person that appreciates Dean's arguments, and no one else can understand what you or he is talking about, there's no reason to believe his arguments are any better structured than the sentences used to convey them.

[ladyjane]

Getting official, academic recognition is valuable

i some how i think dean would shun academic recognition
i think he holds them in contempt
the idea of presenting a proof that destroyes godel or ideas that destroyes maths and science via just a medium for amatures crackpots and the common schmo is the very idea of true democracy
if dean can do it ie side line the officall channels so can others
dean uses the net the way it should be used for and by the schmo

all these stuffy journals with there up themselves editors and boards now do not have a monopoly of what is to count for knowledge
it likes if Einstein published his theories via the net first and sider lined journals - not that dean hold einedstein up for anything- but you see Einsiten was a glory seeking wanker who needed offical recognition dean does not

thus that is why he publishes with gamahucher press-look up what gamahucher means
cant you see the scene
lord muck from oxford is asked by lady uptight pursing lips
"oh i see gamahucher press publishes dean what does gamahucher mean"

[Anthem]

i some how i think dean would shun academic recognition
i think he holds them in contempt

You know, because you are him.

And you would never get the satisfaction of shunning academic recognition because you would never get it.

[Carleas]

In looking up "gamahucher," which means "oral sex," I found that you have been active on Wikipedia, and that it didn't go over so well. I especially liked when they told you that you need to provide a reliable source for your contribution to the Mathematics page. I take that to mean that they don't think Dean is a reliable source either.

And good for Dean if he can make it without going through any regular channels, but until he does, as a source, he's as good as citing a friend or family member.

[Smears]

Define "invalid axiom" and tell me in specific detail why Godel's findings are improper. Don't use words like, "rubbish", or "fraud". Just make yourself clear. Thanks. -Scott

[Rouzbeh]

i some how i think dean would shun academic recognition
i think he holds them in contempt
the idea of presenting a proof that destroyes godel or ideas that destroyes maths and science via just a medium for amatures crackpots and the common schmo is the very idea of true democracy
if dean can do it ie side line the officall channels so can others
dean uses the net the way it should be used for and by the schmo

all these stuffy journals with there up themselves editors and boards now do not have a monopoly of what is to count for knowledge
it likes if Einstein published his theories via the net first and sider lined journals - not that dean hold einedstein up for anything- but you see Einsiten was a glory seeking wanker who needed offical recognition dean does not

Noone's in denial, errors as long as they exist and are proven to exist, no matter whose work it is, are accepted. Errors even in Newton's work have been identified, and these were fundamental ideas for the understanding of our surroundings. "Einedstein/Einsiten" was a glory seeking wanker...What are you on about
high school dropouts who think they were too smart to pass...

[Fin666]

Lady jane/colin/leslie/dean is fucking boring. Can't we just ignore her/him?

She doesn't understand godel in the slightest.

She always says the same thing over and over. Like the more she says it the more convinced we'll be shes not just a moron.

I don't really care. But its a bit annoying.

[Magsj]

[Smears]

Define "invalid axiom" and tell me in specific detail why Godel's findings are improper. Don't use words like, "rubbish", or "fraud". Just make yourself clear. Thanks. -Scott

Well fucking do it or stop being redundant and wrong!!

[ladyjane]

Define "invalid axiom" and tell me in specific detail why Godel's findings are improper. Don't use words like, "rubbish", or "fraud". Just make yourself clear. Thanks. -Scott

hey just look up axiom
and
invalid
in the dictionary
and then read

From Kurt Godels collected works vol 3 p.119

http://books.google.com/books?id=gDzbuU ... #PPA119,M1

“the axiom of reducibility is generally regarded as the grossest philosophical expediency “

the standford encyclopdeia of philosophy says of AR

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/princ ... thematica/

“many critics concluded that the axiom of reducibility was simply too ad hoc to be justified philosophically”

Ramsey says

Such an axiom has no place in mathematics, and anything which cannot be
proved without using it cannot be regarded as proved at all.

This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this
would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a
tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY

[Anthem]

This thread isn't about the AR. It's about you being Colin Leslie Dean.

[Smears]

So what does that mean? "Philosophically justified"? Can you be more specific? I asked you to show how it makes Godel's work invalid, and you tell me that it's not philosophically justified? That's a pretty poor explanation. Try again or admit that yuo don't know what you're talking about. No more pejorative terms, just a proper explanation please of what it is that you're suggesting.
Thanks.

[ladyjane]

No more pejorative terms, just a proper explanation

cant you read

it is
pure expediency
it is ad hoc
thus not philosophically justified


and read ramsey

This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this
would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a
tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY

[Smears]

I can read. I thought Godel was a mathematician? To what extent must he be "philosophically justified"? Doesn't he just have to illustrate things with numbers? I don't think his primary focus was religious or even altogether speculative. Can you give me a clear and concise explanation of what you think Godel claimed? Then can you tell me how it's improper other than to say that because Colin Leslie Dean disagrees with him? Do you even understand the difference between an open and closed system and what they imply philosophically?
It's cute to cite a fucking dictionary, and ask questions like "can you read". I guess that's the type of shit I would say too if I had no clue what I was talking about.


Since you're so smart, why can't you be clear and convincing? My ears are open.

[stoned_kazak]

does colin leslie dean have msn?

[Anthem]

does colin leslie dean have msn?

wat?

[ladyjane]

I can read. I thought Godel was a mathematician? To what extent must he be "philosophically

ramsey is a mathematician and he says AR is not valid

Such an axiom has no place in mathematics

This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this
would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a
tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY

from Godels collected works-he is a mathematician

From Kurt Godels collected works vol 3 p.119

http://books.google.com/books?id=gDzbuU ... #PPA119,M1

“the axiom of reducibility is generally regarded as the grossest philosophical expediency “

[Smears]

So you're appealing to someone else's authority without even giving a reasonable summary of thier position? Now that doesn't seem philosophically valid. Maybe you could explain just how Godel's work is flawed by first telling is what it's supposed to mean. Then maybe you can explain how it's wrong by showing us what Ramsey says about how this axiom works in Godel's system and then explaining to us how there's an inconsistency, and what exactly it is. I really just want to learn here, honest....

[ladyjane]

So you're appealing to someone else's authority without even giving a reasonable summary of thier position? Now that doesn't seem philosophically valid. Maybe you could explain just how Godel's work is flawed by first telling is what it's supposed to mean. Then maybe you can explain how it's wrong by showing us what Ramsey says about how this axiom works in Godel's system and then explaining to us how there's an inconsistency, and what exactly it is. I really just want to learn here, honest....

just as you take scientists and mathematicians word for things without you being able to explain just how what they say works or supposed mean or why theories are flawed ie string theory black hole physics-oh i dont say you know all these because they are just metaphor examples for the things you dont know but just take an authority for it

just as you appeal to someone else's authority without being able give a reasonable summary-your accountants doctor etc

all i need to know is that ramsay -and others have said AR is invalid

the beauty of deans work is he throws your authorities down your throat
you want to disprove dean then disprove your own authorities

deans position is clear
all human thinking ends in meaninglessness -yours ramseys godels einstiens and HIS

you want to disprove deans claims that godel is invalid-then dont attack him you attack your experts he uses to prove his point- they are your experts not his