I honestly have no idea, since logic has nothing to do with the writers. This isn’t the only instance of argumentum ad hominem that I’ve seen from you. Here is another:
Again, I understand adding to infinity perfectly - I’ve been trying to explain to you how to do wit all this time. I also understand (I just don’t accept) how people are doing it incorrectly, and when they do this it makes them look amateurish whether they are or not: this is not an accusation, it’s just a comparison. As a “professional observer for years”, I don’t get how it’s passed you by that what I’m explaining is the legimitate way that all these names you’re dropping either came up with or used themselves - and it’s not how James has been treating infinities. I don’t really have an interest in “growing” in my capacity to accept the illogical, so I’m fine with your suspicion, but there’s no accounting for taste.
I mean, you should have been? This is my whole point?
This is another argumentum ad hominem: again, the writers (or speakers) have nothing to do with the soundness and validity of the logic being presented. It’s interesting that you find this fallacy in conservative politics - I do too.
As such, as interested as you are in the history of some poster on this forum, I cannot say the same for myself - again no accounting for taste. But luckily, his past that you’re paying a suspiciously high amount of attention to has nothing to do with the logical content of what he’s said. Not sure where all this devout loyalty and empathy is coming from to just some guy and some things he said - again, where’s that healthy amount of skepticism that we should apply to all thinkers based on the logic behind what they’ve said? No ill will to the guy, intelligent or not, I don’t care - I only care about the logic of what he’s said. Let it be clear that anything I’ve suspected about him has nothing to do with what I’m making of the logic of his arguments.
Maybe he was dumbing down his language and presentation for the benefit of others, maybe not - again, amateurishness is just a comparison I’ve made and a suspicion I have, which I care not to confirm either way - the content is all I care about.
Whilst I sympathise with trains of thought being interrupted on an emotional level, if the foundations of your tracks are flawed - it’s better on a rational level that this is pointed out before you allow the train to reach its destination, or in some cases even begin its journey at all.
Such flaws may seem extraneous to you, but as a precise and unforgiving thinker, to me, every detail of the foundations must be examined and addressed to ensure what is built on top is sound and valid: another thing I’d recommend.
Try building computer programs with a missing piece of punctuation, some faulty logic, or a missed logical condition. If it compiles at all, it will be buggy.
Maybe this is only the realm of the highest level of thinking, and maybe this isn’t how James saw his audience, but either way I perhaps have a different approach to rigor, about which I attempt to be as clear as possible. Gaining respect is not my concern, I have no emotional investment, I just contribute what I feel ought to be contributed for the sake of illuminating flaws and improving thinking.
Feel free to read the first line of this section of the wiki article as I comment on the irony of your accusation.
Perhaps you misread me, but what you’re saying here was exactly my point in the first place? That infinities don’t have ends and they are a means of construction to represent the tendency towards the infinity that you never get to. An infinite sum is a construction to represent this as an infinite series.
I won’t accuse you of being amateurish for making a simple mistake in your reading, but I will express concern over how exactly wrong you were in reading what I wrote:
Infinite series have everything to do with James’s use of infinities, as this is how you mathematically operate on hyperreals, as he attempted to do. This is how you move away from an amateurish way of treating them.
All these names are just fine with the treatment of infinities as I am explaining - they treated them the same.
Honestly, I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere. I understand you’re invested in defending this guy for whatever reason, I’m just trying to help. Clearly you don’t want it, and I don’t want to bother you with it if you don’t want it.