[Duchi Chanshi], Please Respect the Facts!

I'm not as tough as Miss Chan, insisting that others admit their errors. But even if you don't admit errors, at least don't fabricate stories. Be truthful -- this is the most basic bottom line of debate! Today [Duchi Chanshi] posted a thread, quoted as follows:

"[Duchi Chanshi] posted on 2006-08-13 15:34:49
You all started by distorting the other person's meaning: he emphasized many times that it was about 'expressible thoughts,' but the math-loving lady seized on 'all' and wouldn't let go. She originally wanted to show off that she's an invincibly brilliant, philosophically wise, wealthy, young, beautiful, heaven's-chosen woman. The result was that she got caught out instead, leaving Tangfen to clean up. A tedious argument. But the process satisfied quite a few people's desire for attention."

This post fabricated many stories, attempting to dismiss a serious discussion with one sweep, to cover up certain people's errors. This kind of behavior is not something that should be encouraged, however you look at it. Let us analyze one by one:

"You all started by distorting the other person's meaning: he emphasized many times that it was about 'expressible thoughts'"
========================
This point was addressed by Miss Chan long ago, because the starting point of the debate was a passage by Mathematics himself. Miss Chan gave a very detailed explanation of this in her final summary, quoted as follows:

"The ID 'Mathematics' wrote in 'Talking to Yunguzi about the relationship between one-divides-into-n and one-divides-into-two' ([Mathematics] posted on 2006-08-05 21:13:42): 'From mathematical theory, one-divides-into-two, that is, using the binary number system, can express all human thoughts and laws of motion, because these thoughts can all be stored in a binary computer.' (Mathematics later denied saying this, claiming 'A message to Miss Chan: It turns out you falsified my words (Mathematics: 2006-08-07 12:22:37)3084B (0/501/6)' -- what this kind of trick implies, everyone can judge for themselves. But this kind of trick absolutely cannot be tolerated on the forum, otherwise the forum will never have a good atmosphere!)"

I ask [Duchi Chanshi]: where in Mathematics' original words is there any meaning of "expressible thoughts"? Moreover, Miss Chan already clearly stated in her final summary that even changing "all human thoughts" to "expressible thoughts," Mathematics' assertion is still wrong. Miss Chan proved that even if Mathematics narrowed the scope of his original proposition, it's still wrong. Quoting Miss Chan's original words:

"Of course, this error is so obvious that the leftist side then said they wanted to modify 'all human thoughts' to mean 'all human thoughts expressed through text, sound, or images.' Obviously this reasoning is insufficient -- why should 'all human thoughts' in the original words be specifically restricted to 'all human thoughts expressed through text, sound, or images'? Of course, the leftist being able to acknowledge that human thought cannot be entirely linguistically expressed is some progress. So this ID won't press the point further. Let me just modify the original proposition as the leftist wishes to 'all linguistically expressible human thoughts can be stored in a binary computer,' where 'linguistically expressible' stands for the above-mentioned 'text, sound, or images,' etc. Then this ID will proceed to prove that even this weakened, modified proposition is also a fallacy!"

So this person saying "the math-loving lady seized on 'all' and wouldn't let go, originally wanting to show off... the result was that she got caught out" becomes an enormous slander. May I ask: who has caught Miss Chan out on what now? Miss Chan essentially made a concession first, letting Mathematics change "'all human thoughts' to 'all human thoughts expressed through text, sound, or images'" -- that is, the so-called "expressible thoughts" -- and still proved Mathematics wrong. Who exactly has been caught out? Isn't that quite clear?

"Leaving Tangfen to clean up. A tedious argument. But the process satisfied quite a few people's desire for attention."
==============================
What does "leaving me" mean? First, Miss Chan didn't leave me to do anything -- I volunteered. Second, this isn't called "cleaning up" -- it's called explaining! It's like Einstein created the theory of relativity, and when someone doesn't understand, someone else comes along to help others understand. Is that "cleaning up"? Must Einstein personally explain to every single person to prove Einstein is correct? Miss Chan's situation is the same. My explanations have never gone beyond the scope of Miss Chan's proof, and along the way they have repeatedly demonstrated that those opposing Miss Chan all commit similar elementary errors -- like not knowing what the diagonal method actually is, treating human brains as computers, treating human thoughts as natural numbers. Defending truth -- what does that have to do with some "desire for attention"?

May I ask this person: I'm simultaneously defending Marx's labor theory of value -- is that also to satisfy my desire for attention? Does everyone who posts on this forum do so to satisfy their desire for attention? For me, truth has no hierarchy. Marx's labor theory of value and Miss Chan's proof -- as long as I believe them to be truth, I will defend them. If you insist on using your psychology to define this as satisfying a desire for attention, then I have no objections!