Skip to main content

For the Forum's Seriousness, Please Stop Fabricating at Will -- Chirenjia Zuiduan, Falanxi Dacai Shifu, and Others!

I believe the most basic moral principle in debate is that one must not fabricate at will. But on the forum, this bad practice has always existed, so it's necessary to raise it in a main post. The most famous recent example is Mathematics, who in broad daylight refused to acknowledge his own words and even slandered Miss Chan as fabricating -- only to ultimately discover that he himself was the fabricator. This incident is too well-known, and since Mathematics suddenly vanished after my post "Mathematics, the labor theory of value can certainly be criticized! (Tangfen: 2006-08-11 17:04:15)1422B (0/3383/5)," I won't pursue his issues further.

But this bad practice is not just Mathematics' alone. Many others have it too. Of course, I'm not saying they are all necessarily deliberate, but it absolutely cannot be ruled out that some are. Here, I quote two instances:

[Falanxi Dacai Shifu] posted on 2006-08-17 22:37:18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Has everyone noticed a problem? Most people who oppose Mathematics' conclusion believe human thought is infinite. Including those sycophants on the math-lady's blog.

"Human thoughts constituting a set was something the math-lady herself used in her proof -- don't slap your own face" (Chirenjia Zuiduan: 2006-08-17 21:49:41)0 Bytes(0/114/1)

But in Miss Chan's proof that has been quoted many times, she never said human thought is infinite, nor did she ever say human thought constitutes a set. These are precisely the views of those opposing Miss Chan. In my defense of Miss Chan, I wrote a series of posts:
[Falanxi Dacai Shifu], your example of all finite natural numbers is not the same as Miss Chan's (Tangfen: 2006-08-11 11:05:16)1938B (0/1355/11)
[Falanxi Dacai Shifu], please distinguish the essential difference between human thought and computers! (Tangfen: 2006-08-11 14:17:59)2003B (0/3339/26)
[Duchi Chanshi], please respect the facts! (Tangfen: 2006-08-14 13:44:36)3301B (0/242/0)
[Pangguanzhe Ruju], your error is the same as [Falanxi Dacai Shifu]'s! (Tangfen: 2006-08-14 20:57:30)2051B (0/2746/1)
[Jiucai], let me tell you why "human ideas" are not infinite! (Tangfen: 2006-08-15 12:34:40)1277B (0/1457/12)
For the last time, using a main post to tell you why "human thoughts" and "human ideas" are finite! (Tangfen: 2006-08-18 10:16:04)2639B

These posts repeatedly explained three things in Miss Chan's proof: human thoughts and ideas are finite; all human thoughts and all computer-recorded thoughts are different -- the former cannot form a set; and the human brain and computer have different modes.

But those opposing Miss Chan's proof have been slandering Miss Chan all along, claiming she believes human thought is infinite, that set A in her proof represents all human thoughts. Anyone who has read Miss Chan's proof knows that set A in her proof represents all computer-recorded human thoughts, as hypothesized by Mathematics. Why do some people fabricate about something so obvious? What are they afraid of?

I just wrote a post challenging Miss Chan on a different topic, but on this matter of human thought, I fully support Miss Chan. All my explanations derive entirely from Miss Chan's proof and have nothing to do with anything else. As for some people's fondness for fabrication, that only reveals their quality. Everyone has eyes -- this point needs no further elaboration.