Dik Winter's posting to nl.wetenschap

Apologies to all in advance in case I have entirely misunderstood
the situation I am writing about.

I ran across a recent posting of Dik Winter to the newsgroup nl.wetenschap
in Dutch. I don't speak Dutch but it seems to refer to me by name
and seems to contain some speculation about me and some comments and
recollections about my writings or postings, this in the context
of individuals described as "vakidioot". I think "vak" corresponds
to the German word "Fach" and "idioot" is self-explanatory; together
they seem to convey the notion of someone who is scientifically
challenged, to put it mildly.

I don't want to be too definite about any of these impressions since
I don't speak Dutch and since there are a lot of people named Allan
Adler. The one in Dik Winter's posting is described as a "wiskunde",
which I think means "mathematician", but I think he also describes
some writings of this Allan Adler about the moon and, as I found from
a Google search for "allan adler moon", there is another Allan Adler
who does astrophotography. Maybe Dik Winter is confusing us. At any rate,
since his posting seems to pertain to both mathematicians and to astronomy,
since I am unable to post to nl.wetenschap and since my email to Dik Winter
requesting a translation has so far gone without reply, I'm enclosing his
posting in Dutch and wondering whether anyone here can translate it and also
figure out which writings of mine he might be referring to, in case he is
actually referring to me.

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of things in the sciences
that I don't know and a lot of stuff I have misunderstood, including basic
stuff, but I don't think I belong in the category of "vakidioot", if I have
correctly guessed the meaning of this term and his intentions in his posting.
On the other hand, I really can't defend myself, if that is actually what is
required, against a posting in a language I can't read.

Here is Dik Winter's posting:

In article (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Dik T. Winter wrote:
In article (J. J. Lodder) writes:
...
Het is ook traditioneel dat er in NL proffen rondlopen
met vreeemde ideeen buiten hun vakgebied.
De kreet 'vakidioot' is niet voor niets uitgevonden.

Niet alleen in Nederland trouwens. sci.math wordt om de haverklap
geteisterd door wetenschappers die vinden dat verzamelingenleer niet
consistent zijn. En sommigen doceren dan (naast natuurkunde) ook
nog wiskunde op hun Fachhochschul.

Om hier geheel on-topic te blijven
(zoals je weet moet het dan over ID gaan en idioot zijn)
kan ik je
Message-ID: .com
aanbevelen, over 'Cantor's Blank Box'.

Grappig. Een van de beste satirische artikelen die ik heb gelezen
op Usenet. Maar ik ben benieuwd naar die Dembski, daarover heb ik
verder niets gevonden. De vondst 1 = {0} - 1 = 0 is trouwens vrij
standaard onder de mensen die iets tegen verzamelingenleer hebben,
het is verrassend dat je daarop een dergelijk artikel kunt bouwen,
inclusief ondersteuning door de Bijbel.

Aan de andere kant, bij sommige wetenschappers speelt religie zeker
een rol. Zo twijfelde Cantor of hij met zijn redeneringen niet tegen
de kerk inging, en is hij (als ik het wel heb) daarover ook eens bij
een bischop op bezoek geweest.

Maar zie: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3773344&tstart=0
voor het prototype van een vakidioot. En uiteraard alles wat over de
wiskunde wordt geschreven door Mueckenheim uit Augsburg. Het is trouwens
niet een kant op. Als je leest wat Allan Adler (een gerenommeerd
wiskundige) over natuurkunde heeft geschreven... (Ik weet het niet
precies meer, hij is een aantal jaren geleden overleden, maar het had
te maken met de maan die al of niet op de aarde zou neerstorten, of in
de ruimte zou verdwijnen.)
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

Allan Adler wrote:
Apologies to all in advance in case I have entirely misunderstood
the situation I am writing about.

I ran across a recent posting of Dik Winter to the newsgroup nl.wetenschap
in Dutch. I don't speak Dutch but it seems to refer to me by name
and seems to contain some speculation about me and some comments and
recollections about my writings or postings, this in the context
of individuals described as "vakidioot". I think "vak" corresponds
to the German word "Fach" and "idioot" is self-explanatory; together
they seem to convey the notion of someone who is scientifically
challenged, to put it mildly.

I don't want to be too definite about any of these impressions since
I don't speak Dutch and since there are a lot of people named Allan
Adler. The one in Dik Winter's posting is described as a "wiskunde",
which I think means "mathematician", but I think he also describes
some writings of this Allan Adler about the moon and, as I found from
a Google search for "allan adler moon", there is another Allan Adler
who does astrophotography. Maybe Dik Winter is confusing us. At any rate,
since his posting seems to pertain to both mathematicians and to astronomy,
since I am unable to post to nl.wetenschap and since my email to Dik Winter
requesting a translation has so far gone without reply, I'm enclosing his
posting in Dutch and wondering whether anyone here can translate it and also
figure out which writings of mine he might be referring to, in case he is
actually referring to me.

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of things in the sciences
that I don't know and a lot of stuff I have misunderstood, including basic
stuff, but I don't think I belong in the category of "vakidioot", if I have
correctly guessed the meaning of this term and his intentions in his posting.
On the other hand, I really can't defend myself, if that is actually what is
required, against a posting in a language I can't read.

Here is Dik Winter's posting:

In article (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Dik T. Winter wrote:
In article (J. J. Lodder) writes:
...
Het is ook traditioneel dat er in NL proffen rondlopen
met vreeemde ideeen buiten hun vakgebied.
De kreet 'vakidioot' is niet voor niets uitgevonden.

Niet alleen in Nederland trouwens. sci.math wordt om de haverklap
geteisterd door wetenschappers die vinden dat verzamelingenleer niet
consistent zijn. En sommigen doceren dan (naast natuurkunde) ook
nog wiskunde op hun Fachhochschul.

Om hier geheel on-topic te blijven
(zoals je weet moet het dan over ID gaan en idioot zijn)
kan ik je
Message-ID: .com
aanbevelen, over 'Cantor's Blank Box'.

Grappig. Een van de beste satirische artikelen die ik heb gelezen
op Usenet. Maar ik ben benieuwd naar die Dembski, daarover heb ik
verder niets gevonden. De vondst 1 = {0} - 1 = 0 is trouwens vrij
standaard onder de mensen die iets tegen verzamelingenleer hebben,
het is verrassend dat je daarop een dergelijk artikel kunt bouwen,
inclusief ondersteuning door de Bijbel.

Aan de andere kant, bij sommige wetenschappers speelt religie zeker
een rol. Zo twijfelde Cantor of hij met zijn redeneringen niet tegen
de kerk inging, en is hij (als ik het wel heb) daarover ook eens bij
een bischop op bezoek geweest.

Maar zie: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3773344&tstart=0
voor het prototype van een vakidioot. En uiteraard alles wat over de
wiskunde wordt geschreven door Mueckenheim uit Augsburg. Het is trouwens
niet een kant op. Als je leest wat Allan Adler (een gerenommeerd
wiskundige) over natuurkunde heeft geschreven... (Ik weet het niet
precies meer, hij is een aantal jaren geleden overleden, maar het had
te maken met de maan die al of niet op de aarde zou neerstorten, of in
de ruimte zou verdwijnen.)

It's a tough call. Can't tell whether you were insulted or not.
And that last sentence is just surreal. You sure it was
Dik Winter and not Mark V. Shaney?

translate
Funny. Of best satirical Article which I have read on Usenet.
But I have been aroused curiosity to those Dembski, about that
I have further found nothing. The find 1 = {0} - 1 = 0 is as a
matter of fact rather standard under people who something has
set theory against, it is surprising that you can build then
such Article, including support by the bible. On the other hand,
at some scientists religion plays certainly a role. Thus Cantor
doubted if he did not discuss with its reasoning against the
church, and he (if I have it, however) about that at bischop
also once visit has been.

But to see: for the prototype of a profession idiot. And of
course everything what is written concerning the maths
Mueckenheim Augsburg. It is as a matter of fact not a side on.
If you read what Allan Adler (renowned a mathematician)
concerning physics has written... (I weet it exact more, he
a number of years has not been suffered died, but it had
do with the maan which would crash down yes or no on
the ground, or in the space would disappear.)
/translate

--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

schreef in bericht
oups.com...
Allan Adler wrote:
Apologies to all in advance in case I have entirely misunderstood
the situation I am writing about.


Maar zie:
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3773344&tstart=0
voor het prototype van een vakidioot. En uiteraard alles wat over de
wiskunde wordt geschreven door Mueckenheim uit Augsburg. Het is
trouwens
niet een kant op. Als je leest wat Allan Adler (een gerenommeerd
wiskundige) over natuurkunde heeft geschreven... (Ik weet het niet
precies meer, hij is een aantal jaren geleden overleden, maar het had
te maken met de maan die al of niet op de aarde zou neerstorten, of in
de ruimte zou verdwijnen.)


But to see: for the prototype of a profession idiot. And of
course everything what is written concerning the maths
Mueckenheim Augsburg. It is as a matter of fact not a side on.
If you read what Allan Adler (renowned a mathematician)
concerning physics has written... (I weet it exact more, he
a number of years has not been suffered died, but it had
do with the maan which would crash down yes or no on
the ground, or in the space would disappear.)

A slightly different translation

But see http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3773344&tstart=0
for the prototype of a narrow-minded specialist.
And ofcourse everything what is written about mathematics by Mueckenheim
from Augsburg.
As a matter of fact it is not all going in one direction.
If you read what Allan Adler (a renowned mathematician) about physics has
written..
(I do not remember it exactly , because he died a couple of years ago, but
it had to do
with the moon which would either crash on earth or disappear in space)

What I will do I have found this posting in wetenschap.nl and make a comment
that he should clarify who he means in this newsgroup.

I doubt he means you.
hopes this helps.


--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My
actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near
Boston.


Nicolaas Vroom

"Nicolaas Vroom" schreef in bericht
...

schreef in bericht
oups.com...
Allan Adler wrote:
Apologies to all in advance in case I have entirely misunderstood
the situation I am writing about.


Maar zie:
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3773344&tstart=0
voor het prototype van een vakidioot. En uiteraard alles wat over de
wiskunde wordt geschreven door Mueckenheim uit Augsburg. Het is
trouwens
niet een kant op. Als je leest wat Allan Adler (een gerenommeerd
wiskundige) over natuurkunde heeft geschreven... (Ik weet het niet
precies meer, hij is een aantal jaren geleden overleden, maar het had
te maken met de maan die al of niet op de aarde zou neerstorten, of in
de ruimte zou verdwijnen.)


But to see: for the prototype of a profession idiot. And of
course everything what is written concerning the maths
Mueckenheim Augsburg. It is as a matter of fact not a side on.
If you read what Allan Adler (renowned a mathematician)
concerning physics has written... (I weet it exact more, he
a number of years has not been suffered died, but it had
do with the maan which would crash down yes or no on
the ground, or in the space would disappear.)

A slightly different translation

But see http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3773344&tstart=0
for the prototype of a narrow-minded specialist.
And ofcourse everything what is written about mathematics by Mueckenheim
from Augsburg.
As a matter of fact it is not all going in one direction.
If you read what Allan Adler (a renowned mathematician) about physics has
written..
(I do not remember it exactly , because he died a couple of years ago, but
it had to do
with the moon which would either crash on earth or disappear in space)

What I will do I have found this posting in wetenschap.nl and make a
comment
that he should clarify who he means in this newsgroup.

I doubt he means you.
hopes this helps.


--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My
actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near
Boston.


Nicolaas Vroom

You should never reply too quickly.

In nl.wetenenschap Dik Winter wrote:

Het was *niet* Allan Adler (een fout in mijn geheugen), maar
Alexander Abian.

Translation:
It was *not* Allan Adler (an error in my memory) but
Alexander Abian

Hopes this settles everything

Nicolaas Vroom

Thanks to all who helped resolve this situation, including Lee Rudolph
for figuring out that Dik was referring to Abian, and Dik Winter for
promptly correcting the problem as soon as he became aware of it.
I really appreciate it.
--
Sincerely,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.