huh?
I said ''normally written''. Not ''is written''.
I know it's the morning AN, but please, open those eyes.
So you admit your excuse was completely invalid, you're aware it isn't a blanket statement? So why did you make it? Once again you clutch at straws and only admit your inaccuracies when you're called on them.
You're behaviour towards me recently is more aggressive and progressively odd.
Progressively odd? Please explain how it is odd? I've outlined your mistakes and pointed out your dishonesty. You're the one repeatedly lying, knowingly, to people who openly say "We don't believe you". That would be 'progressively odd' if it were progressive. It just seems to be who you are.
As for being aggressive, I'm tired of your shit.
I have used quantum mechanics as I have been taught, I've taught myself.
Then you have a terrible teacher.
''I know enough physics that you can't try that argument against me and you ignore me too. And your "I'll go find a video!" thing always backfires. It either shows you're just mindlessly copying from someone, as you copied Susskind in your discussion with James, or you're actually mistakenly trying to paraphrase source material you don't understand. ''
oh... mmm... you're referring to the time I said about physics having ''something to say about perpendicular and orthogonality.''
I was right. I just never specified it was pointers it spoke about. My definitions where correct though, whilst people like cpt Bork seemed to not even recognize this literature, saying I was making things up, or something along those effects.
You think that's the only instance? This is just yet another example of you being stupid enough to lie to me about something I said to you! Seriously, that's
stupid. I really,
really hope you're knowingly doing this, that this is all a massive exercise in trolling, because the alternative is you really believe your own nonsense.
Hell, I even explicitly said your discussion with James. Remember how you were posting stuff about Hamiltonians and quantum field theory and trying to explain things to James, only for it to then transpire your were mistakenly parroting Susskind, right down to his dubious notation?
... and I will find the video. I have come to one that is close in nature to it, so it cannot be far. All I do is copy as I see it being taught. You cannot get more accurate than that.
It doesn't mean you understand it. I can write Chinese if someone puts a Chinese newspaper in front of me, doesn't mean I understand it. My father used to have to give speeches in Welsh as part of his job, except he can't speak Welsh so colleagues would teach him how to say everything like a parrot. Heck, parrots can speak English but do they understand it? Nope.
It's a form of plagiarism, passing off someone else's explanations as your own. You aren't formulating your own explanations using your own understanding, you just search for particular words to match and then to reproduce the relevant section. It's how laughably stupid chat bots work.
Funkstar was well out of his depth in coming in here foolishly as branding it as crap, as he clearly doesn't understand any of it.
It's not clear whether he's saying the mathematics is bull or whether your attempts to present yourself as understanding it is bull. The latter is most definitely true, you don't understand this stuff. The fact you've had to hunt around for material to back you up, rather than just knowing a book its in demonstrates that.
No one believes your claim you understand this. Your repeated dishonest and misrepresentation of other people's explanations, other people's bookwork transcribed directly, is
plagiarism. Your blanket parroting of Susskind is multiple instances of that. If you're spending 4 hours a day doing this stuff then you're
wasting your life. 5 years of 4 hours a day is more work than most people who do a degree yet you couldn't pass an A Level exam!