Paper help.

[theorist-constant12345]

Abstract- This paper is to fundamentally break down and formalise science process to its fundamentals. As opposed to naive set theories. This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on absolute axiom truth.
A reality that looks at the true values, that humanity has quantified.


Is this understandable in a science manner?

 

[PhysBang]

Much of this is not even grammatically correct in English. Then there is the category mistake: naive set theory is not a formalization of scientific processes.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's also, as one would expect from you, ridiculously self-contradictory.

Trash please mods.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

It's also, as one would expect from you, ridiculously self-contradictory.

Trash please mods.

It says paper help, not make troll gestures. I fail to see where it is contradictory.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Much of this is not even grammatically correct in English. Then there is the category mistake: naive set theory is not a formalization of scientific processes.

The first line says the paper is going to break down science back to the fundamentals, that will show present theories to be naive.

You do not read that?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I fail to see where it is contradictory.

Well of course you fail to see that: it's part of your cluelessness.

This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.

A reality that looks at the true values

If the ONLY meaning is that created by practitioners then, by definition, there can be no "true values". And vice versa - if there is a "true value" then it's not created by practitioners.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Well of course you fail to see that: it's part of your cluelessness.


If the ONLY meaning is that created by practitioners then, by definition, there can be no "true values". And vice versa - if there is a "true value" then it's not created by practitioners.

The true values of reality, not a contradictory.

''Value theory encompasses a range of approaches to understanding how, why and to what degree people value things; whether the thing is a person, idea, object, or anything else.''

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Abstract- This paper is to fundamentally break down and formalise science process to its fundamentals. As opposed to naive set theories. This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on absolute axiom truth.
A reality that looks at the true value of the practitioners creations, a range of approaches to help understanding how, why and to what degree people value things; whether the thing is a person, idea, object, or anything else.

Edit - better?

 

[Russ_Watters]

The first line says the paper is going to break down science back to the fundamentals, that will show present theories to be naive.

That's quite ambitious! Good luck with that, but I suggest you learn proper English before attempting to write such a paper.

By the way, typically, the abstract is written after the rest of the paper is finished.

The true values of reality, not a contradictory.

Please, we really need to know: are you writing these things yourself or is that the output of a bad translator program? Because the grammar is terrible.

Edit - better?

No. None of those are complete/correct sentences.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

That's quite ambitious! Good luck with that, but I suggest you learn proper English before attempting to write such a paper.

By the way, typically, the abstract is written after the rest of the paper is finished.

Please, we really need to know: are you writing these things yourself or is that the output of a bad translator program? Because the grammar is terrible.

No. None of those are complete/correct sentences.

I am using dictionary definitions and part wiki explanation to convey the abstract, to be understood.

And the abstract is read first, it is my reference what to write.
I have the idea, and believe I can show the abstract to be true.

I do not understand why you can not understand the point of the paper by the abstract?.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I am using dictionary definitions and part wiki explanation to convey the abstract, to be understood.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you were typing this out in English or are typing it in another language and using a translator program to convert it to English. I'm trying to understand why your grammar is so terrible. It is important that you answer this question because it will make it much easier for us to help you fix your writing if we know what is causing the problem.

I do not understand why you can not understand the point of the paper by the abstract?.

Incomplete sentences often have no meaning. Basically, you are typing a lot of words but not saying anything. I think I basically have the idea figured out, but I shouldn't have to correct your grammar before I can understand what you are trying to say.

And the abstract is read first, it is my reference what to write.
I have the idea, and believe I can show the abstract to be true.

Well, sorry, but that just plain isn't how you develop a theory in science, nor is it proper writing practice even for an English major.

 

[paddoboy]

I have the idea, and believe I can show the abstract to be true.

You mean similar to how you showed all here that your "hypothesis"of light only being an illusion, and dark and shadows as real?
Yeah, best of luck...Probably be destined for the pseudoscience bin as the other did.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The true values of reality, not a contradictory.

Wrong again.
If there ARE "true values" then, as I stated previously, it's absolutely false to claim that "there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner".
THIS is the contradiction.

''Value theory encompasses a range of approaches to understanding how, why and to what degree people value things; whether the thing is a person, idea, object, or anything else.''

Yeah, and it might have been something to do with your point [sup]1[/sup] if YOU knew what it actually meant.

Trash please mods (along with every other thread/ post from this fool).

1 Which, as usual, is "comprehensible" to no one but you (mainly because you're utterly clueless on so many subjects).

 

[paddoboy]

Trash please mods (along with every other thread/ post from this fool).
.

Took awhile for the last one to be delivered to pseudoscience, this one for its sheer audacity takes the cake though.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Is it me, or is there some deluded members on this forum?. Why in any instant would a topic with help in the title be thrown into a cesspool, when the topic is asking for peoples help.
Member Russ-Walters has noticed the word help, and is trying to help me to correct my grammar.
Where as other members , one who even posts around the forum saying, make a paper if you think you have something, joins in the trollish behaviour.

In answer to Russ, no , I do not use a translator, I am English, but never finished schooling, and from a lack of use of writing, have a bad habit of mixing nouns and verbs etc.

I still however , can not see how my abstract does not say anything, it says the paper will crucify science in a big way.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Is it me, or is there some deluded members on this forum?

Yup, both.
There ARE deluded members on this forum.
And one of them is you.

Why in any instant would a topic with help in the title be thrown into a cesspool, when the topic is asking for peoples help.

Because
A) whatever actual help you get won't make any difference to the finished "product" - you've shown, time and again that you don't learn, and
B) the final result will be drivel, i.e. not worth reading anyway.

In answer to Russ, no , I do not use a translator, I am English, but never finished schooling, and from a lack of use of writing, have a bad habit of mixing nouns and verbs etc.

Along with not knowing how to punctuate, spell, formulate sentences correctly or fashion a coherent thought.

I still however , can not see how my abstract does not say anything, it says the paper will crucify science in a big way.

I.e. more evidence of your delusion and complete ignorance.
You don't know enough (by a long shot) to even challenge science, let alone "crucify" it.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Yup, both.
There ARE deluded members on this forum.
And one of them is you.


Because
A) whatever actual help you get won't make any difference to the finished "product" - you've shown, time and again that you don't learn, and
B) the final result will be drivel, i.e. not worth reading anyway.


Along with not knowing how to punctuate, spell, formulate sentences correctly or fashion a coherent thought.


I.e. more evidence of your delusion and complete ignorance.
You don't know enough (by a long shot) to even challenge science, let alone "crucify" it.

Your arrogance and presumptions, is astonishing, my abstract is what it is, I do not have to be a Shakespeare to write an article, I only have to make my presentation in a manner that is clearly understood.

Hence, I asked for help.

You can not predict my article, <paper>, will be of a gibberish nature. You simply do not understand my learning style, and what my learning capabilities are. You neither understand learning styles, and the learning style of a theorist.
You do not understand that a Lion is cute and cuddly, but deep down inside is a predator waiting to pounce.

Do you honestly think , that I can not up my ''game''?, that one could not start to produce the Queens English, in a manner of total discipline and of literate qualities!.


I ask you Sir, please stop trolling my threads, you are hampering my learning.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your arrogance and presumptions, is astonishing

Quite possibly, but they do come naturally...
However, neither are in evidence in my posts to you.
As you yourself pointed out not so long ago, I've seen you "in action".

I only have to make my presentation in a manner that is clearly understood.

Which you're not exactly capable of doing...

You can not predict my article, <paper>, will be of a gibberish nature.

Of course I can:
1) EVERYTHING you've posted - both here and on the other forum where I first encountered you - has been gibberish.
2) You don't know enough of, or about, science to challenge it.
3) Therefore ANY claim by you to be able to "crucify" science is, a priori, a false claim.

You simply do not understand my learning style, and what my learning capabilities are.

This is, in its entirety, simply bollocks. As I noted earlier, you have shown zero capacity for learning.

Do you honestly think , that I can not up my ''game''?

I know you can't.

that one could not start to produce the Queens English, in a manner of total discipline and of literate qualities!.

You can't.
And what English you do manage to write is barely literate.

I ask you Sir, please stop trolling my threads, you are hampering my learning.

You stop posting bollocks, I'll stop pointing out that you're posting bollocks.

 

[PhysBang]

The first line says the paper is going to break down science back to the fundamentals, that will show present theories to be naive.

You do not read that?

Look, there is a subject called "naive set theory". If you don't know this, then you shouldn't be writing about set theory; you need to learn a lot more about set theory, a lot more about science, and a lot more about how they do not relate in the way you imaging people relate them.

 

[PhysBang]

Abstract- This paper is to fundamentally break down and formalise science process to its fundamentals. As opposed to naive set theories. This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on absolute axiom truth.
A reality that looks at the true value of the practitioners creations, a range of approaches to help understanding how, why and to what degree people value things; whether the thing is a person, idea, object, or anything else.

Edit - better?

Not better. There are still big grammar problems (e.g., the second sentence is a fragment, not a clause; improper comma use throughout). There are still large conceptual problems (e.g., set theory, of some kind, could be involved in the formalization of everything, so it is not clearly important to the actual task of formalizing a specific piece of practice).