Haye vs. Klitschko - who will win the Event?

100% haye is going to winn event,by to be cerried out of the ring on stratcher totally cold with his wife crying by his side.:deal

 

A little harsh, Hermit.

Differential and integral calculus were invented by a former Cambridge professor (Isaac Newton).

CJT was controversial at first, but has come to enjoy widespread respectability.


Besides, you only saw the last line.

The full proof requires more space than ESB allows.


That the winner could not be the Event winner was intuitively obvious, but the rigorous proof required a bit of work.

 

That was all that was required to base my statement on. Perhaps if you should have differentiated it against my indifference instead. Besides, Newton was the chair of mathematics. The philosophy department holds now sway when it comes to mathematics. You don't get to debate answers in math which is why I'm sure you had to get the philosophy department to sign of on your work. Sorry. Resubmit it to the proper department and then maybe I can accept its validity.

 

I believe you took umbrage with the last line because I left out my dw in the initial posting, while I searched for a suitable font. (ESB doesn't make it easy to post equations).

Hence it appeared to you that something was missing.

The omission was rectified before you posted your response.

 

Had there been indifference, would you have posted a response ?

 

See !

Anyone can make a tiny error.:yep

 

Ah, but the proposition began as Cuchulain's CONJECTURE. (Something like Fermat's last theorem, or the Cameron–Erdős conjecture.)

The debate raged as to whether or not this conjeccture would ever make it to full-fledged theorem.

Hence the involvement of the Mathematical philosophers.

My paper (cited earlier) lifted the idea out of the realm of conjecture and provided it with the rigour suitable for a theorem.


Hence, we now know that the fight winner can never be the Event winner.


With mathematical certainty.

 

Your early assumptions were proven flawed and inept through the dichotomy you setup. It's been known that Cambridge fudged their results in order to gain status in eventology. It's been debunked as the hockey chart graph, which tried to mathematically arrange formulas behind a presumption, a flawed presumption. This is well documented among scholars, because Cambridge wanted to make a breakthrough in order to gain credibility over an innovative and radical idea between the complex relationship between boxing as a fight an an event. It's also known that they themselves couldn't grasp the idea that a fighter could potentially win a fight and an event (They wrongly considered it the Grandfather Paradox). It boggled their minds, so they dismissed the idea entirely (Flat World Paradox). And because of these prejudices they rejected eventology is anything but a mathematically proposition, and believed they could form their own formulas to prove their case. Their agenda has been transparent and exposed. Eventology is not a issue solved through physics or mathematics. It's a social science. :deal

 

At American universities, that might hold.


However, at Cambridge, for reasons of tradition, the nomenclature is a little more traditional, even old fashioned.

In bygone times, mathematics was considered a branch of philosophy. (There's still a considerable overlap. E.g. Russel's principia Mathematica. In the realm of logic and linguistic deconstruction and analysis)
And so present day Cambridge still feels that continued usage of the term PHILOSOPHICAL adds more legitimacy and even respectability to the topic.


Hence, the

This content is protected

describes itself (somewhat superciliously) as

"... one of the few high-quality journals publishing original research papers that cover the whole range of pure and applied mathematics theoretical physics and statistics. All branches of pure mathematics are covered in particular logic and foundations number theory algebra geometry algebraic and geometric topology classical and functional analysis differential equations probability and statistics. On the applied side mechanics mathematical physics relativity and cosmology are included."

 

Now Pete, as one who is clearly as passionate as myself on this issue, and as one who clearly keeps abreast of the debates that have raged recently in Academia on this intriguing question, I'm surprised at your stab at revisionism here.

The few pathetic examples presented so far of supposed DWs (Double Winners) have all been proven erroneous, usually at the EVT side of things.

Who can forget Slugger's incisive, line by line demolition of the putative (but erroneous) supposition that the Pac-Oscar fisticuffs presented an example of a DW ?

Simply brilliant ! (It was the slugger, after all :smoke)

And we both know that all similar attempts to draw Fistic philosophers down that path to heresy have similarly been exposed.

There had been hope, even craving, among the heathens that a true DW would one day present itself.

But now, with the publication of my (esteemed) paper in such a prestigious publication, those vain hopes have been shattered.


It only remains for the apologists to continue flogging this deceased equine.:-((

 

Wlad will win by KO, win the event and the belt!

 

Wlad will expose Gaye for the total hype job he is. He never even beat one single top ranked heavy. He did not beat Valuev, and he should have been banned from boxing for his last so-called fight, the obviously fixed "sports entertainment" exhibition with Harrison.

 

People claiming that a fighter cannot win both the fight and the EVT are living in the dark ages.

 

This alone, given the supposed marital problems Haye has been facing, would be enough to win the event. When combined with other stratum, i.e. leaving the ring on a stretcher, especially if he has as peculiar an unconscious facial expression as some of the ones he makes when adopting a cocky, bombastic, grandiloquent expression, ostensibly (though not always) for victory, the EVT performance would surely be a nominee for EVT of the year.

Given the long, drawn out nature of this event, what with the compelling back and forth storyline between Wladimir and Haye, I aver that Haye may go out as an EVT ATG. If he disappears, as some say, right after a loss to Wladimir.. if he does so in a truly clandestine manner, having his whereabouts loom in permanent enigma over the masses, he may solidify himself as the EVT G.O.A.T. A monumental undertaking, but one truly worth investing it.

God Speed, Mister David Haye. :happy:happy:happy:happy:happy

 

Weak.


Mere opinion without any rigorous back-up.:verysad