 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Math Forum / Mathematics / Undergraduate Math / April 2008JSH: The circular argument
If you ask people how we know that mathematicians do not lie about mathematics, usually you get the answer that other mathematicians would tell you if they did!!! But what if MOST mathematicians lie about research? Well then people can go to the great accomplishments of mathematics, right? Well, those great accomplishments are in what is called applied mathematics, but most mathematicians today prefer "pure math" which is not testable in the real world, so it's just their word. So then people go back to claiming that if mathematicians were wrong then other mathematicians would tell you!!! How many of you accept that your success in the mathematical field if you are a mathematician in a "pure math" area completely depends on convincing other people to agree with you? Yet if you're in applied mathematics every single person on the planet can disagree with you, and if you employ that mathematics in a real solution what can happen? If it's correct, it will work and the world be damned. But if you're wrong and every other mathematicians agrees with you, then I suggest to you, you are damned. And you are still wrong. I love this link so I'll post it again to give you the true reality of your democratic world that is all about how much you appease and please your fellow mathematicians when you read between the lines: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html IF you do not kiss their butts they will break you. That reality is what defines modern math. You are all trained to be butt-kissers. When the solution is computerized checking of mathematical proofs, but oh? What? What's the lie? Supposedly computers are too stupid compared to brilliant mathematicians who check each other!!!!!!!!! The only goddamn area in the world left where people get away with claiming that computers are too stupid and primitive to check them!!! So what's left? Mathematicians are left to give prizes to mathematicians with their opinion on the correctness of mathematical arguments in the "pure math" areas that are declared to be proofs and real checking be damned. You people can't handle the truth. Which is why you refuse to actually push computerized checking. You are losers. James Harris > [...who cares...] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx2vWFQrMqw > > [...who cares...] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx2vWFQrMqw Hostile rhetoric aside it's just true. Remarkably enough for a young mathematician considering her or his career, convincing colleagues is EVERYTHING in "pure math" areas. In contrast, in applied mathematics a woman's colleagues could all laugh in her face and call her an idiot but if she goes to science or industry and they prove her right... James Harris > The only goddamn area in the world left where people get away with > claiming that computers are too stupid and primitive to check them!!! Who programs the computers? Would you trust that they were programmed correctly, operating correctly, and providing correct output? What language will they accept, and would you accept that the proof was translated correctly into that form? How long will it take to run? Both humans and computers suck at verification. Large numbers of humans working independently suck much less than any number of computers, at present. > Which is why you refuse to actually push computerized checking. Mathematics is one of the very few areas in which computerized checking is being pushed. There are increasingly many proposed proofs that likely cannot be verified any other way. - Tim > If you ask people how we know that mathematicians do not > lie about mathematics, usually you get the answer that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well then people can go to the great accomplishments of > mathematics, right? Wrong. People can consider that MOST mathematicians does not a conspiracy make. You have to have ALL of them. While you're at it, reflect on the fact that your imagined conspiracy is open enrollment. ANYONE IN THE WORLD could potentially learn enough to discover this web of lies that you have fantasized. YOU could have learned enough in the last, what, /ten years?/ Of course, you never tried to, did you? Instead of that, you piss away your life fantasizing about a world-wide conspiracy involving millions of people and centuries of time, that does nothing to protect its secrets, no, that begs people to come and enroll in its graduate schools, buy its magazines, and yet every one of these millions of self-selected 'enrollees' has chosen faithfulness to your Vast Mathematical Conspiracy over the fame (or at least the notoriety) that letting such a cat out of the bag would surely bring. Now, you could show how strongly you believe in your fantasy about the Vast Mathematical Conspiracy by actually doing something besides whining, something like learning about the mathematics that you've been pretending to use and letting the cat out yourself. Or, you could continue to piss your life away. Would you like to know which I think you'll do? Jim Burns In article <8acccf72-4cb4-45f8-8a8d-3b1aff8dfcb5@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, > If you ask people how we know that mathematicians do not lie about > mathematics, usually you get the answer that other mathematicians > would tell you if they did!!! But what if MOST mathematicians lie > about research? Then wouldn't there still be SOME mathematicians complaining that most mathematicians lie? Where are the complainers? > In article > <8acccf72-4cb4-45f8-8a8d-3b1aff8df...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then wouldn't there still be SOME mathematicians complaining that most > mathematicians lie? Where are the complainers? They're ignored, belittled, or silenced. I've read plenty on this subject not from me where people have talked about the problem, but with what I call critical mass, mathematicians can continue regardless. Even fairly remarkably famous situations like some rich guy helped Granville and some other math due, in some area, but got shocked when he was ripped on when he tried to do some kind of extension of the FLT problem. They just blew him out, and he ran away. So you can point out an error, even an obvious one in a "pure math" area and just get denial. Denial. It's as basic as humanity which is why people learn to not just trust group opinion--except in mathematics. Mathematics is the ONLY major field left in our modern world that gets away with just going on group opinion, which is so ironic since our modern technological world could not exist without correct mathematics. But that is in applied areas. In "pure math" areas, it's a field of opinion only. Computerized checking is the only way to remove this horror which leaves open room for error, and exploitation, as yes, your math professors know you need their approval to succeed. You MUST kiss butt in the math field in one way or another or you will be out. But with computerized checking, an angry, nasty very annoying person that everyone hated could still be one of the greatest mathematicians around--based on what he or she found. Today that's impossible. If you're not liked by enough people you don't exist in the modern math field. James Harris > Even fairly remarkably famous situations like some rich guy helped > Granville and some other math due, in some area, but got shocked when > he was ripped on when he tried to do some kind of extension of the FLT > problem. They just blew him out, and he ran away. Where can one learn more about this incident? > But with computerized checking, an angry, nasty very annoying person > that everyone hated could still be one of the greatest mathematicians > around--based on what he or she found. There's no need to wait for computerised checking for that to happen.  SignatureAatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus >> In article >> <8acccf72-4cb4-45f8-8a8d-3b1aff8df...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > modern technological world could not exist without correct > mathematics. not so, what about; Religion, Politics, Government, Finance, Water Companies, Newspapers, Hollywood, .......... > But that is in applied areas. In "pure math" areas, it's a field of > opinion only. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > James Harris > You MUST kiss butt in the math field in one way or another or you will > be out. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > James Harris I generally get some sick enjoyment out or reading your venting sessions, but on this one I'm only mildly entertained, but extremely confused. Should the pure mathematicians turn to other forms of more rigorous and truth revealing works such as sociology or environmental sciences? I mean, I have often found most work in these fields to be opinionated works bordering on pure subjectivity finding the results of which were being searched. Sadly, I thinkk even in these fields it helps to be liked. If being liked is the result of your so-called "Butt Kissing," I think it happens everywhere. Some would even venture to say that it happens most outside the arena of mathematics. But who's to say. May there's a ill arranged proof of the fact. I'm sure there was a matter in point, however, I believe I missed it. Cheers, ~Mr. R > James Harris Are you real James Harris, or are you Sears' James Harris? >> James Harris > > Are you real James Harris, or are you Sears' James Harris? he is the "Pee Wee" James Harris with striped high water pants and white bowling shoes with black socks. In sci.math JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote: > If you ask people how we know that mathematicians do not lie about > mathematics, usually you get the answer that other mathematicians > would tell you if they did!!! But what if MOST mathematicians lie > about research? <remainder of paranoia snipped> It's amazing. No matter how many months between my visits to sci.math, nothing changes. This idiot Harris still is cranking away, and intelligent people still are trying to show him the error(s) of his ways. I guess it's comforting to know, in a changing world, that some things are constant: The ignorance of JSH and the optimism of those who hope to educate him are everlasting. SignatureWayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.") from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v) > You are losers. > > James Harris Why do you bother with losers? Are they worth your time and effort? BTW, in mathematics you should find more ring kissers than butt kissers. David Ames |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.