| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » Steven Cullinane is a Crank |
|
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| crankbuster |
 Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
You have all run across desperate google ads by this guy called Steven
Cullinane who claims to have discovered something called "Diamond
Theory". He preaches his "advanced mathematics" from multiple domains:
"Plato's diamond throws new light on
finite geometry and combinatorics."
http://m759.freeservers.com
"The Diamond Theory of Truth"
http://www.math16.com/
"The Proof and the Lie"
http://log24.com/log03/1130.htm
As a punishment for unjustly criticising others and for being a
nuisance in general, Steven Cullinane has now been officially declared
a Crank:
http://www.crank.net/maths.html
Public Announcement
Crank Watch International |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:12 am |
|
|
|
|
crankbuster wrote:
As so often happens though, if you ignore the "commentary"
he's assembled a useful set of links on elliptic curves
and modular forms! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Larry Lard |
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crankbuster wrote:
[snip]
Not just dubious content, but multiposted too /sigh
If you are going to post to multiple groups (having of course checked
your message is relevant to them all), please crosspost rather than
multipost!
My reply is in alt.math.undergrad
--
Larry Lard
Replies to group please |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| crankbuster |
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Larry Lard wrote:
Quote: (initial note: as an intermittent Harris-baiter, I'm unused to
defending people charged with crankery. But there's a first time for
everything)
crankbuster wrote:
You have all run across desperate google ads by this guy called Steven Cullinane who claims to have discovered something called "Diamond Theory".
Have we? All of us? No, not all of us.
Well, when I looked at your reply, on the right margin of the page,
sure enough there was another crank ad from Mr. Steven Cullinane:
Galois Geometry
Surprising symmetry properties
of the smallest Galois spaces
log24.com/theory/GalG.htm
Believe me, this guy is a nut!
Quote: He preaches his "advanced mathematics" from multiple domains:
"Plato's diamond throws new light on
finite geometry and combinatorics."
http://m759.freeservers.com
_Prima facie_ a collection of and association between a number of
disparate results from group theory and combinatorics. Nothing that
immediately appears wrong; a minimal (if that) amount of crankish
language. Conclusion: not a crank.
O.K. suppose I take an arbitrary array of binary numbers and count its
"symmetries". I quote a huge number, say, 50!/(5!3!2!). I call this the
emerald theorem (because my array is shaped like an emerald I once saw
in a funky dream). Worse, I quote G.H. Hardy, Walt Whitman, T.S. Eliot,
and whatever else comes to mind. I call this "collection of and
association between disparate results" - "Emerald Theory". Then I pay
Google to advertise my site on every page that has matching keywords. I
would be a Crank.
No, Sir you are too kind. Steven Cullinane is a crank of the worse
kind. If he were just doing this much we could just pity the guy and
ignore him. But unfortunately, he thinks he can trash *other*
mathematicians and get away with it!
Quote:
"The Diamond Theory of Truth"
http://www.math16.com/
I am hesitant to comment too deeply on philosophical matters, because I
find it hard to tell apart what is counted legitimate discourse, and
what is labelled crankish. I will only say that there appears to be
nothing here that would be out of place in a philosophy textbook.
Indeed, most of the test on this page is quotation! Conclusion: A
philosopher. They're either all cranks, or none.
Why so many different domains to spread the same gibberish? Methinks he
spams Google PageRank...
Quote:
"The Proof and the Lie"
http://log24.com/log03/1130.htm
The most interesting link you give. This is the one linked to from
crank.net (see below); when that link was first added, I gave this page
a look, which I have quickly done again now; nothing major seems to
have changed.
The thesis of this page is simple:
Accounts of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (which was done by
proving (one particular case of) the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture) have
all stated that the connection TSC makes between elliptic curves (EC)
and modular forms (MF) is a surprising, unexpected, or (in particular)
NEW connection to make. This statement is however wrong - connections
between these two domains were already well and widely known prior to
Wiles' result.
The adduced evidence seems to provide a cogent argument.
The mistake (imo) the page makes is in the language and tone
surrounding its thesis - this incorrect assertion (that EC and MF were
thought completely unrelated) is technically *not* a 'mathematical
lie', it's more of an error of story-telling; and using such hyperbolic
language over what is, at heart, a minor issue doesn't inspire
confidence in the reader.
Conclusion: Eccentric, but not a crank.
Fair enough, but what makes one squirm is the vehemence with which the
page is written and agressively advertised on Google. It's as if you
make a small social error and you are shouted at, beaten up and
murdered. This guy is jealous of the Harvard/Princeton mathematicians.
I'll bet they ignored his "Diamond Theory" so he is taking his
"revenge". Unfortunately for Mr. Steven Cullinane, it backfired on him
and he got listed on crank.net!
Quote:
As a punishment for unjustly criticizing others and for being a nuisance in general, Steven Cullinane has now been officially declared a Crank:
http://www.crank.net/maths.html
- The very page you cite shows that the link to one Cullinane's of
webpages was added on 26 Feb *2004*. It is surely stretching the bounds
of 'now' to use that word in connection with this listing.
I beg your pardon! I should have said that Mr. Steven Cullinane was
designated a Crank on the 26th of February, 2004.
Quote: - crank.net is in no way about 'punishment' for 'unjust criticism' or
general nuisance. It's a collection of links. And there's nothing in
any way 'official' about it.
Yes, crank.net is too good for Mr. Steven Cullinane! This guy should be
locked up in gitmo!
Quote: - In fact given my argument above, he probably shouldn't be listed at
crank.net at all!
No, he certainly should be, more often!
Quote:
Public Announcement
Crank Watch International
Interesting way to debut on Usenet, I must say.
Never heard of you either!!
Quote: --
Larry Lard
Replies to group please
Julie
for
Crank Watch International |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steven H. Cullinane |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| crankbuster |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Huh? Obviously, you cannot even begin to justify your dubious "Diamond
Theorem"! The questions asked in the original posting have not even
been addressed. Instead you are attacking other people again. Someone
is going to sue you one of these days. I quote you again:
Reference your dubious website:
http://m759.freeservers.com/
"The Diamond Theorem:
Inscribe a white diamond in a black square. Split the resulting figure
along its vertical and horizontal midlines into four quadrants so that
each quadrant is a square divided by one of its diagonals into a black
half and a white half. Call the resulting figure D.
Let G be the group of 24 transformations of D obtained by randomly
permuting (without rotating) the four quadrants of D. Let S4 denote the
symmetric group acting on four elements. Then
(1) Every G-image of D has some ordinary or color-interchange symmetry,
(2) G is an affine group generated by S4 actions on parts of D, and
(3) Results (1) and (2) generalize, through intermediate stages, to
symmetry invariance under a group of approximately 1.3 trillion
transformations generated by S4 actions on parts of a 4x4x4 cube."
What does (2) mean? By Cullinane's definition of G, G is isomorphic to
S4, the symmetric group on 4 letters, with 24 elements. What does he
mean by saying G is generated by S4 actions? Every group generates
itself as its own subgroup! This is a theorem?
What does (3) mean? Generalize how? What is "approximately 1.3
trillion"? What "parts" of a 4x4x4 cube? Who is Cullinane trying to
fool?
See the "4x4 Case" following the "theorem". Cullinane states that "G is
a group of 322,560 permutations". Where does this number come from?
Going by his own definition, if 4x4=16 objects are to be permuted (this
is the only way to "generalize" his "theorem") then G should be
isomorphic to S16, the symmetric group on 16 letters, with
16!=20922789888000 elements. Why 322560? Huh?
No, Sir you are not a crank but a moron.
Andrew
for
Crank Watch International |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:35 am |
|
|
|
|
crankbuster wrote:
Quote:
[...]
Andrew
for
Crank Watch International
Can we assume you're Andrew during the week, and Julie
at the weekends (5th July for example)? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Stewart |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crankbuster wrote:
Quote: No, Sir you are not a crank but a moron.
Lunatic would be more appropriate! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| crankbuster |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john_ramsden@sagitta-ps.com wrote:
{...}
Quote: Can we assume you're Andrew during the week, and Julie
at the weekends (5th July for example)?
And Barry. You missed Barry. Down with Cranks! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steven H. Cullinane |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On the off chance that "Bob Stewart" is not "crankbuster" under another name, here is a reply:
Your statement that "if each of the permuted objects has some geometrical symmetry, then these resulting permutations will display symmetries too" is false, as you would know if you had tried to find a counterexample... Such as (for instance) the four diffent square patterns obtained by division of a square into black and white halves by horizontal or vertical (rather than diagonal) midlines.
As for affine geometry, see
http://log24.com/theory/geometry.html.
This site contains an explanation, written for those with some mathematical maturity, of the role played by the affine group AGL(4,2) in the geometry of the 4x4 square.
That group, by the way, is where the number 322,560, quoted by the deeply confused "crankbuster," comes from. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Stewart |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On closer scrutiny, I do find Steven Cullinane's site
cranky:
http://m759.freeservers.com/
The statement of the so-called "Diamond Theorem" is trivial, almost a
mere tautology, disguised by some unnecessary terminology about affine
geometry seemingly designed to fool the reader. Obviously, if you take
4 objects and permute them randomly, the total number of permutations
is 4!=24 and the group of permutations is S4. Now, if each of the
permuted objects has some geometrical symmetry, then these resulting
permutations will display symmetries too. Depending on what you start
with, you can always count the symmetries. So does this qualify as a
theorem? Why not start with a pentagonal shape, a hexagonal shape etc.,
colored with 1 or 2 or 3 etc. colors? You can obtain infinitely many
"theorems". That's ridiculous! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jesse F. Hughes |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Stewart" <bobstewart_III@hotmail.com> writes:
Quote: On closer scrutiny, I do find Steven Cullinane's site
cranky:
Know what I find bizarre (if not cranky)? People adopting aliases
like "crankbuster" and complaining on newsgroups about the crankiness
of people utterly unaffiliated with the group.
I'm also a bit suspect when first-time posters pop up to agree with
them.
I don't know about other sci.math regulars, but I don't really care
about Steven Cullinane or your opinions regarding him. But good luck
attracting that groundswell of moral and mathematical outrage.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
Hubris."-- Larry Wall in the Perl5 Manpages |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jesse F. Hughes |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Stewart" <bobstewart_III@hotmail.com> writes:
Quote: Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
I'm also a bit suspect when first-time posters pop up to agree with
them.
Do you consider yourself to be superior to make judgements like
that?
Why would that convey superiority?
Quote: You have not even bothered to comment upon any of the mathematical
fraud that Cullinane is trying to perpetrate.
Because I haven't read any of his writings and don't give a damn about
him.
If he can't write like James S. Harris, why should I care about him or
your opinions about him?
Quote: I don't know about other sci.math regulars, but I don't really care
about Steven Cullinane or your opinions regarding him.
Do you regularly write comments devoid of mathematical content to
math.sci?
sci.math, but you betcha.
Quote: Is that why you are a regular? I am glad though that you dont care
about Steven Cullinane.
But good luck
attracting that groundswell of moral and mathematical outrage.
Cry Havoc and let loose the Dogs of War
Kinda curious that someone who has never posted on Usenet before has
come over all passionate about Cullinane and so quick to defend
crankbuster's judgment, don'tcha think?
From a throwaway hotmail account, no less.
I don't know about Cullinane, but I know nuts when I sees 'em.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Truth is common stuff, ready to your hand, but lies you have to make
yourself, and you can't be sure they are any good until you've
used them --- and then it's too late." John Steinbeck |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dik T. Winter |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1121183187.035893.278480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Bob Stewart" <bobstewart_III@hotmail.com> writes:
....
Quote: Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
"Bob Stewart" <bobstewart_III@hotmail.com> writes:
On closer scrutiny, I do find Steven Cullinane's site
cranky:
Know what I find bizarre (if not cranky)? People adopting aliases
like "crankbuster" and complaining on newsgroups about the crankiness
of people utterly unaffiliated with the group.
I think "crankbuster" serves a useful purpose.
I think you know "crankbuster" quite well. Posting on occasion from the
same IP.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Dolan |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
in article <28368401.1121187381563.javamail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org>,
steven h. cullinane <m759@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
|On the off chance that "Bob Stewart" is not "crankbuster" under
|another name, here is a reply:
|
|Your statement that "if each of the permuted objects has some
|geometrical symmetry, then these resulting permutations will display
|symmetries too" is false, as you would know if you had tried to find
|a counterexample... Such as (for instance) the four diffent square
|patterns obtained by division of a square into black and white halves
|by horizontal or vertical (rather than diagonal) midlines.
|
|As for affine geometry, see http://log24.com/theory/geometry.html.
|
|This site contains an explanation, written for those with some
|mathematical maturity, of the role played by the affine group
|AGL(4,2) in the geometry of the 4x4 square.
|
|That group, by the way, is where the number 322,560, quoted by the
|deeply confused "crankbuster," comes from.
by the way, have you ever thought much about the affine geometry
ag(2,2) and its symmetry group agl(2,2)? (i'm at least halfway trying
to use your own notation here.)
--
[e-mail address jdolan@math.ucr.edu] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:25 pm
|
|