 |
|
| 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:
[quote:f6035624dc]
"The Proof and the Lie"
http://log24.com/log03/1130.htm
[/quote:f6035624dc]
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 |
|
|
|
| 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:a770f96b2d]
[...]
Andrew
for
Crank Watch International
[/quote:a770f96b2d]
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:029af434bf]No, Sir you are not a crank but a moron.
[/quote:029af434bf]
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:3269b69679]Can we assume you're Andrew during the week, and Julie
at the weekends (5th July for example)?
[/quote:3269b69679]
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:578fc6c69b]On closer scrutiny, I do find Steven Cullinane's site
cranky:
[/quote:578fc6c69b]
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:5986bf37a9]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?
[/quote:5986bf37a9]
Why would that convey superiority?
[quote:5986bf37a9]You have not even bothered to comment upon any of the mathematical
fraud that Cullinane is trying to perpetrate.
[/quote:5986bf37a9]
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:5986bf37a9]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?
[/quote:5986bf37a9]
sci.math, but you betcha.
[quote:5986bf37a9]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
[/quote:5986bf37a9]
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:6534590e9e]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.
[/quote:6534590e9e]
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 |
|
|
|
| Steven H. Cullinane |
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thanks for your reply.
The answer to your question is "yes."
As for the notation, a Google search on "AGL(n,q)" should convince you that it is standard, and not my own invention.
Don't feel bad. Your bafflement at standard group-theoretic notation was shared by the brilliant John Baez. See his sci.math post of March 29, 1993, on "Symplectic structures on finite groups"--
"I don't understand the 'AGL' business...." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:39 am
|
|