[...who cares...]

On 12 Apr, 23:32, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:



[...who cares...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx2vWFQrMqw

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?

Wow. That makes me want to go right out and invest

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

would you accept that
the proof was
translated correctly into that form?

On 2008-04-12, JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote:
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

In article
8acccf72-4cb4-45f8-8a8d-3b1aff8dfcb5@v26g2000prm.goog
legroups.com>,
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?

Then wouldn't there still be SOME mathematicians
complaining that most
mathematicians lie? Where are the complainers?

The only goddamn area in the world left where people get away with
claiming that computers are too stupid and primitive to check them!!!

Which is why you refuse to actually push computerized checking.

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?

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?

In article
8acccf72-4cb4-45f8-8a8d-3b1aff8df...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,

JSH <jst...@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?

Then wouldn't there still be SOME mathematicians complaining that most
mathematicians lie? Where are the complainers?

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.

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.

You MUST kiss butt in the math field in one way or another or you will
be out.


Today that's impossible.  If you're not liked by enough people you
don't exist in the modern math field.

James Harris

IF you do not kiss their butts they will break you. That reality
is what defines modern math.

On Apr 12, 9:40 pm, fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfish...@your-mailbox.com> wrote:
In article
8acccf72-4cb4-45f8-8a8d-3b1aff8df...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,

JSH <jst...@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?

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