Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: William Elliot on 27 Aug 2006 22:37 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, skialps10(a)yahoo.com wrote: "Am I a crank?" isn't a math question but a physics question because it depends upon your rpm. Cranks with rpm = 0 are disqualified. Cranks with rpm < epsilon aren't cranks, just cranky. > I like to think I came up with a fairly unique way of modeling the > Goldbach Conjecture and was thinking of programming it up to see if I > could find any patterns. I simply don't have the background to know of > any lemmas to make the job easier and don't plan on using calculus. In > the exceptionally unlikely event that I found some pattern I was > planning on formalizing it. > Don't bite off more than you can chew. Wait until your adult teen come in. Use of computers for prime patterns is exercise, not in mathematics, but in programing. The distribution of primes is well know and recommend you learn instead trivial programing exercises. You programming exercises are but for you to see what's already know. > Does this sound crank-like? Would coming up with a novel model likely > solve a problem or would a more experienced mathematician have been > able to do the same with no need for a model? (In other words, models > reduce to mathematical statements eventually so an amateur's model is > no match for an experienced mathematician's background and education). > > Please relate your opinion. I promise not to respond negatively. > 0. Review the literature regarding Goldback's Conjecture 1. Take a course in number theory. 2. Take an advanced course in number theory. 3. Take a course in analytic number theory. 4. Take a course in elliptic curves. 5. Again, review the literature regarding Goldback's Conjecture. 6. Present a thesis proposal on Goldback's Conjecture 7. Complete thesis. 8. Publish thesis. 9. Be sure to mention sci.math in your acknowledgements. 10. Be humble when presented with the Fields metal. ;-)
From: Tim Peters on 27 Aug 2006 23:12 [skialps10(a)yahoo.com] > I like mathematics and play with it in my spare time, perhaps > excessively. I would like to prove something as yet unproved, but doubt > I ever really will. I just read an article about mathematical cranks > and began questioning myself. Self-doubt is conspicuous by absence in cranks: a crank is generally sure they can solve anything before learning the first thing about it, and doesn't doubt that everyone /else/ is a crank ;-) > I know its a very odd question and perhaps awkward, but I'm really > curious to have feedback. Please feel free to give me your > unadulterated opinion. Perhaps I'll turn my attention elsewhere. > > So here's my description: Early 40s, math minor, believe I'm smarter > than average but certainly no Euler, love to read non-technical books > on math, also read some technical matter, programmer, reteaching myself > the finer points of Calculus (after 10 or 15 years off). > > I like to think I came up with a fairly unique way of modeling the > Goldbach Conjecture and was thinking of programming it up to see if I > could find any patterns. I simply don't have the background to know of > any lemmas to make the job easier and don't plan on using calculus. In > the exceptionally unlikely event that I found some pattern I was > planning on formalizing it. > > Does this sound crank-like? Nothing so far: sounds like a hobby you find fascinating for its own sake. If you were a researcher with a goal of cracking GC, it would sound odd that you didn't plan to spend a year first catching up on what's already known, but sounds more like you just want to pursue an idea that attracts you. > Would coming up with a novel model likely solve a problem No. Novelty may be necessary, but 99.97% of inventions lose in the end. > or would a more experienced mathematician have been able to do the > same with no need for a model? Can't say without seeing the solution first. Since GC is still open despite that many highly experienced mathematicians have done their best with it, in this specific case, no, we already know that world-class mathematicians have failed to crack it without your novel model :-) > (In other words, models reduce to mathematical statements eventually > so an amateur's model is no match for an experienced mathematician's > background and education). The chance that you have a unique insight into GC is small but non-zero. > Please relate your opinion. I promise not to respond negatively. Crankish behavior doesn't really manifest until you're sure you /have/ made a breakthrough, and then argue interminably with experts if they point out why you in fact haven't. It's not enthusiasm or hope or even obsession that makes a crank, it's being impervious to rational correction.
From: Gerry Myerson on 28 Aug 2006 00:58 In article <1156729039.788997.179580(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "georgie" <geo_cant(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Gerry Myerson wrote: > > > The Goldbach conjecture has been studied for so long > > by so many very talented people > > that the chances of an amateur doing anything useful on it > > are pretty nearly zero. > > If you study it, > > study it because you enjoy it, > > not because you expect to have something to say about it. > > That's ridiculous. You may need to be knowledgeable in > order to solve Goldbach, but that doesn't mean Goldbach > would require years of study. It's possible that some > very specialized knowledge that could be learned in a few > months is all it takes to solve Goldbach. Especially by > someone who is very imaginative. The problem with > most mathematicians is that they think they they are > more imaginative and creative than amateurs just because > they know more mathematics. Many (possibly most) great > mathematical discoveries were made by amateurs and > beginners. I can't begin to imagine how you can believe this. My reading of history is that if a lot of people look at something for a long time and no one solves it, then when the solution does come it requires both lots of knowledge and lots of imagination. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Gerry Myerson on 28 Aug 2006 01:02 In article <Pine.BSI.4.58.0608271916570.20460(a)vista.hevanet.com>, William Elliot <marsh(a)hevanet.remove.com> wrote: > 0. Review the literature regarding Goldback's Conjecture > 1. Take a course in number theory. > 2. Take an advanced course in number theory. > 3. Take a course in analytic number theory. > 4. Take a course in elliptic curves. > 5. Again, review the literature regarding Goldback's Conjecture. > 6. Present a thesis proposal on Goldback's Conjecture > 7. Complete thesis. > 8. Publish thesis. > 9. Be sure to mention sci.math in your acknowledgements. > 10. Be humble when presented with the Fields metal. ;-) OP is alread over 40, so #10 is out of the question. #4 is interesting, as I've never heard a suggestion that the road to Goldbach goes through elliptic curves - then again, it seems the road to pretty much anything in numbeer theory today goes through elliptic curves, so you just might be on to something. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Proginoskes on 28 Aug 2006 02:34
donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com wrote: > [...] > Why waste effort on the Goldbach Conjecture? It does nothing to > support our comfortable survival, the cybernetic reason for performing > any activity. After all, if we go extinct the Goldbach Conjecture is > pretty moot to a dead planet. Wow. If you go broke and have to live life as a beggar, you might understand why we're "wasting effort" on the Goldbach Conjecture. --- Christopher Heckman |