Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Proginoskes on 28 Aug 2006 02:37 skialps10(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Hi, > > 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. > > 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? 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. Just the fact that you asked "Am I a crank?" suggests that you're not. If you want some good examples of crank behavior, search Google Groups for James Harris or Archimedes Plutonium. As for your approach: It wouldn't surprise me if someone else has tried it already. But you're welcome to try. Good luck! --- Christopher Heckman
From: porky_pig_jr@my-deja.com on 28 Aug 2006 14:29 > > Just the fact that you asked "Am I a crank?" suggests that you're not. > Not necessarily. JSH asked several times if he had some psychological problems.
From: Lester Zick on 28 Aug 2006 14:41 On 28 Aug 2006 11:29:30 -0700, "porky_pig_jr(a)my-deja.com" <porky_pig_jr(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> Just the fact that you asked "Am I a crank?" suggests that you're not. >> >Not necessarily. JSH asked several times if he had some psychological >problems. And just the fact that you asked the question suggests that you are if you don't already know the answer to that question and expect someone else to answer it for you. ~v~~
From: David R Tribble on 28 Aug 2006 19:26 skialps wrote: >> 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. >> >> [...] >> Does this sound crank-like? > Proginoskes wrote: > Just the fact that you asked "Am I a crank?" suggests that you're not. More importantly, it's your approach to a solution, and your subsequent response to criticism thereof, that qualifies you as a crank or not. If you are willing to accept that you are wrong, you are not a crank. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29 Note especially the essential defining characteristic of a crank: No argument or evidence can ever be sufficient to make a crank abandon his belief. Wild beliefs are one thing - we all have some of those to some degree I suspect. It's the rabidly irrational adherence to provably wrong beliefs that marks a crank as a crank.
From: david petry on 28 Aug 2006 23:19
skialps10(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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? Mathematicians can't reasonably claim that it is "crank-like", because it is the kind of thing they do themselves. Here's something I think you ought to think about: Goldbach's conjecture is very likely to be true for simple probabilistic reasons. There are lots of prime numbers, and for a large even integer, probabilistic reasoning suggests that it is very likely that some pair of prime numbers will add up to that even number. The key to such an argument is to interpret the Prime Number Theorem as a probabilistic assertion, telling us that the "probability" that a randomly picked integer of size N will be prime is 1/log(N). Then combined with the fact that Goldbach's conjecture has actually been tested for all even integers up to about 10^18, we are led to conclude that the conjecture is true with a probability of about 1-10^(-4000). It could be argued that since the mathematics community does expend a great deal of energy in the search for formal proofs of conjectures having ridiculously high probabilities of being true, and often turns a blind eye to the probabilistic arguments, the mathematics community itself engages in crank-like behavior. |