Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Charlie-Boo on 9 Sep 2006 13:22 Gerry Myerson wrote: > In article <1156726253.271394.246990(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > "skialps10(a)yahoo.com" <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. > > If you decide you have a proof of Goldbach > and you post it here > and lots of people who know their stuff > patiently point out to you all the mistakes you've made Intelligent people don't agree that ("people who know their stuff") is relevant. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei Godel proved Hilbert wrong. Sometimes the conventional wisdom itself is (as well as all of those "people who know their stuff" being) totally wrong. I wonder if science ever is exactly right is some absolute sense. > and you still insist that you have a proof, > then you'll be a crank. It depends on if his response was addressed. If they didn't, then he may have found a flaw in their reasoning. > If this doesn't sound like something you'd do, > then don't worry about it. > > The Goldbach conjecture has been studied for so long > by so many very talented people More "authority". > that the chances of an amateur doing anything useful on it > are pretty nearly zero. Is it possible that there are an infinite number of patterns and useful algorithms to address this question? > If you study it, > study it because you enjoy it, > not because you expect to have something to say about it. It's not the chance of success, it's the value of success times the chance of success. C-B > There are other areas in math > where amateurs have made, and may yet make, a contribution. > See if you can find Doris Schattschneider's essay, > In Praise of Amateurs, > or any other discussion of the work of Marjorie Rice > on tiling the plane with pentagons. > > -- > Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Lester Zick on 9 Sep 2006 13:22 On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:00:53 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <ouk3g2lbnnmdlgreijtfss88d45cutpu4c(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:33:40 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <03a3g2p6s0o7jc14jt3b2pcp5remsieb8n(a)4ax.com>, >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:35:36 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <ij61g2dls6044ds806e87t95r8h4tf1ogv(a)4ax.com>, >> >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:26:12 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <mah0g29jhf7u65h4um3k1jebid22us331o(a)4ax.com>, >> >> >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:13:32 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Zick is the one whose trivia is founded in the trivium. Math is a >> >> >> >> >part >> >> >> >> >of the quadrivium. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And modern math is founded, whatever that means, in the trivium and >> >> >> >> not in the quadrivium. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >And how does someone so self-decaredly ignorant of mathematics know >> >> >> >this? >> >> >> >> >> >> Because you self declaredly proclaim assumptions of truth in lieu of >> >> >> demonstrations. >> >> > >> >> >Zick frequently does this, but why does he deceive himself that >> >> >mathematicians emulate his idiocies? >> >> >> >> Because they don't and probably can't demonstrate their trivial >> >> assumptions of truth. >> >> >> >But, unlike Zick, they are careful to point out just what unproven >> >assumptions they are making. >> >> Hell that's easy enough: all of them. > >Just like Zick, who can't demonstrate any of his trivial assumptions of >truth, but carefully hides all his trivial assumptions instead of >honestly revealing them. But that's only because you have nothing but trivial assumptions of truth to share. Why should I highlight my trivial assumptions of truth when I have so much more important quadrivially demonstrable assumptions of truth to share such as universally true definitions of true, false, and infinity. >> > Thus no one need be deceived by them, though one cannot say the >> > same about Zick's claims. > >> >> ~v~~ ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 9 Sep 2006 13:24 On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:51:37 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <03a3g2p6s0o7jc14jt3b2pcp5remsieb8n(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:35:36 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >And how does someone so self-decaredly ignorant of mathematics know this? >> >> >> >> Because you self declaredly proclaim assumptions of truth in lieu of >> >> demonstrations. >> > >> >Zick frequently does this, but why does he deceive himself that >> >mathematicians emulate his idiocies? >> >> Because they don't and probably can't demonstrate their trivial >> assumptions of truth. > >So Zick asserts that in this respect mathematicians are emulating Zick's >idiocies? Only for their trivial assumptions of truth. Problem is there is nothing else in the case of modern math. Even you acknowledge that. ~v~~
From: Charlie-Boo on 9 Sep 2006 13:26 georgie wrote: > Many (possibly most) great > mathematical discoveries were made by amateurs and > beginners. "Inventions rarely come from people within an industry, but, instead come from people on the outside who aren't under the same limiting beliefs & habitual thinking that forms within any organization or industry. - Dr. James Asher, San Jose State University, "On Advanced Learning" C-B
From: Lester Zick on 9 Sep 2006 13:28
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 02:32:52 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> wrote: >In article <d2g3g2d0s2l1u3spbjf6t3p1mg93mubc1v(a)4ax.com> Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 01:00:39 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> > > wrote: >... > > > > As long as no two axioms contradict each other, directly or indirectly, > > > > the theory is consistent. > > > > > > Yes, but the problem is that it is in general impossible to prove (within > > > the theory) that it is consistent. > > > > Is it also impossible to prove that it is not inconsistent? If not the > > problem becomes empirical. > >Indeed, it may be impossible to prove that it is either consistent or >not consistent. However, empirical evidence is not sufficient in >mathematics. That wasn't exactly my point. The standard of proof in empiricism is "not inconsistent with" and that's what makes it empiricism instead of formal science. I wasn't referring to experimental evidence as such. > And to get back at an example I already stated many times. >Gauss conjectured that Li(x) was an overstimate for the number of >primes in the range 1 .. x. I have no idea how you could disprove this >with empirical evidence. Every empiric evidence you can come up with >reveals that it is true. It is nevertheless false. Just indicates that empiricism is not science in general. ~v~~ |