Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: skialps10@yahoo.com on 27 Aug 2006 20:50 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. Regards, James
From: georgie on 27 Aug 2006 21:00 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. > > Regards, > James You asking a bunch of ego-maniacs if they think you might be justified in thinking you can do something they can't? You're not a crank, but you are a glutton for punishment. My suggestion is to ignore their know-it-all attitude. They have been well programmed but they don't really understand much at all.
From: Gerry Myerson on 27 Aug 2006 21:15 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 and you still insist that you have a proof, then you'll be a crank. 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 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. 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: georgie on 27 Aug 2006 21:37 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.
From: David Moran on 27 Aug 2006 22:36
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. > > Regards, > James > I, too, have a minor in math, and I've done internships where I've been employed more as a mathematician. I'm not an expert by any means, but I think most of my knowledge is in the applied areas with some theoretical background. My main areas of expertise are differential equations and regression, but I know for a fact I don't know everything about either area. Dave |