Prev: Referees (was Re: Collatz cartoon)
Next: For the person who has everything, a bottle to keep it in.
From: Obispo de Tolosa on 8 Mar 2010 14:36
I had to edit my title from "Good Points" to "Good Point" because there is only one good point. Others were bad, like admitting he's getting old and then blaming "old geezers" for his lack of success.

The really good point relates to Wiles. What has he done lately? He appears to be a one-hit wonder indeed. And age is no excuse. Older mathematicians are more inclined towards contemplation than manipulation, and are therefore capable of being superior mathematicians. Unless they've been spoiled by too many prizes, that is.
From: spudnik on 9 Mar 2010 00:55
isn't searching on some thing that you typed,
rather recently, an example of "positive feedback?" anyway,
perhaps, the real deal is that the googolplex tracks
the usage from particular servers, thereby stuffing one
into a sort of virtual ghetto of would-be correspondents. well,
elsewise it'd be completely unmanageable as an enterprize;
nay?... anyway, sorry, for wasting my time & yours!

thus:
why does a wave in the "vacuum" need anything else,
to wave transversally?... there is no absolute vacuum, and
their are no rocks o'light!

thus:
you refer to the great-circle path on the God-am map!...
as I already stated, aircraft do not do "level" flight,
in order to minimize use of fuel; it's a trajectory, but
it can't be symmetrical, up & down, due to drag & so forth.

thus:
now, perhaps this study refutes M&M et al, or
perhaps it does not -- silly & stupid,
for a guy who does actual experiments.
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html

--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and the ICC's 3rd British invasion of
Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com
From: Chip Eastham on 9 Mar 2010 09:57
On Mar 9, 12:36 am, Obispo de Tolosa <MathMan...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I had to edit my title from "Good Points" to "Good Point"
> because there is only one good point. Others were bad,
> like admitting he's getting old and then blaming "old
> geezers" for his lack of success.
>
> The really good point relates to Wiles. What has he done
> lately? He appears to be a one-hit wonder indeed. And age
> is no excuse. Older mathematicians are more inclined towards
> contemplation than manipulation, and are therefore capable
> of being superior mathematicians. Unless they've been spoiled
> by too many prizes, that is.

Hi, Obispo:

Nice combination, a "proof by ignorance" based
ad hominem attack.

Wiles' work has been not only of high quality in
itself, it became the foundation for numerous high
quality papers by others. Any "one hit wonder"
aspersion by JSH or you is manifestly wrong.

Before settling Fermat's "Last Theorem" with
Richard Taylor (1995), Andrew Wiles had published
results on two other hard problems. With his
advisor John Coates (1977) he obtained special
cases of the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_and_Swinnerton-Dyer_conjecture

work that was subsequently extended by Nicole
Arthaud-Kuhman.

With Barry Mazur (1984) Wiles proved the main
conjecture of Iwasawa theory over the rationals,
which Wiles later extended (1990) to all totally
real number fields:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwasawa_theory

If you are interested in what "has [Dr. Wiles]
done lately," may I suggest his publications
list at Princeton's Math Dept. website?

www.math.princeton.edu/WebCV/WilesBIB.pdf

The list was last updated in 2008 and shows a
number of papers after 1995.

regards, chip
From: spudnik on 10 Mar 2010 01:22
I'm more interested in Fermat's proof, since
there is utterly no proof that he did not do it.

actually, he still has an unsolved conjecture!

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwasawa_theory

thus:
come-on, we're going for a Sonnet, TURD!

> If you have an absolute motion behind light then the absolute space
> frame is valid.

thus:
The Harkins School
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall%202003/Humbuggery.html

thus:
anyway, permitivity & permeability are properties of matter,
not of "vacuum." there is only relative vacuum, as
in "vacuuming."

thus:
it sounds as if you *could* have some thing,
about the deployment of reciprocals by Einstein, but I'd need more
of a qualitative wording of "what went wrong,
penintimately or penultimately."
no; M&M got no null result. the experiment that Al cited,
although
it shows no results to its degree of precision, apparently,
is completetly different (as in, "dewars").
things are simpler, using waves:
spherical ones, not "linear" ones!

thus:
why don't you just look it up,
the practice of commercial pilots?

thus:
science is about refining a hypothesis,
which doesn't have to be one's own. most of "global" warming is,
strictly, computerized simulacra & very selective reporting:
the "hole" in the ozone is really, "the sky is glowing!"

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html

--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com
From: Arturo Magidin on 10 Mar 2010 11:49
On Mar 10, 12:22 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm more interested in Fermat's proof, since
> there is utterly no proof that he did not do it.

There is good circumstantial evidence that he did not; specifically,
the fact that he produced a proof specific for n=4 at a later date but
never mentioned the more general conjecture.

--
Arturo Magidin
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Referees (was Re: Collatz cartoon)
Next: For the person who has everything, a bottle to keep it in.