JSH: So what happened?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Thank you
Next: Holomorphic?
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 19 Jul 2010 23:25 Owen Jacobson <angrybaldguy(a)gmail.com> writes: [To JSH[ > Good, great, message received. Now that you've delivered your > important bluster, can you please start editing out the parts of your > posts that aren't strictly mathematical? Geez, with all due respect, shut up. Them is the bits I like most! -- "Now, once [James's research] is accepted, number theory is the wild, wild, west of the intellectual field and the hottest field on the planet in terms of potential for new entries. [...] The future in number theory belongs to the kids." -- James S. Harris corrupts youth
From: Owen Jacobson on 20 Jul 2010 07:37 On Jul 19, 11:25 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Owen Jacobson <angrybald...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > [To JSH[ > > > Good, great, message received. Now that you've delivered your > > important bluster, can you please start editing out the parts of your > > posts that aren't strictly mathematical? > > Geez, with all due respect, shut up. > > Them is the bits I like most! Hah, fair enough. -o
From: MichaelW on 20 Jul 2010 17:21 On Jul 21, 12:36 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > You're like an ant kicking an elephant, and thinking he's making a > difference. > > M But the elephant is imaginary... Implicit in all of JSH's posts against us is the assumption that we have any power over anything. We can drive people from posting simply by being rude (despite many counter-examples, JSH included), we directly influence world opinion of academic mathematicians and we control what is accepted as valid research purely by social censure. He says we have delusions of grandeur. I say his delusions of our grandeur are far greater than any delusions we might have. Speaking for myself, I am simply not that grand. Regards, Michael W.
From: Joshua Cranmer on 20 Jul 2010 17:32 On 07/20/2010 10:05 AM, JSH wrote: > Sounds like a concession that acceptance of mathematical research is > not just about that research itself, but also personal issues, social > issues. "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?" > You continue to delude yourself with the notion I'm seeking something > from you. Just last week or so, you were telling us about how wonderful the feedback you get from Usenet is. > The world does not yet believe that math people use personal > considerations--like liking someone--to decide whether or not a > mathematical result is "true" or "important". It's personal considerations of a kind, but it's not about likes or dislikes. Things like historical accuracy, consistency, aesthetics, fluency, writing ability, etc. play a good deal of importance in influencing how readily and suspiciously a result would be accepted. To a degree, I think this is understood by the world: that people place so much importance in the outward appearance of people is the genesis of the myriads of proverbs amounting to "don't judge a book by it's cover." > You cannot stand in the way of the entire human race for long. Have you ever heard of "apathy"? Most of the human race doesn't care at all, and most of the rest don't care enough to act upon words. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Mark Murray on 20 Jul 2010 17:49
On 20/07/2010 22:21, MichaelW wrote: > On Jul 21, 12:36 am, Mark Murray<w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: >> >> You're like an ant kicking an elephant, and thinking he's making a >> difference. >> >> M > > But the elephant is imaginary... > > Implicit in all of JSH's posts against us is the assumption that we > have any power over anything. We can drive people from posting simply > by being rude (despite many counter-examples, JSH included), we > directly influence world opinion of academic mathematicians and we > control what is accepted as valid research purely by social censure. I like this interpretation! :-) The way I meant it has James as the insignificant amateur assaulting "mainstream" mathematics, and imagining (via VAST overuse of imagination) that he has the undivided attention of some unnamed but very large body of cognoscenti (except for the ones that lie, and they don't count). In this scenario, there are very many mathematicians who don't give a hoot about this JSH guy (yeah, I know about the google stats, James, don't get boring). > He says we have delusions of grandeur. I say his delusions of our > grandeur are far greater than any delusions we might have. Speaking > for myself, I am simply not that grand. Likewise; I'm a mathematical lightweight. I really like the subject, but unless something truly astonishing happens (winning the lottery is a better bet), It will all be for my own use. I have minor papers and reports in physics (not one as primary author) that will likely be my lot. Wouldn't mind doing a research degree in physics; that may improve things a bit. Don't expect to read about me anywhere; I doubt that yet another thesis in the subject will make much of a ripple. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. |