JSH: When your math is wrong
in [Math]
|
Prev: Numeric Mc^2. By Aiya-Oba
Next: math solution, fyi
From: Jim Ferry on 17 Jun 2010 11:09 On Jun 12, 7:55 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:10:47 -0700, Pollux <po....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >It's just getting very stale and boring, and I've been here only a week. The average crank is like a program that spits out random verbiage. JSH is much more interactive. It is possible, if extremely difficult, to convince him that he has made an error. Over the years he has admitted numerous errors in his previous work. (Despite this historical pattern he always contends that there is no chance that his current work is flawed.) I believe that there exists a sci.math post which, all by itself, would send JSH on a successful path to non-crankhood. (He's really so close: just one axiom away.) However, such a post exists only in the same way that it is possible to pick winning lottery numbers every day for a year, or, perhaps, to perform a complicated fan dance which would, eventually, bring a tornado down upon you that would deliver you safely from home to work, in lieu of your usual commute. > JSH - an Axiomatic Approach > > Axiom 1: JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician. Yes, I think this is basically it. Take a sane, if somewhat feisty, person with no particular mathematical talent, add this unshakable axiom to their mental construct, and you get JSH. The theorems and corollaries you give follow nicely (though informally, of course). To be fair, lots of people adopt similarly unshakable axioms: given that a large subset of religions are mutually exclusive, a substantial fraction of the world's population must be acting on non-negotiable premises which are flat-out wrong. They get lots of social reinforcement from others who have adopted the same faulty premise, however, whereas James does not. A related difference (in that it is a reason why James is alone in his premise) is that it is difficult to disprove any single religious tenet of faith, whereas James's is demonstrably false, provided one has an appropriate definition of what mathematics is (rather than, say, a circular one which restricts it to whatever James does). But perhaps it is unfair to label James a crank without labeling believers in false religions such. I once adopted Axiom 1 myself a few years ago, as a mental exercise. It was interesting: I still couldn't understand James's work, but this was therefore due to my own shortcomings. It made all the ad hominem attacks on James seem much more vile than they already were, and I could really appreciate the drama of his persecution. I wrote some posts in support of James, despite the fact that I couldn't understand his work, which was interpreted as a form of mockery. Oh well. I recommend the mental exercise of adopting this axiom. It certainly makes James's behavior appear much more reasonable. Also, it would be interesting to see James adopt, instead of Axiom 1, the axiom that millions of people are better at mathematics than he: in particular, professional mathematicians. That the social system of recognizing mathematical accomplishment basically works: the Fields Medalists are the ultra-elite, but professors at top institutions tend to be astoundingly brilliant as well. That even run-of-the-mill university professors evince a dauntingly impressive command of their field. That anyone who has a track record of publications in significant, peer-reviewed journals is someone whose opinions on mathematical issues he should listen to carefully and respectfully. That a Ph.D. in mathematics from most institutions implies a significant amount of mathematical talent and knowledge. That even someone with a B.S. in mathematics typically has more mathematical talent and knowledge than he does. I know, I know, what a ridiculous axiom! James, I'm just suggesting that you try it out as a *mental exercise*. Because this is the axiom of "the herd", trying it out might give you a better understanding of "herdthink".
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 17 Jun 2010 21:09 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > And you know the thing about it is, what posters *really* wish me to > do, as has been requested for years, is not to post at all. Oh, a few churlish folk want you to stop, but it's hardly a unanimous opinion. -- "I arrest anybody I think needs arresting, Mr. Carter, and I'm not in the habit of explaining why." "There's a law about that ---" "You're in Dodge, Mr. Carter." -- Gunsmoke radio show / John Ashcroft
From: JSH on 17 Jun 2010 21:45 On Jun 17, 6:09 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > And you know the thing about it is, what posters *really* wish me to > > do, as has been requested for years, is not to post at all. > > Oh, a few churlish folk want you to stop, but it's hardly a unanimous > opinion. They have a learned behavior. Years ago I'd watch gangs of posters hurl insults at some poster, at times day and night for days, until that person would stop--and then they'd post celebrations. It's a game. My position for years has been that I use Usenet as I see fit, which includes posting as I see fit, however, as my popularity has grown I've conceded to reality in multiple ways in order to limit disruptions. So the "JSH" tag was by request. I have in the recent past cross- posted quite a bit, but now don't see the point, but even then, I'd stop once my posts simply took over a newsgroup. And I DO take breaks if only to stand down for a while from sneering, unseemly people who clearly get off on hurling as nasty a thing as they can think of at someone, and also because I have other things to do. I will admit that it bugs me at times that for some people the crowd is all that matters. Or the illusion of a crowd. I've long been one of the most popular posters, but 2 or 3 posters working together can produce the illusion of a large group opinion by a blizzard of posts, often going day and night. That kind of energy has an effect, and mostly I get bored with it. But others clearly find it convincing. But they should look through one of these long threads and count the names that show up, over and over and over and over again. It amazes me how gullible others are to such behavior. 2 or 3 people looking like an entire newsgroup's opinion. But it's a game to them, which gives them pleasure. James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 17 Jun 2010 22:37 On 06/17/2010 08:00 PM, JSH wrote: > Error is part of the process of discovery. You fail more often than > you succeed. You would think, therefore, that you wouldn't harp on so much about people "erroneously" attacking your work, considering how often you've conceded that they were right in that your work was erroneous. > And you know the thing about it is, what posters *really* wish me to > do, as has been requested for years, is not to post at all. If I DO > post, they wish a lot of butt-kissing and thanks, and appreciative > kisses towards any supposedly far better person who actually > supposedly knows math who deigns to help me. What is really wished for, I think, is that you cut your egotism and... conspiracy theories (to put it mildly) from posts and not automatically dismiss anyone who claims your results to be wrong as being incorrect. Although, at this point, you've probably cried "Wolf!" too many times for the majority of regular readers of sci.math. > My expectation though is that people who claim to be mathematicians > have a love for mathematics and THAT is the standard to which they are > to be held. In this... most uncharacteristic posting, you've expounded upon errors you have made in the past. Yet here, you seem to imply that "mathematicians" here are failing to uphold this standard, presumably because they are erroneously rejecting your work. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Tim Little on 17 Jun 2010 22:51
On 2010-06-17, Jim Ferry <corklebath(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Over the years he has admitted numerous errors in his previous work. > (Despite this historical pattern he always contends that there is no > chance that his current work is flawed.) More than that: some time after admitting error in all his attempts at a particular work and giving up on it, he starts to maintain that there was no error and that his work was simply attacked by people wishing to protect their mathematical careers and perpetuate the Worldwide Mathematicians' Conspiracy. If he retains any admission of error it is only in regard to a few brief brainstorming ideas he had, throwaway concepts not central to his work. He *does* still believe that he has solved all those problems listed in my recent post, despite admitting at the time that he failed for every single one of them. I don't think Axiom 1 by itself adequately explains that behaviour. That would only imply that despite his previous dead-end brainstorming ideas he is still absolutely capable of solving all those problems, and not that he rewrites history to say that he did actually solve them originally. It takes some actual mental malfunction to go from saying "Okay, it turns out I don't have a proof of FLT and never did", to "I proved FLT years ago but it was attacked, derided, and buried" regarding the exact same work. - Tim |