Surely You're Joking, Mr. Zeilberger?
in [Math]
|
Prev: solar power
Next: two most famous and important proofs in all of mathematics-- Pythagoras & AP-finite-selection #437 Correcting Math
From: Angus Rodgers on 16 Feb 2010 05:07 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:30:07 -0800 (PST), Tonico <Tonicopm(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >We already discussed some stuff about Doron Zeibelger in the forum >once, some years ago, since it is a hook from which some cranks here >love to hang in some discussions. I'm sure they do, but let's hope we can avoid this becoming that kind of thread. I only want to understand what's going on in the guy's mind. (I don't recall seeing any threads about DZ myself. In fact, I once mentioned that it would be more interesting if he posted to sci.math, instead of some of the abusive characters who do post endlessly about their, shall we say, unorthodox opinions! Do you have any references to such threads? Or were they just the usual kind of c___k thread?) >I considere Doron the only mathematician I know who is not only a >crank with regards to the subject of infinity and surroundings He's also unique in my (limited) experience. My curiosity as to what he is thinking is unaffected by questions as to any of what he is thinking is true in any sense. I just want to know how he manages to think it! Or indeed, whether he really does think it, or is joking. >but in >fact a not-so-nice one, as one can read in the following well-known >piece by him: > >http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion68.html > >As expected, he bases his case on computers and stuff. Pretty lame >imo, but of course that's his right. Calling others fools and >belittling them is already too much. I read that, but didn't get any impression of nastiness, just some sort of tongue-in-cheek humour (which I don't get). Nope. Just read it again, and I still don't get any impression of him being like one of those sci.math c___ks. (Like the one who was literally threatening me with an axe not long before I stopped posting here!) >It is highly advisable to read the feedbacks at the bottom of the >above site, which rise some interesting points. >He also acknowledges and thankx (!!!) WM for something, and he also >receives a positive feedback from A. Zenkin from whom I read something >some years ago but I can't now remember what, though I clearly >remember that he was on the edge of crankhood, at least. How he is to be described - and indeed, even the question of the truth-value of anything he says - doesn't bear on the mystery of how he manages to think what he apparently does think (unless he is joking). That's the objective problem for me. There isn't any question of it being 'advisable' to take note of any apparent murky associations with known c___ks (who may indeed be nasty - I have never paid any attention to the WM threads in sci.math, so I wouldn't know about him, although I remembered his name when I saw the reference), unless there was some intention of taking DZ's beliefs as authoritative in some way, thus risking some terrible mental contagion. I'm just trying to resolve the apparent paradox of how he is able to do some genuine mathematics while also believing something which appears to me to be crazy or a joke - and not just something about little green men or NASA not landing men on the Moon, but something about the mathematics he actually does with professional competence. Quite baffling! -- Angus Rodgers
From: Angus Rodgers on 16 Feb 2010 05:15 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:56:42 +0200, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote: >Whether there's a largest natural is of course not something we can >decide by stipulation -- no, such matters turn on the fundamental >physical nature of reality. Even so, there are many questions that do >not turn on physical fact, such as whether we count zero as a natural, >or what to say about the successor of the largest natural. We can say >it's zero, the largest natural itself, five, or whatever we want. This >is just a question of what convention to adopt. I see what you mean now. However, this does seem to leave unexplained why he seems to believe that the largest natural number is p - 1, for some very, very, very large prime p. I'm not bothering so much about what sense he makes of p when p = 0 in his system - I'll assume there is a way. The fact that his largest natural is p - 1, however, does seem to suggest that his system has built into it from the start the property that the successor of the largest natural is 0. -- Angus Rodgers
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 16 Feb 2010 05:18 Angus Rodgers <twirlip2(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: > The fact that his largest natural is p - 1, however, does seem to > suggest that his system has built into it from the start the property > that the successor of the largest natural is 0. Quite possibly. As noted, I know nothing of his system. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 16 Feb 2010 05:17 Angus Rodgers <twirlip2(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: > I'm just trying to resolve the apparent paradox of how he is able to > do some genuine mathematics while also believing something which > appears to me to be crazy or a joke - and not just something about > little green men or NASA not landing men on the Moon, but something > about the mathematics he actually does with professional competence. > Quite baffling! A mathematician I met once proudly explained that mathematics is the study of formal systems. When I queried about his work it turned out it had absolutely nothing to do with formal theories but was concerned with heavy going mathematics of algebraic this-or-that (of which I understood nothing). People are capable of believing, or at least professing to believe, the most peculiar things without it affecting their work in the least, even in areas that are seemingly directly implicated in these their (professed) beliefs. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Tonico on 16 Feb 2010 05:26
On Feb 16, 11:42 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > He also acknowledges and thankx (!!!) WM for something, and he also > > receives a positive feedback from A. Zenkin from whom I read something > > some years ago but I can't now remember what, though I clearly > > remember that he was on the edge of crankhood, at least. > > Zenkin's splendid contributions were discussed here a while back. He has > uncovered several fatal flaws in the diagonal argument, "Flaws"? Within ZFC? Name one, just for the fun of it...;) And it'd be interesting to get that paper(s) by Zenkin, if you have some. Tonio in particular > that it proves nothing, based on vaguely Wittgensteinian > reflections. Somewhat dreary and tedious, but great stuff nonetheless! > > -- > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi) > > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |