"the wronging of Mr. Devlin" by Hardy/Woodgold/Davis in Mathematical Intelligencer and convoluted math writing #4.03 Correcting Math
in [Math]
|
Prev: "the wronging of Mr. Devlin" by Hardy/Woodgold/Davis in Mathematical Intelligencer and convoluted math writing #4.03 Correcting Math
Next: Generalization of Fermat's Little Theorem!
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 21 Jul 2010 16:33 For the life of me, I do not know why writing a date time on most journals articles is too cumbersome. They seem to put in big print the names of authors and associates but when someone wants a date of "Prime Simplicity" of Mathematical Intelligencer, (MI) one has to hunt around. Something more for Chandler Davis at MI to fix. I am guessing that this article is Sept of 2009, but when magazines are derelict of including date time groups then the reader can only guess. --- quoting from Prime Simplicity of Mathematical Intelligencer, (Sept 2009 ??) --- But confusingly, he left the first two of the previously quoted sentences intact. That confusion would not have happened if the technique of proof by contra- diction had not been used. Devlin, in an earlier account [33] of Euclids proof, does not assert it to be a proof by con- tradiction. --- end quoting --- Now it maybe the case the Mr. Devlin was onto the correct and valid proof of Infinitude of Primes by using the Indirect Method. For in that method the only valid conclusion steps are that Euclid's Number is necessarily a new prime number and thus is the prime that is sought for in order to yield the contradiction. But I do not expect either Hardy, Woodgold or Chandler Davis to see, recognize or understand that Euclid's number in Indirect is necessarily a prime number. Devlin probably was onto that idea. Devlin probably had the instinct that Euclid's number was necessarily prime. I do not expect that Hardy/ Woodgold/Chandler to know that because in their article, they fail to do a proper job of listing what is a valid Direct and a valid Indirect Method proof of Infinitude of Primes via Euclid. For the life of me, if you are going to talk about wrongdoing in two methods, what is so difficult about listing the two valid methods? Seems to me that it is not Mr. Devlin that needs any remedial logic training but that Hardy and Woodgold and Davis should have a bus to the nearest remedial logic camp. One would think, that if you are going to be pointing out errors of logic over two methods, one would think that Mr. Chandler Davis, Michael Hardy and Catherine Woodgold would have enough logic to display both valid methods and then from that display, go charging forth like some medeaval knights in armor correcting others. But no, instead we have Hardy/Woodgold not even able to write out their own versions of direct and indirect and borrowing Ore's version. So in sum total, the article of "Prime Simplicity" is the use of Ore versus others like Devlin. Why even bother to hire Hardy and Woodgold, why not just have some computer fill in the spaces of what Ore says and what Devlin says. I guess in the days of the Internet with sci.math that magazines like that of MI are deteriorating faster in quality of logic and not only in advertisement sales. But to lambast Mr. Devlin, when he probably was onto the correct path of a valid Indirect Method proof, is bad behaviour by the authors who never display a valid Indirect themselves. Since Hardy/Woodgold and Davis lambast Devlin, it is obvious to me, that they could never do a valid Indirect of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, and that is further supported by the fact that the entire article never mentions that "if you are laboring under a wrong method, surely the validity of the proof is in doubt" and earlier, in the article, Hardy mentions that constructive is easily converted into contradiction, which indicates that Hardy probably thinks (emphasize probably) every valid proof of Infinitude of Primes after the first several steps would be identical steps throughout. What this means is that Hardy, probably thinks that you can cut off the top of a valid Indirect and replace it with the top of a valid Direct argument. And why even have managing editors like Mr. Chandler Davis with a poor judgement call of hiring a statistician and a electrical engineer to do a writeup of the world's most famous ancient proof, over questions of logical correctness? Does Mr. Davis ever realize that if you want to evaluate the correctness of Euclid's IP proof and method, that one should hire the best logicians of symbolic logic. I can think of Thomason at Yale who authored Symbolic Logic books I used in college. Why not get a logician to talk about the proper logic. So it is painful to be reading a error filled article in a mathematics magazine, talking about two methods and the authors and editor, not even able to display the two valid methods before lambasting others. So, maybe yes, maybe in this entire vast World of Earth of all its humans, there are only two humans who recognize a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof Indirect. Only two humans, Karl Heuer and AP understands that P-1 and P+1 are necessarily two new prime numbers in Indirect, and which would thence yield a simple proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes. Perhaps it is best that the publishing industry is in such a turmoil because of the Internet. Because in the past history of science, and I know of several true live cases of where scientists works were stolen and others receiving the credit. Publishing in the old days, and where "Prime Simplicity" is an example as a poor system, that often biases too many and reaps rewards to those undeserving of being published. And it also allows what I call "little despot tin badge judges" like Mr. Chandler Davis to play games with the input of authors. Where the Internet, sci.math levels out this wrongdoings. Where sci.math can be a "freedom channel for voices of the truth" and override those channels of despotism, favoritism, and stealing of others intellectual property. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |