JSH: The lying charge

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 04/16/05 

Date: 15 Apr 2005 16:06:14 -0700

I now routinely talk about "math people" lying, and some of you may
think that's way over the top, but I realized it a few years back, when
I would explain, and explain, and explain results, when my research is
over what are usually called elementary methods anyway, and find that
posters would always find some way to ignore even basic mathematical
facts, post something unrelated, and then claim I was the one doing it!

It was bizarre.

So I thought, well, that's Usenet. I'll go to mathematicians in the
mainstream and they'll act like expected.

Well, they didn't.

They would just quit replying to me.

You may misinterpret that so I'll tell a story again, of when I talked
out the argument that forms the heart of my paper currently under
review at the Annals of Mathematics, as I explained it in person to a
math professor at my alma mater Vanderbilt University.

After a long discussion where I managed to cover all the key points and
answer any objections he raised, he basically just said he had to go
home, and that was it.

Now, that argument is big enough to unseat a lot of "proofs" thought to
be valid, and here I had explained it to someone at my own school, and
after I explained it carefully, he just went home.

Now I worry some times about my own behavior in this mess, as he
emailed me later to say it was a nice conversation which he enjoyed,
and I was very, very pissed off, as I wanted some backing for
revolutionary mathematics.

So I wasn't nice in reply.

Eventually I emailed a good part of the math faculty at Vanderbilt and
at least one dean, maybe two (I don't remember), so I wasn't exactly
behaving myself, but think about it from my perspective: a correct and
revolutionary mathematical proof, presented to an established
mathematician who just kind of shrugs it off, like nothing.

There has to be some kind of communication gap, but beyond that there
also has to be some kind of concept gap, as I can show clearly that
there is a problem, and prove it, but I end up seeing mathematicians
just kind of shrug, in the mainstream, or make posts that just outright
lie, on Usenet.

You can see that now with the arguments about trivial and non-trivial
factors in the set of rationals.

Some of you may say that all factors in the set of rationals are
trivial, but, if I have 3 as a factor of 15 in rationals, as yes, they
are both rational, it's considered a non-trivial factor.

And even in rationals, by looking at the numerator you can get a
non-trivial factor.

So, now, suddenly, the position is that over the set of rationals--an
infinite set--there are more trivial factors by that measure than
non-trivial ones.

You will not see that position taken in any mathematics before now.

It's new. A new position with the purpose of denying a key point that
shows the importance of my surrogate factoring proof.

I've seen this time and time again before.

Math people just make up stuff to hold on to false beliefs that I prove
wrong, and to me it's bizarre behavior, and even more bizarre that they
get away with it.

Then they claim I'm the person who is unreasonable, and that I make up
stuff.

I simplify, simplify, simplify, and they just come up with more stuff,
and more claims so that a naive reader might suppose that somehow this
mathematics is extraordinarily complicated.

My take on it is that somehow math society became a social club.

People called mathematicians have learned to believe things because the
group believes them, and they've learned to try to convince versus
prove.

And they don't believe in mathematical proof.

So, I'm in political battles, where it all looks like some weird
presidential campaign with mud-slinging, charges flying back and forth,
and a lot of ill-will from both sides.

Maybe the Republicans and Democrats in the US are learning from this
ongoing battle. It's that bad.

But mathematics is not a social thing. It is about actual truths, and
for that reason, there will be a resolution.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • =?UTF-8?B?2YHYsdmI2LQg2YXYrNmF2YjYudmHINqp2KfZhdmEINqp2KrYp9io2YfYp9uMINix24zYpw==?= =?UTF-8
    ... Probability Theory The Logic of Science, ... Copyright © 1989 by Addison-Wesley Publishing ... Elliptic Curves Number Theory and Cryptography Discrete Mathematics ...
    (sci.math.num-analysis)
  • Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
    ... >> clearly that from the theorem only, but math people are pushing me ... > rationals will produce non-trivial factorisations of M, ... the mathematics does not distinguish between trivial and non-trivial ... The surrogate factoring theorem does in fact connect two infinite sets. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Cantors Theory: Mathematical creationism
    ... Science is just another religion in that sense in that it's just another ... It came from mathematics. ... a big part of the foundation of math. ... what is said with language? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Hard science of evolution
    ... they look at the math carefully and notice the unrealistic ... running through inertia-less pulleys that you encounter in Physics 101. ... And show that fitness really is heritable. ... always wanted to know if there was mathematics that can be used to ...
    (talk.origins)