# Re: JSH: Good news!

*From*: jstevh@xxxxxxxxx*Date*: 5 Mar 2007 21:14:33 -0800

On Mar 4, 11:49 pm, karvap...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 4 maalis, 23:28, jst...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 4, 10:18 am, karvap...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 3 maalis, 20:33, jst...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 3, 6:09 am, s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

James Harris wrote:

would it surprise you to know that such an issue was identified by aCons know how to work the game.

reviewer, was made very public and Wiles worked with one of his former

students to resolve the issue?

Would it surprise you to know that a recent purported proof of the

Twin Primes Conjecture by an established mathematician was shot down

by mathematicians pointing out what they claimed were mathematical

errors--which would also work against the Riemann Hypothesis itself?

I doubt that would surprise anybody; mathematicians frequently make

mistakes just like everyone else does, and those mistakes get found.

How exactly does that fact support your position? You claim that

mathematicians are cons who support each other's research even though

it is wrong. So why do you think those mathematicians would point out

mathematical errors made by another mathematician? Doesn't that blow

apart your whole "con" theory?

No. If there were never any claims of errors then that might get

people's suspicions raised.

In fact I've noted the lack of scandals over fraudulent research as

evidence against the current mathematical system, as compare to

physics.

Supposedly there is no academic fraud among mathematicians which is a

better signal of a con. The cons know enough to put up the appearance

of making mistakes and catching each other, but are wary of outing

frauds, because most of them are frauds.

The problem ends and begins with a system where it is just people

checking each other.

That has never worked in all of human history.

Time and time again people get together, get convinced of something,

and are proven wrong by Mother Nature.

Reality is the best check, and in "pure math" areas it is just people

checking.

If you acknowledge that then there is no debate left.

One could argue that pure mathematics is employed in real life

applications. For example, algebraic geometry is useful in coding

theory when constructing error correcting codes. I must confess that,

at the moment, this is the only example I can think of, and I don't

even know how useful the algebraic geometric codes really are, because

this really is not my area of expertise. My major is mathematics after

all, so I am not that interested in applications. :)

The point here is that there are results in pure mathematics that do

wind up to be tested in real life that you (or I, for that matter) are

not aware of. I am assuming that by "pure math" you mean the

mathematics of the last or the present century that do not directly

relate to some real life problem in, e.g., engineering or physics.

karvaporo

By "pure math" I mean results that are not tested at all as there is

NO practical use.

So your examples would not be "pure".

Algebraic geometry is a fairly complex area of research drawing tools

from many different branches of mathematics such as commutative

algebra, homological algebra, and topology. Those would normally be

considered pure mathematics. Anyhow, results in these fields get

published in pretty much the same journals as those that you consider

to be pure mathematics, and since the results tend to be quite complex

in nature in both cases, so I do not see why all the fuss about the

articles being reviewed by "just people". At least those that find

their way to practical applications seem to be correct the first time,

so why would the review process fail when the article falls into the

category you describe as pure mathematics? Add to that that you cannot

always tell if a currently "untested" result ends up in practical use.

karvaporo

There is no other major area of human endeavor that is just about

trusting.

If you only have some people looking something over, no matter how you

spin it, it is just about trust.

Case in point, George W. Bush wanted to go to war. Plenty of people

were ready to stand up and say that was a good thing.

People lie. It's known. It's not a mystery.

Why trust math people more than say, the president of the United

States?

Can you give an objective answer?

James Harris

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*karvaporo

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*Nomen Lapetos

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*sg552

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*José Carlos Santos

**References**:**JSH: Good news!***From:*jstevh

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*amzoti

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*sg552

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*jstevh

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*sg552

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*jstevh

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*karvaporo

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*jstevh

**Re: JSH: Good news!***From:*karvaporo

- Prev by Date:
**Re: The crazy encryption madmans codebook** - Next by Date:
**MAC problems** - Previous by thread:
**Re: JSH: Good news!** - Next by thread:
**Re: JSH: Good news!** - Index(es):