Re: JSH: Good news!

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 a
reviewer, was made very public and Wiles worked with one of his former
students to resolve the issue?
Cons know how to work the game.
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

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

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.


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.


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

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

Can you give an objective answer?

James Harris