Sunday, September 12, 1999
JSH: Other research
Now I will finally get an answer to a question that I've wondered about for a long time. The answer will come with the first person who figured out the simple proof of FLT. I was lucky in getting the answer without any supportive help (that is, the help I've received up until now has been critical help from people shooting down bad ideas or wrong assumptions).
Since I now have the right answer and seem to have beaten everyone else, the length of time before the correct answer becomes generally known is of scientific interest. There's also the question of just what's going on when someone discovers something like this. Most of my attempts are public record.
It's undoubtably true that every discoverer goes down many wrong paths. They just don't typically leave that information out for public view. Gauss was notorious for sitting on things until he was certain, to the extent that some say mathematics was behind by 50 years because of that, since he had important results that took others 50 years to prove. I read about that and thought it was a waste. What did he really have to lose? A few mistakes here and there wouldn't have affected his stature.
In any event, I keep talking about time limits. The reason is that any time anything new is added to the noosphere (all human thought on the planet) it rapidly propagates, especially today in our "Information Age". Therefore, I think it reasonable to assume that something like this should take about half a day. Of course, yesterday I said it'd take about a day, but then I didn't have a simple proof, so I was racing with that deadline to be sure I wasn't "scooped".
Then there's the other stuff about group processes. I don't think that anything really new was revealed by my experiences on the newsgroup, but I might be too close to see it right now. I do think it important to realize that it does mix things up a lot for someone outside the discipline to come in with their ideas.
Groups can become too homogeneous when it comes to ideas as everyone accepts too much as being true when it's really just believed. Outsiders have the benefit of not caring too much about what the people in the newsgroup think of them and of not having been indoctrinated with all the beliefs.
As solutions to the problems humanity faces become more critical to its continued survival, it will become just as critical that good ideas aren't found just because people are too worried about artifical boundaries.
After all, if a big enough problem comes along that humanity can't solve in time, it loses. And losing could very well mean extinction.
Most species in the history of this planet have lasted about a million years. Wouldn't it be pitiful if one of the most successful in so many ways, was one of the least in the game of time.
Since I now have the right answer and seem to have beaten everyone else, the length of time before the correct answer becomes generally known is of scientific interest. There's also the question of just what's going on when someone discovers something like this. Most of my attempts are public record.
It's undoubtably true that every discoverer goes down many wrong paths. They just don't typically leave that information out for public view. Gauss was notorious for sitting on things until he was certain, to the extent that some say mathematics was behind by 50 years because of that, since he had important results that took others 50 years to prove. I read about that and thought it was a waste. What did he really have to lose? A few mistakes here and there wouldn't have affected his stature.
In any event, I keep talking about time limits. The reason is that any time anything new is added to the noosphere (all human thought on the planet) it rapidly propagates, especially today in our "Information Age". Therefore, I think it reasonable to assume that something like this should take about half a day. Of course, yesterday I said it'd take about a day, but then I didn't have a simple proof, so I was racing with that deadline to be sure I wasn't "scooped".
Then there's the other stuff about group processes. I don't think that anything really new was revealed by my experiences on the newsgroup, but I might be too close to see it right now. I do think it important to realize that it does mix things up a lot for someone outside the discipline to come in with their ideas.
Groups can become too homogeneous when it comes to ideas as everyone accepts too much as being true when it's really just believed. Outsiders have the benefit of not caring too much about what the people in the newsgroup think of them and of not having been indoctrinated with all the beliefs.
As solutions to the problems humanity faces become more critical to its continued survival, it will become just as critical that good ideas aren't found just because people are too worried about artifical boundaries.
After all, if a big enough problem comes along that humanity can't solve in time, it loses. And losing could very well mean extinction.
Most species in the history of this planet have lasted about a million years. Wouldn't it be pitiful if one of the most successful in so many ways, was one of the least in the game of time.
# posted by James Harris @ 15:25 
