### Saturday, June 03, 2006

## Common sense, checking of math "proofs"

I think I heard that supposedly mathematical arguments were logical, well-ordered with a special language used that mathematicians worked long and hard to get reasonable and clear, with one of their favorite words being "rigor".

Computer systems today continue to advance and the other day one was talking to me, asking me questions, listening to my answers as it helped me work through some important activity.

But supposedly computers aren't advanced enough to understand most mathematical arguments claimed to be proofs.

I suggest some common sense people.

I have been labeled a crackpot, when I say I not only demonstrate my mathematical ideas to be correct, but I have mathematical proof, and even gave the definition for mathematical proof:

http://mymath.blogspot.com/2005/07/definition-of-mathematical-proof.html

My degree is in physics as I have a B.Sc. and I have real-world accomplishments like my Class Viewer open source project, which is on SourceForge. You can find it by doing a search in a major search engine like Google or Yahoo on "Class Viewer".

In explaining my research I emphasize simplicity, but people argue with me, and somehow this crackpot label stands, with the arguments going on for years, but what if there were computer checking of math arguments?

Then this kind of situation could not exist.

If I were wrong, the computer would say so, and I couldn't claim that mathematicians rely on social power to block real mathematical proof when it doesn't suit their purposes, but wait, can't use a computer, can I?

Because it doesn't suit the purposes of mathematicians to have computers check.

But why not?

I wrote the first prime counting function article on the Wikipedia, where now you can find it in the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249

On that page you can find my prime counting function.

In justifying ignoring it, mathematicians have claimed that it is not new.

That is a lie easily seen to be a lie by checking the literature. There is mathematics very similiar, and in fact, I can show with rigor just how what I found relates to what is known, but it is clearly different, even to the naked eye, from what was seen before.

How do they get away with lying?

Authority. Experiments like Milgram's where people will do terrible things to each other if there is an authority figure present explain how it works. Mathematicians are authority figures that many of you admire. You are programmed to trust them, trained to be obedient.

Willing to accept lies that force you to ignore what you can easily see to be true.

And they don't have computer checking of mathematical arguments.

Andrew Wiles was actually celebrated as a throwback because of his disdain for computers.

He is so anti-computer that he reportedly has his mathematical ideas copied down for him as he dictates to his very human, female secretary.

But the reality of useless mathematics—"pure math"—is that there is nothing to check it but human beings if you don't use computers.

You rely on people's word in "pure math" areas.

And human beings make mistakes.

Unlike the calculus, which is used in the real world, and if you get it wrong, things can break, or not work, with "pure math" like that of Wiles, there is nothing to tell you if human beings massively screwed up on a huge scale.

Believe there are "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

Lots of American did. Think you're superior to all of them? Think math people are special?

Think you are immune from the failures of groups?

Then do a web search on "unskilled and unaware" and read it without deciding that you are not being described by those studies.

After all, one of the characteristics of people deluding themselves into believing they are more accomplished than they are is to deny the very studies showing the behavior—they say it's someone else.

So if you read that and think to yourself that it doesn't apply to you,

consider some common sense items:

Jim Jones got a bunch of people to drink poison kool-aid.

Why do you people think you are so much better than the rest of humanity and immune from human psychology?

Computers are objective. Mathematicians are human beings.

Human beings need to be objectively checked, and not just rely on each other's word.

Mathematics is too important to be left up to such vagueness as the judgement of the human animal, and in applied mathematics, it's not.

Why shouldn't "pure math" be just as good as applied mathematics then?

Let's bring "pure math" into the modern world and require that human frailty be taken out of the picture.

Computer systems today continue to advance and the other day one was talking to me, asking me questions, listening to my answers as it helped me work through some important activity.

But supposedly computers aren't advanced enough to understand most mathematical arguments claimed to be proofs.

I suggest some common sense people.

I have been labeled a crackpot, when I say I not only demonstrate my mathematical ideas to be correct, but I have mathematical proof, and even gave the definition for mathematical proof:

http://mymath.blogspot.com/2005/07/definition-of-mathematical-proof.html

My degree is in physics as I have a B.Sc. and I have real-world accomplishments like my Class Viewer open source project, which is on SourceForge. You can find it by doing a search in a major search engine like Google or Yahoo on "Class Viewer".

In explaining my research I emphasize simplicity, but people argue with me, and somehow this crackpot label stands, with the arguments going on for years, but what if there were computer checking of math arguments?

Then this kind of situation could not exist.

If I were wrong, the computer would say so, and I couldn't claim that mathematicians rely on social power to block real mathematical proof when it doesn't suit their purposes, but wait, can't use a computer, can I?

Because it doesn't suit the purposes of mathematicians to have computers check.

But why not?

I wrote the first prime counting function article on the Wikipedia, where now you can find it in the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249

On that page you can find my prime counting function.

In justifying ignoring it, mathematicians have claimed that it is not new.

That is a lie easily seen to be a lie by checking the literature. There is mathematics very similiar, and in fact, I can show with rigor just how what I found relates to what is known, but it is clearly different, even to the naked eye, from what was seen before.

How do they get away with lying?

Authority. Experiments like Milgram's where people will do terrible things to each other if there is an authority figure present explain how it works. Mathematicians are authority figures that many of you admire. You are programmed to trust them, trained to be obedient.

Willing to accept lies that force you to ignore what you can easily see to be true.

And they don't have computer checking of mathematical arguments.

Andrew Wiles was actually celebrated as a throwback because of his disdain for computers.

He is so anti-computer that he reportedly has his mathematical ideas copied down for him as he dictates to his very human, female secretary.

But the reality of useless mathematics—"pure math"—is that there is nothing to check it but human beings if you don't use computers.

You rely on people's word in "pure math" areas.

And human beings make mistakes.

Unlike the calculus, which is used in the real world, and if you get it wrong, things can break, or not work, with "pure math" like that of Wiles, there is nothing to tell you if human beings massively screwed up on a huge scale.

Believe there are "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

Lots of American did. Think you're superior to all of them? Think math people are special?

Think you are immune from the failures of groups?

Then do a web search on "unskilled and unaware" and read it without deciding that you are not being described by those studies.

After all, one of the characteristics of people deluding themselves into believing they are more accomplished than they are is to deny the very studies showing the behavior—they say it's someone else.

So if you read that and think to yourself that it doesn't apply to you,

consider some common sense items:

- Human beings make mistakes.
- Throughout history when ONLY human checking is available, massive screw-ups abound.
- Without computers to check, "pure math" arguments are just some people's word that the mathematics is correct.
- In our modern age, computer science is advanced enough to check mathematical arguments claimed to be proof.
- But computer checking is not being widely done.

Jim Jones got a bunch of people to drink poison kool-aid.

Why do you people think you are so much better than the rest of humanity and immune from human psychology?

Computers are objective. Mathematicians are human beings.

Human beings need to be objectively checked, and not just rely on each other's word.

Mathematics is too important to be left up to such vagueness as the judgement of the human animal, and in applied mathematics, it's not.

Why shouldn't "pure math" be just as good as applied mathematics then?

Let's bring "pure math" into the modern world and require that human frailty be taken out of the picture.