Saturday, August 05, 2006
JSH: Just consider John Nash
So I am saying that the difficulty of real math discovery was a problem some people decided to solve by making up stuff, and that they come after people who make real discoveries to preserve their system, which to some may seem like grousing over a personal problem with how I have been treated but hey, I have some other people for you to consider.
Like think of John Nash. Famous for winning a Nobel prize in Economics, and there was the movie "A Beautiful Mind", but if you think he has won a mathematical prize where it is a prize just for mathematics as an expression of recognition from his mathematical peers then, I would like you to reply with one.
I hesitate a bit with this one because I worry that maybe I missed one, or possibly since I last checked some mathematicians have decided to recognize him with some pure math prize, as there are some out there.
Last time I checked, he had none.
There are math prizes. Last I checked, unless I missed one, John Nash has none.
In constrast, Andrew Wiles has three, last time I checked.
So why would people who fake things a lot not want to recognize real achievement?
Read up on Britney Gallivan, who made this nifty little discovery when she was in high school. I bring her up and posters reply that hey, she is in MathWorld and the Wikipedia, as if that would be enough for any of them, if they had a significant mathematical accomplishment. Or they mention she was brought up on a TV show!!!
Or read about Anatoly Plotknikov who may have proven that P=NP years ago.
The problem for a system that is about math-ese and public perception that people are making real mathematical accomplishments when they are not is that it is problematic for that system if the bulk of people within it ever shift over to actually being producers who care about being correct—versus appearing to be correct.
Real discoverers are a threat to be handled. And they get handled, because the public does not protect them.
[A reply to someone who told James that John F. Nash and Carlton E. Lemke won the 1978 John von Neumann Theory Prize.]
Are you sure that's a math prize, as in a purely mathematical prize given by mathematicians?
I fear you are just going by the name, as it is includes the name of a mathematician, without checking more thoroughly into the details of who gives it and for what, though at least you put "operations research and management sciences", so were you willfully blind?
I don't think the organization that gives it is a mathematical one, nor am I sure that mathematicians give it, so that example, sadly would not apply, if I'm right.
[A reply to someone who wanted to know whether or not James can categorically state that the problem of factoring efficiently is now definitely solved.]
No. Clearly even if my approach can lead to a solution there would be hurdles to jump in going from the beginning idea to getting something that works practically.
And I have not begun to check it as I have moved on. Doing prime probability now.
My take on it, given where I left the research off at, is that it is scary enough that someone in the world should at least care to check and see, but given what I know about the mathematical community, it's unlikely anyone in the mainstream will check.
That makes it more likely that if it gets checked it will be someone outside of the mainstream.
So that means that if it is possible to develop that idea, and make it practical, it's most likely, in my opinion, that it will be done by a surprise source.
But I did my part, even sending the idea to someone in the U.S. military in the area of cryptography and verifying receipt. If my government is interested in the idea, it sure hasn't told me!
If it's not that can be considered to be a strong opinion that the approach is useless and I'll take it as such, and move on, though when I think about it, I can't quite see why it's useless.
But now I can play with primes!!! I seem to keep coming back to primes, one way or another.
And I'm happier and calmer playing with primes, so no, don't bug me about factoring!
Check out my blog or prior posts. Everything important I have to say on the subject, I've said.
Now, I'm moving on…
Like think of John Nash. Famous for winning a Nobel prize in Economics, and there was the movie "A Beautiful Mind", but if you think he has won a mathematical prize where it is a prize just for mathematics as an expression of recognition from his mathematical peers then, I would like you to reply with one.
I hesitate a bit with this one because I worry that maybe I missed one, or possibly since I last checked some mathematicians have decided to recognize him with some pure math prize, as there are some out there.
Last time I checked, he had none.
There are math prizes. Last I checked, unless I missed one, John Nash has none.
In constrast, Andrew Wiles has three, last time I checked.
So why would people who fake things a lot not want to recognize real achievement?
Read up on Britney Gallivan, who made this nifty little discovery when she was in high school. I bring her up and posters reply that hey, she is in MathWorld and the Wikipedia, as if that would be enough for any of them, if they had a significant mathematical accomplishment. Or they mention she was brought up on a TV show!!!
Or read about Anatoly Plotknikov who may have proven that P=NP years ago.
The problem for a system that is about math-ese and public perception that people are making real mathematical accomplishments when they are not is that it is problematic for that system if the bulk of people within it ever shift over to actually being producers who care about being correct—versus appearing to be correct.
Real discoverers are a threat to be handled. And they get handled, because the public does not protect them.
[A reply to someone who told James that John F. Nash and Carlton E. Lemke won the 1978 John von Neumann Theory Prize.]
Are you sure that's a math prize, as in a purely mathematical prize given by mathematicians?
I fear you are just going by the name, as it is includes the name of a mathematician, without checking more thoroughly into the details of who gives it and for what, though at least you put "operations research and management sciences", so were you willfully blind?
I don't think the organization that gives it is a mathematical one, nor am I sure that mathematicians give it, so that example, sadly would not apply, if I'm right.
[A reply to someone who wanted to know whether or not James can categorically state that the problem of factoring efficiently is now definitely solved.]
No. Clearly even if my approach can lead to a solution there would be hurdles to jump in going from the beginning idea to getting something that works practically.
And I have not begun to check it as I have moved on. Doing prime probability now.
My take on it, given where I left the research off at, is that it is scary enough that someone in the world should at least care to check and see, but given what I know about the mathematical community, it's unlikely anyone in the mainstream will check.
That makes it more likely that if it gets checked it will be someone outside of the mainstream.
So that means that if it is possible to develop that idea, and make it practical, it's most likely, in my opinion, that it will be done by a surprise source.
But I did my part, even sending the idea to someone in the U.S. military in the area of cryptography and verifying receipt. If my government is interested in the idea, it sure hasn't told me!
If it's not that can be considered to be a strong opinion that the approach is useless and I'll take it as such, and move on, though when I think about it, I can't quite see why it's useless.
But now I can play with primes!!! I seem to keep coming back to primes, one way or another.
And I'm happier and calmer playing with primes, so no, don't bug me about factoring!
Check out my blog or prior posts. Everything important I have to say on the subject, I've said.
Now, I'm moving on…
# posted by James Harris @ 10:40 
