Sunday, November 19, 2006
Highly stylized, very formal, completely wrong
The research of Andrew Wiles is a demonstration of why Middle Ages techniques which have dominated the mathematical world and to a large extent the academic world in general, do not work.
His paper is highly stylized in a special format that takes years to learn. And I can show how he fails with some simple examples like talking about objects with 4 wheels, to compare to his research relating mathematical objects with 4 numbers.
People go on and on as if proper respect and a great deal of prestige must be used when considering these people some society claims are brilliant, when their work is crap, because there is a process where you do certain things, then you too can be a math Ph.D, get published and build stature—based on the medieval rules versus actually accomplishing anything of value.
In contrast you hear about the modern world and the speed of business, which I'm sure many of you hate—that speed.
Innovation is continual which is how I can get on the web so easily and type up these posts—advancements with computers and worldwide communications have been dramatic.
Businesses have to be nimble and open to new ideas or they get beat soundly by the businesses that are.
But math people can ignore whatever they want. Sit quietly while dumb research is touted as brilliant.
And just not change because the medieval rules of their society protects them with things like tenure, lots of formality and hurdles for innovators to jump, and lots of ways that mediocre minds can protect themselves while doing nothing of value to society.
Brainstorming should be a crucial and well used part of modern problem solving in mathematics, but if it were then my using it on newsgroups would not be a reason for howling and accusations of insanity.
Good ideas should be grabbed up and prized, not lied about and denigrated as has been done with my prime counting research.
And lies should not be so easy.
With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime:
P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for i=1 to n of {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))}
where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt(x) then n is reset to that count.
I keep posting that all over the place to show you what real mathematical research can have done to it by your medieval society.
There isn't even another three dimensional prime counting function known.
Anyone who can web search can go now on the web and see for themselves that it is new, but posters have gone on literally for years claiming it's not.
Viable industries cannot behave that way.
You can't casually lie about hot new ideas and get away with it in the real world that is moving forward, versus your math world which is a dead zone, a dead pool where ideas are crushed, and people fight political battles and produce highly styled, very formal papers—that are completely wrong.
Like Andrew Wiles did.
My hope is that some of you will want to join the rest of us in the modern world.
His paper is highly stylized in a special format that takes years to learn. And I can show how he fails with some simple examples like talking about objects with 4 wheels, to compare to his research relating mathematical objects with 4 numbers.
People go on and on as if proper respect and a great deal of prestige must be used when considering these people some society claims are brilliant, when their work is crap, because there is a process where you do certain things, then you too can be a math Ph.D, get published and build stature—based on the medieval rules versus actually accomplishing anything of value.
In contrast you hear about the modern world and the speed of business, which I'm sure many of you hate—that speed.
Innovation is continual which is how I can get on the web so easily and type up these posts—advancements with computers and worldwide communications have been dramatic.
Businesses have to be nimble and open to new ideas or they get beat soundly by the businesses that are.
But math people can ignore whatever they want. Sit quietly while dumb research is touted as brilliant.
And just not change because the medieval rules of their society protects them with things like tenure, lots of formality and hurdles for innovators to jump, and lots of ways that mediocre minds can protect themselves while doing nothing of value to society.
Brainstorming should be a crucial and well used part of modern problem solving in mathematics, but if it were then my using it on newsgroups would not be a reason for howling and accusations of insanity.
Good ideas should be grabbed up and prized, not lied about and denigrated as has been done with my prime counting research.
And lies should not be so easy.
With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime:
P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for i=1 to n of {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))}
where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt(x) then n is reset to that count.
I keep posting that all over the place to show you what real mathematical research can have done to it by your medieval society.
There isn't even another three dimensional prime counting function known.
Anyone who can web search can go now on the web and see for themselves that it is new, but posters have gone on literally for years claiming it's not.
Viable industries cannot behave that way.
You can't casually lie about hot new ideas and get away with it in the real world that is moving forward, versus your math world which is a dead zone, a dead pool where ideas are crushed, and people fight political battles and produce highly styled, very formal papers—that are completely wrong.
Like Andrew Wiles did.
My hope is that some of you will want to join the rest of us in the modern world.
# posted by James Harris @ 14:20 
