Sunday, April 22, 2007
Nothing sacred to mathematicians
Carefully considering everything that has happened over the last few years I have concluded that mathematicians routinely lie about results that they know are not actually correct, which they know will be defended if challenged—which is a rarity anyway—by mathematicians as a group claiming the results are correct.
To some extent I think it is a view that sees modern mathematics as no longer connected to the real world in any way, where progress in the sciences is so unrelated that it no longer matters if a mathematician's claim is actually true as long as the argument looks a certain way and is convincing to other mathematicians.
See: "When is a proof?"
If you read that article or have read it before, and wonder what's the big deal, I say, what's wrong with you? How can a mathematician say that what is true is what is believed to be true?
People have believed that the earth rode on the back of elephants. They have believed that everything on the planet was made out of earth, fire, water and air.
Group belief is not proof, and isn't there a better way than just having some people SAY what is true?
Sure, either real world checks, like those of mathematics used in science, or have computers that check, but that's where the current situation gets mind boggling as to the gullibility of a world that has decided to forget that people cheat, as it allows mathematicians to shy away from computer checking of mathematical arguments.
To how many of you does it even occur that it might be possible?
Mathematicians lie on this subject more boldly than in other areas as they have to convince against the grain, to say that a supposedly logical and rigid discipline with a special formal language meant to make it hard for ambiguity cannot be checked by computer systems that supposedly love such things.
After all, programming languages like Java are special languages meant to limit ambiguity.
And computer programmers manage the level of correctness necessary for computers to run.
Checking a mathematical proof is in a sense, like running a computer program through a compiler.
I suggest to you that mathematicians do NOT want to be checked because they are often wrong, and not only are they often wrong, where it is extremely difficult for you or any one else to figure out that they are wrong, but if you dare ask them or challenge them, they will attack you, including using verbal abuse.
How dumb are you? How dare you trust when the New York Times or some other media just tells you these people are brilliant when no one actually checks and they have managed to fool a world in the most dramatic area we have as supposedly now computers are too stupid for their research?
Do they do mathematics or math-magic? I think to most of you what mathematicians do is some mystical, magical thing that cannot be encapsulated by our meager toys like computers so of course they cannot be checked by computers!
You don't see them as human beings but as magicians, so they get away with actually being con artists.
And if you have your own research outside of their system, as do I, at best they will ignore you, no matter what it is because nothing is sacred to them. Yet our world today might not exist if people like them had taken over when algebra was being discovered as who knew then?
Who knew at that time how important those beginnings would be to our future?
Today people in power can rob the world of those beginnings, for no reason at all, except to maintain their own power—their ability to claim correctness without being meaningfully checked.
Realize, these people gain nothing but the power and prestige of their position and the income related to it, to say things that are not true, and try to block future progress out of short-sightedness, meager real intellect, and parasitism.
But it is the world that lets them.
And all you have to do instead is ask for computers to check. Really ask, not politely and run away as soon as the mathematicians start abusing you (when some of you will truly realize they ARE cons), but really ask and push the issue.
If I am wrong about them lying, what's the loss? We'd have computers that can check as I assure you of one thing, logical arguments under a system with a special formal language CAN be checked by computers as that's all programs are. Sure there can be other problems like with programs having bugs that escape compilers, but we do use spell checks without expecting computers to write the entire book, now don't we?
Don't let simple dodges from con artists fool you. Computers do NOTHING today in checking most of these people. Anything on top of that would be a vast improvement, or do you really just want to trust like you do now?
To some extent I think it is a view that sees modern mathematics as no longer connected to the real world in any way, where progress in the sciences is so unrelated that it no longer matters if a mathematician's claim is actually true as long as the argument looks a certain way and is convincing to other mathematicians.
See: "When is a proof?"
If you read that article or have read it before, and wonder what's the big deal, I say, what's wrong with you? How can a mathematician say that what is true is what is believed to be true?
People have believed that the earth rode on the back of elephants. They have believed that everything on the planet was made out of earth, fire, water and air.
Group belief is not proof, and isn't there a better way than just having some people SAY what is true?
Sure, either real world checks, like those of mathematics used in science, or have computers that check, but that's where the current situation gets mind boggling as to the gullibility of a world that has decided to forget that people cheat, as it allows mathematicians to shy away from computer checking of mathematical arguments.
To how many of you does it even occur that it might be possible?
Mathematicians lie on this subject more boldly than in other areas as they have to convince against the grain, to say that a supposedly logical and rigid discipline with a special formal language meant to make it hard for ambiguity cannot be checked by computer systems that supposedly love such things.
After all, programming languages like Java are special languages meant to limit ambiguity.
And computer programmers manage the level of correctness necessary for computers to run.
Checking a mathematical proof is in a sense, like running a computer program through a compiler.
I suggest to you that mathematicians do NOT want to be checked because they are often wrong, and not only are they often wrong, where it is extremely difficult for you or any one else to figure out that they are wrong, but if you dare ask them or challenge them, they will attack you, including using verbal abuse.
How dumb are you? How dare you trust when the New York Times or some other media just tells you these people are brilliant when no one actually checks and they have managed to fool a world in the most dramatic area we have as supposedly now computers are too stupid for their research?
Do they do mathematics or math-magic? I think to most of you what mathematicians do is some mystical, magical thing that cannot be encapsulated by our meager toys like computers so of course they cannot be checked by computers!
You don't see them as human beings but as magicians, so they get away with actually being con artists.
And if you have your own research outside of their system, as do I, at best they will ignore you, no matter what it is because nothing is sacred to them. Yet our world today might not exist if people like them had taken over when algebra was being discovered as who knew then?
Who knew at that time how important those beginnings would be to our future?
Today people in power can rob the world of those beginnings, for no reason at all, except to maintain their own power—their ability to claim correctness without being meaningfully checked.
Realize, these people gain nothing but the power and prestige of their position and the income related to it, to say things that are not true, and try to block future progress out of short-sightedness, meager real intellect, and parasitism.
But it is the world that lets them.
And all you have to do instead is ask for computers to check. Really ask, not politely and run away as soon as the mathematicians start abusing you (when some of you will truly realize they ARE cons), but really ask and push the issue.
If I am wrong about them lying, what's the loss? We'd have computers that can check as I assure you of one thing, logical arguments under a system with a special formal language CAN be checked by computers as that's all programs are. Sure there can be other problems like with programs having bugs that escape compilers, but we do use spell checks without expecting computers to write the entire book, now don't we?
Don't let simple dodges from con artists fool you. Computers do NOTHING today in checking most of these people. Anything on top of that would be a vast improvement, or do you really just want to trust like you do now?
# posted by James Harris @ 10:52 
