Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Tautologies, math, and Wiles's work
Posted:
Jul 12, 2003 9:54 AM
|
|
a@shell3.shore.net (a) wrote in message news:<KRDPa.505$RS2.349@nntp-post.primus.ca>...
> In article <3c65f87.0307081838.46057123@posting.google.com>,
> James Harris <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Wiles's supposed accomplishment rests
> >*solely* on the assertion of a relatively small group of people that
> >his work is correct.
>
> James Harris's supposed accomplishments rest *solely* on the assertion
> of one person that his work is correct.
What can you do? Time after time I've faced false assertions, and
time after time people have been unreasonable in the face of
rationality. Sure I set out a few years back to find some answers to
some math problems, and made a LOT of mistakes along the way. Yup,
I've made a lot of mistakes.
But right now I'd like some cogent answers to what follows:
I've presented a problem with the logical foundation of Wiles's work
as it relies on association to prove a condition. More useful
discussion has worked things down to the assertion that Wiles used a
finite set, and "lifting" to prove the equality of two infinite sets,
where the equality supposedly forces the condition.
There is, however, no reason for the condition given, and no claim of
a reason, where the condition, from my understanding, is that every
elliptic curve is a modular elliptic curve.
The question raised before Wiles's work being whether or not an
elliptic curve could not be modular, where mathematicians had related
various elliptic curves that they tested to something called modular
forms, and found that every one they tested was modular. Then the
mathematicians Taniyama and Shimura conjectured that every elliptic
curve was modular, which my understanding means, they are associated
with a modular form, where that association can be described by 4
descriptors.
My understanding is that Wiles's work depends on association.
The logical fallacy I've put forward as a challenge against his work
is,
"Cum hoc ergo propter hoc".
James Harris
|
|
|
|
