Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Crackpot Proof Index of Math Professors: Wiles, Appel & Haken, Hales, Perelman
Replies:
12
Last Post:
Feb 17, 2014 1:05 PM




Re: Crackpot Proof Index of Math Professors: Wiles, Appel & Haken, Hales, Perelman
Posted:
Feb 13, 2014 3:30 AM


Old Math along with its journal publishing is dying out.
Every post of Archimedes Plutonium is a "published post on mathematics".
In 1993, journals were still the premier way to go.
As of 2011, journals are becoming more and more extinct.
What is better about non peer review of a publication medium like sci.math, is that the dissent and debate is also registered. So that goofball phony proofs like Wiles's FLT, or Appel & Haken's 4 Color Mapping or Hales's Kepler Packing or Tao & Green's run of primes those phony proofs receive the debate and criticism that peer review journals never provided.
If our legal system or physics were set up in the manner that math journals pre 2011 were set up, then we would have no justice for the "other side has no voice" and physics would be full of nonsense of Big Bang, Blackholes, dark matter, dark energy, Higg's boson and other assorted phony nonsense.
Peer reviewed journals are mostly entrenchment for failures of science.
Peer reviewed journals are similar to the phoniness that Bernie Madoff made with his tower of office buildings where analysts were doing no work but pretending to do investment as the ponzi scheme grew. What caught Bernie Madoff is outsiders complaining that it is impossible for a man to keep making such profits.
So, be happy, be pleased, as you watch the old peer reviewed journals sink out of sight and go extinct.
Why bother with getting the approval of another human being for science, when the results themselves tell you the truth of the situation.
Let the old fogeys, the fuddy duddies worry about peer review journal publications. The real mathematicians on the other hand produce more new results while the fuddy duddies waste time on peer review.
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:14:53 AM UTC6, John Gabriel wrote: > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:46:15 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > Now years ago the math and physics crackpot John Baez put together his index but failed to give an index for mathematics professors. This is an effort to make up for what Baez missed: > > > > > > > > > > > > CRACKPOT MATH PROFESSORS PROOFS IN THE RECENT HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Usually it is an old male professor of mathematics who in his senior years realizes he contributed almost nothing to the subject other than teach it, and hits a panic button, so goes out and wants to slay one of the old unsolved conjectures. Call it old age panic. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. They have to have some control over the publishing of their eventual monstrosity of an alleged proof. In the case of Wiles, he was a chief editor of a journal and so he would be insured of publication no matter how ugly his final alleged proof would be. Hales was another journal editor so he would have assured publication regardless of the pathetic content. In the case of Perelman, though, we see the new publication by the Internet, so we see something new on the horizon of mathematics, that the old method of journal editors of hardcover journals is fading into oblivion. So that Wiles and Hales were not running after a clock of awards and prizes, but running after a clock of where they would see the world no longer esteems hardcover math journals as an acceptable offering of an alleged proof. And the world is requiring math proofs be displayed on the Internet such as sci.math, where real live debate can exist, not in the "protected midsts of a few journal editors". > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Their alleged proofs all have pathetic numerous cases, some have thousands of cases and one wonders whether they are reading a proof of math or reading a telephone registry book. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. All are Reductio Ad Absurdum, although Hales has tried to brand or paint his offering as a "proof by exhaustion", to sort of hide the fact that it is a proof of reductio ad absurdum. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. All of the crackpot proof offerings have a "real proof as a corollary of a theorem". What do I mean by this? I mean that in the case of Wiles's FLT, the true proof lies in proving Beal conjecture first and then FLT is a corollary. Or the proof that Kepler Packing lies in density of container as that of a maximum of 12 kissing points theorem and then Kepler Packing is a corollary. The fact that the true proof of 4 Color Mapping comes from Jordan Curve and Moebius theorems and thus 4 Color Mapping is a corollary. The fact that the Poincare Conjecture was never true in the first place when you precisely define finite versus infinite and thus there are natural holes and gaps between any and every two numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. Crackpot proofs hide behind arcane and abstract symbols, not accessible to anyone except those working in that subject. This symbolism is not helpful of the mathematics, but is used because it hides and shields those in that subject from having a proper debate that the mathematician is really "doing nothing". Much the same as in religion where you invent symbols that mean nothing such as the "holy ghost" in order to look busy. > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. Crackpot proof offerings have no new mathematics that helps solve other items of mathematics. Wiles's FLT is deaf dumb and silent about Beal conjecture. Hales's Kepler Packing adds absolutely nothing new to math to solve other items. A true proof in mathematics casts a light on related issues and solves other items. > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > Recently I reopened the old newsgroup of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of mockers and hatemongers. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutoniumatomuniverse > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium > > > > You forgot to add this one: > > > > 8. The academic bourgeoisie label you a crank if they disagree with your ideas. > > Anyone who reveals flaws in their ideas is also a crank. > > > > Long ago it used to be the Catholic Church. Now it's the academic bourgeoisie through Journals. If you don't get your ideas blessed by one of these assholes, there is no way your work will appear in a journal. Now that's freedom of thought and ideas for you!



