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:
Vietmath War : Communists; Math? Science of Precision
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Jul 12, 1996 6:33 PM




Vietmath War : Communists; Math? Science of Precision
Posted:
Jul 11, 1996 1:17 AM


In article <4s1u06$lpr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> If capitalism is so great over communism, it will win by itself, we > need not attack poor societies in the name of communism. How do you > tell a communist person apart from a noncommunist? How do you tell an > Infinite Integer apart from a Finite Integer? Math is supposed to be > the science of precision, but our modern day math is so screwed up that > it is no more precise than telling apart a communist Vietnamese from a > democratic Vietnamese.
Yes, math is the science of precision. So how do you recognize apart the Padic Integers (Infinite Integers) from the Finite Integers since both of them are essentially the Successor Postulate of endlessly adding 1 ? The definition of a Padic is the Successor Postulate, yet the Successor Postulate is a Peano Axiomatic to create the Finite Integers. How can you have Infinite Integers inside the Finite Integers?
Questions , questions which none of the math people want to even listen to. They all want to ignore it. Math is supposed to be the science of precision.
I have chosen the Vietnam War to illustrate the terrible shape and condition of the present day math community. How it ignores people who have legitimate gripes about the daily carryingons that goes on in math. How the math community is utterly closed to anyone who is not in the inner circle.
How those in the inner circle of math can manipulate the press, New York Times at the drop of a hat. And how the inner circle has even their own journals to use for their personal ends. Why did not Wiles use the California journal instead of his very own Princeton math journal  sort of like grading your own English papers, is it not?
The Vietnam War was a rich war in regards to events. It was rich in history and of course it will always be in the US people's conscious because it was the first war that the US lost. Vietnam was a genocide war, just as Afghanistan was a genocide war. Although neither Washington nor the Kremlin will ever admit to that perspective. What I mean by genocide war is a war that if fought, the only way to win is to go to extremes of either none or all. There was no middle ground. US could not have every Vietnamese line up and ask them "are you a communist" or give them a battery of tests to find out if a person was or was not a communist. A genocide war is that you do not get involved or you have to go all the way for total destruction.
Both Kennedy and LBJ knew and so did most people in the world that the US would not drop nuclear warheads on Vietnam. The whole world would be against the US if the US had done such a terrible thing. And it is a sad and pitiful chapter of US history that the Vietnam war was in fact a "breast beating" by dud presidents of president Kennedy and then LBJ. Presidents of the US, no matter how slow in mind should be able to recognize that you cannot tell a communist person apart from a noncommunist person. So why did Kennedy and LBJ send US soldiers to die over their "breast beating". Kennedy was too youthful and should never have been elected. He knew that the US had missiles in Turkey and surrounding the Kremlin. The Cuban Missile Crisis could have and should have been completely averted. It should never have reached its crisis point. The world knows how close we were to the brink. Vietnam was just another breast beating on the chest of a dud president. And LBJ was really unfit for the job after Kennedy for he was too much of a war hawk and a Texas war hawk who had it in mind that Texas bigness will win everything tackled.
My point is this concerning Infinite Integers. Infinite Integers is a series definition and the Peano Axiom is a series. They are identical. Math is precision and being the science of precision, you cannot use the Padics to prove something about ALL Naturals unless, unless you prove that the Padics are absolutely distinct and different from the Naturals. Wiles and Taylor in their FLT have ignored this gap and have blithely pretended that this imprecision does not exist. Or if they have confronted the problem, they have not assailed the problem but just have ad hominem attacked my complaint.
I like the Vietnam War as a analogy to the VietMath War, for it was rich in events and human actions, for a gamut, a wide range of human events and feelings came out of that war. The dud presidents that sent US boys there used the propaganda that they will make the world safe from communists. How do you tell apart a communist from a noncommunist person. Could lie from one day to the next. And how do you draw a line between a person being one ideology from another? How does Wiles or Erdos or Faltings tell apart the Padic Integers from the Finite Integers since both spring from the same Series. Math is supposed to be much much much more precise than any precision in politics of say telling apart a communist from a capitalist or communism from a democracy. Here in the US, the fact that some people live solely off welfare is that communistic or capitalistic?
My point is that mathematics in the year 1996 is a "twisted, gnarled, bent out of shape quagmire of imprecision ". And if nothing is done, then mathematics ought to be called the science that Ignores Imprecision.



