On Monday, January 6, 2014 10:47:20 PM UTC-8, Virgil wrote: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > "Port563" <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > > A QUESTION FOR THE (UNRECOGNISED) MATHS GENIUSES.... > > > > > > "You" (plural, you know who you are) claim to be able to solve hosts of the > > > great problems of mathematics, both unsolved ones or ones solved > > > unnecessarily lengthily (in your opinion) or wrongly. > > > > > > Goldbach, Riemann, FLT, odd primes, infinitude of perfects, twin primes, > > > continuum hyp... all demolished. > > > > > > You ascribe this to one or both of your own brilliance and the general folly > > > / stupidity of "organised" / "conventional" mathematics. > > > > > > These same great problems have exercised and flummoxed not only the likes of > > > myself (and I was pretty quick in my day, with a number of prizes and scalps > > > under my belt), but far more significantly, have defeated many of the > > > world's greatest minds of our time and for centuries, sometimes millennia, > > > before our times. > > > > > > OK, for the sake of argument we suspend disbelief, and assume your > > > proposition is substantially true. > > > > > > ***************************** > > > > > > Explain, then, why "you" never participate in threads where relatively > > > trivial questions are asked, which should be an absolute wheeze for you to > > > solve instantly, given your enormous skills, insight, instinct, intuition, > > > abilities.... > > > > > > You never ever do. Even though it would be no effort at all. Right? > > > > > > Why is this the case? > > > > > > Can't be because you are too busy, as you have time to respond to those > > > trolling you, and these trivial problems would take you seconds to do. > > > > > > Can't be because you don't want to help, as your sharing your great > > > discoveries with us (whether we want them or not) shows you are altruistic > > > and humanitarian. > > > > > > Can't be because you want to delegate it to us - we are likely to mislead > > > the poor questioners, by our "wrong mathematics" and clumsiness. > > > > > > Can't be because they're too trivial, as you know what we could say then. > > > > > > ***************************** > > > > > > What do you think Occam's Razor suggests is the reason "you" never solve, or > > > even attempt to solve, these far simpler problems? > > > > > > I mean, I have some nice ones about (say) hyperbolae and hyperbolic > > > functions, or for those of you who don't think irrationals exist, some easy > > > ones in number theory - naturals only. I have answers, but my methods are > > > probably long-winded and clumsy, if not actually wrong. > > > > > > Will "you" help me with some of these? > > > > A problem which offers no challenge to a particular person may not > > interest him or her enough to provoke a response from that person. > > > > A problem which offers too great a challenge to a particular person may > > not interest him or her enough to provoke a response from that person. > > > > A problem which is outside the areas of interest of a particular person > > may not interest him or her enough to provoke a response from that > > person. > > > > A problem which appears at a time when a person has not enough free time > > to deal with it may not provoke a response from that person. > > > > And I am sure that there are other reasons. > > --
I suspect the OP is referring to such geniuses as Archimedes Plutonium, the Hope Research folks, herc, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I took the tone to be somewhat jocular and ironic.