Re: JSH's mistakes happen all the time

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 07/18/04 

Date: 18 Jul 2004 14:58:50 -0700

Matthijs Hebly <heeb@iname.com> wrote in message news:<7UyKc.159339$3N6.134935@amsnews05.chello.com>...
> James Harris wrote:
> > Now a poster has found a minor series of mistakes in my APF paper, and
> > I admit some chagrin. But mistakes happen. As an author you can
> > write something and for a lot of psychological reasons (and just plain
> > carelessness) miss mistakes.
> >
> > I don't know why I wasn't notified of that mistake by Ioannis Argyros,
> > but given what I've seen from editors at Southwest Journal of
> > Mathematics, I'm not surprised.
> So it's *other* people again who are to blame?

OOPS! That should be Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics. Interesting that the poster didn't point out that little
mistake.

I think this post emphasizes my point that computers should check math
"proofs", as notice below how *protective* this guy is about Andrew
Wiles.

Now it shouldn't surprise anyone who knows human nature, but it amazes
me that mathematicians get away with claims on gigantic papers of
hundreds of pages where mathematicians check each other, and it's
obvious how they feel about each other.

Now then, Ioannis Argyros is the chief editor of the Southwest Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics, and they did put my paper out at
least for a while, and yes, the mistake in the paper is a minor one,
but at least one sci.math poster has been posting a lot recently as if
he thinks it's a big deal.

Now *reasonable* people can question whether or not the other papers
published in that journal were properly reviewed. To see a listing of
those papers, consider the following link:

http://rattler.cameron.edu/swjpam/vol2-03.html

Now I wonder if it might not be a good idea to contact some of the
other authors so that they know about these issues.

> > There are now questions for all the papers published by that journal,
> > and it might be time for me to notify the other authors given this
> > latest issue.
> You think anybody will pay attention?

That's irrelevant.

I see a lot of posters here are really social creatures who are
obsessed with social issues.

Are any of you mathematicians?
 
> > Now, even if the mistake had been noticed--as it should have been--...
> Yes, it should have been noticed *BY* *YOU*.
>

But I didn't notice it until recently. However, it isn't too strange
for a rational person to wonder about others who didn't notice it
either.

After all, quite a few people have made hostile claims about my paper,
and here were actual, real, definite mistakes that they could have
harped upon.

But mostly they claimed that others had counterexamples to the
conclusion of my paper.

Remember I *repeatedly* noted that posters failed to consider the
actual paper itself, and here you just have further evidence to that
effect.

> <crip snap>
> > Now I'm a supposed "crank" with a lot of people hostile to me, who
> > have a strong motivation to find errors in my work,
> *You* should be the one trying to find errors in your work in the first
> place. You refuse to. Why, oh why? James?
>

Mistakes happen. Sorry, but I screw up. Perfection isn't something
I've attained yet, and sometimes I'm just sloppy.

I'm sure that I will continue to be someone who makes mistakes.

And I wish some of you would grow past thinking that you've discovered
some extraordinary thing to be pushed and pushed as if you found the
Holy Grail or something, when I acknowledge a mistake.

After all, I've had to do it quite a few times. It's not like it's
news.

> > I've acknowledged what are basically typos and given the fix.
> >
> > But Andrew Wiles is apparently a beloved member of a community that
> > wants to believe, and *does* believe, in him.
> Are you, in any way, comparing yourself to Andrew Wiles?!? He worked,
> for years, in silence. He didn't post every wet dream that he ever
> dreamed, AFAIK. Yes he made an error at first. That's possible when
> proving a theorem that's been out there for several hundreds of years.
> He corrected it. He prooved FLT. Don't *ever* compare yourself to him.

And notice that clearly the poster is extremely emotional. He even
mentions something with a sexual connotation, and defends Andrew Wiles
as if that person were a close intimate.

I'm sorry but I don't care if you wish to worship Andrew Wiles. I
don't care if you think it matters how quiet he was, or how long he
worked, or anything else of a social nature.

Math proofs don't care either.

Get it through your heads people: social issues have no mathematical
relevance.

You can all deeply love someone and they can still not have a correct
mathematical proof.

It is not reasonable to suppose that when even short papers of a few
pages can have rather obvious mistakes that escape angry eyes looking
for errors to harp on, like with my mistakes, and then come back to
claim that papers of hundreds of pages written by beloved members of
your own community are perfect.

Wiles needs absolute perfection in his argument.

99% desn't cut it with a math proof, and neither does 99.999999999%,
as a math proof beings with a truth and proceeds by logical steps to a
conclusion which then must be true.

For every step to be logical it must be logically perfect.

And emotion doesn't change that, no matter how much you love some
particular person.
 
> > Mistakes happen. And people can overlook them, for many reasons.
> JH's paper happened, was looked over, and forgotten, for many reasons.
>
> M.

And it's relevant for me to note that a lot of posters don't like me,
and those same posters like to harp on mistakes, like look at that ***
Winter guy who has WEBPAGES copying posts from years ago with flawed
arguments of mine.

Now I point out that with my short work you people failed to harp on
this particular mistake until one of you started now, and you think
you can protect Andrew Wiles with an emotional outburst that sounds
like you want to start crying?

Are any of you mathematicians?

James Harris