Re: JSH's mistakes happen all the time

From: Matthijs Hebly (heeb_at_iname.com)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:36:29 GMT

James Harris wrote:
> 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.
Should I have?

> I think this post emphasizes my point that computers should check math
> "proofs", as notice below how *protective* this guy is about Andrew
> Wiles.
I am protective of: my lovely wife, my home, my family, etc. Why oh why
should I be "protective" of Andrew Wiles? I like what he did, but he
should protect himself and his; I'm sure he can. If I understood well,
you couldn't do it, the FLT thing. Neither could I have done it, ever.
Difference is, I never pretended to.

>>>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.
So you thinks it's time for you to notify authors, but it's irrelevant
whether anybody will actually pay attention?

> I see a lot of posters here are really social creatures who are
> obsessed with social issues.
> Are any of you mathematicians?
No I'm not. Are you?

>>>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.
Maybe others looked it over, saw that it was not worth much, and
discarded it, even without seeing this particular minor mistake. I'm not
a mathematician so I cannot tell, but I guess real mathematicians have
experience in determining whether an idea is worth looking in to or not.
They should have! I'm a programmer, and I guess (hope) I can tell
whether an idea by some beginning programming collegue would be worth
looking in to, or not, because I've probably been there too. Usually I
can "sense" the kind of mistake a beginner is going to make, because I
made it too, this same mistake, years ago. In the process, I could
overlook another - minor - mistake. That would be irrelevant, because
correcting this minor mistake wouldn't make his/her work ok. The major
flaw would still be there.

<cccribbb zzznabbb>
>>>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.
That's ok. But I guess people here aren't in the first place talking
about this minor mistake. They seem to point out that your idea will
never working even with this minor mistake corrected.

> I'm sure that I will continue to be someone who makes mistakes.
We all make mistakes, but that's not the issue.

> 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.
Aren't *you* the one thinking that "you've discovered some extraordinary
thing to be pushed and pushed as if you found the Holy Grail or something"?

> After all, I've had to do it quite a few times. It's not like it's
> news.
No it isn't. It never will be.

>>>I've acknowledged what are basically typos and given the fix.
Which, according to many people here, doesn't solve anything.

>>>But Andrew Wiles is apparently a beloved member of a community that
>>>wants to believe, and *does* believe, in him.
I wouldn't know whether his proof is ok, but I guess a multitude of real
mathematicians checked it out and found no flaw in his corrected
version. If they ever find a flaw in his work, then that's ok, then FLT
will not be proven once more, but I understand he extended math as it
was by creating new techniques etc. He will still have made a *big*
contribution to mathematix, as did many mathematicians before him trying
to proof FLT. Now, James, do you still want to compare your work to his?

>>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.
My girlfriend (as in female) is a beautiful black lady from Nigeria. But
next time I speak to my shrink I'll ask him. OK? Next time you speak to
yours, ask for more pills.

> 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.
Get it through your head JH: your paper seems to have no mathematical
relevance. Prove me wrong.

> Wiles needs absolute perfection in his argument.
That's mathematics for ya.

> 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?
If you continue, I could start crying.

> Are any of you mathematicians?
RU?

M.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: solving this impasse could result in solving the Navier-Stokes
    ... I am trying to convince David that the ... elementary mistake in finite dimensional linear algebra, ... I really don't see how Robert Israel's example will lead to anything, ... But actually nearly all mathematicians try to think "out ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: solving this impasse could result in solving the Navier-Stokes
    ... diagonalize nicely are completely correct, ... elementary mistake in finite dimensional linear algebra, ... I really don't see how Robert Israel's example will lead to anything, ... But actually nearly all mathematicians try to think "out ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: WHAT THE MODERN MATHEMATHICIEN ARE SHY TO TALK ABOUT
    ... Then why are you posting your OUTLINE to sci.math? ... And the typos are very genuine. ... Mathematicians will be very happy to point out to you all the places ... > Well.IT is my mistake .I should had said that it is only a OUTLINE ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... > basic definition, but I wonder if this approach has been applied to deriving ... Mathematicians avoid confusion by assigning different names to ... It's not that cardinality is a mistake, ... Dave Seaman ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math research, passion is importantQ
    ... James mentioned that several mathematicians didn't notice a mistake he'd ... This, in my opinion, is completely creepy. ...
    (sci.math)