Re: JSH's mistakes happen all the time

From: Virgil (ITSnetNOTcom#virgil_at_COMCAST.com)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:26:18 -0600

In article <3c65f87.0407191412.231ea13c@posting.google.com>,
 jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

> Matthijs Hebly <heeb@iname.com> wrote in message
> news:<xETKc.45464$qK.28714@amsnews02.chello.com>...
> > 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.
> >
>
> Yet you act as if you know that his work is correct.
>
> Actually you know what you've been told.
>
> Even if you've looked over his paper, I doubt you have the ability to
> check it thoroughly, and even if you do, I'm sure you didn't.
>
> Why didn't you?
>
> Because you believe what you're told.
>
> You are a follower.

In the matter of Wiles proof, how many people in the world are able to
judge its validity for themselves? Certainly far fewer that are able to
judge the validity of JSH's mathematical postings for themselves.
And in such a matter, one would be foolish to disregard the opinions of
those who are competent to judge.

On the other hand, those who have pointed out the many errors in the
works of James Harris have found those errors themselves, or at least
verified for themselves that they were errors, before posting about
them, so that JSH's primary critics are not mere followers, but those
who are competent to judge.

Relevant Pages