Re: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 08/23/04 

Date: 23 Aug 2004 15:28:17 -0700

Alex Hunsley <lard@tardis.ed.ac.molar.uk> wrote in message news:<10ijeenoj1lrse3@corp.supernews.com>...
> James Harris wrote:
>
> > Looking over my threads I talk a good bit about sci.math'ers who
> > dispute reality--living in their own little fantasy world--and
> > sci.math'ers claim I live in my own little fantasy world, so what's
> > the answer?
> >
> > Well it is a *math* newsgroup and you'd think that math would be
> > enough, but I've noticed repeatedly that certain posters say things
> > that go against rather basic mathematics, and somehow many of you seem
> > to suddenly forget basic mathematics long enough to believe them.
> >
> > But it's not just a sci.math thing, and mathematicians rather
> > bizarrely ignore logic itself in claiming that Andrew Wiles found a
> > proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, and his mistake is so basic there's a
> > name in logic for it:
> >
> > Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
>
> James, why don't you write up this error you think you've spotted and try to
> get it published? If you're truly onto something, it might be a good idea!
>
> alex

I've learned to talk out things until I'm satisfied LONG before I even
think about writing a math paper.

Much of what I'm actually trying to do on sci.math is talk out ideas
and get good critiques to evaluate them.

Unfortunately I have some parasites who tend to mess with the system.
Still I usually, eventually, get some on-point observations here and
there from others.

What I'd like is for some airing out of this particular charge.

I say that Wiles made a basic logical error which is essentially
looking at what may be a coincidence and mapping what may be a LOT of
coincidences to make a "proof" which turns out to be false.

In the real world the logical error is rather commmon, and in the math
world it's a little more interesting because in mathematics you can
map INFINITE sets and still, amazingly enough, have the equivalent of
a coincidence.

If I'm right, to me it's not nearly as big of a deal as you might
think, though to others it should be.

Besides at the rate I'm going with my ideas, it could be quite a few
years before my critique can drill through mathematicians' resistance,
so for now, it's just fun to muse.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Just plain silly
    ... >> some kind of spoofed identity of James Harris. ... >Mathematics, and you can excoriate people who post in support of me, ... >History will judge you that way, as a vicious mob that reacted as so ... >future mathematicians who will justifiably hate you because they will ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math research, passion is importantQ
    ... >in the appropriate field of mathematics. ... James Harris and Quinn both _said_ several ... mathematicians" review his proof in his "closed list". ... not accept their "facts" as facts. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Sweep likely
    ... >> exchange of insults, I can gladly comply. ... And I need not remind you of James Harris' ... yet you elevate it to "treats" against Quinn. ... >> without commenting on your mathematics, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: My polishing mathematics
    ... first manufactured JSH polishing mathematics in about 1886. ... outstanding trademarks was Monkey-Butt Sapolio, ... made from finely ground quartz and James Harris tallow mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Quadratic residue method for finding primes
    ... related to Goldbach's conjecture, which can be found on my blog. ... James Harris ... quadratic residues for finding primes, ... Specifically, due to your poor understanding of said basic mathematics, I wasn't sure exactly what you were yaking about. ...
    (sci.crypt)
Quantcast