Re: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

From: Michael Lockhart (ml1000_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:50:12 -0400

"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0408281616.273c478b@posting.google.com...
> Matt Grime <mattgrime@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2004.08.24.07.27.03.860849@o2.co.uk>...
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> So you aren't actually sure that it is a mistake then? Someone might
>> think
>> that you've not actually read and understood the proof. Or any
>> mathematics. So where does the proof go wrong? Where is his mistake in
>> showing that elliptic curves (or galois representations) are modular?
>> (something to do with the same L-series, isn't it?). The proof isn't
>> *just*
>> that the sets of each have the same cardinality.
>>
>> And how about posting examples of mathematicians making errors in the
>> manner you claim they have?
>
>
> It's not about me. Who cares if I've read through and understood what
> people keep *claiming* is a proof, when I'm saying that the *entire*
> approach fails from logic?
>
> Yes, logic is that powerful. Some of you seem to think that you put
> the label "mathematics" on something and logic no longer applies.
>
> If mathematics is consistent then it must be logical.

If you understood the proof, you might understand its logic. Obviously not
understanding the proof, it is ridiculous for you to attempt to apply vague
logical fallacies in a slipshod manner in an attempt to "fit" the proof into
one of them. Read the proof and understand it. Learn what logical
fallacies really are, instead of typing them in on google and seeing if the
wording sounds "useful" against some random proof. Then, if you're still
convinced there's a problem, you will at least know what it is.

Until then, you're just whining.

Michael

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lying about the distributive property
    ... of the function has no impact on the distributive property is now key, ... You are making a basic logical fallacy. ... functions but has to do with the logical mechanics of mathematics. ... trying to figure out your mistake you just call everyone else stupid. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... a typical mistake when using the immediate value. ... there is something wrong with mathematics. ... No idea what "mathematical reasons" these are. ... Set theory leads to intermediate values. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Ancient Magma Superpiles May Have Shaped The Continents
    ... They are so filled with so many logical fallacies that ... You made the claim (mass of Earth changes and so does the moon's). ... is not a claim, you idiot, it is an answer and is its own proof, you ... think of me and that that is why you made the mistake, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Ullrichism; Was: a theory of countable reals
    ... that rebuke, and with it's appropriateness in this newsgroup. ... deals with mathematics education, I forget the name of that ... if anyone can see where they made a mistake. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... > Jim Spriggs wrote: ... > any implied insult. ... > I obviously made a mistake there too, ... while at the same time founding their mathematics on logic. ...
    (sci.logic)