Re: Escultura affair: publication scandal

From: Norm Dresner (ndrez_at_att.net)
Date: 12/03/04 

Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:42:55 GMT

""E. Escultura"" <escultur36@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:200412021214.iB2CEml17454@proapp.mathforum.org...
> On 30 Nov 2004, Norm Dresner wrote:
> >""E. Escultura"" <escultur36@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ><a
href="news://200411301835.iAUIZpK23888@proapp.mathforum.org...">news://20041
1301835.iAUIZpK23888@proapp.mathforum.org...</a>
> >> On 27 Nov 2004, Norm Dresner wrote:
> >> >""E. E. Escultura"" <escultur36@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> ><a
>
>href="news://200411271503.iARF35e16701@proapp.mathforum.org...">news://2004
1
> >1271503.iARF35e16701@proapp.mathforum.org...</a>
>
> You've *proven* that you're not using the same language that other
professional mathematicians use. Anything else is simply a matter of
[probably correct] deduction in your axiom set which simply doesn't agree
with everyone else's.
>
> Norm
>
> Unfortunately, mathematics is not a popularity contest; it is a struggle
for precision. One of the requirements of mathematics is that every concept
must well-defined, that is, its existence, properties and relations with
other concepts must be specified by the axioms. The axioms are the basis of
proof. Proofs are nonsense unless they follow from the axioms. That is why a
true mathematician looks at the foundations of a field before doing anything
there. This is where Wiles failed miserably. Critique-rectification
naturally involves new language.
>
> E. E. Escultura
> University of the Philppines

No, it's not a popularity contest -- it's a game. Well, at least there was
a game called IIRC Wiff-N-Proof that taught the creation of and deduction of
correct logical propositions from axioms. If you're really a mathematician
then you already know that there are several different logical systems based
on differing foundational axiom sets and their semantics. Assuming your
system is consistent, you've simply created another one that's neither more
nor less correct than the others. What you see as "errors" in their system
results from applying your axiom scheme to someone else's system -- which
isn't valid.

    Norm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... most of the standard axioms would get scrapped ... you claim that set theory is ... theory in which to express virtually all of mathematics. ... S (call this function 'omega pre S'). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Robot Evolution
    ... no. Goedel proved a very limited thing about ... generated from systems of axioms "at least as ... accomplish mathematical reasoning. ... "If human reasoning about mathematics is ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... > This is not a job the axioms were ever meant to do. ... other person's interpretation require a winning strategy, no more, no ... I'm pretty sure than any model of set theory is intuitively ... figuring out how I tell what is real in mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... It's the *axioms* ... Otherwise it's not an axiomatic system. ... generator to compare to a proof checker in the first place. ... The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics starting using ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Towards a Formula for Primes
    ... I generalised the concept of a system of mathematics that moves a ... By the discovery of pseudorandomness in primes, ... I recommended that the XOR function be moved ... we have all the axioms we need in an "xor transarithmetic". ...
    (sci.math)