Re: Some Simple Questions

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 03/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:36:35 -0600

On 17 Mar 2005 20:01:17 -0800, "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@aol.com> wrote:

>
>David C. Ullrich wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2005 13:59:20 -0800, "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@aol.com> wrote:
>> >David C. Ullrich wrote:
>> >> On 17 Mar 2005 06:02:30 -0800, "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >> >1. If someone says "I have a system that produces X" and in their
>> >> >paper that introduces and explains the system there are no
>examples
>> >of
>> >> >an X that is produced, does that demonstrate that the system
>cannot
>> >> >produce X and the statement that it produces X is false?
>> >>
>> >> Of course not. What a stupid question.
>> >
>> >Why leave out a demonstration of the system actually working? Why
>> >believe something that hasn't been shown to be true (speaking of
>> >"stupid")? That seems to me to violate fundamental principles of
>> >science.
>>
>> Supposing for the sake of argument that my answers to those questions
>> were
>>
>> >Why leave out a demonstration of the system actually working?
>>
>> "Who knows? Bad idea = bad, bad, bad!"
>>
>> >Why
>> >believe something that hasn't been shown to be true (speaking of
>> >"stupid")?
>>
>> "no possible good reason, none whatever"
>>
>> >That seems to me to violate fundamental principles of
>> >science.
>>
>> "Absolutely, it certainly does",
>>
>> my answer to your first question would _still_ be
>> "Of course not. What a stupid question."
>>
>> Why don't you read the question you asked again?
>> You asked whether omitting a demonstration of
>> something demonstrates that the something is false.
>
>Not so. You're the one who didn't read the question (or are
>intentionally misrepresenting it.) You are misquoting me. The
>question was actually,
>
>"If someone says "I have a system that produces X" and in their paper
>that introduces and explains the system there are no examples of an X
>that is produced, does that demonstrate that the system cannot produce
>X and the statement that it produces X is false?"

Uh, right. Let's assume that the previous paragraph is an accurate
quotation.

Now pay attention for a second. That's an utterly stupid question.
Let us suppose that someone says "I have a system that produces X"
and in their paper that introduces and explains the system there
are no examples of an X that is produced. I hope that quotation
was accurate enough. Asking whether this demonstrates that the
system cannot produce X and the statement that it produces X
is false is hilariously stupid.

Look. Here's a claim:

(*) The 'system' "take finite sequences of primes and multiply
them" can 'produce' every integer n >= 2.

Now note that there is no proof of that claim anywhere in this
post. And no examples of producing _any_ positive integers by
multiplying primes. How could anyone possibly imagine that the
fact that the claim is not proved in this post implies that
the claim _is false_? This is ludicrous.

As I suggested: Why don't you re-read the question? It's
_such_ a stupid question that it can't be what you actually
meant to ask.

>Of course what you quoted is stupid. Since journals typically don't
>publish the same result twice, for any result that has been referred to
>more than once there will be at least one reference that doesn't
>prove it within the same paper. But that's not what I said.
>
>I specifically referred to "in their paper that introduces and
>explains the system" (which you conveniently omitted), and for good
>reason. The implications of this phrase include:
>
>1. Being the paper "that introduces" the result, it will generally
>be the one referenced most when that result is discussed, since (a) it
>is the seminal paper, and (b) other papers are not likely to have a
>complete proof (as alluded to above.) Furthermore, the first paper is
>likely to be the one most difficult to get accepted for publication,
>since subsequent papers have the acceptance of the earlier papers to
>bolster their attempts to publish follow up reports.
>
>Thus there is all the reason in the world for the authors to give as
>complete and convincing an exposition as they can. It makes no sense
>for them to be skimpy.
>
>2. Since it is "their paper" (the originators of the system), they
>are in the best position to be able to utilize the system to its
>fullest. If they can't get it to produce anything, who can?
>
>Or maybe you left out "in their paper that introduces and explains
>the system" because you didn't realize the implications (above)?
>That is, did you actually think that your quote was equivalent to what
>I said?
>
>Yes ==> you didn't realize the significance of the phrase you left
>out. You were just being a bit dumb. ("I hadn't drank my coffee
>yet." as you say.)
>
>No ==> you intentionally presented a quote different from the actual
>one. Shame on you.
>
>> That's an awesomely stupid question, and nothing
>> you say above has any relevance to that whatever.
>
>(1) "Why leave out a demonstration of the system actually working?"
>: If they give no examples, then they are not demonstrating that the
>system is actually working. Thus I asked why they were leaving that
>out.
>
>(2) "Why believe something that hasn't been shown to be true
>(speaking of 'stupid')? " : Since they haven't demonstrated
>that the system can in fact produce X, they are suggesting that the
>reader believe something that hasn't been shown to be true (which I
>think one could reasonably characterize as being "stupid".)
>
>(3) "That seems to me to violate fundamental principles of
>science." : I think it's fair to say that in science one doesn't
>believe claims without their being substantiated.
>
>"Unproven statements carry little weight in the world of
>mathematics." - Amir D. Aczel
>
>C-B
>
>> ************************
>>
>> David C. Ullrich

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some Simple Questions
    ... That's an utterly stupid question. ... >that the system can in fact produce X, they are suggesting that the ... >> David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Some Simple Questions
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... What a stupid question. ... that people should accept that he does based on his mere assertion. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Some Simple Questions
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... What a stupid question. ... that people should accept that he does based on his mere assertion. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Some Simple Questions
    ... >believe something that hasn't been shown to be true (speaking of ... What a stupid question." ... >> David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Some Simple Questions
    ... >believe something that hasn't been shown to be true (speaking of ... What a stupid question." ... >> David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading