Re: JSH: How easy? Wiles's work's flaw

mensanator_at_aol.compost
Date: 03/19/05 

Date: 19 Mar 2005 07:20:13 -0800

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> David C. Ullrich wrote:
> > On 18 Mar 2005 15:25:35 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > >It turns out that the logical flaw in Wiles's approach just jumps
> out
> > >at you, if you're into logic, or statistics.
> > >
> > >Correlation "proofs" have been discounted for years, for good
> reason,
> > >and his entire approach is an attempt at proof by correlation.
> > >
> > >He correlates elliptic curves to modular forms, as mathematicians
> had
> > >found a modular form associated with each elliptic curve they
> tested.
> > >
> > >The more astute of you might realize that if the techniques Wiles
> used
> > >actually do appear to prove by correlation, then those techniques
> are
> > >flawed, and in fact my research into what I call non-polynomial
> > >factorization proves they must be flawed.
> >
> > Uh, yes, _if_ he's "proving by correlation" then the proof is
> > no proof at all. But that's not what happens - he actually
> > gives a proof, no "correlation" involved.
> >
> > The question had been around for a while - people conjectured it
> > was so on the basis of this "correlation". He didn't announce
> > he'd proved the conjecture on the same basis.
>
>
> I normally ignore Ullrich's posts as, well mostly he doesn't actually
> post mathematics, and I think a lot of his posts are meant to be some
> kind of psychological thing, like he's trying to play mind games.
>
> Notice here he doesn't really say anything mathematical at all, but
> that's not what I wanted to reply here to talk about, as I think it
> worth mentioning that the Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied
> Mathematics *was* at Cameron University, which is a part of
Oklahoma's
> state university system.
>
> And David Ullrich is a *tenured* math professor at Oklahoma State
> University.
>
> But when posters started ripping on mathematicians at a sister
> school--the editors of that journal--he said not a word that I
> remember.
>
> Not a word of defense for professors at a school part of the system
he
> himself is a part.

Defense? He should defend their action in yanking your paper?
Are you now saying yanking your paper was the right thing to do?

>
> Clearly sci.math is more important to David Ullrich than Oklahoma or
> his fellow professors. He care more about what you people think than
> the people who pay him, or why would he post so much here, yet not
say
> a single word in defense of his own?

Because they were wrong? Oh that's right, you're a veteran.
You've been brainwashed to always defend your comrades, even
when they're wrong.

>
> That journal is dead now. And for many of you it's just a little
> thing.
>
> The school may or may not feel a hit from this spectacle, mainly I
> guess because, who worries about Oklahoma?
>
> But one thing is for sure, David Ullrich doesn't. Even if he works
> there.

Surely the closing a a journal that had become the laughing stock
of acedemia is a good thing.

>
> He clearly doesn't feel like he owes them in the public eye, as I
don't
> remember him saying a single word in defense of the sister school.

And he's right, he doesn't owe them anything when they *** up.

>
>
> James Harris