Re: JSH: Math as a religion

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> jstevh@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> > jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> [piggybacking, since I never got the original]
>
> >> You are no longer mathematicians or people really interested in
> >> mathematics, but just members of another religion and so, like people
> >> who are religious versus logical, you cannot be convinced by logical
> >> means.
>
> Really, James, the plagiarism of ideas is getting out of hand here.
> First you try to claim the mathematical predictions banner from Petry
> and now you trot out his mathematical religion rant. I fear that
> next, you'll say something about meaning and computation.
>

I don't know of any Petry.

RULES. You people are proving you are part of a religion by the rules
you break.

By the rules that supposedly govern math society, my results are
settled.

But you change the rules as you see fit, showing that you are not
people who are logical but are people who have beliefs which they hold
onto no matter what, like members of most religions.

It's the rules that you break that prove you are not rational, and when
I point that out, being religious on the issue you claim you don't
break your own rules.

But I have a peer reviewed and published result, where the proof is so
basic that it looks like a kid's homework problems from algebra, and
challenges can be shown to be attacking the distributive property.

The reason the rules are broken with my result is that among other
things it proves that Andrew Wiles didn't prove Fermat's Last Theorem,
as it takes away the wrong usage of Galois Theory.

By the rules there is no way to challenge my research as I have
mathematical proof.

By the rules you can attack my claim of proof, but then you must show
an error in the argument and your refusing to accept the distributive
property does not show an error with the proof.

It shows you just don't want to believe a mathematically correct
result, and being human beings you can just say, no.

You are members of your own religion that you just call mathematics.

Your breaking of your own rules proves it.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Math as a religion
    ... >> Really, James, the plagiarism of ideas is getting out of hand here. ... You people are proving you are part of a religion by the rules ... > challenges can be shown to be attacking the distributive property. ... > You are members of your own religion that you just call mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math and religion - is the very topic crankish?
    ... Obviously, mathematics is not a religion, which is ... sorts and infinity. ... Scholastic philosophy ... Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite". ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Praying man let his daughter die
    ... but also hampering scientific inquiry, ... So you do not consider mathematics science, ... ed., Truth in Mathematics, pp. 291-310 ... is the better religion, I would not necessarily go for the ToE (could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Praying man let his daughter die
    ... scientific inquiry is based on the idea that there *is* ... So you do not consider mathematics science, ... ed., Truth in Mathematics, pp. 291-310 ... is the better religion, I would not necessarily go for the ToE (could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • JSH: Math as a religion
    ... On that world Galois Theory is used for ALL polynomials without regard ... to reducibility over Q as people refuse to take square roots. ... mad, but refuse to acknowledge the correct mathematics, what can you ... You can't do anything as when math is a religion mathematical proof is ...
    (sci.math)