Re: JSH: Math as a religion


jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.

Not surprising. It's all about you, isn't it?

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

That's the criteria for religion? So it's ok for Michael Jackson to
suck little boys dicks as long as it's one of the sacrements of
his religion?

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

Oh, they're settled alright.

>
> 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.

So, can mathematicians get tax exempt status?

>
> Your breaking of your own rules proves it.
>
>
> James Harris

.