Re: JSH: Learning consensus

Rupert wrote:
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
Reality of "pure math" is that you depend on some other person saying
an argument is correct.

That's just fact.


Absolute nonsense. Anyone with any intellectual integrity checks for
themselves that the argument is correct.

But human nature is that you can fail to see your own mistakes, and
those of others you believe in.

I know, I've been there.

I've looked at arguments over and over again, wanting them to be true,
and hoping they were true, unable to see for myself that they were
wrong for long periods of time, but thankfully, I have always escaped
the trap of wanting something false to be true.

The problem with "pure math" is that you ultimately rely on human
judgement, which means you ultimately rely on human fallibility.

Remember the main point I have isn't that mathematicians lie to
themselves and others, but that by not having computer checking they
show that on some level they KNOW that there are major errors that no
one wants to know about, or accept.

Computers offer the promise of objectivity and escape from human
fallibility.

Computer science people can listen with amazement as mathematicians and
other math people go on and on about how computers can't comprehend
mathematics, knowing what I know, computers can do it--but math people
don't want to be checked objectively.

They want to rely on other people--people they trust, people who will
protect their own.

They don't want their fate decided by an emotionless machine that will
just tell the truth about whether a "proof" is a proof.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: You are completely out-classed
    ... Well it'd be nice if computers could check and at least see if they are ... Math people claim computers are too stupid to check them on their "pure ... go after academics in general. ... The story does not stop with mathematicians, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Good news!
    ... computers are too stupid to check them, or, who checks the computers ... most people EXCEPT mathematicians in "pure math" areas who would ... too stupid, or unreliable to do so, and a gullible world does not call ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Learning consensus
    ... The problem with "pure math" is that you ultimately rely on human ... which means you ultimately rely on human fallibility. ... Remember the main point I have isn't that mathematicians lie to ... Computers offer the promise of objectivity and escape from human ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Learning consensus
    ... The problem with "pure math" is that you ultimately ... fallibility. ... mathematicians lie to ... Computers offer the promise of objectivity and escape ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: demonic numbers !
    ... math can model what computers do. ... Small rounding differences are insignificant compared to speed ... Finance first, since I happen to be wearing an Algorithmics shirt today. ... after computers were, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)