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


Then the answer -- apologies to Douglas Adams -- is 42.
What was the question?

Tom
.

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: In support of Keith
    ... math and computers aren't totally unrelated. ... The main reason was to avoid dealing with the inflexibility of the ... it does seem that many employers these days don't care what ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • 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)