Re: JSH: Learning consensus


jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
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.

But only after calling people "liars" for months because they've found
a mistake.

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.

And explain again why computer programmers -- who are human beings who
are just as fallable as human mathematicians -- can't possibly make
mistakes.

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.

If one of your proofs was fed into a machine, and it found a mistake,
would you call it a liar for 3 or 4 months?

Come to think of it, have you checked _any_ of your results by
computer?

Well, I can answer for you: No. For instance, the surrogate factoring
"algorithm", which fails for numbers as small as 15. Even though it
only involved programming 4 lines in any computer language.

--- Christopher Heckman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
    ... You people repeat what you've been taught like good little cows ... My point is that the urgency with which math people follow each other's ... system that only rewards those who can get other mathematicians to ... The computer programmers. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Questioning certainty
    ... That's a lot of what makes it extreme. ... medieval techniques used by today's mathematicians, ... my insulting you was all part of the brainstorming process. ... mistakes are just along the way... ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Any macro for inserting math "normally"
    ... it correct because readers make the same mistakes. ... physicists... ... They make and correct for the same mistakes. ... I know of mathematicians writting programs and they make no mistakes. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: When a mathematician makes a mistake...
    ... I am a mathematician with a math disability. ... It is highly unethical not to commit to rectifying scholarly mistakes. ... to them to fix it, or answer to it, or rebut it. ... That they can't be good mathematicians and are letting everyone down? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Math field, corrupted in late 1800s
    ... ideal theory. ... The unfortunate response of mathematicians at the time was to declare ... mistakes and amazing denial when it comes to important mathematical ... getting excited about it as they're cons in a corrupt system hoping to ...
    (sci.crypt)