Re: JSH: My working theory on the psychology
- From: jshsucks@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 13 Jul 2006 18:51:27 -0700
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
To me mathematics is about the search for truth as the highest ideal,
and a mathematical proof is a part of the ideal of truth as it is
perfect, absolute, inviolable.
A mathematical proof is just true, no matter what, and cannot be
broken, tarnished or made false.
A mathematical proof is an absolute outside of time.
So I wonder about people lying about mathematical proofs, and the
explanation I'm working on now is that for many of you, everything I
said above is foreign.
And I don't think you believe it.
So to you a mathematical proof is a human construct that can be broken
or malformed, or may be true one day and false the next, and your view,
I believe, is that most importantly proof is what people BELIEVE to be
true.
That would explain how people could keep lying about my research, I
think, as some part of them may think that if they just keep saying
it's wrong enough times, it may be wrong, as if there is some
changeable thing about the research.
In reality, my past mistaken ideas--when I thought I had proofs and did
not--were just wrong, and never right. Correct ideas of mine, are just
correct, independent of me.
I have no impact on the truth or falsity of even my own ideas.
Their truth value stands one way or the other--true or false--without
regard to me, at all.
That reality is what seems to be missing from the mental paradigms that
many of you are clearly using.
For many of you, I believe, there are no absolutes, not even
mathematical proof.
While to me, there is nothing outside of mathematical proof, so with us
inside of it as well, no thing stands apart from absolute truth, not
even nothing.
James Harris
It is correct that a proof is true and nothing can change that.
You say that you have a proof now that is correct. There is no way it
can be wrong, since you say you have a proof.
What makes this proof different than all the ones you were wrong about
before? You said they were correct. You said since they were proofs
that there was no argument about their correctness. Yet, they were not
really proofs.
You called people liers because they said that they weren't proofs. But
it turns out that they weren't lieing about them. All of the horrible
lieing mathematicians were actually telling the truth.
What, do you think, makes this time any different? The same people who
pointed out the flaws in your previous proofs, are pointing out flaws
in your newest endeavor. Since they were right then, it is probable
that they are right now.
.
- References:
- JSH: My working theory on the psychology
- From: jstevh
- JSH: My working theory on the psychology
- Prev by Date: Re: Attempts to Refute Cantor's Uncountability Proof?
- Next by Date: Re: JSH: Surprised even me
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: My working theory on the psychology
- Next by thread: Re: My working theory on the psychology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
