Re: JSH: Actually, easy answer anyway


jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
Lord Protector wrote:
jst...@xxxxxxx wrote:
[...]

I still worry about that so I go over the math, over and over and over
again, and I carefully consider replies.

No you don't. You freely admit you don't check your carefully. As for
carefully consider replies, don't make me laugh. You ignore any faults
with your work and just call everyone who disagrees with you a liar.


In the initial brainstorming phase I don't check carefully.

But most ideas don't survive the first phase anyway.

What is the first phase, then? A few days ago, you wrote a post which
says (paraphrased) that you sit down and type everything in. In fact,
here are your exact words:

"Yup, most of the time, I just kind of have an idea and start typing.
I edit as I go, and if I get really bored, I have a tendency to just
hit send, and forget about it, or worry later about errors." (Thurs,
Sep 21 2006 6:31 pm, thread "JSH: Thoroughly tested result", sci.math)

Extreme mathematics is a free-wheeling process in the EARLY stages, but
as time goes by and an idea survives all attacks I get much more
serious about checking it, until ultimately I check it as thoroughly as
I can.

And ONLY THEN should you post it. Remember, I _teach a class_ in
Extreme Mathematics, so I know the process, and have taught it every
semester since Fall 2003. The course webpage is at
http://math.asu.edu/~checkman/x94/ .

And I consider objections very carefully--in the latter stages--with an
eye especially for objections that show the idea is flawed.

Bullmuffins. If someone points out an error, you call them a liar. If
they say your result contradicts result X, you state that result X must
be false, that mathematicians who do research in that area are
suppressing the truth, etc. This is obvious from your posts.

I know you don't read other threads, but you might want to go through
the thread "Pythagorean Theorem is Wrong", in sci.math. You can read it
by clicking on the link below, or google for it in Google Groups.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/e28a4fccc4203481/f9ccf3b119c67406#f9ccf3b119c67406

Rod Reynolds is in the same position as you; he states that a
fundamental result in mathematics is wrong, all the accepted proofs are
wrong, and that his results are being suppressed. Sound familiar?

--- Christopher Heckman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: declicker component for home stereo?
    ... permanently installed in the phono chain. ... Thanks, William. ... I see it has gotten high praise elsewhere on the ... I use Goldwave declick/depop in the ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Advice for math phD programs: give up abstact algebra
    ... here we have replies without a single falsification; ... hurling insult after insult. ... Your replies to those posts made it perfectly clear that you simply hadn't made a good faith effort to understand the answers you were given. ... Luckily for mathematics, this is a problem for nobody but you. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Yeah fame is weird
    ... Google Analytics just for hits to my math blog, ... The error I found where you can easily show the ring of algebraic ... informing of the error, and putting up correct mathematics, like the ... Like reading through replies to me on Usenet. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Funi boosts Navarres Q2 profits
    ... your replies, but respond to them in whatever way amuses me without any ... worry that you actually MIGHT, one day, address a point in some manner ... floppy clown shoes when he says things like that... ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Re: help with Godels
    ... Nam D. Nguyen says... ... a "sequence" involves the natural numbers. ... practice and no one should worry at all! ... Godel's sentence is *provably* true using standard mathematics. ...
    (sci.logic)