Re: JSH: One mystery remains

jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
T.H. Ray wrote:
I want to know why any of you would think that I am
wrong at this
point.

Because mainly, you have provided no context in which
one could even possibly think that you are right.

So publication in a peer reviewed math journal is not such a context?

One does not just "throw out some ideas" and "play
around with some concepts" and come up with what is,
to a mathematician, a recognizable proof.

Proof has form and meaning. You have to supply that,
not your reader.

Forget the calculational examples. Even aside from the
fact that many of them are clearly wrong, they have
no meaning outside of theorem and theory.

Mr. Harris, it really is not all that difficult to
learn proof methods. Yes, it is hard to execute them,
and hard to know which to apply to the problem at hand.
If your object is to convince anyone that you know what
you are doing, however, you must challenge yourself to
learn the language.

Tom

Groupthink.

One of the most important events for me was getting to talk to a
leading mathematician at my alma mater Vanderbilt University where I
could hash it all out on the chalkboard, which was done at his request.

I drove over four hours from Atlanta at his request so that I could
explain it in person--on the chalkboard.

Only took a couple of hours and we were in agreement on all of the
major points, but inexplicably to me, he just went home and sent me an
email later about how much he had enjoyed the conversation!


It all sounds so nice and civil. But I think the lily is being
gilded a bit here - the following is an excerpt from a post by
Harris on September 29, 2003:

=========================================================
Begin quote - JSH - Sept 29, 2003

Here's his [Prof. McKenzie's] invitation:

<Quote>
If you are ever in Nashville, drop by my office (with some advance
email notice so I can be sure to be there). If you can present these
ideas to me for about an hour in a setting where I can ask a jillion
questions, I imagine either I will come to understand what you are
doing and possibly be able to show you some tricks for explaining it
to other, or maybe I can be helpful even if it remains a mystery to
me.

Ralph McKenzie
</Quote>

So I tried to get him to let me call him on the phone. Here was his
reply:

<Quote>
Sorry, over the phone will not work. Blackboard, time, two people
present is the minimum requirement to accomplish anything.
</Quote>

So I did it. I drove back to Vanderbilt, which was my first visit in
over 12 years. I explained to Professor McKenzie, answered ALL
objections, and he blew me off.

I'm a loser. FUCKING super math discovery, a FUCKING ERROR that's
over a hundred years old and I FUCKING piss off the only people who
can help me. Screw with my alma mater Vanderbilt and all because I
can't seem to work with people.

But you're so dumb!!! Why can't any of you just accept mathematics?
Why do you listen to proven liars like Magidin?

I'm screwed. Mathematicians don't accept mathematics.

What can you do?

What's wrong with freaking mathematicians??!!! What's wrong with
you??!!!


End quote from Harris Sep 29, 2003
===========================================================


I must say, it's hard to see why you keep citing this encounter as
though it is something to brag about.

What did you mean when you said "and he blew me off" ?

It sounds like he was not too impressed with your math. I mean,
if he was, he would have asked you to come back and give a
seminar on it to the rest math department. He would have offered
to help you get it published. Given its importance, he might even
have arranged for you to have a visiting position. It would not have
just ended with "and he blew me off".


In reply I went off on him, and yup, I guess I ranted a bit as I could
not comprehend how I could explain every point, get agreement on the
math, and him just go on about his business like nothing.


I can think of one explanation ...


Oh yeah, he did say I lacked "polish" which goes back to that learn the
lingo thing, but when a mathematician can understand what I'm saying
and follow the math, then "polish" is really just about style, now
isn't it?


Sure. But lacking polish is a minor problem. If your underlying
ideas are good, lacking polish isn't important. That can be fixed.
I think Prof McKenzie was being polite. He probably perceived
more serious problems than just lack of polish. Any mathematician
would like to discover a Ramanujan, a diamond in the rough.
Prof McKenzie must have seen that what might have been a diamond
in the rough was actually just a turd in the mud.


And why in the modern math world is style so much more important than
anything else, even proof?

Or even publication?


Valid proof trumps publication. Publication confers no guarantee
of validity. And anyway, it's clear that publication of your paper
was a sheer accident and that the editor lied to you about peer
review. As with the Vanderbilt episode, it is hard to see why you
keep bragging about your paper having been published. Yes, it
was published for a day or so. But it is also the only paper I have
ever heard of that was forcibly withdrawn by the editor without
the author's consent. And that was done AGAINST the express
wishes of people here. The editor must have realized that the paper
was an absolute piece of crap and tried very hard to cover his care-
less mistake. And he treated you like dirt in the process. But
why do you keep bringing this up? It just makes you look bad, and
you already look bad enough.


So AFTER I had that drive to Nashville and that conversation, and the
long drive back home wondering what in the hell had happened that I
could explain, get agreement and then nothing, I kept at sending my
paper to journals and SWJPAM published!!!

I thought it was finally over.

But the sci.math newsgroup erupted, as publication meant NOTHING to
them.

NOTHING.

Publication in a peer reviewed math journal meant absolutely NOTHING to
sci.math'ers.


Sci.math'ers knew what that paper said. They identified errors
in it fully a year before it was published. It was a piece of crap.
The careless accident of its being publshed did absolutely nothing to
change that. Yes, people here think independently. Publication
is not, and should not be, taken as proof of validity. In any case,
the publication was an accident. That paper was never peer-
reviewed. Dale Hall was not one of the reviewers. You were
lied to. You know this.


There is no way to convince you people, as groupthink rules you.


That is so untrue. People here routinely disagree. If anyone
makes a mistake, someone else will pounce on it. This is a harsh
and critical forum with lots of mean sharks circling around to attack
even minor errors. If you are right and someone here says you are
wrong, someone else will call them on it. Note that that is not
happening. Sci.math'ers agreed regarding your paper not because
of your specious Orwellian explanation of "groupthink",
but because it was blatantly obviously just plain wrong. The same
is true of your present argument. You have been suffering from
delusional thinking at least since sometime in 2003.


Nothing means anything to you, not stepped through proof, not
publication, not knowing that the hammer is about to fall as I have
nice simple explanations and am back to writing papers.

Even knowing that the hammer will fall this time, and that you can't
get away again with bushwhacking a journal to get a paper censored, you
people blissfully chant nonsense, as if the real world doesn't exist.


I am sick of hearing about this 'hammer'. Quit bluffing and
threatening and start the Apocalypse. We'll see who is left standing.



But it does. And in the real world, publication does mean something.
Proof does matter,

Publication isn't proof.


and though it can take a while to convince people,
once they are convinced, they act.


I look forward to whatever actions you manage to instigate. Quit
bluffing and start swinging the Hammer!

Marcus.



James Harris

.

Loading