Re: JSH: One mystery remains

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!

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.

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?

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

Or even publication?

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.

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

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.

But it does. And in the real world, publication does
mean something.
Proof does matter, and though it can take a while to
convince people,
once they are convinced, they act.


James Harris


I was trying to help, and you reply like a lunatic.

Aside from the fact that you can hardly claim to have
published in a peer reviewed journal in which the
editor, from what I have read here, yanked your
paper without formal notice and dialogue (which if true
I find ethically questionable) -- you simply do not
present a recognizable proof. I have consistently
adjured you to get knowledge of how to write a proof
before you present your work for refereeing. This
knowledge isn't simply to show others that you have a
valid result -- working through a formal proof method will
inform YOU of whether you have a valid result. It
helps ensure that you spend less time "playing around
with some ideas" on Usenet, and more time working the
proof. If you don't do that, you can't do mathematics.
Not because I say so, but because that's what doing
mathematics is.

Tom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: One mystery remains
    ... So publication in a peer reviewed math journal is not such a context? ... Publication in a peer reviewed math journal meant absolutely NOTHING to ... There is no way to convince you people, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: One mystery remains
    ... So publication in a peer reviewed math journal is not such a context? ... Publication in a peer reviewed math journal meant absolutely NOTHING to ... There is no way to convince you people, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: One mystery remains
    ... So publication in a peer reviewed math journal is not such a context? ... Publication in a peer reviewed math journal meant absolutely NOTHING to ... There is no way to convince you people, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: One mystery remains
    ... So publication in a peer reviewed math journal is not such a context? ... leading mathematician at my alma mater Vanderbilt University where I ... Publication in a peer reviewed math journal meant absolutely NOTHING to ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: May be a short history of JSH? No offense.
    ... After years of claiming no mathematician in ... Gee, publication, AFTER people pointed out that the final conclusion ... have peer-review (despite claiming it), and too many bad papers were ... But this story has a happy ending for JSH; ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast