Re: JSH: Your funeral

JSH wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:22 pm, Jim Burns <burns...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

JSH wrote:

[...]
No that is the rule that modern mathematicians use.

See: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html

That links to an article from a leading mathematicians that a
mathematical argument is a proof when professional
mathematicians say it is.

I think you might be referring to this (from Keith Devlin's
article "When is a proof?"):

: What is a proof? The question has two answers. The right wing
: ("right-or-wrong", "rule-of-law") definition is that a proof
: is a logically correct argument that establishes the truth
: of a given statement. The left wing answer (fuzzy, democratic,
: and human centered) is that a proof is an argument that
: convinces a typical mathematician of the truth of a given
: statement.

[later]
: [...] An argument becomes a proof when the mathematical
: community agrees it is such. [...]

First of all, I don't like the labels he chose, "right-wing"
and "left-wing", as I think they repeat unthinking stereotypes
about the political spectrum (not least of which is that there
exists such a one-dimensional line that political opinions can
be usefully pinned to). However, I do think the processes or
objects or whatever that he has so distinguished do deserve
labels (even if they are not to my taste).

I don't expect you to agree with me on this, but it seems to me
that Devlin filled his monthly column with four pages of very
un-remarkable descriptions of the way the field of mathematics
works and then gave it just a little controversy, just a little
spice, so that his readers wouldn't fall asleep in the middle
of it.

If, everywhere in his article that he referred to something
being or becoming a left-wing proof, he had instead referred
to it being or becoming /accepted as/ a proof, then everything
in his article would be completely uncontroversial. But
where is the fun in that?

A "right-wing proof" is just what is usually referred to as a
"proof", and a "left-wing proof" is a document that the
mathematical community (as an entity, in some way) has a great
deal of confidence in its being a "right-wing proof", that is
to say, a proof. Any particular /alleged/ proof can be
"right-wing" only (truly valid, but not accepted), "left-wing"
only (accepted as valid, but in error), both, or neither.

However, let's assume that you do not accept my re-interpretation
of Devlin's article. There is still the question of what this
proof-process for a left-wing proof consists of. (In Devlin's
terms -- in my terms, how does one create the consensus that
one has a valid proof?) Every example that he mentions (and his
article is mostly made of examples) is of mathematicians
trying to convince others (and themselves, often) that what
they have /is a right wing proof/.

Nowhere in his article will you find warnings of Consequences
if a proof is ruled invalid. No one seems to bolster their
case by trying to get someone else fired. No generals, no
security agencies, no mobs, no market crashes, no ends of
civilization. Just math. I'm sure you find it very peculiar.

Since you seem to be fond of Devlin's article, maybe you
will consider taking the mathematicians he writes about as
your models. That's right, James, go the social route! Finally
forget about your beloved Truth and leap whole-heartedly
into convincing the math world that you have a proof,
just as those other mathematicians do.

Just as they do, which is to say, convince the math world
by finding some convincing math and telling us all about it
... just as they do.

Perhaps you will say that you've been there and done that.

Well, one possibility to consider is that what you have is
not a right-wing proof, and others who know more math than
you can see that, even if you can't. If they can see that it
isn't a right-wing proof, then convincing them that it is one
(which, remember, is all that the mathematicians in Devlin's
article did) is sort of swimming against the tide, isn't it?

Another, more hopeful possibility is that you have never
seriously tried to make a mathematical argument that what
you have is a right-wing proof. Oh, sure, you've "tried",
if "trying" means trying to win a race after tying your own
legs together. You've never begun to study even the most
basic material that you're supposedly interested in. Is that
seriously trying?

Why not -- Hey! Just for the fun of it! -- sit down and work
through some math textbooks? Are you doing anything else with
your /next/ ten years?


That is why "pure math" is so dangerous!

Applied mathematics can be tested in the real world to see
if it has real value.

I can only assume you mean "is correct" by "has real value"
here, since this subthread is about the correctness of
various pieces of math, not their value.

The situation with applied math is not as simple as you make
it out to be. If something goes wrong with a particular
application of math to the real world, it could be the math
was incorrect, but it could also be that the math did not
model the real world as well as it was hoped to be.


While so-called pure math is just about people's
professional opinion.

See, I just don't get this. Of course, I disagree with you,
but, even assuming you're right, what's so dangerous about
/pure/ math being people's professional opinion? Let's
say it were some other profession, like art criticism. I'd
be willing to get behind saying that's a lot of professional
opinion. But I don't see what's so dangerous about art
criticism, even so. Do you care to clear that up for me?

Jim Burns


I skimmed as you seemed to be just dodging the irony of that
link as it described what you accused me of, as actually being
the position of a leading mainstream mathematician.

Ah. You skimmed, did you? Then maybe you should go back and read
what I wrote before you respond to it. I'll leave it all unsnipped,
for your convenience.

(By the way, whether or not it's the position of Keith Devlin,
we're in agreement that it /is/ /your/ position (which is what I
accused you of), correct?)

Still, just in case that's too much work for you, I'll give
you an executive summary:
-- I don't believe Devlin was serious, but just courting
controversy (on USEnet it would be called trolling).
-- Even if he were serious, I disagree with his interpretation
of the facts he relates. Calling a "left-wing proof" an
"alleged proof accepted as valid" reduces a *gasp* to a
*yawn*. Seems to me that proves his /alleged/ controversy
is isomorphic to a non-controversy.
-- Even if he were /right/, his paper is no sort of justification
for your attempt to "socially engineer" (AKA bully and lie)
the acceptance of your work as a valid proof (read that as
"create a left-wing proof). The examples in his article are
ALL of mathematicians arguing about the MATH. If you only did
that, I doubt anyone would so much as look at you funny.

Oh, and this stuff you typed below? I just skimmed it, but it
just looks like same old same old. Not much point in responding
to it, is there?

Jim Burns


Now my problem with math people is the refusal to accept even the most
basic proofs or direct demonstrations of value with mathematical ideas
they do not want.

Like the amazing arguments I have been in about my prime counting
function, where like I'll say there is no other known "prime counting
function" that relies on summing a partial difference equation.

That seems rather direct to me! But the babbling or outright lies in
response tell the real story of how your community operates.

Proof after proof that I have is denied and simple facts are denied,
like with my prime counting function or my new way to factor I call
surrogate factoring.

Or with new techniques I introduce like non-polynomial factorization
or tautological spaces so that people like you can simply say what you
feel like, whenever, where I catch you repeatedly and it does not
matter like your babbling on about Devlin's column.

Publication didn't even matter! You people just changed the rules on
the fly!

Your community learned to lie about math and it likes the way that
makes it feel.

And now you like lying. It is addictive like a drug because it is
easy.

The modern mathematical community learned that it was easier to lie
about math than keep discovering it.

And proof is useless in convincing you when you prefer the lies that
keep you happy.


James Harris

.

Loading