Re: "Math-o-matics"

I simply do not believe there are this many
people
devoted so
passionately to the study of mathematics so
immature.

Look in the mirror sir.

Well strike "immature" and replace it with "word that
does not exist but describes people who use foul
crude language including "rape", "idiot", "imbecile",
"***", during communication about mathematics".

Thanks,

Musatov


There are a lot of people out there these days, even
mathematicians and math students, who use such nasty
language. I have certainly met my share of such people.
But I also have met multiple mathematicians who are
very kind and who use clean, non-insulting language.
And of course I have met others like this who aren't
in mathematics. Such language is nasty, and I don't
like to hear it or use it although sometimes it is
very, very tempting to use it with some people because
of who they are, that it seems like only these kinds
of words can adaquately describe them. There is so
much hatred in this world today that I constantly wonder
what is wrong with people these days.

I'm not familiar with whatever math you are trying to do,
but it is definitely not standard, mainstream mathematics.
It seems to me that you are supporting those who want
to change definitions of numbers or arithmetic of numbers
or something else because, if that proof that 2^2 = 3
is correct (in the sense that whatever axioms and
assumptions you are using logically lead to this
conclusion), then whatever axioms or definitions are
being used cannot be standard ones for mathematics because
the standard definitions and axioms of mathematics do
not lead to this conclusion. If the axioms and definitions
used in this proof are standard ones, then the logic
of the proof is flawed somewhere. I can't say which is which
for sure because I haven't seen the proof; all I saw was
a post with reference to this proof in its title, and the
post itself wasn't even about this proof.

It is very common for those who introduce such math to
be ridiculed, whether such math is right or wrong.
Cantor was ridiculed for his theory of infinite sets.
I'm not sure if Grassmann was really ridiculed or not
for his exterior algebra, but he definitely did not
receive recognition during his lifetime and later quit
mathematics and went into linguistics. And mathematical
cranks are ridiculed a lot simply for working on math
that is known to be wrong, even more so when the crank
knows his math is wrong.

Such ridiculing often goes too far and is often too
harsh. It's better to criticize kindly and to be
specific as well. I had a referee a few months ago
who rejected my latest research paper rather quickly
(he got the 20-plus page paper on Friday and rejected
it by Monday), and he was pretty nasty in his
criticism and even made several false claims. Even
worse, his comments weren't specific because he
didn't even bother to check the paper carefully,
and he outright admitted it! And then he called my
other two papers published in that same journal
as papers that harm the journal's reputation, so
he insulted not only me but the two referees who
accepted my other two papers. So nasty criticisms
and insults hurt. And they aren't helpful if they
aren't specific. However, it becomes tricky if
a person won't respond well to criticisms that are
kindly worded. But harsh criticisms often don't
help the ones criticized to improve and may even lead
to nasty arguments or fights. That is my take on
criticisms of other people's work.

Jonathan Groves
.

Quantcast