Re: Pondering a shift
- From: JSH <jstevh@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 25, 9:35 pm, "Jason" <inva...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"JSH" <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ca4c4a5a-dfed-44bb-afe2-868d51f4cfd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<SNIP HOOKS>
<SNIP MATH?>
<SNIP WHINING>
James Harris
SOMEBODY IS TROLLING.........
Nope. I'm starting to ponder making a shift from ranting about people
in math society not doing their jobs to a situation where I'm known
for my research results, possibly despite them.
Like consider now. I've found that you can solve any quadratic
Diophantine in 2 variables of the form
c_1*x^2 + c_2*xy + c_3*y^2 = c_4 + c_5*x + c_6*y
by shifting to an equation of the form u^2 + Dv^2 = F, where v=x+y,
and the equations are all valid, and there is no argument about the
correctness of the theory!
But I'm still arguing with math people from the sci.math newsgroup and
just saw a reply from one of them named Tim Smith where he called the
result trivial.
I say, they make up their own rules and have no problem with never
putting this result in a single textbook, while continuing to push the
research they do, relying on more complex number theory.
For physicists that can mean that the mathematical community gives you
overly complicated tools where they KNOW there are simpler ways to do
it, where the simpler mathematics might lead to explanations in nature
that are obscured by the more complex techniques.
But they do not care.
More complicated results fuel more funding dollars and allow more
mathematicians to work in a particular area and from what I've seen
these people do not give a damn about anything else.
Not furthering knowledge. Not the "beauty" of the mathematics or its
elegance.
Nothing but protecting their funding and protecting their jobs.
Obscurity from the mathematical field then can be just about money and
jobs.
Which is why I call it white collar welfare.
James Harris
.
- References:
- JSH: Pondering a shift
- From: JSH
- Re: Pondering a shift
- From: Jason
- JSH: Pondering a shift
- Prev by Date: Re: Quantum Gravity 291.97: The Numbers 3, 4, 5 of the Probable Causation/Influence (PI) Set Turn Out to Be Key in Tree Number Theory
- Next by Date: Re: How much can you compress a particle?
- Previous by thread: Re: Pondering a shift
- Next by thread: From physicsworld.com newswire (Week 39)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
