Re: Still a puzzle to me, my crackpot label


jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
Mentorus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:

What has surprised me is that it doesn't matter what your real world
accomplishments are, or how intelligent you've proven yourself to be,
or how rational you sound, like in posts like this one, the label seems
to be all-powerful.

Is see...this is a rational sounding post. There was I, thinking that
you sounded like a paranoid lunatic!


So what would convince you I'm not?

Anything? Or have you made up your mind?

What's wrong with this world?

Why do the people who lie and pretend to be something keep winning over
the people who can actually accomplish things and have demonstrated it
over and over again?

Andrew Wiles from what I've managed to deduce, has few, if any actual
mathematical accomplishments.

So in terms of real mathematical ability, he is probably very low.

But clearly he has become master of a game that is about style over
substance so right now he is internationally famous as supposedly one
of the greatest mathematicians of all time.

Yes...I can see your reasoning there. Wiles makes a living from
teaching and researching mathematics, Wiles is recognised as having
supplied a major mathematical proof - therefore his "real" mathematical
ability must be very low! I assume that your "real" mathematical
ability is very high?


If you look at the argument Wiles used to go after the Taniyama-Shimura
conjecture, there's an odd thing about it, he's supposedly comparing
two infinite sets, matching cases through infinity to prove that he's
covered all possibilities.

But that fails by a simple logical error that I can explain by talking
about objects with 4 wheels.

Let's say you believe that all objects with 4 wheels are cars, so you
go out and you keep finding cars that have 4 wheels to justify your
hypothesis.

Now let's go to a daemon and say your car checking daemon can cover
infinity and all cars in all realities so that you can say positively
that there are an infinity of cars with 4 wheels.

Have you proven that all cars have 4 wheels?

No. The logical fallacy is cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

It's a little more complicated in what Wiles has, but it's not terribly
hard to see--if you accept that he is capable of making such an error
and are willing to see it.

My point is that rational arguments don't work with mathematicians
because they don't have to accept reality when their society is built
around just convincing people.

If computers were setup to check mathematical arguments then Wiles's
ideas could be run through and out would pop that they fail by a
logical error, or they fail by some other problem, and that would be
it.

But we can't check claims of people like Wiles by computer, but simply
trust a group of people who supposedly are too smart to make a dumb
mistake.

Tell me, what makes you think Wiles actually has accomplished anything
of mathematical importance?

Does anything he's done help your car run? Or your computer go faster?

Does any of his research have any impact on the operation of your
cellphone?

What makes you think he has anything of real value--in the real
world--versus just some people saying he has?



James Harris

You've explained cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. Now explain how it relates
to Wiles, exactly.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Still a puzzle to me, my crackpot label
    ... Andrew Wiles from what I've managed to deduce, has few, if any actual ... Let's say you believe that all objects with 4 wheels are cars, ... My point is that rational arguments don't work with mathematicians ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Political behavior and "skepticism"
    ... Let's say you believe that all objects with 4 wheels are cars, ... Politics is about convincing people. ... If mathematicians are blocking technological advancements in their area ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: Amateur takes on Wiless work
    ... >>You statement that Wiles' proof is incorrect does not follow logically from ... mathematicians operate a secret society that enriches itself from ... fall prey to the fallacy of "Cum Hoc, ... > squaring the circle using a square edge as the approach is flawed. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
    ... >> Well now you're lying as it's not the same type as Wiles. ... repeating decimals are infinite strings of characters. ... Mathematicians noted that modular forms and elliptic curves could ... Now readers who decided to look that logical fallacy up, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Good news!
    ... he'd found one, if there were a hint of a clue that he was wrong, ... Wiles, who had been fascinated by Fermat's Last Theorem since age ten ... Most mathematicians believe that Fermat ... If your method is so f-ing good, get off your lazy ass and factor ANY ...
    (sci.crypt)
Loading