Re: JSH: Math journals do not just die

gjedwards@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
gjedwards@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
My previous post was meant to scare you,

Congratulations. I am terrified. Will you be personally wielding the
'hammer' this time or can we just expect a bog-standard thermonuclear
war?

Hey it scares me that there can be no route past mathematicians when
even publication can just be routinely dismissed, and even a math
journal dying is just a regular thing.

To bring context, suppose that some government in the US were going
totalitarian, and people within the country who were worried about this
believed that if only they could get the word out, people would react,
and got a news article outlining abuses published.

But it wasn't in a major newspaper, but was in a small electronic one,
yet still they hoped that people would listen, only to have the editor
cave to censorship pressure directed against the news article and pull
it from the electronic edition.

And then the entire newspaper died a few weeks later.

That person would despair realizing that democracy had already died,
and there was no hope.

That's the fear I want people to understand. Mathematicians have
created their own little society that can break its own rules at will,
so that even publication is meaningless for someone the group wishes to
label "crackpot".

Mathematicians have achieved totalitarian control.


James Harris

Like you, I am a physicist (PhD as it happens), not a mathematician.
However, I do not need any mathematician to tell me that p mod 3 does
not generate a pseudorandom sequence. In fact, I'll make you a promise
here and now: when the math community starts insisting that p mod 3
DOES generate a pseudorandom sequence and then tries to convince me of
that by talking in 'math-ese', THEN I'll believe that mathematicians
are trying to control me. Deal?

Well I only have a B.Sc. in physics, but I say that if p mod 3 is not
random then there are rules that explain exactly in what way it's not.

Worse, when random probability arguments indicate that in the general
case looking at prime mod p, that (p-2)/(p-1) is going to feature
prominently and you can easily see that in old research:

See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TwinPrimesConstant.html

Then you may say you are a physicist, but a real physicist does not
ignore the evidence.

This is not about emotion, but about what's true.

If p mod 3 is not random, then what are the rules?

What rules beyond 50% probability can you give?

What REASON can you give for the numbers to behave in some specific
way?

The problem I have with a debate where objective consideration fails
with people who keep coming back to me pushing a view against all
evidence is that mathematicians have for a long time held a position
which collapses if you accept randomness in the primes in this area.

Suddenly supposedly open problems are not open, like the twin primes
conjecture or Goldbach's conjecture, so you get this emotional backlash
from mathematicians---or people with physics degrees who are more
modern mathematician than physicist.

Especially when you consider that relating randomness to prime behavior
might explain random in our natural world!!!

The answers to some of the deepest question ever raised about reality
may be within our grasp--currently blocked by the refusal of a minority
of supposedly intellectually honest people to simply go with the
evidence.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • This Weeks Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 227)
    ... Today I want to say a bit about physics, and then a bit about about ... Endurance crater's dazzling dunes, NASA/JPL, available at ... I spoke about this in Marseille ... what mathematicians are capable of at present, ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • This Weeks Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 227)
    ... Today I want to say a bit about physics, and then a bit about about ... Endurance crater's dazzling dunes, NASA/JPL, available at ... I spoke about this in Marseille ... what mathematicians are capable of at present, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Bad science, math, and prime counting
    ... So, yes, I can show mathematicians lying about counting prime numbers, ... What good is a freaking physics theory that can't be ... He has quite solid evidence, but the people who argue with him, just ... Mathematicians have corrupted the scientific community already. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Bad science, math, and prime counting
    ... So, yes, I can show mathematicians lying about counting prime numbers, ... What good is a freaking physics theory that can't be ... He has quite solid evidence, but the people who argue with him, just ... Mathematicians have corrupted the scientific community already. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • JSH: Relevance to physics field
    ... My degree is in physics as I have my B.Sc. from Vanderbilt University, ... In the math field ... Consider ten people known to be mathematicians where 9 of them claim ... evidence used against those relying on the group to block knowledge. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast