tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post6074166454380849043..comments2021-08-03T07:17:55.927-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Trying to kill the mathematical proofRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-40525651269916853632015-03-26T15:00:13.395-07:002015-03-26T15:00:13.395-07:00Here is the triviality of Incompleteness: why ask ...Here is the triviality of Incompleteness: why ask a system you suspect whether it's consistent? It's a completely meaningless result with no practical value. Watch out for the circularity of these nonsense results.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-14903125767711922652015-03-20T02:38:21.890-07:002015-03-20T02:38:21.890-07:00He's striving to prove that proofs are impossi...He's striving to prove that proofs are impossible.Jon Burdickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02548776058585897717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-49209147928048038352015-03-19T11:02:14.764-07:002015-03-19T11:02:14.764-07:00You're right as usual Dark Buzz. I remember w...You're right as usual Dark Buzz. I remember when that article on the death of proof came out. I was in a math department at the time and it created lots of buzz (not dark though). That fact that I had forgotten about it tells you everything you need to know about it's eventual influence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-26956528591792399272015-03-18T20:02:21.159-07:002015-03-18T20:02:21.159-07:00Much of the misery in physics today is because the...Much of the misery in physics today is because the mathematics department invaded physics quite some time ago, in a big way. Einstein was even tutored in the latest math fads of his time to 'dress up' his physics theories because a theory cloaked in convoluted bullshit complex mathematics is much more difficult to critique and evaluate. Mathematics and con artistry have quite a shared history together. <br /><br /><br /><br /> CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-77398936983896753172015-03-18T19:21:42.667-07:002015-03-18T19:21:42.667-07:00Here is the real world of mathematics:
Send in a ...Here is the real world of mathematics:<br /><br />Send in a proof to some allegedly reputable journal to examine<br />Wait 10 years until the monstrous backlog of proofs is gone<br />The reviewer notices you are an amateur so disregards by default<br /><br />Even if you have a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis in your hand, its impossible to get it verified. It will either be stolen or nobody will take the considerable time to work through it because you are not a big shot mathematician. <br /><br />Thurston: ‘It is a socially conditioned body of knowledge and techniques.’<br />Thurston is right. If you start using different techniques and mathematical structures that are not contemporary, forget about it. Even if the proof is correct, it will still be ignored because the reviewers won't bother taking the extra time to learn anything new.<br /><br />I want Roger to list employers other than the NSA that care if you can do proofs or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-79814211033582974512015-03-18T14:40:33.524-07:002015-03-18T14:40:33.524-07:00Your examples of hand waving all involve physics, ...Your examples of hand waving all involve physics, not math.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-25110593647853995452015-03-18T12:18:07.929-07:002015-03-18T12:18:07.929-07:00Roger,
as bad as the basic rudimentary logical ski...Roger,<br />as bad as the basic rudimentary logical skills of mathematicians is these days (they wish to believe logical operations can operate independently outside of time and causality), claiming math relies on proof (much, much less rigorous proof) is laughable. In an ideal situation, yes, math should rely on rigorous proofs. In actual reality, well, one look at MWI and anthropic goo, string theory, Black holes, any space time model of anything, blows that ideal out the window with quite a bit of gusto. <br /><br />Substitute 'excited hand waving' for 'proof' in your assertion that 'math relies on proof, just as it has for millennia', and I will agree with you. Otherwise, you are preaching an idealization that has not been practiced very consistently in historical reality. <br /><br />CFTnoreply@blogger.com