JSH: Your broken system
JSH
with composites as well as primes, and there is no denial to claim
that's been done before. With one year gone since I first came up
with this approach the reality of what mathematicians in our modern
world have become can not be denied: they are show people.
You like complicated abstruse mathematics that does not work, versus
very simple powerful and beautiful mathematics that does because you
do not believe in what you are doing.
I'm sure those of you in classes now are getting a lot of preaching to
you about "style", though they'll probably toss in "rigor" as a word
later to complete the lie. But it IS about style in the modern math
field where trash math done in a particular way can beat perfect
mathematics done in some non-traditional one. I know. I've had a
math professor tell me my work didn't look "polished".
It was an argument that breaks current thinking on algebraic
integers. That argument was later published in a peer reviewed
mathematical journal. Some sci.math posters mounted an email campaign
against it, the editors pulled it, managed one more edition and then
the journal died. It keeled over. Went out of existence.
So much for mathematical rigor.
Your political world is now fighting a battle it will lose. The
factoring problem is not some "pure math" toy that math professors can
dismiss claiming "academic freedom" and then just shrug when people
come to ask why.
My warning to you is what I will do when the house of cards collapses
and mathematicians around the world are shown to be the frauds they
are: I will push the world to crush funding out of the system.
Undergraduates form the bulk of future mathematicians. Their support
is critical to the continuation of this system.
That means undergraduates are a crucial support structure for the
fraud.
My message to you, as supporters of it, is that for most of you, even
if you do not pursue mathematics beyond an undergraduate degree, I'll
be going after the value of your degree itself.
You have the potential of a person who the world will later see as one
of its major discoverers telling you now that I will work to make your
degree worthless if it is a mathematics degree, as you doing nothing
now means you do not understand the meaning of it anyway.
Degrees are not just about absorbing some body of knowledge or passing
some tests. They are meant to say you are a certain type of person, a
person who values knowledge and its pursuit for the good of the human
race.
You will be held to that standard.
James Harris
Mark Murray
> So much for mathematical rigor.
Says someone who refuses to check his work.
M
David Moran
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a4e911d-7f4d-49a3...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I'm glad you like making a complete idiot of yourself. If you would actually
learn something, you would not have a need to post this crap. In the 7 years
that you've been posting complete crap, I've graduated from high school, and
got 2 degrees in Meteorology and Mathematics.
Dave
Junoexpress
>
> I'm sure those of you in classes now are getting a lot of preaching to
> you about "style", though they'll probably toss in "rigor" as a word
> later to complete the lie. But it IS about style in the modern math
> field where trash math done in a particular way can beat perfect
> mathematics done in some non-traditional one. I know. I've had a
> math professor tell me my work didn't look "polished".
>
The word "polished" no doubt refers to how poorly your paper was
written and the person who commented on your paper was being polite in
his choice of words. When a paper has abstract, no defined problem
statement, no references, and no background, it is typically not
published. This is not style, this is how a well written paper is
written so that others can understand it. The average well written
undergrad lab report is written better than your "paper" that you
sought to have published in a national journal. And you wonder why
you're the brunt of everyone's jokes?
HTH,
M
Brian S
>
> I'm sure those of you in classes now are getting a lot of preaching to
> you about "style", though they'll probably toss in "rigor" as a word
> later to complete the lie. But it IS about style in the modern math
> field where trash math done in a particular way can beat perfect
> mathematics done in some non-traditional one. I know. I've had a
> math professor tell me my work didn't look "polished".
>
>
>
> James Harris
It is obvoius that professional papers are expected to be formatted to
a standard. Almost every professional field has an official style.
MLA style for English/Humanities, APA style for psychology/social
science, IEEE for electronics/electrical engineering, etc. For
mathematics, look at the AMS website:
http://www.ams.org/authors/journals.html
In particular, you should read the Author Handbook pdf file.
JSH
Style issues are a way to exclude outsiders.
Why should I be expected to learn some convoluted special style to
present an interesting mathematical find?
Academics expect people to beg and plead for recognition of important
research, while I say that just shows they are idiots.
Yup, you read right. Academics who expect non-academics to bend over
backwards to learn some special stupid style to get a major find
acknowledged are IDIOTS.
No matter if you call them "professor".
James Harris
David Moran
James Harris
Then all academics are idiots because I don't know of any field doesn't have
their own formatting style. You really don't seem too bright yourself if you
have to resort to insults.
Dave
Mark Murray
> Why should I be expected to learn some convoluted special style to
> present an interesting mathematical find?
Their journal, their rules.
> Academics expect people to beg and plead for recognition of important
> research, while I say that just shows they are idiots.
No they don't.
> Yup, you read right. Academics who expect non-academics to bend over
> backwards to learn some special stupid style to get a major find
> acknowledged are IDIOTS.
>
> No matter if you call them "professor".
Sour grapes. Now grow up.
M
Arturo Magidin
> Their journal, their rules.
Style rules (and meaning of common terms) is usually a way to *invite*
readers and outsiders, not to exclude them.
There was a time when every important piece of research (mathematical
and otherwise) was written in Latin. This was not a way to exclude
outsiders, or restrict readership, but rather it was meant as a way to
ensure that everyone who wanted to read it would know what it was they
needed as a prerequisite (namely, Latin or a translator). This allowed
dissemination; of course, it also meant that it took longer to prepare
the work, and it sometimes led to the precursor of our Usenet spelling
flames when controversies arose (see for example "Squaring the Circle:
The war between Hobbes and Wallis" by Douglas Jesseph, to see how the
two flame each other on their use and misuse of Latin during their
controversies).
The style rules of today are also a way to invite readership: by using
standard styles and so on, the reader has a clear idea of what to
expect. It tries to minimize the effort required by the *reader* to
understand the paper. I think of it as a service to the reader, not a
gatekeeper on authors. Authors who do not wish to engage in learning
can always hire someone to do it for them, much like they used to hire
typist when journals began asking authors to send their material typed
rather than in long hand.
--
Arturo Magidin