Received: by 10.50.213.101 with SMTP id nr5mr2577793igc.1.1327247164428;
        Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:46:04 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: sage-flame@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.154.193 with SMTP id vq1ls5179713igb.1.canary; Sun, 22 Jan
 2012 07:46:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.42.199 with SMTP id q7mr1495039igl.4.1327247164128; Sun, 22
 Jan 2012 07:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 fate...@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=fate...@gmail.com; dkim=pass
 header...@gmail.com
Received: by y5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:46:03
 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:46:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9979998.437.1327218433370.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlk31>
References: <9725d99d-e89e-436a-936b-e8d669618f03@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <CACLE5GAfushW6Ep+CAz6j-SHPv2b+G29dA7Mn9fE-Ri10tyjcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <090df408-798e-45b0-a71b-f7999c78119c@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>
 <CACLE5GDC7yPya8jRD0sM9o9+=zFU-8gs_prEBfLyFE1Yoy_JiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3605f5ca-f1f4-435c-9048-fc1f7f6866aa@b10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>
 <0ec21548-467c-482f-a6d2-c8ed5152ee6d@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>
 <6b956c63-24f6-4530-b4aa-1f320b7ecfed@k9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
 <CADDwiVCceveSuMUUaZ3+jYdPQxj7nLvmo5s3RwO4Wq3cDcqzpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9a0a9d57-44ba-4b7c-be8e-0aa0d199280e@lr19g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
 <CADDwiVBn4dVMNpWU+bwyG5rLBCxyb2hS=C+Tw3Qy-JAtHby-yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ceedd43f-939e-4ee6-a31e-ecc6de8395b6@b4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com> <9979998.437.1327218433370.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlk31>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <9a3282e5-f927-4298-a28f-b318cbb333fd@y5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Two articles of interest to Sage in latest Notices
From: rjf <fate...@gmail.com>
To: sage-flame <sage-flame@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Jan 21, 11:47=A0pm, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote:
....
> Basically, if one cannot finish off a difficult proof, one can still inse=
rt
> an obviously wrong lemma somewhere,


I am not really concerned about misleading articles about matroids,
where
the conclusions might be true or not, but the proof is defective.

> and use it to go on to become a Clay
> Scholar etc etc.

The Clay Institute, last I looked, relied heavily on carefully chosen
experts.

> (And it will take a lot of persistence from someone to
> force this one to acknowledge the wrong: seehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0709.129=
1).
>
> yet, there is no better model known, in science or in software.

No, I think there are other models. Google uses one to determine the
relevance
of a web page to a query.  EBay uses a model to determine the
reliability of
a seller.  I sometimes use a model that says if a piece of code is in
netlib.org
that it is worth looking at.


> The
> alternative of peer-reviewed code is to get software from a commercial
> provider, who will do whatever it takes to shut you up if you found an
> error in it...

No, a vendor will attempt to convince you that its program is the best
on
the market for a purpose, so you will buy it rather than the
competition.
Ideally, at least.  This assumes a fair market, disclosure, and the
existence of competition, assumptions that may not be correct
sometimes.