> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who > are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at > spectacular finds from outsiders.
> Which is why I've used the newsgroups to find objections.
> Thanks for the help.
> Now that all the heavy lifting is done, I can focus on acceptance of > my mathematical work.
> One of the benefits of such a long period taking place between when I > discovered the proof and when it finally gets accepted is that I have > few acknowledgments necessary.
> After all, those of you who had no faith in my work, who spent so much > time attacking it, shouldn't expect to gain anything by its > recognition.
> Neither should those of you who didn't dig deep enough to find out the > truth for yourselves and depended on trusting people who told you > things that were false, but you believed them anyway.
> Obviously, you should not gain for your failures, though I hope you > learn from them.
> Mathematics isn't about trust. It's about truth.
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > proof--you must also be able to defend it.
Mr. Harris,
wow, what an amazing accomplishment, I am sure your parents are proud.
When will the world tour start, will you be looking to get some of the monetary rewards that Dr. Wiles collected?
What journal article will publish this most outstanding paper?
What major universtities worldwide do you have lined up to give talks at?
You are simply one of the greatest number theorists of "all" time!
Congratulations!
P.S. can you go away now? Happy? It is so sad to read your posts sometimes, such delusional fits of granduer. How can you live with yourself? Get real, look in the mirror, you are a failure!
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who > are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at > spectacular finds from outsiders.
Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
> Which is why I've used the newsgroups to find objections.
> Thanks for the help.
> Now that all the heavy lifting is done, I can focus on acceptance of > my mathematical work.
> One of the benefits of such a long period taking place between when I > discovered the proof and when it finally gets accepted is that I have > few acknowledgments necessary.
> After all, those of you who had no faith in my work, who spent so much > time attacking it, shouldn't expect to gain anything by its > recognition.
Maybe they are attacting it because there are flaws. Working on a 30 foot by 10 foot chalk board will help :-)
> Neither should those of you who didn't dig deep enough to find out the > truth for yourselves and depended on trusting people who told you > things that were false, but you believed them anyway.
> Obviously, you should not gain for your failures, though I hope you > learn from them.
Obviously one should gain from failures... what is gained is experience and a slightly higher IQ than before.
> Mathematics isn't about trust. It's about truth.
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) writes: > I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a > spectacular proof--you must also be able to defend it.
Well, you certainly practiced defending a lot lately. Maybe it would be time again to try finding a proof. You'll never know how hard or easy it is to defend a proof if you never do it on the real thing.
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) writes: > I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a > spectacular proof--you must also be able to defend it.
Well, you certainly practiced defending a lot lately. Maybe it would be time again to try finding a proof. You'll never know how hard or easy it is to defend a proof if you never done it on the real thing.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:23:02 -0500, "James Sibley"
<rocketki...@juno.com> wrote: >"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message >news:3c65f87.0301121629.63eb4c76@posting.google.com... >> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the >> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular >> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who >> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at >> spectacular finds from outsiders.
>Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by >amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
You're certainly right about the establishment not getting pissed off at mathematical discoveries made by amateurs. But where in the world did you read that most mathematical discoveries are made by amateurs? That's simply ridiculous.
>I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the >completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular >proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who >are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at >spectacular finds from outsiders.
>Which is why I've used the newsgroups to find objections.
>Thanks for the help.
>Now that all the heavy lifting is done, I can focus on acceptance of >my mathematical work.
>One of the benefits of such a long period taking place between when I >discovered the proof and when it finally gets accepted is that I have >few acknowledgments necessary.
This is stranger than usual. You _seem_ to be suggesting that the Proof _has_ been "accepted". By whom?
>After all, those of you who had no faith in my work, who spent so much >time attacking it, shouldn't expect to gain anything by its >recognition.
>Neither should those of you who didn't dig deep enough to find out the >truth for yourselves and depended on trusting people who told you >things that were false, but you believed them anyway.
>Obviously, you should not gain for your failures, though I hope you >learn from them.
Is it about Fermat's last Theorem? Does Mr Harris support that he solved it? I have read the original solution and i think it is more than complicated.
"Steve Gomori" <sgom...@no.spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Is it about Fermat's last Theorem? Does Mr Harris support that he solved > it? I have read the original solution and i think it is more than > complicated.
Yes, or FLT as the cool kids call it. Mr. Harris is convinved he's found a simple proof of FLT. By "simple" he means, if I remember correctly, using high school-level math. The evil bastards of mathematics have conspired to rob him of fame, wealth and women. I think Fox will be airing a series based on this titled "Joe Mathmetician".
I find the threads entertaining, even when they degenerate into playground name-calling. As I said, I am a relative new-comer to the FLT saga (and The Prime Number Counting Algorithm spin-off. "The" was not accidentally capitalized for it is "THE" one) but have seen some interesting results come from the countless iterations of the proof. A couple good ones are that integers are not rational and algebraic fractions are actually not algebraic fractions.
In article <3c65f87.0301121629.63eb4...@posting.google.com>, jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > proof--you must also be able to defend it.
We all realise that. What you don't realise is that first you have to find a proof. Any proof. Please, James, just post _one_ correct proof of _anything_!
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:23:02 -0500, "James Sibley" > <rocketki...@juno.com> wrote:
> >"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message > >news:3c65f87.0301121629.63eb4c76@posting.google.com... > >> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > >> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> >> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > >> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> >> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who > >> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at > >> spectacular finds from outsiders.
> >Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by > >amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
> You're certainly right about the establishment not getting pissed off > at mathematical discoveries made by amateurs. But where in the > world did you read that most mathematical discoveries are made > by amateurs? That's simply ridiculous.
> David C. Ullrich
What I meant to say that was that most mathematical discoveries _were_ by amateurs. I read that in some book... if I can find it (it's in my collection), I will quote it and cite it for you (and everyone else).
> In article <3c65f87.0301121629.63eb4...@posting.google.com>, > jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> > I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> > Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > > proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> We all realise that. What you don't realise is that first you have to > find a proof. Any proof. Please, James, just post _one_ correct proof of > _anything_!
I think that by now we have to doubt seriously whether JSH understands what constitutes a mathematical proof (or disproof).
<rocketki...@juno.com> wrote: >"David C Ullrich" <ullr...@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message >news:2lg52vkt35olfn48f9arde599hl0vg01va@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:23:02 -0500, "James Sibley" >> <rocketki...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message >> >news:3c65f87.0301121629.63eb4c76@posting.google.com... >> >> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the >> >> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>> >> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular >> >> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>> >> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who >> >> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at >> >> spectacular finds from outsiders.
>> >Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by >> >amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
>> You're certainly right about the establishment not getting pissed off >> at mathematical discoveries made by amateurs. But where in the >> world did you read that most mathematical discoveries are made >> by amateurs? That's simply ridiculous.
>> David C. Ullrich
>What I meant to say that was that most mathematical discoveries _were_ by >amateurs.
Meaning like long ago? _Could_ be, depending on how long ago we're talking about, maybe.
Perhaps.
>I read that in some book... if I can find it (it's in my >collection), I will quote it and cite it for you (and everyone else).
In article <v26b5hcr5og...@corp.supernews.com> "James Sibley" <rocketki...@juno.com> writes:
> What I meant to say that was that most mathematical discoveries _were_ by > amateurs. I read that in some book... if I can find it (it's in my > collection), I will quote it and cite it for you (and everyone else).
If you are talking about the past, you are certainly right. Back in the 18th century almost *all* people that did something with mathematics were amateurs in the field. There have been quite a few that did law (Fermat is one of them). And other main fields are also quite prominent. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
> In article <3c65f87.0301121629.63eb4...@posting.google.com>, > jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> > I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> > Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > > proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> We all realise that. What you don't realise is that first you have to > find a proof. Any proof. Please, James, just post _one_ correct proof of > _anything_!
Conjecture: A short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not exist.
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message <news:3c65f87.0301121629.63eb4c76@posting.google.com>... > I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who > are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at > spectacular finds from outsiders.
Hmm.. the only recent example that I know of is the "find" by the I.I.T. guys, and ALL the "established" experts (Pomerance, etc.) seemed to be completely tickled by it!
Do you know of an example of an outsider presenting a complete proof ("spectacular" or otherwise) which has been resisted by experts? (Hint: think power series)
David Klein <dkl...@bloombergREMOVETHISPART.com> pushed briefly to the front of the queue on 14 Jan 2003 08:57:37 +0200, and nailed this to the shed door:
^ "James Sibley" <rocketki...@juno.com> writes: ^ ^ <snip> ^ > Conjecture: A short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not exist. ^ > ^ > Proof, anyone? ^ ^ Sorry, in my previous post I meant "Godel's encoding of ZF", not "ZF".
<pedant> And tera-, not terra- </pedant>
Andy
-- sparge at globalnet point co point uk
"I've got kleptomania - but I'm taking something for it" Mvh. Nikitta, AFDA exile
>Do you know of an example of an outsider presenting a complete proof >("spectacular" or otherwise) which has been resisted by experts?
Chandrasekhar's limit on the mass of a white dwarf star. He discovered it when on the ship from India to England to start his PhD. He modified a previous theory of Fowler and Eddington to include relativity. Eddington resisted vigorously. The Nobel Prize committee eventually thought that Chandra's work was "spectacular": he got his prize, but over 50 years later. (He had of course not been idle in the meantime!)
John Harper, School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand e-mail john.har...@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
> >> >"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message > >> >news:3c65f87.0301121629.63eb4c76@posting.google.com... > >> >> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > >> >> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> >> >> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > >> >> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> >> >> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who > >> >> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at > >> >> spectacular finds from outsiders.
> >> >Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by > >> >amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
> >> You're certainly right about the establishment not getting pissed off > >> at mathematical discoveries made by amateurs. But where in the > >> world did you read that most mathematical discoveries are made > >> by amateurs? That's simply ridiculous.
> >> David C. Ullrich
> >What I meant to say that was that most mathematical discoveries _were_ by > >amateurs.
> Meaning like long ago? _Could_ be, depending on how long ago we're > talking about, maybe.
Concerning another, more recent amateur's new set-theoretic axiom you had this to say:
>...(2) is just something you made up (or something you > misunderstood based on something you read).
2) AxAy[Az(z in x <-> z in y) -> ((set x & set y) <-> x=y)]
> On 12 Jan 2003 16:29:34 -0800, jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> >I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the > >completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> >Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular > >proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> >Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who > >are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at > >spectacular finds from outsiders.
> >Which is why I've used the newsgroups to find objections.
> >Thanks for the help.
> >Now that all the heavy lifting is done, I can focus on acceptance of > >my mathematical work.
> >One of the benefits of such a long period taking place between when I > >discovered the proof and when it finally gets accepted is that I have > >few acknowledgments necessary.
> This is stranger than usual. You _seem_ to be suggesting that the > Proof _has_ been "accepted". By whom?
Are you suggesting that a proof is not a proof unless it has been "accepted"?
