Who says pure mathematics is a swindle?

[David Petry]

The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical genius. Any guesses about who said it?


"Apart from the most elementary mathematics, like arithmetic or high school algebra, the symbols, formulas and words of mathematics have no meaning at all. The entire structure of pure mathematics is a monstrous swindle, simply a game, a prank. You may well ask, "are there no renegades to reveal the truth?" Yes, of course. But the facts are so incredible that no one takes them seriously. So the secret is in no danger."

[jonas.t...@gmail.com]

Den måndag 27 juli 2015 kl. 05:59:19 UTC+2 skrev David Petry:
> The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical genius. Any guesses about who said it?
>
>
> "Apart from the most elementary mathematics, like arithmetic or high school algebra, the symbols, formulas and words of mathematics have no meaning at all. The entire structure of pure mathematics is a monstrous swindle, simply a game, a prank. You may well ask, "are there no renegades to reveal the truth?" Yes, of course. But the facts are so incredible that no one takes them seriously. So the secret is in no danger."

I did a search and found Ted Kaczynski, did he ever confess to be the Unabomber and is he still alive?

[Bill]

David Petry wrote:
>
> The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical genius. Any guesses about who said it?
>
>
> "Apart from the most elementary mathematics, like arithmetic or high school algebra, the symbols, formulas and words of mathematics have no meaning at all. The entire structure of pure mathematics is a monstrous swindle, simply a game, a prank. You may well ask, "are there no renegades to reveal the truth?" Yes, of course. But the facts are so incredible that no one takes them seriously. So the secret is in no danger."
>

Hardy (who wrote something about an "apology")?

[Roland Franzius]

As google tells us, its the una bomber.

Just another modern mathematical genius was GWB who estimated for Iraq's
invasion and rebuilding time at about 1 year and a money amount at about
150 billion USD.

Of course in those old times the differences between mathematical and
financial billions were not quite clear to everybody.

But the most crucial crisis of modern mathematics arises from the fact
detected by Mückenheim, that the number of numbers one cannot remember
correctly is uncountable. Not to speak of the crisis introduced by
illusionary mathematical Alzheimer giants who cannot remember what was
the proposition of the proof when fomulating their conclusions.

--

Roland Franzius

[bert]

On Monday, 27 July 2015 07:18:59 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> David Petry wrote:
> >
> > The following quote is from a famous twentieth century
> > mathematical genius. Any guesses about who said it?

> > "The entire structure of pure mathematics is a monstrous swindle."

>
> Hardy (who wrote something about an "apology")?

Oh, no, absolutely not. I've got that book, and its title is
using the word 'apology' in one of its nearly obsolete senses.
--

[David C. Ullrich]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700, David Petry wrote:

> The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical
> genius. Any guesses about who said it?

Ted Kazinski, famous genius? Right. You really think anyone would
have heard of him if not for his non-mathematical activities?

Or: Can you cite something mathematical that this famous genius _did_?

[David Petry]

On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 9:55:57 AM UTC-7, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700, David Petry wrote:
>
> > The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical
> > genius. Any guesses about who said it?
>
> Ted Kazinski, famous genius? Right. You really think anyone would
> have heard of him if not for his non-mathematical activities?

Gimme a break. Oh wait, you'll never do that. What am I thinking?

FWIW, from my point of view, what I wrote was slightly tongue in cheek, but he's been called a genius numerous times bu the media, so I just went with it.

Why am I talking to you?

[John Gabriel]

On Monday, 27 July 2015 18:55:57 UTC+2, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700, David Petry wrote:
>
> > The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical
> > genius. Any guesses about who said it?
>
> Ted Kazinski, famous genius? Right. You really think anyone would
> have heard of him if not for his non-mathematical activities?
>
> Or: Can you cite something mathematical that this famous genius _did_?

He wrote a dissertation and has a PhD. His "specialty" is in complex analysis. Does that ring a bell to you dullrich? Chuckle.

Yes, modern mythmatics is a swindle because it is based on ill-formed concepts.
The UNABOMBER was right.

[John Gabriel]

On Monday, 27 July 2015 19:20:15 UTC+2, David Petry wrote:
> On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 9:55:57 AM UTC-7, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700, David Petry wrote:
> >
> > > The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical
> > > genius. Any guesses about who said it?
> >
> > Ted Kazinski, famous genius? Right. You really think anyone would
> > have heard of him if not for his non-mathematical activities?
>
> Gimme a break. Oh wait, you'll never do that. What am I thinking?
>
> FWIW, from my point of view, what I wrote was slightly tongue in cheek, but he's been called a genius numerous times bu the media, so I just went with it.
>
> Why am I talking to you?

Because you know he is an idiot? :-)

[John Gabriel]

On Monday, 27 July 2015 05:59:19 UTC+2, David Petry wrote:
> The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical genius. Any guesses about who said it?
>
>
> "Apart from the most elementary mathematics, like arithmetic or high school algebra, the symbols, formulas and words of mathematics have no meaning at all. The entire structure of pure mathematics is a monstrous swindle, simply a game, a prank. You may well ask, "are there no renegades to reveal the truth?" Yes, of course. But the facts are so incredible that no one takes them seriously. So the secret is in no danger."

"His professors at Michigan were impressed with his intellect and drive. "He was an unusual person. He was not like the other graduate students," said Peter Duren, one of Kaczynski's math professors at Michigan. "He was much more focused about his work. He had a drive to discover mathematical truth." "It is not enough to say he was smart," said George Piranian, another of his Michigan math professors. Kaczynski earned his PhD with his thesis entitled "Boundary Functions" by solving a problem[20] so difficult that Piranian could not figure it out.[21] Maxwell Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee, also commented on his thesis by noting, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."[22] In 1967, Kaczynski won the University of Michigan's Sumner B. Myers Prize, which recognized his dissertation as the school's best in mathematics that year."

Wikipedia Moronica, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Career

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 2:08:24 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:

>
> Because you know he is an idiot?

Speaking of idiots...

What newcomers to sci.math should know about Psycho Troll John Gabriel, in his own words as posted here at sci.math:

JG's God Complex:

"I am the Creator of this galaxy."
-- March 19, 2015

"I am the last word on everything."
-- May 6, 2015

"Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined."
-- March 26, 2015

"Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules."
-- March 17, 2015


JG's Final Solution:

"Hitler was a genius and a very talented artist... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different." (Like JG's morals?)
-- March 18, 2015

"I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you...

"Unfortunately, Hitler's henchmen got the wrong Jews...

(Note: When repeatedly asked if they should have gotten Jews like Albert Einstein, JG has refused to comment. You figure it out, folks.)

"It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live."
-- July 13, 2014

"All those who don't accept New Calculus, you better say goodbye to your kids... Because John Gabriel is coming." (Charming fellow.)
-- July 9, 2014


JG's Just Plain Stupid:

"1/0 is not undefined."
-- May 19, 2015

"1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that"
-- February 8, 2015

"The square root of 2 and pi are NOT numbers."
-- May 28, 2015

"By definition, a line is the distance between two points."
-- April 13, 2015

"So, 'is a member of' = 'is a subset of.'"
-- May 16, 2015

"There is no such thing as a continuous real number line."
-- March 24, 2015

"Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus." (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
-- March 17, 2015

"Proofs had nothing to do with calculus."
-- May 30, 2015


In his wacky system, JG cannot even prove that 2+2=4. It seems unlikely he would have anything worthwhile to say about mathematics. On the contrary, it seems he is deliberately trying to mislead and confuse any newcomers here.

A special word of caution to students: Do not attempt to use JG's "system" in any course work in any high school, college or university on the planet. You will fail miserably. His system is certainly no "shortcut" to success in mathematics. It is truly a dead-end.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Jan]

On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 10:20:15 AM UTC-7, David Petry wrote:
> On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 9:55:57 AM UTC-7, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700, David Petry wrote:
> >
> > > The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical
> > > genius. Any guesses about who said it?
> >
> > Ted Kazinski, famous genius? Right. You really think anyone would
> > have heard of him if not for his non-mathematical activities?
>
> Gimme a break. Oh wait, you'll never do that. What am I thinking?
>
> FWIW, from my point of view, what I wrote was slightly tongue in cheek, but he's been called a genius numerous times bu the media, so I just went with it.

He was apparently good enough to be a faculty member at Berkeley.
Obviously a dimwit otherwise.

Genius is a different thing entirely.

--
Jan

[Jens Stuckelberger]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:55:51 -0500, David C. Ullrich wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700, David Petry wrote:
>
>> The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical
>> genius. Any guesses about who said it?
>
> Ted Kazinski, famous genius? Right. You really think anyone would have
> heard of him if not for his non-mathematical activities?
>
> Or: Can you cite something mathematical that this famous genius _did_?

Actually, Kaczinsky was no slouch, as an online search quickly
reveals. He may not have had the potential to become the next Gauss, but
he probably was potentially more capable than the vast majority of
professional mathematicians. Unfortunately, the guy was (and is) mentally
unstable. But then again, so was Nash.

[Paul]

Doesn't this understate him? I would have thought his actual achievements were far greater than the vast majority of professional mathematicians?

Paul

[Bill]

Is it true that most PhD don't publish even 1 paper? Can anyone confirm?

[Paul]

If so, that probably means that most people with a Ph.D in mathematics don't publish any paper. However, most people with a Ph.D in maths don't become professional research mathematicians. There's always a temptation to substitute the most easily quantifiable data for the most relevant data. It's easy to count the number of maths Ph.D's and it's easy to count the published maths papers. However, quantifying the productivity of "mathematicians" is not easy. How I think it works is that there's a tiny cadre of acknowledged mathematical superstars. These people might have some type of medal or were in consideration for some type of medal, or have proven famous theorem or have a prestigious chair etc. Then there's a huge mass of mathematicians who hang around these superstars and measure their progress by the degree of interest that the superstars take in their work. "I was talking to X the other day about... and he was interested in the problem!" It's a remarkably sycophantic community, and that doesn't bode well for general productivity.

Paul

[timmy1729]

John Gabriel wrote

On Monday, 27 July 2015 18:55:57 UTC+2, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700, David Petry wrote:
>
> > The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical
> > genius. Any guesses about who said it?
>
> Ted Kazinski, famous genius? Right. You really think anyone would
> have heard of him if not for his non-mathematical activities?
>
> Or: Can you cite something mathematical that this famous genius _did_?

He wrote a dissertation and has a PhD. His "specialty" is in complex analysis. Does that ring a bell to you dullrich? Chuckle.

Yes, modern mythmatics is a swindle because it is based on ill-formed concepts.
The UNABOMBER was right.

- tekst uit het oorspronkelijke bericht weergeven -

Good reply from John Gabriel. Also the 2 follow-ups.

I respect complex analysis. It is good and useful math.

But it creates the obvious questions ;

1) define when someone is a genius. There is never consensus about such things.

2) where is the boundary between good math and the bad swindle math ? The unabomber did not define that clearly , or did he ?
I assume the boundary is the majority of set theory , toplogical set theory and infinite (set theory) game theory. ( the bad side )

However despite agreeing with John's critisism I am lightyears away from finitism or disagreeing on basic calculus.

Regards

Tommy1729

[Bill]

What is "general productivity"? Is it measured in dollars (or something
else)? As someone personally dedicated to my research, I did not find
real support for that posture at a small liberal arts college. Without
going into detail, it was quite the opposite.

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

what are you trying to infer

[John Gabriel]

On Monday, 27 July 2015 16:36:04 UTC-4, Jens Stuckelberger wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:55:51 -0500, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700, David Petry wrote:
> >
> >> The following quote is from a famous twentieth century mathematical
> >> genius. Any guesses about who said it?
> >
> > Ted Kazinski, famous genius? Right. You really think anyone would have
> > heard of him if not for his non-mathematical activities?
> >
> > Or: Can you cite something mathematical that this famous genius _did_?
>
> Actually, Kaczinsky was no slouch, as an online search quickly
> reveals.

Online searches by ignorant morons don't reveal anything except more ignorance.

[burs...@gmail.com]

Ok, please tell us without online search,
what did Frege propose, after Russell found
a mistake in his (Freges) work?

If you can answer it, you will get two bananas.