Keith Ramsay's dishonesty and intellectual theft
Pertti Lounesto
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm
and challenged posters of sci.math to check possible
validity/invalidity of my list of 30 counterexamples to
theorems proved and published by mathematicians.
Several posters of sci.math argued on the following lines:
0. One cannot falsify theorems. But those who escaped by
this diversion, failed to pick up the correct theorems from
those published in the mathematical literature.
1. My counterexamples are not valid. But those who took this
position, failed to point out a single invalid counterexample.
2. The errors I detected are not significant. But those who took
this position, are not experts in Clifford algebras.
3. The ultimate putdown:
a. Clifford algebraists are not good mathematicians, because
they make so many mistakes.
b. The purpose of mathematics is to prove theorems, not to
falsify theorems (= sweep out mistakes).
Those who appealed for 3a or 3b, I direct to
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman.
In April 1997, Keith Ramsay, who is not an expert in Cifford
algebras, checked validity of 3 of my 30 counterexamples, and
thus gained competency over 10% of Clifford algebras.
After Ramsay's checking those who had argued that my
counterexamples are invalid, most notably Bill Taylor,
forgot ever making such a false claim (without checking
even one of my counterexamples).
Ramsay emphasized that he only used one afternoon to check
the 3 counterexamples, and added that he could check, if
wanted to, half of my counterexamples in a few days.
Thus, Ramsay made a claim of his competency over 40%
of Clifford algebras, without justifying his claim by actually
validating/invalidating 12 more of my counterexamples.
Such activity is intellectual dishonesty, theft of competency.
I have already earlier offered to send Ramsay a copy of my
printed arcticle
P. Lounesto: "Counterexamples in Clifford algebras",
Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 6 (1996), 69-104.
Ramsay has not accepted my offer to receive a copy of my article
(which conteins more counterexamples than my www-page),
and evaluate my counterexamples, but instead continues to repeat
his intellectual dishonesty, theft of competency, in sci.math.
Of course, Ramsay's intellectual theft is over immediately at the
moment, when he checks half of my counterexamples, or
otherwise gains competency over Clifford algebras.
Two publishers of mathematics have invited me to write about
my activities here in sci.math. Most probably, I will accept the
invitations. Thus, I appreciate all comments and explanations
of failures to check the validity of my counterexamples.
Andrew Boucher
<Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>
>Two publishers of mathematics have invited me to write about
>my activities here in sci.math. Most probably, I will accept the
>invitations. Thus, I appreciate all comments and explanations
>of failures to check the validity of my counterexamples.
>
>
All comments? Well, here's one...
I consider you a big royal pain in the neck, who, however perhaps
knowledgeable himself, demean others, including those who contribute a
lot to sci.math (e.g. Keith Ramsey and Robin Chapman).
Keith Ramsey seems to have--incredibly enough--devoted an afternoon to
looking at your "counterexamples" and now finds himself mentioned,
often in a derogatory manner, in any number of your postings,
including in this current thread's title.
Most people who post to sci.math have other things to do. Amazingly,
they are willing to help others, who they often don't know, with their
questions or problems. Do *you* do that? WHEN AND HOW OFTEN? How do
you compare to Keith Ramsey in this regard?
You keep on claiming that people in sci.math have an obligation to
look at your counterexamples. Why? Why should they help you when
you help no one, when you even pointedly seem to try to cause as much
hurt and trouble as you can? As near as I can tell your argument
seems to be that they are mathematicians and mathematicians should try
to advance the truth. Okay, granted among other aims (such as paying
the rent and raising their children), they should advance the truth.
There are a lot of truths out there, and believe it or not, they might
think it is their right, not yours, to select the truths they look at.
Their "failure to check the validity of [your] counterexamples" is
simply explained: they've decided they have better things to do.
Your general point seems to be that there are mistakes in print. I
understand. Mathematicians, being people, make mistakes. They even
make mistakes in print. Point taken. *Next* point (if you have one)
please.
Kent
Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote in message
news:3825640D...@hit.fi...
> In April 1997, Keith Ramsay, who is not an expert in Cifford
> algebras, checked validity of 3 of my 30 counterexamples, and
> thus gained competency over 10% of Clifford algebras.
So 10% of your counterexamples = 10% of Clifford algebras. Apparently the
entire field of Clifford algebras consists of your counterexamples.
When one observes the kind of reasoning that appears in your posts, one
cannot help but conclude that someone with such mental impairments is very
unlikely to be able to produce coherent Mathematics. This is probably why so
few people have bothered to look at your counterexamples.
> Ramsay emphasized that he only used one afternoon to check
> the 3 counterexamples, and added that he could check, if
> wanted to, half of my counterexamples in a few days.
>
> Thus, Ramsay made a claim of his competency over 40%
> of Clifford algebras, without justifying his claim by actually
> validating/invalidating 12 more of my counterexamples.
> Such activity is intellectual dishonesty, theft of competency.
> I have already earlier offered to send Ramsay a copy of my
> printed arcticle
>
> P. Lounesto: "Counterexamples in Clifford algebras",
> Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 6 (1996), 69-104.
>
> Ramsay has not accepted my offer to receive a copy of my article
> (which conteins more counterexamples than my www-page),
> and evaluate my counterexamples, but instead continues to repeat
> his intellectual dishonesty, theft of competency, in sci.math.
> Of course, Ramsay's intellectual theft is over immediately at the
> moment, when he checks half of my counterexamples, or
> otherwise gains competency over Clifford algebras.
>
> Two publishers of mathematics have invited me to write about
> my activities here in sci.math. Most probably, I will accept the
> invitations. Thus, I appreciate all comments and explanations
> of failures to check the validity of my counterexamples.
Well, according to your assertions, the entire field of Clifford algebras
consists 0f 30 counterexamples to bogus theorems - not very exciting stuff.
Add to this the fact that the counterexamples were written by someone who
appears to have the reasoning ability of a snare drum, and you can easily
see why they don't attract a large and devoted readership.
Kent.
ph...@interpac.net
<Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>
>Two publishers of mathematics have invited me to write about
>
Well then if you're going to do an expose' flambe' then you
really ought to include one gripe I have against you.
Whenever the subject turns to quaternions and things begin
to heat up, and expert guidance and clarification is needed, all
you ever do is tell people to go read your book. Even though
you have plenty of time to castigrate people by installing new
html's on your web site, you never once copied and posted a
page from your book to settle an issue you claimed to have
fully addressed in your volume on Clifford alegrabas.
I guess nobody's perfect, eh?
/ph
- - - - - - -
Erik Max Francis
Wow, Pertti, you're acting even more like a baby than usual.
> Two publishers of mathematics have invited me to write about
> my activities here in sci.math. Most probably, I will accept the
> invitations. Thus, I appreciate all comments and explanations
> of failures to check the validity of my counterexamples.
Sure. I'm sure you'll do anything and everything you can to make
yourself feel more important than others. Have fun.
--
Erik Max Francis | icq 16063900 | whois mf303 | email m...@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | irc maxxon (efnet) | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 420 days and counting | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ Too much agreement kills a chat.
\__/ Eldridge Cleaver
Pertti Lounesto
> I consider you a big royal pain in the neck, who, however perhaps
> knowledgeable himself, demean others, including those who contribute a
> lot to sci.math (e.g. Keith Ramsey and Robin Chapman).
>
> Keith Ramsey seems to have--incredibly enough--devoted an afternoon to
> looking at your "counterexamples" and now finds himself mentioned,
> often in a derogatory manner, in any number of your postings,
> including in this current thread's title.
It is Keith Ramsay, not Keith Ramsey. Ramsay merely misjudges
the scope of research done on Clifford algebras (in the domains
of algebra, analysis, differential geometry and mathematical physics).
Chapman misjudged the level of abstarction needed to understand
parts of Clifford algebras.
> Most people who post to sci.math have other things to do. Amazingly,
> they are willing to help others, who they often don't know, with their
> questions or problems. Do *you* do that? WHEN AND HOW OFTEN?
> How do you compare to Keith Ramsey in this regard?
Again its Ramsay, not Ramsey. How credible are you as a defence
attorney, if you cannot even spell the name of your client? As for
how do I compare to Ramsay: fine. I have set a limit of competency
to both Ramsay and Chapman, who overestimate their mathematical
skills. That should be helpful to you, and others.
> You keep on claiming that people in sci.math have an obligation to
> look at your counterexamples. Why?
Because, when I introduced my www-page on counterexamples,
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm, people here on
sci.math argued that the counterexamples must be false. During
the 30 months of exhibiting my www-page, none of my counter-
examples has been shown wrong. And because, people here on
sci.math argued that my counterexamples are not significant, the
mistakes are only trivial errors. If that would be true, then those
who made the claim, should be able to discuss with me in detail
about each of my counterexamples. Only 1 of my 30 counter-
examples has been evaluated here on sci.math. Conclusion: the
posters of sci.math are overenthusiastic to evaluate mathematical
research, which is beyond their competency. Beware!
> Their "failure to check the validity of [your] counterexamples" is
> simply explained: they've decided they have better things to do.
Yes, that explanation is given after first claiming that my counter-
examples are wrong or non-significant and after none of my
counterexamples has been shown wrong and after no one (except
for Ramsay, in the case of 1 counterexample) has had courage,
or adequate understanding, to evaluate my counterexamples in
detail, in a dialogue with me.
ph...@interpac.net wrote:
> Whenever the subject turns to quaternions and things begin
> to heat up, and expert guidance and clarification is needed, all
> you ever do is tell people to go read your book. Even though
> you have plenty of time to castigrate people by installing new
> html's on your web site, you never once copied and posted a
> page from your book to settle an issue you claimed to have
> fully addressed in your volume on Clifford alegrabas.
Mostly I do as follows: I explain the mathematical details to the
extent that I estimate the questionner is interested and cabable
of understanding immediately, in about 5 to 10 lines. Then I
direct the questionner to the relevant literature and tell what more
can be found there. Why do you think that those posters, who
do not guide the questionners to their books, do better service?
Kent wrote:
> Well, according to your assertions, the entire field of Clifford
> algebras consists of 30 counterexamples to bogus theorems -
> not very exciting stuff.
How do you know that other parts of mathematics would be less
flawed? Might it be that other disciplines of mathematics just lack
a vigilant policing the errors? Might there be, in other discilines,
some systematic or general reasons which prevent researchers
from openly discussing about the mistakes made? Or individual
reasons?
Before I exhibited my counterexample www-page, I discussed
with other experts in Clifford algebras about its possible impact
on the credibility on the whole research group. It was decided
that if degrading remarks are made about the research group as
a whole, then I just ask the insulter to wear the trousers in the
family. Such degrading remarks were actually made by Robin
Chapman, and I behested him to the trousers; for details, see
tita...@my-deja.com
through here to see what I can learn, because I find math so
fascinating.
I can't believe you pertti that you would attack someone like this. Are
you guys "Profesional Mathematicians"? I had no idea that adults acted
like this. I myself am 22 years old, and the last time I had such a
squable was 14 years ago on the playground, over who's ball it was!
Oh by the way pertti I found an error in one of your commentaries.
Titan # 79
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aaron Bergman
>
>Because, when I introduced my www-page on counterexamples,
>http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm, people here on
>sci.math argued that the counterexamples must be false. During
>the 30 months of exhibiting my www-page, none of my counter-
>examples has been shown wrong. And because, people here on
>sci.math argued that my counterexamples are not significant, the
>mistakes are only trivial errors.
So what?
Jesus christ man. Let it go already. No one cares, and you're only
making a fool of yourself with your absurd posturing. It's puerile.
Your continual ranting about Robin Chapman and whatever
happened between you and him demonstrates a disturbing amount of
monomania and obsession. You continually bring it up in entirely
unrelated conversations. You appear to have some sort of
persecution complex where you inflate pretty much any comment
made to you into a slur against you, your field and pretty much
everything else.
You might be good at math; you might not. I don't think anyone
here particularly cares. Chapman probably killfiled you months
ago. The problem is that you come across like a conceited
obsessed prick. Your math has never been the issue even though you
continually think it is.
Step back a little, think about it, and learn to let things go.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
> >Because, when I introduced my www-page on counterexamples,
> >http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm, people here on
> >sci.math argued that the counterexamples must be false. During
> >the 30 months of exhibiting my www-page, none of my counter-
> >examples has been shown wrong. And because, people here on
> >sci.math argued that my counterexamples are not significant, the
> >mistakes are only trivial errors.
>
> So what?
At the frontiers of our common exploration toward mathematical
truth, advanced mathematicians make a lot of mistakes. The
mistakes are significant. Reporting about them is unusual.
Ramsay discussed with me about validity of one counterexample
(one cannot expect more involvement from a non-expert) and
argued that he could check half of the counterexamples in a
few days. I have taught Clifford algebras to about 50 or 100
mathematicians, among then Fields Medalists. Even though
most of them were already experts on one or two of the
subdisciplines within Clifford algebras (with subdisciplines:
algebra, analysis, differential geometry and mathematical
physics), they advanced into new topics in a matter of
several months or some years; all learning takes time. Ramsay
has repeatdly argued that he could check my counterexamples
in a matter of days. Judging from my experience, of
teaching Clifford algebras to experts, I do not believe
Ramsay. Ramsay of course still has time to prove his claim.
> Your continual ranting about Robin Chapman and whatever
> happened between you and him demonstrates a disturbing
> amount of monomania and obsession.
On Jan 4, 1999, Robin Chapman wrote, without any provocation
from my side (strictly no provocation of any kind, at all):
> Clifford algebra junkies.
The next day, Jan 5, 1999, Chapman challenged me into a
competition on proving theorems about Clifford algebras:
> here is one theorem on Clifford algebras: refute it within a
> month and you win, prove it to my satisfaction within a month
> and I will submit another. Neither and I win.
I proved Chapman's first theorem to his "satisfaction" and
I also proved Chapman's second theorem, but Chapman has not
yet announced his possible "satisfaction" to my second theorem.
Why do you think that reminding Chapman to tell about his
possible "satisfaction" is "ranting" and "monomia"?
Here is Chapman's second theorem and my proof of it, this time
posted (see also http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman):
> Theorem:
>
> Let (A_1, Q_1), (A_2, Q_2) and (A, Q) be non-degenerate primitive
> binary quadratic forms and m: A_1 x A_2 -> A be a composition map.
> Then there are uniquely determined algebra homomorphisms
> f_j: C_0(A_j, Q_j) -> C_0(A, Q) [j = 1, 2] such that
>
> m(c_1 x_1, c_2 x_2) = f_1(c_1) f_2(c_2) m(x_1, x_2)
>
> for all c_j in C_0(A_j, Q_j) and x_j in A_j.
PROOF:
Here Z is a commutative ring with unit element 1 such that
1+1 does not vanish, and without divisors of zero; thus Z is a
subring of its field of fractions Z', in which 1/2 exists; of
course Z may be the ring of integers. We consider three
free modules A_1, A_2 and A of rank 2 over Z, provided with
non degenerate quadratic forms Q_1, Q_2 and Q ; they are non
degenerate in the weak sense (for instance Q determines an injective
map from A into its dual A*); moreover the ideal of Z generated
by Q_1(A_1) is Z, and also the ideal generated by Q_2(A_2).
It is assumed that there is a bilinear map m from A_1\times A_2
into A such that (for all x_1 and x_2)
Q(m(x_1,x_2)) = Q_1(x_1) Q_2(x_2) ;
these hypotheses imply the existence of two algebra morphisms
f_j : Cl_0(A_j,Q_j) \arrow Cl_0(A,Q) (j=1,2)
involving the even Clifford subalgebras, and such that
m(c_1x_1, c_2x_2) = f_1(c_1)f_2(c_2) m(x_1,x_2)
for all c_1 in Cl_0(A_1,Q_1), c_2 in Cl_0(A_2,Q_2), x_1 in A_1
and x_2 in A_2 .
I give a proof in three steps. All indices "prime" mean that
an extension of scalars from Z to Z' has been done; A_1 is embedded
in the vector space A'_1 over the field Z', which is provided with
a non degenerate quadratic form Q'_1 extending Q_1, the Clifford
algebra Cl(A_1,Q_1) is embedded in the Clifford algebra Cl'(A'_1,Q'_1),
and so forth ... The bilinear maps associated to the quadratic maps
are denoted B_1, B_2 and B ; for instance B(x,y)=Q(x+y)-Q(x)-Q(y) .
FIRST STEP .
Let k be a non zero element of Z and g a linear map from A_1 into A
such that Q(g(x_1)) = k Q_1(x_1) for all x_1 in A_1 ; there exists
a unique algebra morphism f from Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) into Cl'_0(A',Q') such
that the following equality holds in Cl'(A',Q') for all x_1 in A_1 and
all c_1 in Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) : g(c_1x_1) = f(c_1)g(x_1) ;
moreover kf(c_1) belongs to Cl_0(A,Q) for all c_1 in Cl_0(A_1,Q_1).
PROOF . Let (a_1,b_1) be a basis of A_1 ; Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) is
a free module with basis (1, a_1b_1) ; let f be the linear map
from Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) into Cl'_0(A',Q') which maps 1 to 1, and a_1b_1
to g(a_1)g(b_1)/k ; f is an algebra morphism because there is a
polynomial X^2+uX+v in Z[X] which gives 0 when X is replaced by
a_1b_1 or by g(a_1)g(b_1)/k (exactly u = B_1(a_1,b_1) and v =
Q_1(a_1)Q_1(b_1)) . It remains to check the equalities
k g((a_1b_1)a_1) = (g(a_1)g(b_1)) g(a_1) ,
k g((a_1b_1)b_1) = (g(a_1)g(b_1)) g(b_1) ;
this is done by straightforward calculations.
The unicity of f results from the following fact: if c is an element
of Cl'_0(A',Q') such that cg(a_1)=cg(a_2)=0, then c=0 .
SECOND STEP .
The announced statement is true when Z is a field.
PROOF . Let (a_j,b_j) be an orthogonal basis of A_j for j=1,2 .
It is clear that the map x_2 \arrow m(a_1,x_2) preserves
orthogonality, and all similar maps too; consequently we get an
orthogonal basis (a,b) of A if we set
a = m(a_1,a_2) and b = m(a_1,b_2) ,
and moreover there exists elements h and h' of Z' such that
m(b_1,a_2) = h Q_1(b_1) Q_2(a_2) b ,
m(b_1,b_2) = h' Q_1(b_1) Q_2(b_2) a ;
for the moment the former equality only means that m(b_1,a_2) is
proportional to b (because it is orthogonal to m(a_1,a_2)=a ),
but the precise way of writing this proportionality
will be now justified by the relations to impose to h and h',
so that m actually satisfies the requirement stated in the
hypotheses; indeed there are two relations to impose to h and h' :
h+h'=0 and h^2 Q_1(a_1)Q_1(b_1)Q_2(a_2)Q_2(b_2) = 1 ;
these relations emerge from straightforward calculations.
Let f_1 be the linear map from Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) into Cl_0(A,Q)
defined in this way:
f_1(1)=1 and f_1(a_1b_1) = h Q_1(b_1) ab ;
it is easy to check that f_1 is an algebra morphism; similarly we
define f_2 in this way:
f_2(1)=1 and f_2(a_2b_2) = ab /Q_1(a_1) ;
f_2 is also an algebra morphism, and straightforward calculations
show that f_1 and f_2 satisfy the required condition; since all
modules are provided with orthogonal bases, all these calculations
are quite easy.
THIRD STEP .
The announced statement is true without more hypotheses.
PROOF . We already know that there are two algebra morphisms
f_j : Cl_0(A_j,Q_j) \arrow Cl'_0(A',Q')
such that the required condition is true in the Clifford algebra
Cl'(A',Q') ; it remains to prove that they take their values in
Cl_0(A,Q) ; I shall prove it for f_1 (for f_2 the proof would be
similar). Let J be the subset of all z in Z such that
z f_1(c_1) belongs to Cl_0(A,Q) for all c_1 in Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) ;
obviously J is an ideal of Z, and we have to prove that J=Z ;
let x_2 be an element of A_2 such that Q_2(x_2) is not 0,
and let us set k=Q_2(x_2) ; let g be the map x_1 \arrow
m(x_1,x_2) from A_1 into A ; obviously Q(g(x_1)) = k Q_1(x_1)
for all x_1 in A_1 ; consequently there is a unique algebra
morphism f from Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) into Cl'_0(A',Q') such that
g(c_1x_1) = f(c_1)g(x_1) for all c_1 in Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) and all x_1
in A_1 ; we also know that kf(c_1) belongs to Cl_0(A,Q) for all
c_1 in Cl_0(A_1,Q_1) ; now since f is unique, it must coincide with
f_1 , and all this proves that Q_2(x_2) belongs to J ; since the
ideal of Z generated by all Q_2(x_2) is Z, we conclude that J=Z,
as desired.
Aaron Bergman
>Aaron Bergman wrote:
>
>> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>>
>> >Because, when I introduced my www-page on counterexamples,
>> >http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm, people here on
>> >sci.math argued that the counterexamples must be false. During
>> >the 30 months of exhibiting my www-page, none of my counter-
>> >examples has been shown wrong. And because, people here on
>> >sci.math argued that my counterexamples are not significant, the
>> >mistakes are only trivial errors.
>>
>> So what?
>
>At the frontiers of our common exploration toward mathematical
>truth, advanced mathematicians make a lot of mistakes. The
>mistakes are significant. Reporting about them is unusual.
I don't disagree. That doesn't mean that you have to mention it
every other post.
>Ramsay discussed with me about validity of one counterexample
>(one cannot expect more involvement from a non-expert) and
>argued that he could check half of the counterexamples in a
>few days. I have taught Clifford algebras to about 50 or 100
>mathematicians, among then Fields Medalists. Even though
>most of them were already experts on one or two of the
>subdisciplines within Clifford algebras (with subdisciplines:
>algebra, analysis, differential geometry and mathematical
>physics), they advanced into new topics in a matter of
>several months or some years; all learning takes time. Ramsay
>has repeatdly argued that he could check my counterexamples
>in a matter of days. Judging from my experience, of
>teaching Clifford algebras to experts, I do not believe
>Ramsay. Ramsay of course still has time to prove his claim.
Again, so what? You're treating this like a personal affront.
It's just not that big of a deal. Maybe Ramsay was wrong and
overestimating his ability in the field. So he was a bit
hyperbolic. Then again, maybe he wasn't. This is just not a
serious issue.
>
>> Your continual ranting about Robin Chapman and whatever
>> happened between you and him demonstrates a disturbing
>> amount of monomania and obsession.
>
>On Jan 4, 1999, Robin Chapman wrote, without any provocation
>from my side (strictly no provocation of any kind, at all):
>
>> Clifford algebra junkies.
Oh my god. Someone insulted your field. Whatever will become of
the world?
Come on. Let it go.
[...Chapman's challenege...]
>
>I proved Chapman's first theorem to his "satisfaction" and
>I also proved Chapman's second theorem, but Chapman has not
>yet announced his possible "satisfaction" to my second theorem.
>Why do you think that reminding Chapman to tell about his
>possible "satisfaction" is "ranting" and "monomia"?
Because you do it all the time. Over and over again, ad nauseum,
trying to inject this into irrelevant threads. It's obvious he's
not listening to you, so why persist? And why do it so much?
>Here is Chapman's second theorem and my proof of it, this time
>posted (see also http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman):
Guess what. I don't care.
Erik Max Francis
> Aaron Bergman wrote:
>
> > Your continual ranting about Robin Chapman and whatever
> > happened between you and him demonstrates a disturbing
> > amount of monomania and obsession.
>
> On Jan 4, 1999, Robin Chapman wrote, without any provocation
> from my side (strictly no provocation of any kind, at all):
...
> The next day, Jan 5, 1999, Chapman challenged me into a
> competition on proving theorems about Clifford algebras:
...
> I proved Chapman's first theorem to his "satisfaction" and
> I also proved Chapman's second theorem, but Chapman has not
> yet announced his possible "satisfaction" to my second theorem.
> Why do you think that reminding Chapman to tell about his
> possible "satisfaction" is "ranting" and "monomia"?
>
> Here is Chapman's second theorem and my proof of it, this time
> posted (see also http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman):
What a fabulous job you have done of making Aaron's point for him.
Pertti, it's really obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention that
you are a very intelligent and quite knowledgeable person. However,
your attitude is so self-absorbed and obnoxious that people can't help
but be put off -- whether you actually know what you're talking about
takes a backseat to your self-aggrandization and personal attacks.
--
Erik Max Francis | icq 16063900 | whois mf303 | email m...@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | irc maxxon (efnet) | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 419 days and counting | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ If love be good, from whence cometh my woe?
\__/ Chaucer
Paul Hunt
> ....
> At the frontiers of our common exploration toward
> mathematical truth, advanced mathematicians make a
> lot of mistakes. The mistakes are significant.
Okay Pertti, as far as I'm concerned you've already won
the favors of Dulcina Mathematica! But, where is your
scrawny nag, and your trusty sidekick, Sancho Panza??
You cannot bring down the Giants while afoot and alone,
burdened as you are with so much impenetrable armour.
/ph
"Where is the governor of this province?" Quixote asks.
"He is dead," Sancho answers.
"Who killed him?" queries Quixote, ready to avenge a death.
"God, by way of a fever," Sancho repies.
- - - - - - -
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Pertti Lounesto
> It's just not that big of a deal. Maybe Ramsay was wrong and
> overestimating his ability in the field. So he was a bit
> hyperbolic. Then again, maybe he wasn't.
Maybe, maybe not. That is not important or interesting.
Relevant is Ramsay's agenda -- why did he have to add
"I could, if I wanted to"? Because, he was prejudiced in
the first place (about complexity of my counterexamples
and) about the role of mistakes in the mathematical
literature. This observation is important, because as far
as I can judge, Ramsay is/was the least prejudiced with
this respect in sci.math.
> >On Jan 4, 1999, Robin Chapman wrote, without any provocation
> >from my side (strictly no provocation of any kind, at all):
> >
> >> Clifford algebra junkies.
>
> Oh my god. Someone insulted your field. Whatever will
> become of the world?
The insult against my field is not relevant, although it is there.
Interesting again are Chapman's motives. As opposed to
Ramsay, Chapman wants to put down all mathematicians,
who make mistakes. That is nor justified, in my opinion.
And I substantiated my view by catching Chapman of
making an error in the field of mathematics he despises.
Aaron Bergman
>Aaron Bergman wrote:
>
>> It's just not that big of a deal. Maybe Ramsay was wrong and
>> overestimating his ability in the field. So he was a bit
>> hyperbolic. Then again, maybe he wasn't.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. That is not important or interesting.
>Relevant is Ramsay's agenda -- why did he have to add
>"I could, if I wanted to"? Because, he was prejudiced in
>the first place (about complexity of my counterexamples
>and) about the role of mistakes in the mathematical
>literature.
How do you know this? Do you read minds? Or do you just ascribe
motives to fit your persecution complex?
[...]
>>
>> Oh my god. Someone insulted your field. Whatever will
>> become of the world?
>
>The insult against my field is not relevant, although it is there.
>Interesting again are Chapman's motives. As opposed to
>Ramsay, Chapman wants to put down all mathematicians,
>who make mistakes. That is nor justified, in my opinion.
>And I substantiated my view by catching Chapman of
>making an error in the field of mathematics he despises.
Perhaps you didn't catch this the first thirty seven times. I
don't care. You're just making a pest of yourself by continually
harping on the subject. Let it go.
Keith Ramsay
Here's a typical example of what I wrote about this topic.
-----------
[...] It's true that
I'm not a specialist in Clifford algebras, but even to me there wasn't
anything particularly complex about the cases that I saw. Maybe I was
just lucky, but I would be very surprised if the other counterexamples
took 100 times longer on average to check than the three that were
there. Perhaps the "triality" one (which you seem especially to like)
would take longer, but would it really take months to verify?
-----------
In article <3825640D...@hit.fi>,
Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> writes:
|Ramsay emphasized that he only used one afternoon to check
|the 3 counterexamples, and added that he could check, if
|wanted to, half of my counterexamples in a few days.
|
|Thus, Ramsay made a claim of his competency over 40%
|of Clifford algebras, without justifying his claim by actually
|validating/invalidating 12 more of my counterexamples.
|
|Such activity is intellectual dishonesty, theft of competency.
You egregiously misrepresent me.
[...]
|Two publishers of mathematics have invited me to write about
|my activities here in sci.math. Most probably, I will accept the
|invitations.
Do not publish misrepresentations such as the above.
Keith Ramsay
Keith Ramsay
Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> writes:
|Ramsay merely misjudges
|the scope of research done on Clifford algebras (in the domains
I wouldn't gauge the scope of research done on Clifford algebras by
your list of counterexamples, even if I had checked all of them.
[...]
|Again its Ramsay, not Ramsey. How credible are you as a defence
|attorney, if you cannot even spell the name of your client?
I wouldn't gauge someone's understanding of people by how well they
spell, even if the spelling were actually very bad.*
[...]
|I have set a limit of competency
|to both Ramsay and Chapman, who overestimate their mathematical
|skills.
I wouldn't gauge my mathematical abilities based on your list of
counterexamples, even if I had checked all of them.
Keith Ramsay <-- *A spelling which arose as a variant of Ramsey.
Pronounced the same, and a bit less common than
the older spelling.
Robin Chapman
aber...@princeton.edu wrote:
> [...Chapman's challenege...]
> >
> >I proved Chapman's first theorem to his "satisfaction" and
> >I also proved Chapman's second theorem, but Chapman has not
> >yet announced his possible "satisfaction" to my second theorem.
> >Why do you think that reminding Chapman to tell about his
> >possible "satisfaction" is "ranting" and "monomia"?
Well, Pertti took so long to prove my second challenge problem
that I had completely lost interest in it.
> Because you do it all the time. Over and over again, ad nauseum,
> trying to inject this into irrelevant threads. It's obvious he's
> not listening to you, so why persist? And why do it so much?
True. A long time ago I realized that his entire repertoire consisted
of plugs for his book and his tendentious philosphizing. I now
no longer bother reading his stuff since it is of no interest. However
from reading various replies to his posts I see he has expanded
his repertoire to include groundless personal abuse.
> >Here is Chapman's second theorem and my proof of it, this time
> >posted (see also http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman):
>
> Guess what. I don't care.
Neither do I.
--
Robin Chapman
http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"`Well, I'd already done a PhD in X-Files Theory at UCLA, ...'"
Greg Egan, _Teranesia_
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto <loun...@pop.hit.fi> wrote:
> > ....
> > At the frontiers of our common exploration toward
> > mathematical truth, advanced mathematicians make a
> > lot of mistakes. The mistakes are significant.
> > ....
>
> Okay Pertti, as far as I'm concerned you've already won
> the favors of Dulcina Mathematica! But, where is your
> scrawny nag, and your trusty sidekick, Sancho Panza??
>
> You cannot bring down the Giants while afoot and alone,
> burdened as you are with so much impenetrable armour.
The purpose of my counterexample www-page
http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm
was not to bring down mathematical giants.
On the contrary, my purpose was to show that also
giants make mistakes, and remain giants in spite
making mistakes.
As for http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman
the purpose is not to bring down Chapman, but to
demonstrate that a good mathematician, who announces
proudly his superiority in some domain of mathematics,
makes serious mistakes in that part of mathematics
-- and remains a good mathematician. Chapman himself
proves my case by not repsonding to my claim of
winning his challenge (of proving a theorem of his):
each time Chapman non-responds, he admits remaining
a good mathematician in spite of making the mistake,
and not admitting it. Thus, Chapman exemplifies
a good mathematician, who makes a mistake and refuses
to admit it.
This raises the two questions:
1. Why it is a tabu to point out math mistakes of
a good mathematician?
2. Why it is acceptable for a good mathematician
to be silent about his mathematical mistakes?
I have known an answer to these questions already
before exhibiting my counterexample www-page and
before catching Chapman of making a math mistake.
Hopefully, some other mathematicians begin to gain
some insight (I do understand that attitudes change
slowly -- time is needed).
Let me use a metaphor (like Jesus and Paul Hunt):
Last Friday, I earned at the Helsinki Stock Exchange
an equivalent of my month's salary as a math teacher.
All I did was some trades with Data Fellows, known
as F-Secure in Nasdaq. The same day, the CEO of
F-Secure, Risto Siilasmaa (33y, an engineer), became
the second richest man in Finland. Siilasmaa is the
founder of F-Secure, which produces cryptography and
anti-virus programs, see http://www.datafellows.fi/.
Thus, computer-internet people become rich by fixing
errors and bad designs of other computer-internet
people. Why does the same fail for mathematicians?
Why do mathematicians remain poor?
Pertti Lounesto
> You egregiously misrepresent me.
OK. You worked out one counterexample (which is more
than anybody else in sci.math), made some inspection
on two others, and made an estimate of how long it
would take of you to do the other counterexamples.
Although working out the other counterexamples would
only take you a few days, in your estimate, it is
completely understandable that you do not engage in
activities, which do not interest you. Also it is
only reasonable to make an estimate of time needed
before entering a task. But, saying an estimate
aload and not performing the task, is a different
thing.
>|I have set a limit of competency to both Ramsay and
>|Chapman, who overestimate their mathematical skills.
>
> I wouldn't gauge my mathematical abilities based
> on your list of counterexamples, even if I had
> checked all of them.
But you have not cheched my counterexamples. So,
somehow you know in advance that working through
my list of counterexamples will not help you to
gauge your mathematical abilities, that you will
not meet much of challenge? Lack of curiosity?
Or just prejudice?
Pertti Lounesto
> Well, Pertti took so long to prove my second challenge
> problem that I had completely lost interest in it.
This is the first time that Robin comments on my
proof of his second challenge. Robin's explanation
of refraining from commenting earlier, and not to
announce his possible "satisfaction" now, would be
acceptable in a normal scientific debate. However,
this was Robin's challenge with time limits imposed
by Robin (= one month for each theorem). I met
Robin's time limits (although Robin could argue
that my interpretation stretched his rules -- but
he does not represent that argument).
> True. A long time ago I realized that his entire
> repertoire consisted of plugs for his book and his
> tendentious philosphizing. I now no longer bother
> reading his stuff since it is of no interest.
Did you realize my repertoire before or after you
presented your challenge? If after accepting my
proof to your first challenge (in Jan 7) and
before me presenting my proof of your second
challenge (in March 5), then exactly when did
you realize my "repertoire"?
> However from reading various replies to his posts
> I see he has expanded his repertoire to include
> groundless personal abuse.
I have only attached to you the words that you
first attached to me or my research field, that
is, "junkie" (on Jan 4) and "dogmatic" (on Jan 4).
Clive Tooth critisized you of attaching such
words to a fellow poster. As a non-native English
speaker, I did not know the meaning of those words.
I used them myself, but only attached to you, nobody
else. So, you see "groundless personal abuse" in
the words you choiced to use yourself, in the first
place.
If I can understand your line of thoughts: Chapman
first presented a "groundless personal abuse"
against Lounesto. Then Chapman "challenged" Lounesto
to prove his theorems on Clifford algebras to his
"satisfaction". After Lounesto proves Chapman's
theorems in the time limits allocated by Chapman,
Chapman "loses his interest in" Lounesto's proofs,
because Lounesto uses Chapman's language?
Robin, if my English, learned from you in this
respect, bothers you, I suggest we swap to Finnish.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Pertti....@hit.fi wrote:
-----------------------see the original---------------------------------
> Last Friday, I earned at the Helsinki Stock Exchange
> an equivalent of my month's salary as a math teacher.
> All I did was some trades with Data Fellows, known
> as F-Secure in Nasdaq. The same day, the CEO of
> F-Secure, Risto Siilasmaa (33y, an engineer), became
> the second richest man in Finland. Siilasmaa is the
> founder of F-Secure, which produces cryptography and
> anti-virus programs, see http://www.datafellows.fi/.
> Thus, computer-internet people become rich by fixing
> errors and bad designs of other computer-internet
> people. Why does the same fail for mathematicians?
> Why do mathematicians remain poor?
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations Pertti! on your financial investments
in the market. You raise a question related to one I
have been exploring with Penny314. I have pointed out
that there is some sort of error in the idea that the
Russian mathematicians who are lucky to collect $60
per month US in Russia when their socialist masters
decree to dole out some of the US taxpayer "loans" to
them [apparently they miss the dole for months at a
time] are amongst the most intelligent people in the
world.
Maybe the Penny314 and Keith Ramsay judgement of the
Russian mathematician's real world values have a flaw?
Maybe they should revisit their determination of the
real wealth (happiness wealth) value of those Russian
mathematicians? Maybe they have mistaken ingratiating
behavior for good character? I know as mathematicians
you all tend to ride the same political horse but
something is amiss here. Keep up the good growth. JD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pertti Lounesto
> Congratulations Pertti! on your financial investments
> in the market.
Thank you. It was the IPO (= initial public offer)
day of F-Secure. People just went crazy in Finland.
As in the US, many people here trade via the internet
-- but all the internet brokers collapsed that day,
because of too many people wanting to buy F-Secure.
> Russian mathematicians who are lucky to collect $60
I have a Russian co-author in one paper, Pavel
Semenov, from Moscow. But, instead of telling
about him, let me tell an anecdote about the
day there was a coup in Moscow, in Aug 1991.
In the morning, I got a phone call from the
Russian embassy. They asked my permission to
send somebody to my office to bring a letter to
me, in person. It was important that the letter
should not be sent by mail, or go into wrong
hands. So, somebody brought me a letter. The
letter was from a Russian friend in Leningrad.
The friend asked me to hire him at my institute
as some kind of math teacher, at 1/4 of a Finnish
salary, and even work the first year free. My
friend asked me to burn the letter right
after reading. This request was due to my
friend's justification of his application:
desctiption of the actions of the Soviet government.
After reading the application, I learned
about the coup. The world was about to flame.
I forgot the letter. The next day, the coup was
over. My friend phoned to me and asked me to
confirm that the letter was destroyed. He
took back his application and explained that
everything is now good in Russia. A few years
later, he moved to California.
Well, for us Westerners it it difficult to
imagine the situation in Russia, both then
and now.
David C. Ullrich
Pertti Lounesto wrote:
He didn't say that. It's really true what Kent's been saying -
I ran into the same thing previously: Your replies to things
people say are _consistently_ irrelevant - they're not actually
replies to what was said, rather replies to I don't know,
what you think was said, or what someone else said years
ago...
Pertti Lounesto
> He didn't say that. It's really true what Kent's been saying -
> I ran into the same thing previously: Your replies to things
> people say are _consistently_ irrelevant - they're not actually
> replies to what was said, rather replies to I don't know,
> what you think was said, or what someone else said years
> ago...
You are of course right. But your comment would be more
helpful, for a non-native English speaker, if you would explain
what was said, rather than just telling about a misinterpretation.
A non-native speaker scans a much wider range of possible
interpretations than a native speaker, and after scanning loses
the possibility to a conversational response.
My first interpretation was that Keith said that (in my own words)
his measure of his own ability in math is based on something
which he himself chooses. I am surely interpreting badly, but if
that is close, it is an acceptable argument. I was replying to
something else, as you say, Keith's earlier comments on how
easily he would check the rest of my counterexamples (remarks
which were not based on his experience and which were not
necessary to make, and were uninteresting (and which give
Keith's opponent (= me) possibility to argue with the subject
line)).
As I understand, Keith tries to reason why he did not go on
checking further counterexamples. I tried to give Keith
feedback, without writing it down, that he need not give
any explanations, because this was not his challenge but
mine. So, Keith had the privilege of quitting at any moment
of his own choice (which is not intended to implicate that
Keith is a quitter).
Andrew Boucher
>
>It is Keith Ramsay, not Keith Ramsey.
Sorry about that. Given the quality of his posts, I guess I was
subconsciously assuming a relation with Frank. My apologies to Keith
RamsAy.
>I have set a limit of competency
>to both Ramsay and Chapman, who overestimate their mathematical
>skills. That should be helpful to you, and others.
Keith Ramsay tends to be kind enough, for instance, to answer
everyone's questions on Intuitionism. *That* is helpful. Setting a
"limit of competency"--even if true--is a vague and woolly notion
which does not compare in helpfulness.
>
>> You keep on claiming that people in sci.math have an obligation to
>> look at your counterexamples. Why?
>
>Because, when I introduced my www-page on counterexamples,
>http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm, people here on
>sci.math argued that the counterexamples must be false.
Okay, so only those people who argued that your counterexamples must
be false may have some sort of obligation. Do you agree that the rest
of us have no
obligation.
Secondly, even those who argued that they must be false (and I don't
know who you're talking about here, and I'm not sure how much I care),
in my view, don't have an obligation to look at them. They assert
it's false. You ask them to explain. They don't or they do. Those
who follow the thread draw the proper conclusions. End of story, I
would hope.
>Conclusion: the
>posters of sci.math are overenthusiastic to evaluate mathematical
>research, which is beyond their competency. Beware!
But no need to tell me, although again I don't know who you're
referring to here and I'm not sure I care. I (and probably 99% of the
people you are
actually interested in reaching in sci.math) understand that the
reader must beware and try to evaluate for himself what has been
written. It is not necessary to insult some of the more helpful
posters to make this point.
> and after no one (except
>for Ramsay, in the case of 1 counterexample) has had courage,
>or adequate understanding, to evaluate my counterexamples in
>detail, in a dialogue with me.
Well this is much, much better! Keith Ramsay has: (1) courage (I'd
say that again!) and (2) adequate understanding.
But still I think your "no one has had courage, or adequate
understanding" comment means you
still don't get the point. A lot of people just don't care
sufficiently. We understand that mathematicians make mistakes, and
they even make mistakes in print.
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hit.fi> wrote:
>
> >It is Keith Ramsay, not Keith Ramsey.
>
> Sorry about that. Given the quality of his posts, I guess I was
> subconsciously assuming a relation with Frank. My apologies
> to Keith RamsAy.
I payed special attention to this detail, because of an incident
in the history of Finland: Henrik Ramsay was our war-time
foreign minister and became a national hero after the war,
when Russians required him and the president to be punished
from being "quilty of war" (= Finland attacked the Soviet?).
> >I have set a limit of competency
> >to both Ramsay and Chapman, who overestimate their
> >mathematical skills. That should be helpful to you, and others.
>
> Keith Ramsay tends to be kind enough, for instance, to answer
> everyone's questions on Intuitionism. *That* is helpful. Setting a
> "limit of competency"--even if true--is a vague and woolly notion
> which does not compare in helpfulness.
I agree. And I agree that the "limits of competency" tell little
about general "mathematical ability" of Ramsay and Chapman;
only that at that special direction of research, among the many,
there is a limit. Keith himself expressed this as follows
Keith Ramsay wrote:
> I wouldn't gauge my mathematical abilities based on your list
> of counterexamples, even if I had checked all of them.
Keith himself probably knew that I, as a non-native English
speaker, will poorly decipher his eloquent expression. Let me
return to this point at the end of my posting.
> >> You keep on claiming that people in sci.math have an obligation to
> >> look at your counterexamples. Why?
> >
> >Because, when I introduced my www-page on counterexamples,
> >http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm, people here on
> >sci.math argued that the counterexamples must be false.
>
> Okay, so only those people who argued that your counterexamples must
> be false may have some sort of obligation. Do you agree that the rest
> of us have no obligation.
I agree. Taken individually, the rest of posters have no obligation.
Taken collectively, sci.math has no obligation either, because it
has not formally accepted my challenge, collectively. But it is
interesting that during the two years of exhibiting my www-page,
the collectivity of sci.math has not managed to check but 1 of
my 30 counterexamples.
> Secondly, even those who argued that they must be false
> in my view, don't have an obligation to look at them. They assert
> it's false. You ask them to explain.
They do not assert any more that my counterexamples are false,
or at least they have not repeated their false assertions. They
have not explained in any way why they made the false assertions.
> It is not necessary to insult some of the more helpful
> posters to make this point.
It is not an insult to keep in mind that they are not experts
in everything. Chapman actually made a serious mathematical
mistake, but serious mathematicians make serious mistakes.
> > and after no one (except
> >for Ramsay, in the case of 1 counterexample) has had courage,
> >or adequate understanding, to evaluate my counterexamples in
> >detail, in a dialogue with me.
>
> Well this is much, much better! Keith Ramsay has: (1) courage
> (I'd say that again!) and (2) adequate understanding.
OK. I will say it immediately. Ramsay showed courage, in
particular, at a moment when there was a folly in sci.math
to bang my counterexample www-page as non-sense.
Ramsay stepped out of the mad group on Dec 27, 1997.
Being the first one to do so, Ramsay took a particular risk of
ridiculing himself. In the words of the first general secretary
of UN, Dag Hammarskjold:
> The most difficult step in a man's life is his step out of the row.
> We understand that mathematicians make mistakes, and
> they even make mistakes in print.
My point is the nature of mistakes. To see this, let me return
to the above quotation from Keith Ramsay, as I promised.
Ramsay's eloquent quotation will probably only be mis-
interpreted by a non-native English speaker, who reveals
his shortcomings to all native speakers by responding.
(From another posting, you will see that I indeed mis-
interpreted Ramsay's quotation above.)
When a group of mathematicians has developed a theory,
which is false, it is like a common language, poorly
describing the mathematical reality (mathematics itself is
not a language). The group ridicules and undermines
everybody who does not understand eloquencies of the
language. There is no way to rectify the misconceptions
by just displaying "the mathematical reality". The rectifier
must begin his task by using all eloquencies of the poor
language. Otherwise he is just taken as a "non-native
speaker", who is quilty of misinterpretation.
Well. I am not so eloquent, but I hope you get the idea
(of the work done to settle each and every one of the
counterexamples in my www-page).
Andy Spragg
On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 15:08:33 -0800, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
wrote (in part):
David C. Ullrich
Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> "David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>
> > He didn't say that. It's really true what Kent's been saying -
> > I ran into the same thing previously: Your replies to things
> > people say are _consistently_ irrelevant - they're not actually
> > replies to what was said, rather replies to I don't know,
> > what you think was said, or what someone else said years
> > ago...
>
> You are of course right. But your comment would be more
> helpful, for a non-native English speaker, if you would explain
> what was said, rather than just telling about a misinterpretation.
Bull. We're not talking about "misinterpretations", we're
talking about simply ignoring what was said and replying to
something else. I mean for heaven's sake you gave another
example _right_ _here_: I _did_ explain what was said.
I _quoted_ the _entire_ statement that you "misinterpreted".
Now you omit that, and _then_ say I should explain what
was said?
Pertti Lounesto
> Woooo, careful, don't reignite the self-aggrandizement debate...;-)
>
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote (in part):
>
> >Pertti, it's really obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention that
> >you are a very intelligent and quite knowledgeable person. However,
> >your attitude is so self-absorbed and obnoxious that people can't help
> >but be put off -- whether you actually know what you're talking about
> >takes a backseat to your self-aggrandization and personal attacks.
I can't see how I self-aggrandize, when Robin Chapman
challenges me to prove his theorems on Clifford algebras,
see my page http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/Robin.Chapman,
and chooses to lose his own challenge. The choice was
Chapman's, not mine.
Chapman's agenda in his challenge was to demonstrate
that Clifford algebraists are poor mathematicians, because
they publish many false theorems, see my counterexample
page http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm.
Chapman not only lost his challenge but also committed
a math mistake himself. Thus, Chapman offered himself
as a counterexample to his own agenda: an extraordinary
mathematician, who makes a math mistake and remains
extraordinary. Such sacrifice for the sake of mathematical
community can only be appreciated.
Erik Max Francis
> I can't see how I self-aggrandize, ...
Most conceited jerks don't.
--
Erik Max Francis | icq 16063900 | whois mf303 | email m...@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | irc maxxon (efnet) | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 417 days and counting | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
\__/ J. Robert Oppenheimer (quoting Hindu legend)
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
>
> > I can't see how I self-aggrandize, ...
>
> Most conceited jerks don't.
OK. I admit: I am a self-aggrandizing jerk.
But why is Keith Ramsay not a self-aggrandizing jerk,
when he incantates my counterexamples as easy, but
does not go on checking them?
And why is Robin Chapman not a self-aggrandizing jerk,
when he challenges me to prove his theorems, loses his
own challenge, but does not admit his defeat?
And why is sci.math not a self-aggrandizing jerk, when
it judges my mathematical work before understanding it?
Erik, I think I am doing a service to the math community,
by reminding it to keep its feet on the ground. Many
mathematicians, who make mistakes, behave like Robin,
who does not admit his mistake and appeals for "personal
abuse". Why is it so difficult to admit fallibility and
limitations of ability?
Pertti Lounesto
> I wouldn't gauge my mathematical abilities based on your
> list of counterexamples, even if I had checked all of them.
That's right, you wouldn't, because most probably you
would be dead before completing the task of checking
all my counterexamples. First, a research mathematician,
who decides to get acquainted with a new research topic,
has lower marginal profits from his new acquaintance and
this diminishes his motivation to explore the new field.
Thus, years of studying might just prolong too long.
Secondly, and this is more essential, it is the nature of
mistakes, and counterexamples revieling them. Many
mistakes/counterexamples are trivial or at least simple,
and might even help a newcomer to enter the topic.
But some misconceptions are rather poor language or
theory describing the mathematical reality. Getting to
know the language, is like making acquaintance with a
culture: you must know the people of the culture, live
with them. And that might well take more time than
allocated to you.
Jeremy Boden
<Pertti....@hit.fi> writes
...
[Not an invitation]
I see that you've stopped advertising your book. This is a positive
step!
I hope someone didn't find a counterexample to it...
--
Jeremy Boden
Charles H. Giffen
>
> Andrew Boucher wrote:
>
> > I consider you a big royal pain in the neck, who, however perhaps
> > knowledgeable himself, demean others, including those who contribute a
> > lot to sci.math (e.g. Keith Ramsey and Robin Chapman).
> >
[snip]
> It is Keith Ramsay, not Keith Ramsey. Ramsay merely misjudges
> the scope of research done on Clifford algebras (in the domains
> of algebra, analysis, differential geometry and mathematical physics).
> parts of Clifford algebras.
>
> > Most people who post to sci.math have other things to do. Amazingly,
> > they are willing to help others, who they often don't know, with their
> > questions or problems. Do *you* do that? WHEN AND HOW OFTEN?
> > How do you compare to Keith Ramsey in this regard?
>
> Again its Ramsay, not Ramsey. How credible are you as a defence
> how do I compare to Ramsay: fine. I have set a limit of competency
> to both Ramsay and Chapman, who overestimate their mathematical
> skills. That should be helpful to you, and others.
>
Dear Pertti not Perrti, who couldn't get Craig not Graig
Johnson's name spelled correctly -- since you seem so heated
up and concerned with spelling:
It's "it's" -- not "its" (as you seem to think?!) -- that you
should have written.
And your level of abstraction not abstarction is simply
amazing!
> > You keep on claiming that people in sci.math have an obligation to
> > look at your counterexamples. Why?
>
> Because,
[snip]
> Mostly I do as follows: I explain the mathematical details to the
> extent that I estimate the questionner is interested and cabable
> of understanding immediately, in about 5 to 10 lines. Then I
> direct the questionner to the relevant literature and tell what more
> can be found there. Why do you think that those posters, who
> do not guide the questionners to their books, do better service?
>
I rather think that you misjudge your questioners not
questionners and would find that they are rather more
capable not cabable than you think.
[snip]
Might there be, in other discilines,
> some systematic or general reasons which prevent researchers
> from openly discussing about the mistakes made? Or individual
> reasons?
>
If you are going to criticize the spelling of others, perhaps
it would be in your best interest to be a bit more disciplined
not discilined about proper spelling in your own critiques.
[snip]
Perhaps you should take notice of the message on a bumper
sticker I once saw -- its message was:
I never make misteaks!
Sincerely,
Charles Giffen not Griffin nor Gifford nor Griffith nor...
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> > Craig Johnston <c...@lfn.org (Craig Johnston)> wrote: [cut]
>
> Dear Pertti not Perrti, who couldn't get Craig not Graig
> Johnson's name spelled correctly -- since you seem so heated
> up and concerned with spelling: [cut]
It's Craig Johnston, not Craig Johnson.
> I rather think that you misjudge your questioners not
> questionners and would find that they are rather more
> capable not cabable than you think.
Thank you for correcting my English. I must first find
a pretext to key in questioner and capable, in order to
drive the correct spellings into my memory. Here comes:
The misspelling of questioner is comes from French,
another foreign language I have to learn as a Finn.
The misspelling of capable probably (sp?) is due to
Finnish having only one p-b sound.
The issue of misspelling is annoying for a non-native
English speaker, who has to look strange words from
a dictionary, and cannot of course find misspelled words.
> Perhaps you should take notice of the message on a bumper
> sticker I once saw -- its message was:
>
> I never make misteaks!
This is a common mistake. The fact that I focus on
mistakes of mathematicians, does not imply that I
renounce my rights to mistake-making.