On Monday, June 11, 2007 at 10:51:16 PM UTC+3, Randy Poe wrote:
> On Jun 9, 11:36 pm, jst...@gmail.com wrote:
> > To me arguing comes naturally in the search for truth as people have
> > different points of views and might see something you miss or catch
> > you on mistakes that you cannot easily see on your own.
> >
> > The big surprise for me from the math community was figuring out that
> > they argue to deny the truth, and do so as a group, so like, when I
> > had a paper on some of my mathematical research published, as a group
> > the sci.math newsgroup reacted in fury and some of them emailed the
> > mathematical journal editors against my paper.
> >
> > But what was really weird to me about that story was that in attacking
> > the publication against my paper the math people attacked journals in
> > general, claiming they often published wrong papers!!!
> >
> > So they attacked the entire system. But later when I noted that they
> > claimed they didn't!
> >
> > Ultimately they seemed to settle on a paper only being important if it
> > were published in a major journal and had general acceptance in the
> > math community.
> >
> > All that reaction was to me getting published and the rest of the
> > story is the journal editors yanked my paper out of the published
> > journal, as it was electronic so they could just change the file,
> > managed one more edition and then quietly shut down.
> >
> > The journal with the initials SWJPAM--on which it is the easiest to
> > search for it--was a publication of Cameron University which
> > previously had links to it on its websites, but it removed all of
> > those so that the journals editions--and the papers published in it
> > over nine years--would have been lost except that EMIS, a mirror
> > server, decided to keep the journal alive.
> >
> > See: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/
> >
> > Imagine, the university was willing to just toss over nine years of
> > published mathematical papers!!! And nary a word in protest that I've
> > noticed from the mathematical community.
> >
> > What EMIS says at that link is the most I've heard on this entire
> > thing from what one might call an official source.
> >
> > That's the mathematical world and I think some of you have some weird
> > noble idea of that world that is nothing like the reality as that
> > story is factual. It is about the actual math world and what is
> > possible within it.
> >
> > My take on it is that it is a highly political world. Math people
> > care about consensus first and foremost.
> >
> > And they can deny ANYTHING.
> >
> > Like I have talked about my find of a discrete damped oscillator as
> > that makes it physics relevant but since 2002, when I made this
> > discovery, I have talked about it in the math world because it counts
> > prime numbers and it does so by summing a partial difference equation.
> >
> > Turns out, there is no other known function, or any other research for
> > that matter, where you get anything like it, as not only do you have
> > this first of using a partial difference equation, so it actually
> > finds primes on its own as it counts, but you can move to a partial
> > differential equation, which is just mind-blowing, so it's easy to
> > step through all the ways this research is unique.
> >
> > But I can't get any traction in the math world, and in fact, on direct
> > points over uniqueness I end up in bizarre arguments, admittedly on
> > math newsgroups, with people who just deny the facts.
> >
> > So, if you are naive or trusting in human nature, you may ask, why
> > can't I just ask them to show something else like what I found?
> >
> > I do. They lie in reply. These people seem to have nothing sacred.
> >
> > They lie about prime numbers, they lie about simple equations and when
> > I looked to find a reason, the only one that makes sense is that they
> > do not wish to accept what is mathematically true for some rather
> > basic reasons:
> >
> > 1. My research helps settles questions thought big and open on which
> > a lot of mathematicians are currently doing research. So accepting it
> > would take away jobs.
> >
> > 2. They feel invulnerable because society accepts them as experts and
> > believes in them, trusts them, so even when they blatantly lie on
> > something as seemingly obvious as whether or not a partial difference
> > equation has EVER been used to count prime numbers, there's little I
> > can do.
> >
> > To me the big reason is 1. My discoveries help close the door on
> > research that is currently giving mathematicians something to do, and
> > money is usually the biggest motivator in major fraud.
> >
> > Yup, what I'm talking about is academic fraud.
> >
> > Can it be stopped?
> >
> > I think the odds are long. There's no sense in my mind that this
> > post, for instance, will matter much more than any of the previous
> > ones, and let's face it, mathematicians get away with this because,
> > for instance, prime numbers are NOT really that important to the
> > business of most of the world.
> >
> > What they do is not relevant or meaningful anymore. Even in physics
> > most of the mathematics that is needed was discovered long ago. These
> > people may not have anything important to do!
> >
> > In a sense they have a point that their world is no longer relevant,
> > so it doesn't really matter much to what everyone else is doing if
> > they are wrong, or ignore important research, and they do need to eat!
> >
> > But they are different I think from physics people who are driven to
> > find answers, and get to the truth--not just be convincing and keep
> > getting paid.
> >
> > Or I like to think they are. Who really knows and does it really
> > matter?
> >
> > Eventually our species like so many others before it will be extinct.
> > In the meantime, well, we do what we do because, what else would we
> > do?
> >
> > And reality is that for most people perception IS reality. It's more
> > important to believe that we're doing important things than to
> > actually be doing important things.
> >
> > Still it is sad. Often I feel sorry for these people who spend so
> > much energy on things that are just not true that on some level they
> > must know are not true.
> >
> > But then again, other people make bigger sacrifices to care for
> > themselves and their children.
> >
> > People will do a lot to have a life, have kids, live comfortably.
> > Lying is common in society's around the world.
> >
> > Lying about math is not that big of a reach, not when a comfortable
> > life, for you and your children, can be realized by just not caring
> > about what is true about some math stuff.
> >
> > But I do hope physics can to some extent escape falling into the same
> > decline as the mathematics field has, but maybe it's inevitable.
> >
> > Maybe species like humanity do die with a whimper, as I think many of
> > us suspect--failing in every way, including in the search for truth.
> >
> > Learning that pretend knowledge is better than truth, so that some
> > people can feel comfortable, may just be a sign that a species is on
> > its last legs.
> >
> > James Harris
> Posting to sci.math, which you seem to have accidentally omitted
> from the headers.
> - Randy