Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #418764 > unrolled thread

Wiles, Tao, Hales, Conway, Stillwell, Appel&Haken//Why math needs a new award system-- Fields, Wolf, Abel prizes only pollute math with fakeries

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Wiles, Tao, Hales, Conway, Stillwell, Appel&Haken//Why math needs a new award system-- Fields, Wolf, Abel prizes only  pollute math with fakeries Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 13:18 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-22 00:00 +0000

#418764 — Wiles, Tao, Hales, Conway, Stillwell, Appel&Haken//Why math needs a new award system-- Fields, Wolf, Abel prizes only pollute math with fakeries

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 11:59:23 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Why math needs a new award system-- Fields, Wolf, Abel prizes only
 pollute math with fakeries-- Wiles, Tao, Hales, Conway, Stillwell, Appel&Haken
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 18:59:23 +0000

Why math needs a new award system-- Fields, Wolf, Abel prizes only pollute math with fakeries-- Wiles, Tao, Hales, Conway, Stillwell, Appel&Haken

Math is full of mistakes, so riddled and no-one in present day math except Archimedes Plutonium is doing anything about ridding math of mistakes. A clear example is the Old Math insistence that the ellipse is a conic section when you can set up an experiment to easily prove it is never a conic section but rather is always a cylinder section. You can never get a ellipse out of a cone cut. 

One would think math professors and books of math would scrub their mistake out of math in a month time. But no, in mathematics-- the jerks only concern is making more money and winning a prize of Fields, Wolf, Abel regardless of whether their math is more pollution. 

Math today, has no structure for cleaning up and cleaning out fakery, none whatsoever. 

And what needs to change is the awards given in mathematics. That no award is ever given, anymore, to someone who never cleaned up Old Math. No point in giving Wiles an award for number theory, when the fool Wiles cannot even clean up -- What is a Number. No point in giving Tao an award for something of primes and infinity, when the fool does not even have a clear definition of what "infinity" actually means. No point in giving Appel and Haken a award for 4 Color Mapping when the fools do not even know enough Logic to assemble a valid proof argument-- double reductio ad absurdum is a total sham. 

So, what I propose is that all math awards of the past be discontinued for they only entrench corrupt fake math and they fostered a system where no-one is motivated to have Math correct and true. Those awards only fostered fools to game the system and yielded more fake math. 

Here is a list of HUGE HUGE errors of Old Math for which past mathematicians should have cleaned up, but were too busy chasing after awards by making more fake math. 

#1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to 

Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic. 


The 4 connectors of Logic are: 

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one 
2) And (conjunction) 
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction) 
4) Implication 

New Logic 

EQUAL/NOT table: 
T  = T  = T 
T  = not F  = T 
F  = not T  = T 
F =  F   = T 

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we 
cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built 
already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So 
we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is 
that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above 
table. 

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the 
other three logic connectors. 

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with 
negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up 
being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first 
connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up 
being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a 
philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is 
multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram 

T    T 

T    T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square 

While addition is and with a Space like this 

T    T 

T    F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition. 

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition. 

New Logic 
AND 
T &  T  = T 
T & F  = T 
F &  T  = T 
F  & F   = F 

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense. 
AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for 
AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of 
statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P 
and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the 
string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true. 

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false. 

New Logic 
OR(exclusive) 
T or  T  = F 
T or F  = T 
F or  T  = T 
F  or F   = F 

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there 
is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and 
so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F, 
there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we 
pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction. 

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses. 

New Logic 
IMPLIES (Material Conditional) 
IF/THEN 
MOVES INTO 
T ->  T  = T 
T ->  F  = F 
F ->  T  = U probability outcome 
F ->  F   = U probability outcome 

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for 
unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do 
math where 0 divided into something is not defined. 

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues, 
3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table 
with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is 
important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by 
primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one 
cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms, 
independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is 
that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For 
AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would 
be TFFT instead of FTTF. 

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need 
a condition of this: 

One Table be 4 of the same 
One Table be 3 of the same 
One Table be 2 of the same 
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable. 

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem 
was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the 
best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology 
and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second 
rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole 
1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on 
Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and 
fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is 
AND. 

Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they 
thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In 
the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a 
raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm 
clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and 
shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being 
sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his 
wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of 
course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a 
mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy 
as what Boole was. 

But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a 
mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more 
money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of 
the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by 
Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old 
Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a 
Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic. 

1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF. 
Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of 
statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the 
wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the 
entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and 
false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true 
ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true. 
1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT 
1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary 
1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is 
merely probability-truth, not guaranteed 
1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place. 

1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value. 


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#418788 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

You just don't learn, do you, Stoopid Plutonium!

Let's review why the ellipse is a conic section.

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic 
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web