Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    19 Dec '17 13:48 / 1 edit
    http://www.sciencealert.com/nightmarish-500-page-math-proof-even-experts-can-t-understand-about-published-shinichi-mochizuki

    This paper has been analysed for years with no consenous.

    I wonder if Terence Tao has had a look?
  2. 19 Dec '17 15:09 / 6 edits
    At least I am certainly not going to make the same mistake.
    All the maths proofs I make to go into my book (yet-to-be published) will be all written so the average layperson will have no difficulty understanding them thus maths experts would certainly understand them!
    No point in making a proof expressed such that nobody, not even the experts, understands it! A proof that apparently cannot be verified as being proof would completely defeat the whole point of a proof!
    The main type of proof I will use in my book will be proof by contradiction, which is a type of proof that is actually very easy even for the maths naive to understand and I will explain each in plain English as well as mathematically.
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    20 Dec '17 09:48
    Originally posted by @humy
    At least I am certainly not going to make the same mistake.
    All the maths proofs I make to go into my book (yet-to-be published) will be all written so the average layperson will have no difficulty understanding them thus maths experts would certainly understand them!
    No point in making a proof expressed such that nobody, not even the experts, understands it ...[text shortened]... he maths naive to understand and I will explain each in plain English as well as mathematically.
    Do you or do you not think that person A can discover
    a mathematical proof that is incomprehensible to person B?

    If no then you think that all abstract theorems are understandable
    by the whole population. I think the evidence is against this.

    If yes then you can continue applying this to diminishing
    populations such that eventually there is nobody else to
    understand the proof.
  4. 20 Dec '17 10:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Do you or do you not think that person A can discover
    a mathematical proof that is incomprehensible to person B?

    If no then you think that all abstract theorems are understandable
    by the whole population. I think the evidence is against this.

    If yes then you can continue applying this to diminishing
    populations such that eventually there is nobody else to
    understand the proof.
    Do you or do you not think that person A can discover
    a mathematical proof that is incomprehensible to person B?

    of cause that is possible.
    Thankfully, all my proofs just happen to be extremely easy to understand.
    If yes then you can continue applying this to diminishing
    populations such that eventually there is nobody else to
    understand the proof.

    What use does a proof have if nobody else can understand it?
    It may have only rather limit personal use to the one person that understands it who produced it but still be completely useless to everyone else because nobody else would rationally know it is valid if nobody else can understand it thus everyone else would only have the word of the person that produced it that it is valid and that wouldn't be adequate. I think there really needs to be at least one other intelligent and generally trusted maths-expert person (or perhaps even just a computer or even an AI checking the proof! That has on the extremely rare occasion already happened in the past! ) that independently has studied it and says, yes, that proof is valid, before everyone else can rationally 'know' it is valid.
  5. Subscriber ogb
    20 Dec '17 14:25
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    http://www.sciencealert.com/nightmarish-500-page-math-proof-even-experts-can-t-understand-about-published-shinichi-mochizuki

    This paper has been analysed for years with no consenous.

    I wonder if Terence Tao has had a look?
    don't forget about Ramanujan and the Akashic records !!
  6. 20 Dec '17 16:32
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Do you or do you not think that person A can discover
    a mathematical proof that is incomprehensible to person B?

    If no then you think that all abstract theorems are understandable
    by the whole population. I think the evidence is against this.

    If yes then you can continue applying this to diminishing
    populations such that eventually there is nobody else to
    understand the proof.
    But who will believe it?
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    20 Dec '17 17:23
    Originally posted by @eladar
    But who will believe it?
    That's why I wondered if Terence Tao had a look. A guy with an IQ of 200+ should be able to suss it out.
  8. 20 Dec '17 22:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse to Eladar
    That's why I wondered if Terence Tao had a look. A guy with an IQ of 200+ should be able to suss it out.
    Modern mathematics has become extremely specialized. (A few centuries ago,
    Gauss probably could comprehend all that was worth knowing in mathematics.)
    I don't know if this 'proof' falls within what Terence Tao's already familiar.
    If not, then he could spend many hours just attempting to orient himself.

    When I attended mathematical conferences, a frequently asked question among the
    audience members (largely professors) was 'How much of that lecture did you understand?'
    There's no shame in freely admitting one's ignorance.

    Here's a conversation that I had with a professor:
    I : Do you think it would be worthwhile to attend this afternoon's lectures?
    He: Not really. It was hard to follow more beyond the outlines of this morning's lectures.
    I : Oh, I see. (sigh)
    He: Look, it's a nice day. Would you mind very much if I took you to see a movie instead?
    I : But we are supposed to be here to attend the conference.
    He: You sound like a good girl. Who's going to talk about what happens between us?
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    20 Dec '17 22:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Modern mathematics has become extremely specialized. (A few centuries ago,
    Gauss probably could comprehend all that was worth knowing in mathematics.)
    I don't know if this 'proof' falls within what Terence Tao's already familiar.
    If not, then he could spend many hours just attempting to orient himself.

    When I attended mathematical conferences, a fr ...[text shortened]... conference.
    He: You sound like a good girl. Who's going to talk about what happens between us?
    Sounds like he was interested in something outside the world of math

    I wonder when AI will surpass humans in understanding maths? You probably heard of Alpha zero's destruction of Stockfish, wonder what it would do if taught the basics of math?
  10. 20 Dec '17 22:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Sounds like he was interested in something outside the world of math

    I wonder when AI will surpass humans in understanding maths? You probably heard of Alpha zero's destruction of Stockfish, wonder what it would do if taught the basics of math?
    If an academic conference's set in a 'touristy' place, there's a temptation to be a (truant) tourist.
    I can understand why a man could enjoy doing tourist activities more as part of a couple
    (for the day) than alone. And I could be willing to go along with that as long as he can
    understand and respect my limits and keep his expectations of me in check.

    The mass media may have (ignorantly as usual) exaggerated Alpha Zero's achievements.

    https://medium.com/@josecamachocollados/is-alphazero-really-a-scientific-breakthrough-in-ai-bf66ae1c84f2

    "Is AlphaZero really a scientific breakthrough in AI?"
    --Jose Camacho Collados (mathematician and chess IM)

    "There are reasonable doubts about the validity of the overarching claims that arise
    from a careful reading of AlphaZero’s paper."

    https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/truth-from-zero/

    "Truth From Zero?"
    --Ken Regan (professor and chess IM)
  11. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    21 Dec '17 01:49
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    If an academic conference's set in a 'touristy' place, there's a temptation to be a (truant) tourist.
    I can understand why a man could enjoy doing tourist activities more as part of a couple
    (for the day) than alone. And I could be willing to go along with that as long as he can
    understand and respect my limits and keep his expectations of me in check ...[text shortened]... ess.com/2017/12/17/truth-from-zero/

    "Truth From Zero?"
    --Ken Regan (professor and chess IM)
    Well, did you go with him or not? Your choir of devout followers is just dying to know!
  12. 21 Dec '17 03:17
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    Well, did you go with him or not? Your choir of devout followers is just dying to know!
    Which mathematician who won a Fields Medal has the same birthday as Lenin?
  13. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    21 Dec '17 03:53
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    Well, did you go with him or not? Your choir of devout followers is just dying to know!
    Of course not. He was a rapist.
  14. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    21 Dec '17 09:03
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Which mathematician who won a Fields Medal has the same birthday as Lenin?
    Come again?
  15. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    21 Dec '17 09:04 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @handyandy
    Of course not. He was a rapist.
    Oh...So you’re saying he was white?