Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    07 Mar '19 21:39
    https://science.howstuffworks.com/math-concepts/amateur-solves-part-of-decades-old-math-problem.htm?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=feed

    He is not really an amateur, he has a Phd from Cambridge in medicine and is very interested in math problems.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    08 Mar '19 23:16
    @sonhouse said
    https://science.howstuffworks.com/math-concepts/amateur-solves-part-of-decades-old-math-problem.htm?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=feed

    He is not really an amateur, he has a Phd from Cambridge in medicine and is very interested in math problems.
    An 'amateur' in mathematics is anyone who's not a professional mathematician.
    In an even narrower sense, it may mean anyone who's not a professional research mathematician.
    (A typical secondary school teacher of mathematics is regarded as an 'amateur'.)
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    09 Mar '19 12:37
    @Duchess64
    Just like Kasparov once said those mere 2600 level players are just 'enthusiastic amateurs'.
    '
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    09 Mar '19 22:562 edits
    @sonhouse said
    @Duchess64
    Just like Kasparov once said those mere 2600 level players are just 'enthusiastic amateurs'.
    '
    As usual, Sonhouse tries a misleading distortion to cover up his ignorance or error.

    In fact, Pierre de Fermat has been considered an 'amateur' by some historians
    because he was a lawyer, not earning his livelihood as a mathematician.

    In chess, a professional *player* is someone who could earn one's livelihood *primarily*
    through *playing* rather than *teaching* chess. So a popular local chess master
    who's paid to teach chess to classes of children is not a professional chess *player*.

    If Kasparov ever said that (Sonhouse typically does not give any quotation), then he
    presumably was alluding to the difficulty of earning a livelihood in chess through *only playing*.
  5. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    324021
    10 Mar '19 06:30
    @Duchess64

    When someone offers an interesting snippet of news, do you have a compulsive need to lecture us all? It's really tedious of you.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    10 Mar '19 12:591 edit
    @kewpie said
    @Duchess64

    When someone offers an interesting snippet of news, do you have a compulsive need to lecture us all? It's really tedious of you.
    Oh boy, get ready for another pejorative laden comeback. Let's see. It could be along the lines of, the Jingoistic Kewpie now shows her true color defending such a reprehensible person.

    Wait for it

    Wait for it๐Ÿ˜‰
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Mar '19 16:301 edit
    @kewpie said
    @Duchess64

    When someone offers an interesting snippet of news, do you have a compulsive need to lecture us all? It's really tedious of you.
    Sonhouse shows his ignorance of what's meant by 'amateur' in mathematics or chess.
    In apparent contrast to Kewpie, some people may be interested in learning and
    may not feel smugly satisfied to remain at Sonhouse's general level of ignorance.

    When Kewpie was in school, did Kewpie prefer to have a teacher who always said,
    "You already know everything. You have nothing to learn. Your education is complete."
    or who gave honest objective criticism?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Mar '19 16:321 edit
    @sonhouse said
    Oh boy, get ready for another pejorative laden comeback. Let's see. It could be along the lines of, the Jingoistic Kewpie now shows her true color defending such a reprehensible person.

    Wait for it

    Wait for it๐Ÿ˜‰
    The lying troll Sonhouse has shown that he's far too arrogant or insecure to learn
    anything because he misinterprets every factual correction, let alone any criticism,
    as an unbearably traumatic personal attack.

    There's no more obstinately stupid person at RHP than Sonhouse.
  9. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    529903
    10 Mar '19 17:03
    @duchess64 said
    The lying troll Sonhouse has shown that he's far too arrogant or insecure to learn
    anything because he misinterprets every factual correction, let alone any criticism,
    as an unbearably traumatic personal attack.

    There's no more obstinately stupid person at RHP than Sonhouse.
    ...sadly enough you use a lot of disparaging words on people and tend to use absolutes and superlatives were they are uncalled for.

    You could amke much more points if you would try not to win by insulting, which will not give you a win.

    You were correct in substance about the definition of amateur and professional.

    sonhouse was quite correct in pointing out that a PhD in natural science indicates that the person is in the highest decile in math education most proabaly. So for the average person: He is not strictly an "amateur" (though he is in the stricvt sense of the word as defined by the dictionnary).
  10. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    529903
    10 Mar '19 17:08
    @sonhouse said
    https://science.howstuffworks.com/math-concepts/amateur-solves-part-of-decades-old-math-problem.htm?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=feed

    He is not really an amateur, he has a Phd from Cambridge in medicine and is very interested in math problems.
    The interesting math problem is in the field of two dimensional graph theory. de Grey excluded one of three possible solutions, probably renewing the zeal to find a solution.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Mar '19 17:243 edits
    @ponderable said
    ...sadly enough you use a lot of disparaging words on people and tend to use absolutes and superlatives were they are uncalled for.

    You could amke much more points if you would try not to win by insulting, which will not give you a win.

    You were correct in substance about the definition of amateur and professional.

    sonhouse was quite correct in pointing out that ...[text shortened]... strictly an "amateur" (though he is in the stricvt sense of the word as defined by the dictionnary).
    First of all, Ponderable seems much too ignorant of the records of the posts by
    people whom I criticize. Given that Ponderable evidently has NOT READ OR DOES
    NOT REMEMBER more than a tiny proportion of that writer's posting history,
    Ponderable should avoid jumping to conclusions about what I criticize.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Mar '19 17:392 edits
    @ponderable said
    ...sadly enough you use a lot of disparaging words on people and tend to use absolutes and superlatives were they are uncalled for.

    You could amke much more points if you would try not to win by insulting, which will not give you a win.

    You were correct in substance about the definition of amateur and professional.

    sonhouse was quite correct in pointing out that ...[text shortened]... strictly an "amateur" (though he is in the stricvt sense of the word as defined by the dictionnary).
    Laymen typically show no comprehension of what mathematical research entails
    and they much exaggerate the applicability of most other fields toward that.

    "sonhouse was quite correct in pointing out that a PhD in natural science
    indicates that the person is in the highest decile in math education most proabaly."
    --Ponderable

    First of all, Sonhouse's incorrect in claiming that Aubrey de Grey has a PhD in 'medicine'.
    The cited article states that Aubrey de Grey has a PhD in biology.

    I would submit that biology has very little correlation with mathematics.
    I know hardly any biologists personally. I know several doctors (of medicine)
    who say that they are no better than an average layman in mathematics.
    My aunt (who has a master's degree in chemistry) admits that she's not good
    in mathematics and just did enough to pass the minimum requirements for her degree.

    I would add that it's really meaningless in terms of mathematical research to
    speak about being in the top decile (10% ) of the general public in mathematics.
    That's an absurdly low threshold. It seems rather like a chess player boasting
    that since one's in the top decile, one must be close to a grandmaster in strength.

    I would add that most students who represent their countries at the International
    Mathematical Olympiads never proceed to do any significant original research.

    Although he had little formal education, Hua Luogeng did important mathematical research.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Luogeng

    "In fact, his formal education only consisted of six years of primary school and
    three years of middle school."
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    10 Mar '19 21:402 edits
    @duchess64 said
    Laymen typically show no comprehension of what mathematical research entails
    and they much exaggerate the applicability of most other fields toward that.

    "sonhouse was quite correct in pointing out that a PhD in natural science
    indicates that the person is in the highest decile in math education most proabaly."
    --Ponderable

    First of all, Sonhouse's incorrect in c ...[text shortened]... formal education only consisted of six years of primary school and
    three years of middle school."
    So now you quibble over semantics. He in fact had a Phd, even if it wasn't in my 'medicine' statement. The amount of actual work would be about the same and he would have had to have had a significant degree of math education getting to the Phd.

    What you do is jump on any kind of error as if that destroys the entire argument and then adding the invective's to top off your cake of cultural destruction.
    But I am too stupid to have ever even thought out this post so therefore since I am a reprehensible pathological lying jingoistic American racist MALE, I must have hired a REAL person to have typed all this out, my personal intellectual engine I bought on Amazon to install on my multiCPU supercomputer in my basement that was actually invented by this genius I hired.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Mar '19 01:061 edit
    @sonhouse said
    So now you quibble over semantics. He in fact had a Phd, even if it wasn't in my 'medicine' statement. The amount of actual work would be about the same and he would have had to have had a significant degree of math education getting to the Phd.

    What you do is jump on any kind of error as if that destroys the entire argument and then adding the invective's to top off you ...[text shortened]... stall on my multiCPU supercomputer in my basement that was actually invented by this genius I hired.
    Sonhouse (who has struggled and failed to grasp very simple mathematics in this forum)
    keeps showing his ignorance of mathematics. He should stop making his cocksure claims.

    "He would have had to have had a significant degree of math education getting to the Phd [in biology]."
    --Sonhouse

    That depends upon how "significant degree of math education" is defined, and
    Sonhouse (given his own ignorance) seems eager to set an extremely low bar.

    As far as I know, the ONLY mathematics that he likely would have been required
    to learn would be some basic calculus and statistics as requirements for his
    undergraduate degree. Once he was in graduate school, his courses would have
    focused on biology, NOT pursuing such distractions as advanced mathematics.

    I would submit that he could have earned a PhD in biology WITHOUT ever taking
    any graduate classes in mathematics and perhaps not even any 'advanced'
    undergraduate classes in mathematics.

    Again, I know several doctors (of medicine) who say that they are no better than
    the average layman in mathematics.

    Most mathematicians do NOT regard having some basic undergraduate classes
    in calculus or statistics as 'significant mathematical education' (though it most
    likely dwarfs any mathematical education that Sonhouse ever had).

    I would add that, given his apparently infinite capacity to dismiss his own whopping
    errors as trivial or irrelevant, Sonhouse shows that he's extremely far from being
    any good in mathematics. In mathematics, a minor error can invalidate a claimed proof.
    Sonhouse obviously lacks the temperament as well as the intelligence to be a mathematician.
  15. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    324021
    11 Mar '19 01:23
    @Duchess64

    You're lecturing AGAIN.
Back to Top