tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.comments2017-05-25T10:22:48.821-04:00RecursivityJeffrey Shallitnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11693125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39308798761859701522017-05-24T19:58:53.730-04:002017-05-24T19:58:53.730-04:00Dear Unknown:
Your comment is so incoherent, I do...Dear Unknown:<br /><br />Your comment is so incoherent, I don't know what you're trying to say. Try again.Jeffrey Shallithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-5605814402659652052017-05-24T14:30:15.812-04:002017-05-24T14:30:15.812-04:00And voters on the left don't even know the par...And voters on the left don't even know the party in power! Look back at 2008 and 2012.Unknownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03198085897646824425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42956084927522569882017-05-08T08:03:04.488-04:002017-05-08T08:03:04.488-04:00In response to "philosopher-animal", yes...In response to "philosopher-animal", yes, Hamming's paper does mention evolution, but only in a discussion of whether evolution has created human faculties that can accurately perceive reality (Hamming says: not entirely). But Hamming makes no assertion in his paper that mathematics does not explain evolution. <br /><br />In fact, if mathematics is "unreasonably effective" when explaining evolution, that would mean that it is successful in explaining it. Something that O'Leary has never conceded.Joe Felsensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-90531531899684766632017-05-08T01:21:52.825-04:002017-05-08T01:21:52.825-04:00I have designed a proof of Fermat's last theor...I have designed a proof of Fermat's last theorem using the mathematics of Fermat's time. Read on the internet ' The Simplest proof of Fermat's last theorem,University of Kelaniya'<br />Thank you all.<br />Piyadasa RanawakaPiyadasa Ranawakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07168590268686413051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-11078419494761915182017-05-07T14:11:20.200-04:002017-05-07T14:11:20.200-04:00Regarding the entries at "Uncommon Descent&qu...Regarding the entries at "Uncommon Descent" I'm sorry but I don't have the stomach to read that kind of drivel, however, some of Hamming's papers and the Dover reprint of his " Numerical Method's ..." are things I have read.<br /><br />On the back of the Dover edition a partial quote reads as follows "..the purpose of computing is insight, not merely numbers."<br /><br />Your statement, "On what rigorous basis can we measure how effective mathematics is.." is like comparing Euler to Gauss, insight with invention vs. insight with invention and rigour. Or, the difference between being literal and literate: the American "rigor" vs Canadian "rigour." The context is an important qualifier.<br /><br />The intent of communication is to effect a change unlike many forms of religion where the intent is to infect. To measure effect here presupposes Chomsky's "the medium is the message" where the form of the conduit enabling communication is more important than the information (or noise) passing through it.<br /><br />The Borgia's, the ups and downs of Confucianism, Mormonism and Scientology are worthy of study and effectively one can be infected or not after absorbing this transmission of information (or noise). As sentient beings, if we can formulate questions then we certainly don't know everything.. or if we can't then we're ignorant.Johnny Waltoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00276369335615707826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-89669615755136343902017-04-28T07:28:26.086-04:002017-04-28T07:28:26.086-04:00I've long been bothered by that sentiment, the...I've long been bothered by that sentiment, the unreasonable effictiveness claims. Your points about the ambiguity of both words is good, but wasn't my usual problem with it. <br /><br />You mention you think we probably study the stuff that seems interesting and useful, me too, I was called a formalist once on the computational complexity blog for that sentiment I think. <br /><br />But now it has me thinking about Douglas Adams' humorous criticism of the people who look at the world and think it was perfectly made for them, comparing it to a puddle that remarks on how perfectly shaped the hole it occupies is for it specifically — insisting on that perfection even as it evaporates and disappears. <br /><br />The other part that bugs me is, what would a universe that <i>wasn't</i> amenable to mathematical modeling even look like? Cody Reisdorfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16215759746381310609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-17865996392351917392017-04-27T11:49:31.347-04:002017-04-27T11:49:31.347-04:00P versus NP is considered one of the great open pr...P versus NP is considered one of the great open problems of science. This consists in knowing the answer of the following question: Is P equal to NP? This incognita was first mentioned in a letter written by John Nash to the National Security Agency in 1955. Since that date, all efforts to find a proof for this huge problem have failed. <br />I show a solution to that problem as follows:<br />Given a number x and a set S of n positive integers, MINIMUM is the problem of deciding whether x is the minimum of S. We can easily obtain an upper bound of n comparisons: find the minimum in the set and check whether the result is equal to x. Is this the best we can do? Yes, since we can obtain a lower bound of (n - 1) comparisons for the problem of determining the minimum and another obligatory comparison for checking whether that minimum is equal to x. A representation of a set S with n positive integers is a Boolean circuit C, such that C accepts the binary representation of a bit integer i if and only if i is in S. Given a positive integer x and a Boolean circuit C, we define SUCCINCT-MINIMUM as the problem of deciding whether x is the minimum bit integer which accepts C as input. For certain kind of SUCCINCT-MINIMUM instances, the input (x, C) is exponentially more succinct than the cardinality of the set S that represents C. Since we prove that SUCCINCT-MINIMUM is at least as hard as MINIMUM in order to the cardinality of S, then we could not decide every instance of SUCCINCT-MINIMUM in polynomial time. If some instance (x, C) is not in SUCCINCT-MINIMUM, then it would exist a positive integer y such that y < x and C accepts the bit integer y. Since we can evaluate whether C accepts the bit integer y in polynomial time and we have that y is polynomially bounded by x, then we can confirm SUCCINCT-MINIMUM is in coNP. If any single coNP problem cannot be solved in polynomial time, then P is not equal to coNP. Certainly, P = NP implies P = coNP because P is closed under complement, and therefore, we can conclude P is not equal to NP.<br /><br />You could read the details in the link below...<br /><br />https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01509423/documentFrank Vegahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15257641208909866601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-26019034761540239982017-04-25T14:03:19.912-04:002017-04-25T14:03:19.912-04:00Given a number x and a set S of n positive integer...Given a number x and a set S of n positive integers, MINIMUM is the problem of deciding whether x is the minimum of S. We can easily obtain an upper bound of n comparisons: find the minimum in the set and check whether the result is equal to x. Is this the best we can do? Yes, since we can obtain a lower bound of (n - 1) comparisons for the problem of determining the minimum and another obligatory comparison for checking whether that minimum is equal to x. A representation of a set S with n positive integers is a Boolean circuit C, such that C accepts the binary representation of a bit integer i if and only if i is in S. Given a positive integer x and a Boolean circuit C, we define SUCCINCT-MINIMUM as the problem of deciding whether x is the minimum bit integer which accepts C as input. For certain kind of SUCCINCT-MINIMUM instances, the input (x, C) is exponentially more succinct than the cardinality of the set S that represents C. Since we prove that SUCCINCT-MINIMUM is at least as hard as MINIMUM in order to the cardinality of S, then we could not decide every instance of SUCCINCT-MINIMUM in polynomial time. If some instance (x, C) is not in SUCCINCT-MINIMUM, then it would exist a positive integer y such that y < x and C accepts the bit integer y. Since we can evaluate whether C accepts the bit integer y in polynomial time and we have that y is polynomially bounded by x, then we can confirm SUCCINCT-MINIMUM is in coNP. If any single coNP problem cannot be solved in polynomial time, then P is not equal to coNP. Certainly, P = NP implies P = coNP because P is closed under complement, and therefore, we can conclude P is not equal to NP.<br /><br />You could read the details in:<br /><br />http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0335v1.pdfFrank Vegahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15257641208909866601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-32187192222546573662017-04-21T11:45:36.593-04:002017-04-21T11:45:36.593-04:00One of my personal ideas is that math is thinking,...One of my personal ideas is that math is thinking, thinking is math. When I have three errands to do, at different locations, and take a moment to think what is the best order to do them in, I am doing math. (There is good math and bad math - good and bad thinking - of course.)<br /><br />So yes, to the extent that we understand the universe, it is math that gives us that understanding. The deeper question is, how is thinking/research/design accomplished? Another of my personal ideas is that thinking, design work, and scientific progress are done by a process of evolution (trial and error, with selection criteria and memory). If I am correct, instead of contradicting the biological theory of evolution, our mathematical accomplishments are more evidence that evolution works.JimVhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-54603097729871340352017-04-20T15:23:09.094-04:002017-04-20T15:23:09.094-04:00The point about the subjectivity of the effectiven...The point about the subjectivity of the effectiveness of mathematics is further undermined by the fact that the vast majority of human beings who ever lived never learned anything more advanced than the barest of basics of arithmetic. If at all. <br /><br />Most people either don't have the time to get competent at a high level of mathematics, or are incapable (or so bad at it it would take them most of their life). Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-13260675547959079642017-04-19T10:00:23.838-04:002017-04-19T10:00:23.838-04:00Does the article by Hamming actually discuss evolu...Does the article by Hamming actually discuss evolution? If so, I might be willing to give them the slightest tiniest benefit of the doubt. If not, I'd go with dishonest, since they are that too.philosopher-animalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16505629919126188962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-72521680897198677842017-04-18T22:43:50.902-04:002017-04-18T22:43:50.902-04:00Props to Jeffery Shallit, I've never seen a mo...Props to Jeffery Shallit, I've never seen a more level headed, dedicated blogger. You keep doing you. This blog is a terrific example of confirmation bias, placebo effect, and conservatism bias. <br /><br />RonC: "there are people like me electrosensisitivity can feel all crystals, all kinds of electromagnetic" Straight text book example, you're using your own perceived feelings as evidence to yourself that healing works. While you likely feel certain ways when holding rocks, the confirmation bias and placebo effect hand-in-hand can produce rather convincing results. So please conduct a double-blind experiment and report the results. Please, if you can prove what you're feeling comes from the rock, by all means do it! That will be truly ground-breaking science! <br /><br />Like Lucy Asian said about those french studies on crystal healing "the facts of the experiments were that most people DID indeed feel crystal effects. With real AND fake crystals." That's the key issue here, if you believe in crystal healing, you mind has the capacity to create convincing emotions/effects. No one is saying you aren't feeling anything, because you likely are... however the SOURCE of these feelings most likely lays in your mind, not the crystal in your hand. <br />Jon Emmickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02556349365056026375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-10481971066706616662017-04-18T15:26:06.612-04:002017-04-18T15:26:06.612-04:00I liked this rebuttal article by D. Abbott in an I...I liked this rebuttal article by D. Abbott in an IEEE paper (PDF) <br /><br />"The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics"<br /><br />http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/publications/PIE_abbott2013.pdfJimVhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37672133035901166842017-04-18T14:12:47.968-04:002017-04-18T14:12:47.968-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.scientioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01527095085270278014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-54618157454801557262017-04-18T13:49:25.201-04:002017-04-18T13:49:25.201-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.scientioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01527095085270278014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-17403624849342073332017-04-18T13:48:46.735-04:002017-04-18T13:48:46.735-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.scientioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01527095085270278014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-34455853281571034122017-04-18T09:27:42.587-04:002017-04-18T09:27:42.587-04:00Michael Savage is an old troll with an annoying vo...Michael Savage is an old troll with an annoying voice. Savage also likes to lie about his past with Alan Ginsburg and that Savage experimented with homosexuality with Ginsburg and possibly other. Savage is also a hyprocrite talking out of his ass on issues and flip flops a lot. 32b699a8-c690-11e5-82e9-a75d162e6553https://openid.aol.com/opaque/32b699a8-c690-11e5-82e9-a75d162e6553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-8092808145414082302017-04-17T17:21:05.414-04:002017-04-17T17:21:05.414-04:00"Whether this change is a matter of deliberat..."Whether this change is a matter of deliberate deception or pure incompetence, I am not certain."<br /><br />My first thought - consider the source, it's deliberate deception. But when I look at how blatant the error is<br /><br /><b>A friend draws attention to an old paper, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics vs. Evolution” (The American Mathematical Monthly Volume 87 Number 2 February 1980)</b><br /><br />and then see an immediate link directly to a pdf version of the paper, it seems (to me) to be stronger: it is a deception given with the certainty that accompanies the knowledge that the people intended audience don't care that the thrust of the article has been misrepresented. Sad.<br /><br />(And apparently they've back-linked this article to some problem(?) about mathematicians not yet knowing whether pi is normal. <br />I thought anti-vaccinationists were dense and dishonest -- these folks may surpass them).<br />Lee Witthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08279929296814513986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-599518826380809372017-04-17T10:19:34.004-04:002017-04-17T10:19:34.004-04:00"Whether this change is a matter of deliberat...<i>"Whether this change is a matter of deliberate deception or pure incompetence, I am not certain."</i><br /><br />I'm pretty sure that was a post by O'Leary. So I'm inclined to go with incompetence.Neil Rickerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13245981500899410679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-15693577547655214592017-04-17T09:28:50.838-04:002017-04-17T09:28:50.838-04:00With scientists attempting to maintain some level ...With scientists attempting to maintain some level of rigor/accuracy/integrity, it’s hard to see how one even combats the deliberate lies, distortions, misinformation to which the other side is willing to stoop. And now we have a compulsive liar as President drawing a devoted fanbase. The near-term future, frankly, seems bleak indeed. :("Shecky Riemann"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07065658607024191185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-521923052323199082017-04-14T21:04:58.283-04:002017-04-14T21:04:58.283-04:00Wikipedia: "Polonaise is a Polish dance and i...Wikipedia: "Polonaise is a Polish dance and is one of the five historic national dances of Poland". Unknownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15552132069815764728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-68430744601143361132017-04-05T03:49:46.820-04:002017-04-05T03:49:46.820-04:00I will be very happy if Andrew Wiles publish
or re...I will be very happy if Andrew Wiles publish<br />or republish his work in such a way that a High School Student can understand the proof.<br /><br />You're going to be waiting a long time.<br /><br />6:40 AM, December 31, 2013<br />Thank you very much for the above comment.I have already proved and published in an international conference the proof which can be understood by an advanced level(AL) student in my country or high School student you have meant.Thank you so much. Long live CNMSEM? and that proof, you will find later.Piyadasa Ranawakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07168590268686413051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-49321907285423172492017-03-29T03:11:27.255-04:002017-03-29T03:11:27.255-04:00I do not know weather I would be killed by the so ...I do not know weather I would be killed by the so called University students. Long live CMNSEM?? .Piyadasa Ranawakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07168590268686413051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84280746764195436912017-03-28T13:00:30.049-04:002017-03-28T13:00:30.049-04:00It's not all "Bad Mathematics on Π Day&qu...It's not all "Bad Mathematics on Π Day"<br /><br />"A CONCEPTUAL BREAKTHROUGH IN SPHERE PACKING<br />HENRY COHN<br />On March 14, 2016, the world of mathematics received an extraordinary Pi Day<br />surprise when Maryna Viazovska posted to the arXiv a solution of the sphere packing<br />problem in eight dimensions [15]."<br /><br />arXiv:1611.01685<br /><br />I thought this addendum would provide a bit of balance to the blog.Johnny Waltoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00276369335615707826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-19064192415744103812017-03-26T07:43:41.188-04:002017-03-26T07:43:41.188-04:00Ian: why don't you start by defining "me...Ian: why don't you start by defining "meaning" and "intentionality" in a rigorous, scientifically-testable manner. Then we can have a basis for arguing whether one thing has them and another thing doesn't. Until then, it is just so much philosophical babble. Feser might just as well have said "Thoughts and the like are inherent fnordled but brain processes are not, QED".<br /><br />I have no idea why you find this so difficult to understand.Jeffrey Shallithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.com