Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lee Rudolph on 29 Aug 2006 11:48 Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> writes: >On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 15:03 +0000, John Schutkeker wrote: .... >> And if you can recommend a good freeware contour >> plotter, preferrable an add-on to Excel, I'd be thrilled. > >That's a bit of a non-sequitur! Interestingly enough, "John Schutkeker" is a pretty good rhyme for "non-sequitur". Lee Rudolph
From: John Schutkeker on 29 Aug 2006 14:05 Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:1156865725.8346.5.camel(a)localhost.localdomain: > Unfortunately mathematics is not an experimental science. I disagree.
From: Lester Zick on 29 Aug 2006 14:57 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:05:33 GMT, John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote: >Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in >news:1156865725.8346.5.camel(a)localhost.localdomain: > >> Unfortunately mathematics is not an experimental science. > >I disagree. Actually an interesting prespective. Certainly mathematical axioms if not theorems are empirically established. ~v~~
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 29 Aug 2006 18:03 John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in > news:1156865725.8346.5.camel(a)localhost.localdomain: > >> Unfortunately mathematics is not an experimental science. > > I disagree. Fair enough. *Fortunately* mathematics is not an experimental science. -- Jesse F. Hughes "To [mathematicians] amateur mathematicians are worse than scum, and scarier than nuclear bombs." -- James S. Harris on mathematicians' phobias
From: Gerry Myerson on 29 Aug 2006 18:52
In article <Xns982E7077665F6lkajehoriuasldfjknak(a)207.115.17.102>, John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote: > "skialps10(a)yahoo.com" <skialps10(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > news:1156726253.271394.246990(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > > > I like to think I came up with a fairly unique way of modeling the > > Goldbach Conjecture and was thinking of programming it up to see if I > > could find any patterns. > > This sounds like an honest-to-god research project in numerical > experimentation. You should write your codes, crank out your plots and > submit the results to a journal, the same way a regular scientist does. Somewhere along the way you should check to see whether what you have done (or what you are planning to do) has already been done. The idea of taking a computer to Goldbach is not new. Lots of numerical results are known. Nothing wrong with rediscovering them on your own, something very wrong with wasting a referee's time with them if they're already old hat. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) |