The worth or futility of factorizations relating to OPNs

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by imwithid

Perhaps. You are most often right on the side of math. When it comes to civil discourse, you should take some of the medicine that you prescribe to others and take a lesson or two.

Between this and Christenson's reply I am convinced. This forum is a
politically correct [i]social club[/b] for hobbyists. Tranquility is more
important to you than academic discipline or integrity. So be it.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Between this and Christenson's reply I am convinced. This forum is a politically correct [i]social club[/b] for hobbyists. Tranquility is more
important to you than academic discipline or integrity. So be it.

Just wondering RDS...

Have you ever been laid?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

If you refer to the Ochem paper (not papers), it as you point out
would have stood on its own WITHOUT the factorizations. It was quite
publishable without the added computation.

The reverse is not true.

I refer to that paper among others.

By "the reverse is not true" are you claiming that the paper did not benefit from the computations, or that the paper couldn't be written merely by performing computations?

The first claim would be silly. The second doesn't even make sense, since the computations were only performed after the mathematics had been put in place.

Indeed. Speaker purely as a referee the paper would have had more
value if we could have seen how far the new mathematics could have pushed
the bound [i]without any new computation[/b]. That is to say, let the
math stand on its own.

You seem to have a strange view that computations add nothing to mathematics. We don't argue with your claim that there is more value to pure theory, rather we reject your claim of "pointless."

Consider Catalan's conjecture. Preda Mihăilescu gave a beautiful proof, but it would have been incomplete without a few computations. Subsequently, he was able to remove some (but not all) of those computations from the proof. Both results are good, the second improved the first. But none of the computations were ever "pointless."

The four-color theorem, as it currently stands, *requires* lots and lots of computations. I agree it would be great if we had a proof which minimized them. But if you were to say that such computations are "pointless" would be incendiary and wrong. Similarly, saying that people helping Ochem (and others) to flesh out their papers by performing factorizations is "pointless" is incendiary and wrong. The result might not be as important as the 4-color theorem or the Mihăilescu theorem, and may only demonstrate how much better the new mathematical ideas are in utilizing available computational power, but the computations are still enjoyable and add to professional papers.

"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers". The math in that
paper added insight. The new computations did not add any insight.

One of the purposes of computing is insight. Another is simply to finish off some unfinished cases that the general theory suggest can be done by a simple computation.

And again, you made a patently false claim. In the aggregate, these computations do, have, and will continue to provide insight. I've given you specific examples.

[fivemack]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Between this and Christenson's reply I am convinced. This forum is a
politically correct [i]social club[/b] for hobbyists. Tranquility is more
important to you than academic discipline or integrity. So be it.

Great, you've got it.

If this message indicates that you're leaving, goodbye; if it indicates that you're won over to the way of tranquility and wish to join our social club in the spirit in which it is intended, welcome.

[imwithid]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Between this and Christenson's reply I am convinced. This forum is a
politically correct [i]social club[/b] for hobbyists. Tranquility is more
important to you than academic discipline or integrity. So be it.

One can have both without turning this into an either-or case. There is much room in the middle. One can strive for higher academic standards, however, that will not be achieved by berating others into submission. Notwithstadning, I try by refraining from posting what you would consider nonsense.

[retina]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Tranquility is more important to you than academic discipline or integrity.

These not mutually exclusive. We can have both at the same time. Can't we?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by retina

These not mutually exclusive. We can have both at the same time. Can't we?

I have no sign of the latter in the last 7 years that didn't come from me.
All of my attempts met with resistence, hostility, and resentment.

Did you ever wonder why so few leading experts post here?
Have you seen what happened to sci.math over the last 20 odd years?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

All of my attempts met with resistence, hostility, and resentment.

Might that be because of you?

Be responsible for the listening into which you are speaking.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I have no sign of the latter in the last 7 years that didn't come from me.

okay define mathematical integrity for me, and 2 I think part of the problem with being cutting edge is:

{R.D. Silverman's knowledge} {newcomer's knowledge base} is {R.D. Silverman's knowledge}

this leads to nothing new.

[akruppa]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The fact that my opinions have the effect of starting a flame war does not
mean that a flame war is my intent. And I treat your "opinion" that this
is trolling with total contempt. Attempting censorship based on your
"opinion" is a clear abuse of moderator opinion. Furthermore, we have seen
posts that are clearly either trolls (or essays posted by people who truly are
cretins), yet you do nothing about those. It is clear that you do have a
double standard.

I expect you to know the effect of such postings by now; everyone else does. A posting with content "Pointless." in no way qualifies as academic discourse which you claim to promote. It was a simple troll. If anyone else on the forum should ever get as disruptive as you have been ever since you joined, I'll probably do something about them, too. They have a way to go to get there, though.

Go read the court decision in Underwood vs. Dudley.

This forum is not a court of law, either. How do you keep coming up with those ridiculous comparisons? I won't sue you for libel, merely ban you, if you keep trolling.

Your entire paragraph amounts to: "I have moderator power and
you don't. I can enforce censorship whereas you (meaning me) try to
enforce your ideas by means that others see as 'obnoxious' ".

Talk about abuse of power!!!!!

As it happens, yes, I do have moderator power, and handling repeat trolls squarely fits the job description. Having the nerve to moderate you is not hypocrisy or a power-trip, but over-due.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by akruppa

This forum is not a court of law, either. How do you keep coming up with those ridiculous comparisons? I won't sue you for libel, merely ban you, if you keep trolling.

might be my fault for describing what I feel goes on like a court readout.