From: caj@lfn.org (Craig Johnston) Subject: Re: Why is Pertti Lounesto barking up the wrong tree? Date: 21 Nov 1999 20:09:16 GMT Newsgroups: sci.math Keywords: [missing] In article <3837A131.6BADF413@hit.fi>, Pertti Lounesto wrote: >I admit, I was barking up the wrong tree. Sci.math cannot "Did not." "Cannot" still remains to be determined -- it's tough to say whether you didn't get the response you wanted because it was unavailable, or because nobody wants to have much to do with you. I know nothing about Clifford algebras, but must admit that if I did, I probably would not have spent any of my time on your counterexamples. I have many other things I could do that do not involve helping those who have no clue how to act. I have a suggestion: approach the world in a different manner and you may find it winds up looking quite different. Just my $.02 U.S. It's a shame when personality issues must interfere with the search for answers. The real question for Pertti Lounesto is does he want answers, or does he merely want to attempt to appear superior? I currently would have to guess that the latter is of more importance. >provide competent critic in spefied questions on research of >mathematics. But, as opposed to sci.math.research, sci.math >is a conversational newsgroup, with fast unmoderated feedback. >Thus, is was a reasonable idea to test its suitability, by barking >the tree, which proved to be wrong. Now we know, after my >barking. > >Pertti Lounesto > > >"Dave L. Renfro" wrote: > >> Pertti Lounesto >> [sci.math Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:56:47 +0200] >> >> wrote in the thread "Robin Chapman's challenge: >> prove my theorems" >> >> [snip to the end] >> >> >I am seeking for competent critic to my work, and >> >it is evident that sci.math cannot offer one. Reread >> >carefully my www-page http://www.hit.fi/~lounesto/sci.math.htm >> >> I read it. The first and last paragraphs are reproduced >> below. >> >> BTW, the date at the bottom of your page is December 1999 >> and I accessed this page on November 20, 1999. Maybe my >> computer can see into the future? >> >> ############################################################# >> ############################################################# >> Since March 1997, I have exhibited my www-page, where I falsify >> proven theorems by counterexamples, which satisfy all the >> assumptions of the theorem without the conclusions being valid. >> In December 1997, I challenged posters of an internet discussion >> group on mathematics, sci.math, to verify or invalidate my >> counterexamples. The purpose of the challenge was to evaluate >> this new media as a forum for carrying out scientific debates, >> in particular for settling disagreements between scientists. >> The new forum seemed promising, because a large number of >> mathematicians were within reach by a push-button and could >> bring in their expertise in a matter of hours or days. >> Sci.math is like an enormeous interactive encyclopedia on >> mathematics. Could scientific meetings of experts and >> scientific journals be abandoned as old-fashioned? >> >> [snip to last paragraph] >> >> Conclusion: The newsgroup sci.math could not come up with >> substantial and competent critics in a matter requiring special >> knowledge of mathematics. The critics was meager in comparison >> with the previous critics offered by a group of experts working >> in the field. This shows that the newsgroup sci.math cannot be >> used to settle down scientific debates between disagreeing >> mathematicians. (I want to remind that experts had already >> approved validity of my counterexamples prior to the beginning >> of my challenge.) Thus, in our search for the scientific truth, >> scientific conferences and journals cannot be replaced by >> usenet newsgroups. >> ############################################################# >> ############################################################# >> >> I don't see how you can conclude "... scientific >> conferences and journals cannot be replaced by usenet >> newsgroups" from a test of one newsgroup--especially a >> newsgroup that isn't geared towards mathematics research. >> Is there some reason why you didn't pursue your test in >> the newsgroup sci.math.research at >> ? >> I would think sci.math.research is the logical place >> for such a test, but I suppose I'm overlooking something. >> >> Indeed, even better would be to form a discussion group >> in your field and pursue the matter there. Some examples >> in other fields are the following ------>>>>>>>> >> >> Algebraic Topology Discussion List >> >> >> Banach Space Bulletin Board >> >> >> Category Theory Mailing List >> >> >> Foundations of Mathematics >> >> >> Group Pub Forum >> >> >> Number Theory List >> >> >> Real Analysis List >> >> >> Semigroups >> >> >> Maybe it is time to begin a discussion group in >> Clifford Algebras. >> >> Dave L. Renfro > -- caj@lfn.org has a low incidence of side effects, including headache, dry mouth and bleeding from the eyes, similar to a sugar pill.