Pseudomathematics
(→The value of pi) |
m (→Riemann Hypothesis) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===Riemann Hypothesis=== | ===Riemann Hypothesis=== | ||
| − | Often described as, "the most important open problem in Mathematics," the Riemann Hypothesis relates to the behaviour of the Riemann zeta function. It has been proven that, if the Riemann Hypothesis is true, then certain properties about the Prime Numbers are also true. Because of this, it is of huge importance to mathematicians. Because the problem (or at least the consequences for our understanding of prime numbers) can be understood fairly easily, dozens of 'proofs' of the hypothesis are published to the internet regularly, normally not dealing with any of the depth of the actually problem. A British academic has collected many such attempted proofs | + | Often described as, "the most important open problem in Mathematics," the Riemann Hypothesis relates to the behaviour of the Riemann zeta function. It has been proven that, if the Riemann Hypothesis is true, then certain properties about the Prime Numbers are also true. Because of this, it is of huge importance to mathematicians. Because the problem (or at least the consequences for our understanding of prime numbers) can be understood fairly easily, dozens of 'proofs' of the hypothesis are published to the internet regularly, normally not dealing with any of the depth of the actually problem. A British academic has collected many such attempted proofs. <ref>http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/RHproofs.htm</ref> |
===P vs. NP Problem=== | ===P vs. NP Problem=== | ||
Revision as of 00:30, 15 December 2010
| Style over substance |
| Popular pseudosciences |
| Random examples |
Pseudomathematics is any work, study or activity which claims to be mathematical, but refuses to work within the standards of proof and rigour which mathematics is subject to. Much like other pseudoscience, it often relies on ignoring proven facts and methods, making unsubstaniated claims of fact and ignorance and rejection of the work of expects. Unfortunately for practitioners of pseudomathematics, mathematics is an absolute science of black and white - everything is right or wrong. There is no often scope for debate or discussion, as only mathematical proof is relevant.
Pseudomathematics takes multiple forms, often focusing on disproving accepted facts or proving things which have been proven impossible. While a conventional mathematician is welcome to reject and attempt to disprove theories or prove something, they must work within the rigour and framework of mathematics. To attempt to refute a theorem, one must prove it to be false or find an error in the given proof. One cannot simply make an argument against it. Likewise, modern mathematics has proven various things to be impossible, and so to attempt to prove it without addressing the alleged impossibility is folly.
Common claims among pseudo-mathematicians often involves refutations of the works of Godel and Cantor; attempts to solve compass-and-straightedge problems which were proven to be impossible in the 1800s; attempts to change the values of mathematical constants or to question the accepted nature of irrationality, transcendence or complex numbers. Pseudo-mathematicians may use convincing and sophisticated mathematical vocabulary, however their theories using such terms tend to be not even wrong due to the highly specific nature of the terms.
Contents |
Compass and straightedge constructions
A common feature of pseudomathematics, and pseudoscience is general, is attempted solutions to problems which the layman can easily understand but actually involves very complicated science. Problems which anybody can understand, but only advanced mathematicians can provide true insight into, attract a whole range of cranks offering different theories.
There is perhaps no greater example of this than certain compass and straightedge construction problems. These problems involve setting a task, to be completed with only a straightedge (a marked or unmarked ruler, depending on the problem) and a compass. The most common problem is 'squaring the circle' - given a circle of radius '1 unit', construct a square of equal area. Obviously, this problem seems easy to understand. Celebrated mathematicians including Archimedes, Pythagoras and Euclid were obsessed with this problem. Unfortunately, it was proven to be impossible in the 1800s due to the transcendental-ness of pi.[1][2]
To this day, attempts to 'square the circle,' as well as attempts to 'trisect the angle' and 'double the cube' are still attempted by amateur mathematicians. Because you and I can understand these problems, but perhaps cannot understand why they are impossible, they seem within the reach of the layman, if he tries hard enough. Not a single credible mathematician would doubt the proof of the impossibility of these problems, and American Professor Underwood Dudley has published books documenting and refuting these claims.
Areas attracting crank ideas
Elementary Proof
Elementary proof refers to the use of only basic mathematics, and has different meanings in different fields. In number theory, an elementary proof is a proof without complex analysis. It is important to remember that no proof in mathematics is "less valid" than another - it is correct or incorrect. Despite that, many crank mathematicians and fringe engineers will reject or denigrade a proof which isn't 'elementary,' probably because they can't understand it. The use of complex numbers or even reductio ad absurdum have been called into question, despite their complete acceptance by modern mathematicians. Reductio ad absurdum, an important mathematical tool, has been accepted since at least the time of Plato.
Complex Numbers
Complex numbers rely on the imaginary unit. The imaginary unit, when squared, equals -1. Despite this being unintuitive and seemingly 'imaginary,' the use of complex numbers is very important in proving both mathematical and physical phenomena, including being particularly important in electronic engineering. After the works of Gauss, complex numbers were proven to be logically consistent and completely accepted. Despite this, 'Complex number denial' seems to exist across the internet.
Fermat's Last Theorem
The quest to solve 'Fermat's Last Theorem' famously began when Pierre de Fermat claimed that he could prove it, but that he lacked the space to write the proof in a margin. It took until the 1990s and significant mathematical advancements to prove Fermat's Last Theorem; in the intervening period, this being a problem that can be understood by the layman and a proof which is very advanced, cranks have often popped up claiming to be able to prove the theorem using elementary mathematics.
The value of pi
The value of pi, which was proven to be irrational in 1761, has attracted hundreds of claims of an exact value from engineers, pseudomathematicians, cranks and laymen. Bill number 246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana State Legislature actually tried to (indirectly) set the value of pi. The bill would have stated, as law, a correct method of squaring the circle.[3] This method was in fact true, as long as pi is held to be 3.2. Sadly, pi is not 3.2.
Attempts to refute accepted theories
It is not pseudoscience to be critical of accepted theories, or to attempt to disprove them; that scepticism an important part of the scientific process. However, many crank mathematicians will attempt to refute accepted theories through verbal arguments, visual 'proofs' or alleged 'proofs' which neither deal with the complexity of the issue nor point out the error in the accepted proof. While these crank approaches seem to turn up in many areas of mathematics, particular theorems and theories tend to attract the ire of cranks throughout the centuries. Once again, this commonly occurs with theories whose premise can be understood by the layman, but whose complexities cannot. The works of Gödel and Cantor seem to attract a lot of internet cranks.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
Gödel's two incompleteness theorems establish limitations which are inherent in any axiomatic system except for the most trivial.[4] This means that however complete our axiomatic system (the basis of mathematics) becomes, there will always be statements which are true, but cannot be proven. The theorems were very controversial upon their announcement; the establishment at that time was of the belief that everything that was true could be proven. this position was most famously enunciated by David Hilbert when he said, "Wir müssen wissen. Wir werden wissen." (German for "We must know. We will know." Despite this, this enormous upheaval of man's understanding of mathematics settled down relatively quickly as no serious mathematicians made attempts to disprove it, accepting the proof.[5] Today, the professional mathematicians have fully accepted the incompleteness theorems, but a certain breed of crank seems attracted to disproving them.
Cantor, set theory & infinity
Georg Cantor's theories of set theory and infinity now form an important part of the basis of mathematics. The theories were revolutionary, redefining how we view infinity. Through his study of one-to-one correspondence, it became clear that there are different kinds of infinity. In layman's terms, two things could both be infinite, and yet there could be more of one than the other. The idea that there are different kinds of infinity doesn't seem to rest well with some people. Disproofs offers of his theories range from barely mathematical to not even wrong. These attempts have come from amateur[6][7] and professional[8] mathematicians alike.
Millennium Problems
In 2000, the Clay Mathematics Institute offered $1,000,000 to anybody who could solve one of seven open questions in mathematics.[9] Six remain unproven.[10] In the decade since 2000, well-intentioned amateurs have attempted a whole host of attempts to solve these problems, especially the Riemann Hypothesis.[11] The fact is that these problems are incredibly difficult to understand without university-level mathematical education.
Riemann Hypothesis
Often described as, "the most important open problem in Mathematics," the Riemann Hypothesis relates to the behaviour of the Riemann zeta function. It has been proven that, if the Riemann Hypothesis is true, then certain properties about the Prime Numbers are also true. Because of this, it is of huge importance to mathematicians. Because the problem (or at least the consequences for our understanding of prime numbers) can be understood fairly easily, dozens of 'proofs' of the hypothesis are published to the internet regularly, normally not dealing with any of the depth of the actually problem. A British academic has collected many such attempted proofs. [12]
P vs. NP Problem
The P vs. NP problem relates to certain properties of complexity, and is hugely important to computer science. Because of this, various computer scientists and geeks alike have taken a huge interest in the problem and attempted to proof the problem, one way or the other. Sadly, the problem is very unlikely to be resolved without an advanced level of understanding the problem. Generally attempted proofs don't make headlines, as they are easily dismissed. In 2010, a computer science researcher named Vinay Deolalikar presented what he claimed was a solution to the problem.[13] Claims that his proof raked in "ideas from several fields spanning logic, statistics, graphical models, random ensembles, and statistical physics," seemed a little suspect, but the attempt was taken seriously and given time and attention from professional mathematicians and computer scientists. It became clear that he hadn't taken much interest in any work in the field in recent years and his proof was taken apart by experts in complexity theory,[14]
Practitioners
- Mohamed El Naschie is a controversial Egyptian mathematician, physicist and engineer whose E-infinity theory is disregarded by mainstream mathematics and physics. Somehow he became chief editor of a journal that people actually read and then began to fill it with his "theories". He doesn't like "RashunelWiki."[15]
See also
External Links
Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/docs/forum/square_circle/
- ↑ http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/trisect.htm
- ↑ http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/second%20level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm
- ↑ Any system with enough axioms to prove useful things is covered, really.
- ↑ http://www.springerlink.com/content/q16044h81q0188l7/
- ↑ http://scienceforums.com/topic/20099-cantors-diagonal-slash-disproved/
- ↑ http://www.mathkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/math-logic/6386/Yet-another-disproof-of-the-diagonal-argument
- ↑ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HqeoWPsIH6EC&lpg=PP1&dq=underwood%20dudley&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false
- ↑ http://www.claymath.org/millennium/
- ↑ The Poincaré Conjecture was proven by Grigoriy Perelman in 2002/3
- ↑ http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/RHproofs.htm
- ↑ http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/RHproofs.htm
- ↑ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/science/17proof.html?_r=2
- ↑ http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalikar_P_vs_NP_paper
- ↑ http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.rosaonline.net/Daily/News.asp%3Fid%3D68961&sl=ar&tl=en
| Articles on RationalWiki related to pseudo-studies | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pseudoarcheology - Pseudohistory - Pseudolaw - Pseudolinguistics - Pseudomathematics - Pseudoscience - Pseudopsychology - Pseudoscience list - Pseudoscience in advertising - Pseudoskepticism - Pseudovitamin | ||