Talk:Pseudomathematics

message: I like the section on ways that pseudomathematical proofs often start.  I'd like to see something similar on the pseudoscience page--for example how astrologers often talk about "perfect" alignments that aren't perfect, or how disbelievers in the cosmic microwave background radiation prove that the CMB can be caused by the compton effect rather than redshifting.  --zandperl 20:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 1

message: I understand what the addition about Ramanujan means to say, but since the third type of "solution" involves "high school" math and Ramanujan was well beyond that level when he sent his letters to England, I don't think it works. - DavidWBrooks 13:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramanujan 

message: I actually don't know much about pseudomathematics, but I thought I would mention punk math, which isn't very complicated, and consists solely of saying things like 4 = 6, 3 > 5, 8 x 3 = 4, and so on.  I don't even know if this type of joke pseudomath already has a scientific name.  --McDogm 02:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has. It is "Bullshit".--Army1987 10:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if 8 = 8 and 8 = 9, then one would have a mathematical truth, in a bullshit sense of the word. --McTrixie 15:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Punk Math

message: Does this type or collective of people, pseudomathematicians, actually exist, or is pseudomathematics a concept which is applied after-the-fact, i.e. to demonstrated failures?
I suppose another way of putting it might be to ask whether there are any "pseudomathematicians" who have successfully accomplished something?  e.g. is Ramanujan (who is mentioned) considered a pseudomathematician for conforming in some ways to the description, or as a success does he not qualify?  The construction of the word leads me to believe the latter, but in that case is pseudomathematics a viable concept?  Can it be used predictively?
: Pseudomathematics is mostly a nice way of saying 'math crank.' There are lots of such folks around - ask any math professor about unsolicited material they get in the mail; I'm just a small-newspaper science columnist and even I get one or two goofy "proofs" in the mail a year.
:  Ramanujan is such an outlying statistical point that it's hard to classify him in any way. He's certainly not "pseudo" in the sense of not being a real mathematician, even though his approach was incredibly non-traditional. 
: Read Underwood Dudley's books, if you can find them; they are excellent and are a very entertaining yet insightful look at this odd phenomenon. - DavidWBrooks 12:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I'm not confusing his book with someone else's, I felt that his practice of avoiding using real names, even if they published, was very frustrating and made it very hard to verify any of his discussions.--Prosfilaes 04:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the concerns raised here.  I think that the example given at the beginning is not an example of "pseudomathematics" (if there is such a thing) so much as it is an example of a flawed or incorrect proof.  I think that most, if not all, of this page is speculative and should probably be deleted or greatly reduced.  The word "pseudomathematics" is certainly esoteric and I have never encountered its use in all the reading I've done.  Cazort 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: IMHO a good definition of pseudomathematicians may be “a person who does pseudomathematics systematically.” I.e. who makes mistakes in proofs, does not agree when mistakes in their proofs are discovered, after some time forgets about those mistakes and regards their proofs as correct. Who does this when they clearly lack knowledge and need to practise in proving. --Beroal (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this actually exist? 

message: : (and particularly those which are profoundly counterintuitive, such as Cantor's diagonal argument and Gödel's incompleteness theorem).
Is Cantor's diagonal argument profoundly counterintuitive? I always thought it was profoundly intuitive.--Prosfilaes 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It made good sense to me the first time I heard it.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's probably counterintuitive if you have trouble distinguishing between countable and uncountable infinities. Or if you don't quite follow the connection between being countable and being "listable". Confusing Manifestation 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IIRC, Cantor's diagonal argument may have been how I first learned about uncountable sets.  Maybe it was at the same time.   Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found it quite intuitively sensible; but then again, I'm a mathematical/scientific kind of person. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profoundly counterintuitive 

message: I endorse , rm of (Or actually, just constructing an edge of the cube since this is all done on a 2 dimensional plane.). Despite that compass and straightedge are usually demonstrated in a plane and that this technique is generally considered an expression of plane geometry, I see no reason why an ideal compass and straightedge cannot perform in 3-space nor why that would violate any axiom. Those with more knowledge than I have are welcome to correct me. John Reid 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubling the cube in the plane 

message: On this page, it says that pseudomathematics is done exclusively by non-mathemeticians, but on Mathematics, it says that Pseudomathematics is a form of mathematics-like activity undertaken outside academia, and occasionally by mathematicians themselves. Which is right? IMacWin95 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: I find this type of sentence a bit troubling (italics added here for emphasis):
:The pseudomathematician is not interested in the framework of logically sound theorems, and more interested in the challenge of coming up with not merely a counterintuitive, but a mathematically impossible solution.
Is it encyclopedic in nature to ascribe motive/intent in this way to the practitioners of this page's topic? A solid citation, such as:
:It has been suggested by XYZ[REF] that ....
I just don't see the purpose in ascribing motives without authoritative or at least solid citations.
-- QTJ 03:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point. Go ahead and remove it, or write around it, and see what happens. - DavidWBrooks 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't have the mystery reference in question. However, now that the point has been brought up, perhaps someone far more interested in the topic will find one. There very well may be just such a reference floating around, and the article can only benefit from a few such well-placed citations to support such attributions of motive. However, my gut feeling is that, given the fringe nature of the topic, no real studies have been done on such things. -- QTJ 15:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution of Motive/Intent 

message: How should this article address the Nullity/Transreal number debate? --Stlemur 07:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a brief mention under "Current trends in pseudomathematics". CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the Nullity issue should not be considered pseudomathematics, since "Pseudomathematics is a form of mathematics-like activity that does not work within the framework, definitions, rules, or rigor of formal mathematical models." The problem with nullity is not that it's wrong, it's just overhyped (made to sound "revolutionary"), and it's not useful. It might be mathematically consistent, it's just not consistent with normal calculus and has to redefine calculus in a way that I don't think people would actually care about. Not being consistent with normal calculus is NOT pseudomathematics, it's just being useless. --68.161.190.195 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ironically, the attempts at proving it inconsistent might be considered pseudomathematics. --68.161.190.195 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nullity debate 

message: I've tagged this section as unreferenced.  I've a suspicion that it is pure OR. --OinkOink 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find that it's unreferenced and very damaging to the good of Wikipedia, you should remove it (maybe archive in the talk page) and make a note in the edit summary. --Raijinili 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a summary of information from various sources. I wrote this so long ago I can't remember what they were. Martin Gardner and Underwood Dudley have written extensively about all of these sub-topics, and would be good places to look for cites supporting this section. -- The Anome 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: I think we should seriously consider deleting this page.  I agree with the original proposal to delete it on the first person's grounds.  I propose the following suggestion: the authors of this page either cite reliable sources that back up the material on the page, and that refer to the topic by the term "Pseudomathematics".  In the absence of reliable external references that use the term "pseudomathematics", I propose the page be deleted.  This seems fully in line with wikipedia's guidelines and to do otherwise seems a very crass violation of them.  Cazort 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lack of use of the particular term suggests renaming the article rather than deleting it.  The concept is well-addressed in the Gardner and Dudley books. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  It seems the issues raised in the article are real and do have references.  Suggestions for a better name for the article?  Cazort 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: I think that, as this page develops and more time is put into it, that the true definition of pseudomathematics is lost within the text. I, personally, having no knowledge of pseudomathematics, couldn't see the logic. The article gives the impression that pseudomathematics is, in essence, "doing it wrong". It occurs when one tries to solve an impossible problem, and claims they have done so, although their math is flawed (or "pseudo", so to speak). If this is true, why are there such things as "pseudomathematicians"? Even more so, why is there an actual term to explain math that is "done incorrectly"? Keep in mind that, as Wikipedia is meant for everybody, the more valuable information (definition, use, etc.) needs to be explicitly stated for easier comprehension. 24.15.53.225 (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In English? (Clarification) 

message: *This looks like a useful article to me, although it seems a bit neglected. I think it needs some work to get it in line with our policies.
*The term pseudomathematics in its specific definition given here seems to be original research. Or does it appear in one of Dudley's books? If it is OR, we can perhaps save the title for this article (I don't know a better one) by explaining the use of the term in general. E.g. it has been mentioned in connection with creationism.
*Another good source on the phenomenon of mathematical cranks is: Wilfrid Hodges, 'An editor recalls some hopeless papers', Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4 (1998) 1-16. (Available as a free .ps from BSL, or as a .pdf with some kind of subscription.) I am just leaving this here, because I don't know (yet?) what to do with it. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various comments 

message: "Pseudomathematics is a form of mathematics-like activity that does not work within the framework, definitions, rules, or rigor of formal mathematical models." I have a hard time understanding what mathematical models have to do with pseudomathematics. Aren't mathematical models used in science to describe a physical (or other) system? ==> "...rigor of formal mathematical logic"? --Beroal (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical models 

message: The reference to Sokal & Bricmont's book "Fasionable Nonsense," and their accusations against Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan et al, appears to be inappropriate here. While Sokal & Bricmont's accusations certainly appear to be popular amongst sections of the science, math, and analytic philosophy worlds, they accuse theorists they name as "postmodernists" of misusing mathematics in philosophy/theory. This page, on the other hand, is about the incorrect practice of mathematics itself, especially in obsessive attempts to achieve results  accepted by consensus of the mathematics community as impossible, like squaring the circle. While the relationship between math/science and various schools of philosophy is frequently fraught and certainly should be continually discussed, that is a different topic than the often-obsessive pursuit of mathematical activity in contravention of extremely widely accepted, soundly proven, foundational mathematical propositions. Lacan, Kristeva and others attacked in by Sokal & Bricmont, whatever the strengths and faults of their ideas, have at no time attempted to practice mathematics or science.
98.210.157.158 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Sokal/Bricmont reference appropriate? 

message: The section titled "an illustrative contrived example" does not appear to me to be a good example.  It does not resemble real crankery, and the explanation is long and rambling. Also, it appears to be original research.  I plan to delete it if there is no cogent objection. 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite rightly so; how did that escape deletion so long? Kill it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want to delete the "illustrative contrived example" 

message: It must be recognized that there are limits to the expressive power of the symbology used in mathematical reasoning as demonstrated by Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
If some proportional relationship is expressed by means of the division operator in mathematics, it follows that the system of reasoning upon based on it will have limits imposed on it (and I'm not speaking just about division of a number by zero), nor of simple ideas expressed in this article about incompleteness or consistency.
Similar triangles are an example of the proportional relationship given above. But there is more to consider.  Time as is measured by any instrument is known to be a dimensionless ratio of how fast something moves relative to how fast something else moves.  As such, any measure of time is one of proportional relative velocity, and this is true before time is DESIGNATED by mathematical convention to be based on a system of units (such as a unit we refer to as a second).
This mathematics which describes the nature of time works precisely up until the point where literally the fastest process in the universe is known.   That process is now understood to be quantum entanglement, whereas in the 19th and 20th centuries, it was believed to be based on the linear propagation of light.   We have now identified and defined the hard limit to the mathematics and science of relativity, because relativity relies so heavily on proportional mathematics, and that process has been shown by these remarks to be an incomplete description of the variable time.
As such, the mathematics upon which relativity itself is based is pseudomathematics until or unless the incompleteness caused by quantum entanglement is addressed. Danshawen (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Limits of Mathematics (not pseudomathematics) 

message: There was a photo of what purported to be a "Ukrainian copyright certificate for a "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem" - it was removed by an editor but I think it is very appropriate for this article. The idea that mathematical findings can be trademarked or copyrighted for profit is common among cranks. Unfortunately I don't read Ukranian and I can't find anything online other than wikipedia that claims the document is what it is said to be, so I haven't returned it. But if we could source it, I'd love to see it returned. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Producing bad proofs and copyrighting proofs are two different things. To relate them would require more evidence than just the feeling that both is somehow weird (which I share). I guess many pseudomathematicians strive after honor, not profit. To achive the latter, more appropriate fields of pseudoscience exist. On the other hand, I believe to remember that in debates about patents for software also  patents for abstract algorithms were considered - by non-cranks. However, I don't have hard evidence either. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukrainian copyright