On 31 May 2005 08:15:33 -0700, "Pubkeybreaker"
<Robert_silverman@raytheon.com> wrote:
>I am curious about something.
>
>What is it about math and crypto that makes an amateur
>believe that he/she can actually come up with a new theorem
>or algorithm that has somehow been miracuously missed by
>large numbers of previous (or current) mathematicians???
Maybe it's the fact that an amateur _can_ come up with
significant new results in those fields?
>I am sure that these same people would not post their ideas
> for (say) a new neuro-surgical technique. They do recognize
>that they have no competence.
>
>What is it about math in particular, as opposed to other
>technical fields of knowledge, that amateurs are unable to
> recognize their lack of competence? People are certainly
>able to recognize that they know nothing about surgery.
>Why do they fail to recognize the same thing with regard to
> their mathematical knowledge?
>
>We also see the same thing in sci.physics-- Amateurs (and cranks)
>who post their own (mostly mistaken) 'ideas'. These people
>do not seem to similarly pollute medical newsgroups.
>
>Clearly these people are looking for fame for solving some famous
>problem. But they do not seem to look for fame by (say) semi-serious
>efforts to cure disease.... They know they lack skills for the latter.
************************
David C. Ullrich
Received on Thu Sep 29 21:39:21 2005