Monstrous moonshine: Difference between revisions
moonshine editorial |
Illegitimate proofs |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In the branch of mathematics known as [[group theory]], '''monstrous moonshine''' <ref>Manon Bischoff and Daisy Yuhas, ed. “How String Theory Solved Math’s Monstrous Moonshine Problem.” ''Scientific American'', February 5, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-string-theory-solved-maths-monstrous-moonshine-problem/</ref><ref>Erica Klarreich. “Mathematicians Chase Moonshine’s Shadow.” ''Quanta Magazine'', March 12, 2015. https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-string-theory-connections-20150312/</ref> refers to the supposed classification of all finite simple groups. | In the branch of mathematics known as [[group theory]], '''monstrous moonshine''' <ref>Manon Bischoff and Daisy Yuhas, ed. “How String Theory Solved Math’s Monstrous Moonshine Problem.” ''Scientific American'', February 5, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-string-theory-solved-maths-monstrous-moonshine-problem/</ref><ref>Erica Klarreich. “Mathematicians Chase Moonshine’s Shadow.” ''Quanta Magazine'', March 12, 2015. https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-string-theory-connections-20150312/</ref> refers to the supposed classification of all finite simple groups. | ||
The whimsical reference of "moonshine" is of course to bootlegging illegitimate "proof" or "proofs" which professional mathematicians thought funny to pawn off on a gullible public of laymen and amateurs. | |||
Regardless of the atrocious attitude with which these mathematical "groups" are or were presented in the original literature, we are actually very interested in the properties of these finite groups for [[strong cryptography]] on elliptic curves over finite fields. | |||
But the most natural question to ask at this point, as in any area of mathematics is whether some arbitrary conjecture or statement is true or false. There are lies and damned lies, disinformation and misinformation, and here is something being called outright “monstrous moonshine” on its face. | But the most natural question to ask at this point, as in any area of mathematics is whether some arbitrary conjecture or statement is true or false. There are lies and damned lies, disinformation and misinformation, and here is something being called outright “monstrous moonshine” on its face. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:45, 10 May 2025
In the branch of mathematics known as group theory, monstrous moonshine [1][2] refers to the supposed classification of all finite simple groups.
The whimsical reference of "moonshine" is of course to bootlegging illegitimate "proof" or "proofs" which professional mathematicians thought funny to pawn off on a gullible public of laymen and amateurs.
Regardless of the atrocious attitude with which these mathematical "groups" are or were presented in the original literature, we are actually very interested in the properties of these finite groups for strong cryptography on elliptic curves over finite fields.
But the most natural question to ask at this point, as in any area of mathematics is whether some arbitrary conjecture or statement is true or false. There are lies and damned lies, disinformation and misinformation, and here is something being called outright “monstrous moonshine” on its face.
The men’s bluff was called, “Come on! We can’t understand a word of all that mathematical gobbledegook! What are you studying so hard in that library for anyways?”
The men’s response was to double down, entrench themselves in higher academia and engage in even more dissimulation. What happened to our mathematicians where frivolity has always been forbidden on the seat of judgment?
That was a time of hippies, college students having “groupies,” smoking marijuana, using LSD, quaaludes, PCP, and other hallucinogens, furnishing alcohol to their minor friends, 1969 “summer of love,” etc. etc.
There is said to be an enormous theorem [3] — by certain gentlemen of outstanding academic paper mill “impact factor,” always referring to other gentlemen’s papers for critical steps in their “proofs” or even mere “definitions,” let alone anything that can be proven on the basis of them. To call a theorem “enormous” is to call it a whopper, a flat-out lie.
The men took it all in stride, and just kept going with it.
The “finite simple groups” will eventually have to be re-classified clean and sober without the assistance of college druggies.
- ↑ Manon Bischoff and Daisy Yuhas, ed. “How String Theory Solved Math’s Monstrous Moonshine Problem.” Scientific American, February 5, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-string-theory-solved-maths-monstrous-moonshine-problem/
- ↑ Erica Klarreich. “Mathematicians Chase Moonshine’s Shadow.” Quanta Magazine, March 12, 2015. https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-string-theory-connections-20150312/
- ↑ Guinness World Records: Longest mathematical proof. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/100479-longest-mathematical-proof — “took 100 mathematicians three decades and some 15,000 pages of workings to pin down.”
