Comments on: Article in Notices of the American Mathematical Society http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/ by Hemant Mehta Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:13:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Allison http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117178 Allison Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:39:06 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117178 Hemant, as a girl in the geek boat with you (I'm a mathematician)........Cool! I didn't know you were a fellow math geek! Congratulations on getting your article accepted. And yeah, most of us think anyone who's decided he or she has come up with a real proof that God exists or doesn't is kinda nuts and is pulling numbers out of his or her nether regions. On a note completely unrelated to this article, you have a way to meet female atheists. Get yourself to some math conferences, for crying out loud! Seriously, the last time I managed to read stats about it, a huge portion (well over 90%) of math chicks married mathematicians or scientists. Hemant, as a girl in the geek boat with you (I’m a mathematician)……..Cool! I didn’t know you were a fellow math geek! Congratulations on getting your article accepted. And yeah, most of us think anyone who’s decided he or she has come up with a real proof that God exists or doesn’t is kinda nuts and is pulling numbers out of his or her nether regions.

On a note completely unrelated to this article, you have a way to meet female atheists. Get yourself to some math conferences, for crying out loud! Seriously, the last time I managed to read stats about it, a huge portion (well over 90%) of math chicks married mathematicians or scientists.

]]> By: Miko http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117128 Miko Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:08:18 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117128 Confession: When I read that article in the print edition, I had no clue who the author of it was. Confession: When I read that article in the print edition, I had no clue who the author of it was.

]]> By: Milena http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117123 Milena Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:39:07 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117123 Oh my. It seems I just can't escape math today, no matter how much I don't want to study for my exam (which incidentally features a lot of probability... which hurts my head). Although, at least I understand the whole concept behind matrices better now. Thanks, Hemant. =) Oh my. It seems I just can’t escape math today, no matter how much I don’t want to study for my exam (which incidentally features a lot of probability… which hurts my head). Although, at least I understand the whole concept behind matrices better now. Thanks, Hemant. =)

]]> By: cautious http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117115 cautious Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:05:06 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117115 Congratulations on the book review in <em>Notices</em>! Congratulations on the book review in Notices!

]]> By: NYCatheist http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117055 NYCatheist Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:49:28 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-117055 Math and God and no one has mentioned John Allen Paulos's new book? http://www.math.temple.edu/~paulos/irrel-revs.html See him read an excerpt here: http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/paulos.php (There are many other good videos from that conference there too.) Math and God and no one has mentioned John Allen Paulos’s new book?

http://www.math.temple.edu/~paulos/irrel-revs.html

See him read an excerpt here:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/paulos.php

(There are many other good videos from that conference there too.)

]]> By: Shishberg http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116973 Shishberg Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:53:35 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116973 <blockquote>You’re referring to Brams, not Unwin!</blockquote> Oops. Indeed I am. I think I quickly skimmed for names on the same page and my eye landed on "Unwin" in the opposite column. Then again... it was either Brams or Unwin, so there's a 50% chance that it <em>was</em> Unwin, right? Right? ;)

You’re referring to Brams, not Unwin!

Oops. Indeed I am. I think I quickly skimmed for names on the same page and my eye landed on “Unwin” in the opposite column.

Then again… it was either Brams or Unwin, so there’s a 50% chance that it was Unwin, right? Right? ;)

]]> By: miller http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116969 miller Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:25:49 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116969 I don't think assigning a probability of 50% is <em>completely</em> ludicrous. The idea is that you must start with some number, then put it through Bayes' theory. If you start with 50% and end up with 99.999%, then it doesn't really matter that you plugged in an artificial starting number. On the other hand, if you start with 50% and end up with 67% (or 2%), I'd say this particular analysis was inconclusive, since it heavily relies on your initial number. I don’t think assigning a probability of 50% is completely ludicrous. The idea is that you must start with some number, then put it through Bayes’ theory. If you start with 50% and end up with 99.999%, then it doesn’t really matter that you plugged in an artificial starting number. On the other hand, if you start with 50% and end up with 67% (or 2%), I’d say this particular analysis was inconclusive, since it heavily relies on your initial number.

]]> By: Richard Wade http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116963 Richard Wade Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:08:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116963 <blockquote>The probability that the monotheistic, prayer-answering God exists is… 67%.</blockquote> Pascalians will be crowing about that one, I'll uh,....wager.

The probability that the monotheistic, prayer-answering God exists is… 67%.

Pascalians will be crowing about that one, I’ll uh,….wager.

]]> By: Hemant Mehta http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116961 Hemant Mehta Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:00:59 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116961 <blockquote> Hemant, quick question about the example you gave from Unwin’s book: how does he justify that the supreme being’s “secondary goal is to not reveal Himself”? I’m curious, but not curious enough to actually read the book. :) </blockquote> You're referring to Brams, not Unwin! And I'd have to go back and check what the justification was (the book isn't anywhere near me this weekend)... <blockquote> Is it a sign of how much of a geek I am that I'm more excited by the fact that you're writing articles in math publications than that you've written a book? </blockquote> Yes. Yes it is. And I'm in the geek boat with you :)

Hemant, quick question about the example you gave from Unwin’s book: how does he justify that the supreme being’s “secondary goal is to not reveal Himself”? I’m curious, but not curious enough to actually read the book. :)

You’re referring to Brams, not Unwin! And I’d have to go back and check what the justification was (the book isn’t anywhere near me this weekend)…

Is it a sign of how much of a geek I am that I’m more excited by the fact that you’re writing articles in math publications than that you’ve written a book?

Yes. Yes it is. And I’m in the geek boat with you :)

]]> By: Susan B. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116952 Susan B. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:25:00 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/article-in-notices-of-the-american-mathematical-society/#comment-116952 Is it a sign of how much of a geek I am that I'm more excited by the fact that you're writing articles in math publications than that you've written a book? Is it a sign of how much of a geek I am that I’m more excited by the fact that you’re writing articles in math publications than that you’ve written a book?

]]>