/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10788811]

Who is the biggest fraud in the history of science?

[Anonymous No.10788813]

>>10788811
>Who is the biggest fraud in the history of science?
The collective of climatologists

[Anonymous No.10788818]

>>10788811
Allopathic medicine.

[Anonymous No.10789694]

[Anonymous No.10789698]

(((Climatologists))) and (((climate alarmists))) unironically.

[Anonymous No.10789699]

>>10788811
Not the one you posted

[Anonymous No.10789770]

>>10788811
James Watson

[Anonymous No.10789809]

>>10788811
fatass related

[Anonymous No.10789888]

>>10789809
Only a fat stinky pajeet would claim something like """""-1/12"""""

[Anonymous No.10789907]

David Suzuki is a hack

[Anonymous No.10789922]

>>10789699
Literally didn't do jackshit, Church already solved the Entscheidungsproblem problem, he had zero influence on creating the Von Neumann architecture and the bombe was a combined effort. It's ridiculous how he gets credited for creating the modern computer when turing machines are ridiculously different to actual computers and he wasn't even trying to do that. Even the concept of a universal procedure already existed.

http://blog.castac.org/2015/03/how-influential-was-turing/

[Anonymous No.10789945]

>>10789922
but muh faggot rights

[Anonymous No.10789984]

>>10789922
>Church already solved the Entscheidungsproblem problem
They both solved it independently at almost the exact same time. Was basically another Newton / Leibniz situation.
>he had zero influence on creating the Von Neumann architecture
Most likely true although Von Neumann was aware of Turing's work. Turing's work was more of interest for abstract computer science than for the mechanical workings of real world computers, much like how Church's work was.
>the bombe was a combined effort
Almost everything anyone ever does is a combined effort. That's a silly complaint.
>Even the concept of a universal procedure already existed.
Yeah, "nothing new under the sun."
-Shakespeare, repeating what was already written in the Bible before he wrote that

[Anonymous No.10790003]

>>10789984
>They both solved it independently at almost the exact same time.
You're thinking of Post's universal machine. Church's work on the lambda-calculus was already established in the early 30s.

[Anonymous No.10790013]

>>10789984
You're missing the point, OP asked for the biggest fraud and Turing gets a lot of credit for stuff he didn't do, most notably the concept of a modern computer. He wasn't a complete nobody but he was no where near as revolutionary as people make him to be.

[Anonymous No.10790015]

>>10789945
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10790034]

Taken from Paul Erdős's Wikipedia page:

>Other idiosyncratic elements of Erdős's vocabubulary include:
>To be considered a hack was to be a "Newton".

What exactly was he referring to with this?

[Anonymous No.10790087]

>>10788813
denialtard butthurt is infinite

[Anonymous No.10790239]

>>10790034
How can one man be so based

[Anonymous No.10790262]

>>10790034
Newton developed the gay version of calculus and just stole all the good shit from Leibniz. Not to mention that he was in general retarded but I give him some based points for beating his sister.

[Anonymous No.10790265]

>>10788811
Michio Kaku

[Anonymous No.10790269]

>>10790015
>phobia
>he believes someone is afraid of them and not just disgusted

[Anonymous No.10790275]

>>10790013
It’s revolutionary that a faggot actually sits down and works on something rather than just show his ass at pride and talk about being gay.

[Anonymous No.10790485]

>>10789698
what do you mean with the ((( parenthesises?

[Anonymous No.10790541]

>>10788811
Zorn for stealing a famous result on axiom of choice proven by Caratheodory.

[Anonymous No.10790549]

>>10788811
Freud, also this fag, somehow started feminism

[Anonymous No.10790552]

>>10790485
I don't know, what could (((I))) mean?

[Anonymous No.10790553]

>>10790552
It is a big nose 4u, also it was part of their plan

[Anonymous No.10790557]

>>10790269
>he thinks "phobia" means fear

[Anonymous No.10790559]

>>10789888
interesting how he didn't

[Anonymous No.10790595]

>>10790003
>You're thinking of Post's universal machine.
No, I'm not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
>In 1936, Alonzo Church and Alan Turing published independent papers[2] showing that a general solution to the Entscheidungsproblem is impossible, assuming that the intuitive notion of "effectively calculable" is captured by the functions computable by a Turing machine (or equivalently, by those expressible in the lambda calculus). This assumption is now known as the Church–Turing thesis.
>>10790013
That's not at all what "fraud" means. He never claimed to invent the modern computer. If other people today think that then that's their own fault for being retarded. His important work was clearly comp sci like Church's work, not physical / mechanical.
>he was no where near as revolutionary as people make him to be.
He was plenty revolutionary. If you want a real example of someone who did nothing and doesn't deserve any recognition that'd be Ava Lovelace.

[Anonymous No.10790600]

>>10790003
>You're thinking of Post's universal machine.
No, I'm not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
>In 1936, Alonzo Church and Alan Turing published independent papers[2] showing that a general solution to the Entscheidungsproblem is impossible, assuming that the intuitive notion of "effectively calculable" is captured by the functions computable by a Turing machine (or equivalently, by those expressible in the lambda calculus). This assumption is now known as the Church–Turing thesis.
>>10790013
That's not at all what "fraud" means. He never claimed to invent the modern computer. If other people today think that then that's their own fault for being retarded. His important work was clearly comp sci like Church's work, not physical / mechanical.
>he was no where near as revolutionary as people make him to be.
He was plenty revolutionary. If you want a real example of someone who did nothing and doesn't deserve any recognition that'd be Ada Lovelace.

[Anonymous No.10790604]

>>10790600
Based and red-pilled. Everytime a meme popsci retard brings Ada do what I do and immediately shift the conversation to Lord Byron (her father). Someone who did actual interesting shit, and you can tie it into Ada because the only reason that brainlet Ada was taught math was because of Lord Byron’s madness.

[Anonymous No.10790628]

>>10790265
kaku is legit, read up on his publication record

[Anonymous No.10790676]

>>10790628
Whatever record he has, he is using it to meme it up on youtube. Michio Cuckold is a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10790685]

>stem cell fraud japan
>2 million+ results found

[Anonymous No.10791026]

>>10790685
>stem cell fraud japan

WTF? I thought Japanese people had honor, m-muh samurai and shit

[Anonymous No.10791030]

Muttison

[Anonymous No.10791032]

>>10790685
>stem cell fraud Italy
>stem cell fraud Germany
>stem cell fraud Finland
All the old Axis powers...
>stem cell fraud USA

[Anonymous No.10791069]

>>10790600
Can you expand on why she does not deserve recognition?

[Anonymous No.10791085]

>>10789922
This.
>>10789984
Absolutely seething brainlet midwit.
>Was basically another [insert name here]
>Almost everything
>yeah, nothing new
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.10791167]

>>10790262
What about binomial theorem, optics, Serieses, and Principia?

[Anonymous No.10791176]

>>10791069
She wrote a program for Babbage's engine so she's considered the world's first computer programmer.

That's about it.

[Anonymous No.10791181]

>>10790600
>He was plenty revolutionary
I said "as people make him to be", he's literally considered -the- "father" of computer science when he's no better than Church or Von Neumann, he might be up there with them as one of the founders sure, TMs are a decent model for Complexity Theory... the same way RAMs are a decent model for Algorithm Analysis and Lambda Calculus is a good model Programming Languages Theory.

It's always funny to see people say "computers are like Turing Machines" yeah they totally are like pic-related lmao.

I would say Charles Babbage is closer to a "father" of computer science than Turing.

[Anonymous No.10791194]

>>10791176
What is it about what she did that is unremarkable? Was her program simple (by then standards) or something? Or is she credited with more than that? I don't know much about her.

[Anonymous No.10791203]

>>10791194
>she
there's your answer.

[Anonymous No.10791232]

>>10791194
He's wrong and demonstrating why she's the right answer for this thread. She didn't really ever write a program. That's the point.
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/CBC-Ch-02.pdf
>All but one of the programs cited in her notes had been prepared by Babbage from three to seven years earlier. The exception was prepared by Babbage for her, although she did detect a 'bug' in it. Not only is there no evidence that Ada ever prepared a program for the Analytical Engine, but her correspondence with Babbage shows that she did not have the knowledge to do so.

[Anonymous No.10791242]

>>10791194
>>10791232
Basically Ada Lovelace was just a celebrity spokeswoman for Babbage. She was a lot like Paris Hilton, daughter of someone famous other people want to associate with for the social influence.
Babbage being polite and complimenting how smart she was in letters is meant to be taken with the historical context as "surprisingly not as retarded as I would expect a woman to be." He never seriously meant she was some genius mathematician or computer visionary.

[Anonymous No.10791252]

>>10788811
The Satan

[Anonymous No.10791254]

>>10791181
>no better than Church or Von Neumann
"No better than Church or Von Neumann" is pretty fucking different from "fraud." Both Church and Von Neumann were modern civilization shaping geniuses.
Again, you probably should have went with Ada Lovelace if you want to talk about someone given lots of credit who doesn't deserve it. Even some anon in this thread thinking she wasn't as important as she was made out to be still mistakenly posted that she wrote a program for Babbage's Analytic Engine when she did no such thing.

[Anonymous No.10791260]

>>10791242

As is the case with most "hero women" of history. Right off the bat, go ahead and chop their supposed accomplishments in half. Joan of Arc was literally just a little mascot and Marie Curie owes half of her work to Pierre.

[Anonymous No.10791261]

>>10791181
>>10791254
PS: Nobody serious about comp sci thinks Turing machines are similar in a mechanical sense to physical computers. That's ridiculous. Everyone knows it's an abstract model for the concept of the bare minimum that can perform general computation. Obviously you're not going to have some infinite spooling magic printer marketed as an ASUS laptop.

[Anonymous No.10791266]

>>10791254
>someone given lots of credit who doesn't deserve it
Turing is literally this, he's considered by most people the father of computer science, did you even read my post?

[Anonymous No.10791268]

>>10791266
It's not far off to call him a father of comp sci keeping in mind comp sci = the abstract stuff and has NOTHING to do with electronics or anything physical.

[Anonymous No.10791280]

>>10790557
>"irrational fear, horror, aversion," 1786, perhaps on model of similar use in French, abstracted from compounds in -phobia, from Greek -phobia, from phobos "fear, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror," originally "flight" (still the only sense in Homer), but it became the common word for "fear" via the notion of "panic, fright" (compare phobein "put to flight, frighten"), from PIE root *bhegw- "to run" (source also of Lithuanian bėgu, bėgti "to flee;" Old Church Slavonic begu "flight," bezati "to flee, run;" Old Norse bekkr "a stream"). Psychological sense attested by 1895.
Maybe you're thinking of -misia?

[Anonymous No.10791281]

>>10791268
Yes, but he's not called -a- father, he's called -the- father, that's the point, every cs major knows Turing but very few know Church.

[Anonymous No.10791326]

>>10791261
Not him but many people who did CS have told me modern computers are just fancy Turing Machines in their actual physical working.

[Anonymous No.10791344]

>>10791326
That just reaffirms how comp sci has nothing to do with the physical world. It's a common misconception people who major in it or programmers in general have any idea how a physical computer works. I'm a programmer and I at least know how little I know about physical computers. The abstract / programs side of things has surprisingly very little to do with the machines.

[Anonymous No.10791348]

<-- can't believe the obvious answer hasn't been posted

[Anonymous No.10791349]

>>10791281
>every cs major knows Turing but very few know Church
They're both important. I'm personally more interested in Church because lambda calculus is about as abstract as it gets to the point where you can construct numbers and all the basic operations you would perform from first principles, but I still wouldn't shortchange Turing.

[Anonymous No.10791367]

>>10791260
>Marie Curie owes half of her work to Pierre
source?

[Anonymous No.10792805]

>>10791281
>tfw so many people know Church but almost no one knows Moses Schonfinkel

[Anonymous No.10792818]

>>10792805
>founding combinatory logic in 1924, rediscovered by curry in 1927
>By 1927 he was reported to be mentally ill and in a sanatorium.[2][3] His later life was spent in poverty, and he died in Moscow some time in 1942. His papers were burned by his neighbors for heating.[3]
my god this man life sad

[Anonymous No.10792823]

>>10790015

Phobia?

I disapprove of their sexual malfunction and want homosexual acts and lifestyles to be suppressed from public view.

[Anonymous No.10792936]

>>10791348
came to post this

[Anonymous No.10792947]

>>10792823
Okay grandpa you can go home now.

[Anonymous No.10792990]

>>10792947
>my generation is more fag-tolerant than those that preceded it

[Anonymous No.10792995]

>>10792990
Hell yeah. If it makes you sad, good.

[Anonymous No.10793034]

>>10792823
I can't tell if the joke went over your head or if this is some kind of double secret redacted ironic shitposting.

[Anonymous No.10793051]

>>10791280
an extreme fear or "dislike" of a particular thing or situation, especially one that is not reasonable:
Cambridge English Dictionary

A phobia is a very strong irrational fear or "hatred " of something.
collins dictionary

[Anonymous No.10793105]

bill nye

[Anonymous No.10793107]

>>10793051
Official Phobia definition will never be changed to what it truly means in the modern day. Glabalhomo won't allow it

[Anonymous No.10793113]

>>10791167
Okay guys, I spotted the physishit

[Anonymous No.10793178]

>>10793051
>irrational
Nothing irrational about hating shit-eating, disease-spreading, child-molesting, Nature-spurning faggots.

[Anonymous No.10794235]

>>10788811

Basically all (((theoretical physicists)))

[Anonymous No.10794271]

>>10790013
The Jews who run the globalhomo federation and hollywood are the ones propping him up.

[Anonymous No.10794293]

>>10791254
>Both Church and Von Neumann were modern civilization shaping geniuses
Why do mathfags have such a inflated view of themselves?

[Anonymous No.10794357]

>>10792805
>>10792818
That is pretty sad

[Anonymous No.10794424]

>>10791326
>Not him but many people who did CS have told me modern computers are just fancy Turing Machines
>That just reaffirms how comp sci has nothing to do with the physical world
Von Neumann / Harvard architecture is a type of practical yet rough realization of the Turing model of computation. You have obvious caveats like
1) While the tape isn't infinite, the OS (since its the OS's task to provide an interface between the user and the metal, you can just think of it as a Turing machine proxy running on a physical machine) manages memory with promises such that there is an *illusion* of infinite memory from the scope of any single process. So in some sense, from each program's perspective, they're running on an infinite tape. Turing machines are a valid model on the foundations because it helps us first understand how to set up instructions as bits of memory, and architecture is a realization of that idea.
2) The comparison to a Turing machine has mostly to do in regards to computability. That is, the major consideration from practical researchers towards theory researchers is: can your theory give us results about the limitations of our machines? They can, and as any recursion theory / basic computability student can see, they almost all stem from HALT, ACCEPT, DIAG, etc.. The ideas behind complexity help us first and foremost in a mathematical, idealized sense, and algorithms is the research to translate it into a solution with constraints. I've heard a good number of complexity researchers express the wish for a Turing model with considerations for read/write/access times to add in practical considerations. If I'm not mistaken, there's already one for bounded memory.
So I think lots of CS students might have some of the details wrong/simplified, but they don't have the wrong idea entirely. It is true that (theoretical) computer science is the abstract study of hard math and engineering problems in a very pure form.

[Anonymous No.10794441]

>>10794424
meant to reply to >>10791344 as well. One could also argue that quantum information (NOT the study of how to make a practical quantum computer, but the generalized field) is the study of computational phenomena in physics and nature. There are also very very interesting connections between statistical physics

[Anonymous No.10794446]

>>10794441
>the study of computational phenomena in physics and nature
explain what you mean by this and why its arguable
>There are also very very interesting connections between statistical physics
and what are they?

[Anonymous No.10794462]

>>10791348
isn't she a business fraud more than a science fraud?

[Anonymous No.10794537]

Nikola Tesla by far. That dude was so full of shit you could dump him in a field and never have to fertilize again.

[Anonymous No.10794544]

Need we forget

[Anonymous No.10794546]

The university system. >>10794542

[Anonymous No.10794550]

>>10794544
but engineers aren't scientists, is that why he can only call himself a science guy?

[Anonymous No.10795377]

>>10794544
nah

[Anonymous No.10796639]

>>10791281
>every cs major knows Turing but very few know Church.
Literally every CS major, no matter how shitty, learns some basic lambda calculus in a principles of languages or compilers course. Everyone knows Church in that field, even the shitters

Also newsflash: nobody, and especially not complexity theorists, likes the Turing model as something you have to work with. The description of its components gets so unintuitive that you can only really work with it *using* the Church-Turing thesis to say that instructions on memory (aka algorithms) are computations on the machine, correspond to lambda functions, isomorphic to traditional Hilbert style deductive systems, etc etc. It's powerful but people don't necessarily like working with it.

[Anonymous No.10796666]

>>10794293
>Shitting on Von Neumann while literally using a computer to send your shitpost
I mean...

[Anonymous No.10796683]

>>10794446
Information theory has long since been part of complexity theory, and it's really heavily present in communication complexity. Since quantum information is..well, the study of quantum phenomena from an information theoretic standpoint, a lot of the old work starts to crossover and make connections with physics. Suddenly, you find yourself talking about something like communication complexity among quantum phenomena, which leads to much sharper characterization
>and what are they?
On the front of statistical physics, there's the integer partition problem and phase transition. There are other connections out there as well

[Anonymous No.10796692]

>>10796683
>which leads to much sharper characterizations
in that you are contibuting to the mathematics and theoretical physics of quantum mechanics or because you have acquired a useful analogy for information theory? Im confused how this actually involves doing science instead of sharing language which is used in physics.
>phase transition
advancing physical understanding, the mathematics, which part is aided by information theory?

[Anonymous No.10796694]

>>10796683
you said computational phenomena in physics

do you literally mean computational phenomena as extant objects in nature or the description of that phenomena as it pertains to information theory? Im trying to figure out why that wouldn’t just be physics.

[Anonymous No.10797808]

>>10789945
It's all the same guy. Further details?

[Anonymous No.10797945]

>>10788811
>>10789984
>>10791181
Alan Pedo Turing had FAS, there is 0% chance he had the IQ to do research mathematics or codebreaking

[Anonymous No.10797947]

Freud. 100%. Even though he's not a "scientist" he's killed generations worth of actual researchers and interested people in mental studies.

[Anonymous No.10798140]

>>10790015
why the homophobia-phobia?