mm-1139
===
Subject: Re: Yet another math problem I dont understand!
> This is the problem I can not figure out how to work.
> The path of a diver is given by y= -4/9x^2 + 24/9x + 12
where y is
> the height in feet, and x is the horizontal distance from
the end of
> the diving board in feet.
> a) What is the maximum height of the dive?
b) How high is the diving board?
~Hillarie
I am not now, nor have I ever taken calculus. I am taking
basic
college algebra. I have given this problem thought and tried
to work
it by treating is a a quadratic equation but that did not
work. Other
than treating it like a quadratic equation I dont know how to
begin to
complete this problem.
~Hillarie
===
Subject: Re: Yet another math problem I dont understand!
Hillary returns after comments:
>I am taking basic
>college algebra.>>
{original equation given: y=-4/9x^2 + 24/9x + 12}
Your required concepts are likely in the course. Unclear is,
what exactly
you
mean by basic college algebra. Does this mean Introductory
Algebra?
Does
this mean the PreCalculus College Algebra?
The current date seems a bit early in the semester for
dealing with
quadratic
equations; this being late september.
> I have given this problem thought and tried to work
>it by treating is a a quadratic equation but that did not
work. Other
>than treating it like a quadratic equation I dont know how
to begin to
>complete this problem.
y=-(4/9)x^2 + (24/9)x + 12
If that is truly what you are trying to express, then
certainly that is a
quadratic equation and it is easily factorable; the points on
the x-axis
will
be plainly obvious. What values of x will satisfy the
0=-(4/9)x^2 + (24/9)x + 12 (but in the factored form, of
course).?
G C
===
Subject: Re: Yet another math problem I dont understand!
> Hillary returns after comments:
>I am taking basic
>college algebra.>>
> {original equation given: y=-4/9x^2 + 24/9x + 12}
> Your required concepts are likely in the course. Unclear
is, what
exactly
you
> mean by basic college algebra. Does this mean Introductory
Algebra?
Does
> this mean the PreCalculus College Algebra?
The important thing about the question Are you studying for
calculus is
the specific suggestions we offer (if any) will depend greatly
on the
answer. Since it has been clarified this is algebra (the
particular course
doesnt really matter) as opposed to calculus, then
obviously
we are not
going to be performing any differentiation (a tool by which
similar
problems
are solved in calculus.)
I second the motion of the other poster. Wheres your work,
OP?
Do you (original poster) simply want the answer and dont
care how it is
obtained, which would explain the repeated lack of showing
any real attempt
despite the requests, or would you like to know the general
method for
solving these kinds of problems? Im still undecided which
is
the case, so
Ill meet you half way. If truly interested in the method,
all will be
revealed. If you just want the quick answer, then what
follows will
probably not make much sense so no harm no foul on my part.
It will look
like work and you will probably ignore it.
Or you will prove me wrong, read and understand the following
(which is
probably also in your book), and apply it to your specific
problem.
> I have given this problem thought and tried to work
>it by treating is a a quadratic equation but that did not
work.
The second part (b) has been thourougly addressed. For part
a, understand
that a parabola with vertical axis of symmetry will have
vertex that is
either the highest point on the graph (y is maximal) occuring
when the
parabola opens downward, *or* the vertex is the lowest point
on the graph
(y
is minimal) occuring when the parabola opens upward. In this
case you are
asked, in essence, to state the maximal y-value of a downward
opening
parabola. IOW, state the y-coordinate of the vertex.
Now the work: For a quadratic equation in standard form,
y=ax^2+bx+c with
a<>0, the coordinates of the vertex can be derived from
completing the
square:
y = ax^2 + bx + c
Divide by a...
(y/a) = x^2 + (b/a)x + (c/a)
Subtract c/a...
(y/a)-(c/a) = x^2 + (b/a)x
Add (b^2)/(4a^2)...
(y/a)-(c/a)+(b^2)/(4a^2) = x^2 + (b/a)x + (b^2)/(4a^2)
Combine terms on left and factor on right...
(y/a) + [(b^2-4ac)/4a^2] = [x + (b/2a)]^2
Get y term alone...
(y/a) = [x + (b/2a)]^2 - (b^2-4ac)/(4a^2)
Multiply by a...
y = a[x + (b/2a)]^2 + (4ac-b^2)/(4a)
Now, given that a quite common equation of such a parabola
is...
y = a(x - h)^2 + k ...where (h,k) is the vertex
...we rewrite this, to fit this form, as...
y = a[x - (-b/2a)]^2 + (4ac-b^2)/(4a)
A similar method can be used to describe the coordinates of
the vertex of a
parabola with horizontal axis of symmetry (opening left or
right.)
--
Darrell
===
Subject: Re: Yet another math problem I dont understand!
> I have given this problem thought and tried to work
>it by treating is a a quadratic equation but that did not
work.
What do you mean, that did not work? What _specifically_ did
you
try? Show us your work; otherwise its impossible to help
you
see
where you went wrong.
The single most annoying form of trouble report is It didnt
work.
Surely people are not so foolish as to think thats an
adequate
explanation! What is someone supposed to do when hearing or
reading
such a statement, except ask for more details? If people
asking for
help thought for even a moment, they would realize that more
information was necessary to diagnose the problem.
Live conversations are one thing, where the helper can ask
follow-up
questions. But when one is posting to asynchronous media like
e-mail
or Usenet, its quite useless to fail to provide all
relevant
information in the first trouble report.
The only thing more amazing is to see someone fail to provide
that
information in the _second_ trouble report.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html
===
Subject: total variation norm
Define the total variation norm || || of a function on the
line to be
||f|| = sup( sum over all j |f(x_{j+1})-f(x_j)| ).
How do you show that, if u(x,t) is the solution to the heat
equation
u_t=u_{xx}, u(x,0)=f(x), then u satisfies
||u(.,t)|| <= ||f|| ?
I know that u(x,t) = 1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp(
-(x-y)^2/(4t) )
f(y) dy, but with the x in the exponent I havent been able
to make
||u(.,t)|| look like anything I can start writing inequalities
withany suggestions?
===
Subject: Re: total variation norm
>Define the total variation norm || || of a function on the
line to be
>||f|| = sup( sum over all j |f(x_{j+1})-f(x_j)| ),
_where_ x_1 < x_2 < ... < x_n.
>How do you show that, if u(x,t) is the solution to the heat
equation
>u_t=u_{xx}, u(x,0)=f(x), then u satisfies
>||u(.,t)|| <= ||f|| ?
>I know that u(x,t) = 1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp(
-(x-y)^2/(4t) )
>f(y) dy, but with the x in the exponent I havent been able
to make
>||u(.,t)|| look like anything I can start writing
inequalities
>withany suggestions?
Make a change of variables, to show that
u(x,t) =
1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp( -y^2/(4t) ) f(x-y) dy .
Use the fact that
1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp( -y^2/(4t) ) dy = 1.
************************
David C. Ullrich
===
Subject: Re: total variation norm
Hmmm...I see why making the change of variables makes sense,
but now I
cant proceed from
||u|| = sup (sum) |1/sqrt(4 pi t) INT(-oo,oo)
e^(-y^2/(4t))[f(x_{i+1}-y)-f(x_i-y)] dy|.
If f was in L^1, it seems like I could use some sort of
Cauchy-Schwarz
inequality in the integral, but its still a mystery how to
end up
comparing ||u|| to ||f|| rather than ||INT(-oo,oo) f||...
>
>Define the total variation norm || || of a function on the
line to be
>
>||f|| = sup( sum over all j |f(x_{j+1})-f(x_j)| ),
_where_ x_1 < x_2 < ... < x_n.
>
>
>How do you show that, if u(x,t) is the solution to the heat
equation
>u_t=u_{xx}, u(x,0)=f(x), then u satisfies
>
>||u(.,t)|| <= ||f|| ?
>
>I know that u(x,t) = 1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp(
-(x-y)^2/(4t) )
>f(y) dy, but with the x in the exponent I havent been able
to make
>||u(.,t)|| look like anything I can start writing
inequalities
>with?any suggestions?
Make a change of variables, to show that
u(x,t) =
> 1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp( -y^2/(4t) ) f(x-y) dy .
> Use the fact that
1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp( -y^2/(4t) ) dy = 1.
> ************************
David C. Ullrich
===
Subject: Re: total variation norm
>Hmmm...I see why making the change of variables makes sense,
but now I
>cant proceed from
>||u|| = sup (sum) |1/sqrt(4 pi t) INT(-oo,oo)
>e^(-y^2/(4t))[f(x_{i+1}-y)-f(x_i-y)] dy|.
>If f was in L^1, it seems like I could use some sort of
Cauchy-Schwarz
>inequality in the integral, but its still a mystery how to
end up
>comparing ||u|| to ||f|| rather than ||INT(-oo,oo) f||...
Well Ill just do it then - make certain to mention my name
when
you hand it in:
|u(x_1, t) - u(x_2, t)| + ...
<= 1/sqrt(4 pi t) INT(-oo,oo) e^(-y^2/(4t))
(|f(x_1-y)-f(x_2-y)| + ...) dy
<= 1/sqrt(4 pi t) INT(-oo,oo) e^(-y^2/(4t)) ||f|| dy
= ||f|| .
>>
>>Define the total variation norm || || of a function on the
line to be
||f|| = sup( sum over all j |f(x_{j+1})-f(x_j)| ),
>>
>> _where_ x_1 < x_2 < ... < x_n.
>>
How do you show that, if u(x,t) is the solution to the heat
equation
>>u_t=u_{xx}, u(x,0)=f(x), then u satisfies
||u(.,t)|| <= ||f|| ?
I know that u(x,t) = 1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp(
-(x-y)^2/(4t) )
>>f(y) dy, but with the x in the exponent I havent been
able
to make
>>||u(.,t)|| look like anything I can start writing
inequalities
>>with?any suggestions?
>>
>> Make a change of variables, to show that
>>
>> u(x,t) =
>> 1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp( -y^2/(4t) ) f(x-y) dy .
>>
>>
>> Use the fact that
>>
>> 1/sqrt(4 pi t) int(-oo,oo) exp( -y^2/(4t) ) dy = 1.
>>
>>
>> ************************
>>
>> David C. Ullrich
************************
David C. Ullrich
===
Subject: integrate implicitly??
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8MCbhA31840;
Hi all,
I wonder if it is possible to integrate implicitly ?
i dont know have i use implicitly correctly, what i meant
was :
integrate f(x,y) w.r.t x, where y = f(x) but we dont know
what form
is the f(x).
eg f(x,y) = 2x + siny
I thought of this question because
If y and x are independent, then to integrate f(x,y) w.r.t x,
treating
y as a constant.
eg integral 2yx+ siny = yx^2 + F(y)
Ahaey
===
Subject: Re: integrate implicitly??
>I wonder if it is possible to integrate implicitly ?
>i dont know have i use implicitly correctly, what i meant
was :
>integrate f(x,y) w.r.t x, where y = f(x) but we dont know
what form
>is the f(x).
I dont know whether there is a term for what
youre talking
about,
but the general answer is No, you cant integrate a function
of x
and y with respect to x when y is also a function of x -- you
must
first re-express the integrand as a function of x.
When you proceed to further calculus (usually third
semester), you
will meet multiple integration. There you integrate a
function of x
and y with respect to x -- but only when both and y are
independent
variables.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html
===
Subject: Re: mean
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8MCc1231859;
>I am working on trying to find the estimated mean for grouped
data
>The problem reads: What is the age distribution for adult
shop
>lifters. A random sample of 895 incidents of shop lifting
gave the
>following age distribution: age range 1)21-30 2) 31-40 3)41
and over
>number of shoplifters 1)260 2)348 3)287
>And I need to estimate the mean age, sample variance, sample
standard
>deviation for the shoplifters. For the class 41 and over use
45.5 as
>the class midpoint
I dont understand why you would be doing a problem like
this
when you seem to be telling us you have no idea what to do.
If this
is a homework or text problem. They should have the formulas
in the
text.
In any case, the point of grouped data is to treat all of the
values in a group as if it were the midpoint. You have a
total of 895
people, 260 of whom you are taking to be age 25.5, 348 of age
35.5,
and 287 of age 45.5. If you added all those together, you
would get
260(25.5)+ 348(35.5)+ 287(45.5)= 32042.5. Thats an average
age of
32042.5/895= 35.8.
To find variance, subtract that average, 35.8, from each
midpoint
age, square and average the resulting numbers.
25.5- 35.8= -10.3 (-10.3)^2= 106.09
35.5- 35.8= - 0.3 (-0.3)^2= 0.009
45.5- 35.8= 9.7 ( 9.7)^2= 94.09
The average of these, again taking into account the number in
each
group is (260(106.09)+ 348(0.009)+ 287(94.09))/894=
54590.362/894
= 61. (Notice the 894 instead of 895-basically thats to
make
the
variance a little larger to allow for the fact that this is
only a
sample. Consult your text book or teach on that.)
Finally, the standard deviation is simply the square root of
the
variance.
===
Subject: No need to be a jerk
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8MEBLg05456;
Listen Pal, this forum is for discussion and learning. I saw
somewhere where this was the case, apparently it doesnt
apply to my
case or I interpreted the problem incorrectly, which is could
be the
case. In the future try to show some class, which apparently
you are
in short supply of.
===
Subject: I beg to difffer
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) with ESMTP id h8N0C0B15489
by home.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision: 1.4
nullclient) id h8N0Bwi16703;
>Listen Pal, this forum is for discussion and learning. I saw
>somewhere where this was the case, apparently it doesnt
apply to my
>case or I interpreted the problem incorrectly, which is
could be the
>case. In the future try to show some class, which apparently
you are
>in short supply of.
Heres a heads-up Matt - Im not your Pal.
You saw somewhere that sin(3 - 3) = sin(0) = 1??? Which
apparently
doesnt apply in your case??? I would be amazed if you could
find
*any* case where sin(0) = 1 did apply. Good god - at what
level are
you attempting to study at?
I stand by my earlier post.
Ill try to show some class if you try to show some brains,
Matt.
(And I wont even make any cracks about *your* short supply)
===
Subject: Re: I beg to difffer
>>Listen Pal, this forum is for discussion and learning. I saw
>>somewhere where this was the case, apparently it doesnt
apply to my
>>case or I interpreted the problem incorrectly, which is
could be the
>>case. In the future try to show some class, which
apparently you are
>>in short supply of.
>Heres a heads-up Matt - Im not your Pal.
There seems to be a rash of people posting follow-ups as new
threads.
your software for follow-up, not for posting a new thread.
Discussions are impossible to follow when people fragment
them as
you and others have done. And changing the subject lines just
makes
it worse.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html
===
Subject: Re: I beg to difffer
>
>>Listen Pal, this forum is for discussion and learning. I saw
>>somewhere where this was the case, apparently it doesnt
apply to my
>>case or I interpreted the problem incorrectly, which is
could be the
>>case. In the future try to show some class, which
apparently you are
>>in short supply of.
>
>Heres a heads-up Matt - Im not your Pal.
> There seems to be a rash of people posting follow-ups as new
> threads.
> your software for follow-up, not for posting a new thread.
> Discussions are impossible to follow when people fragment
them as
> you and others have done. And changing the subject lines
just makes
> it worse.
Let me get this straight----its fine to
ßame, so long as the
format is
proper? Ha!
===
Subject: integration-please help
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8MIXFL24351;
I have the following problem relating to a life table function
X
exp(-S 1/1600 u du )
0
where S is definite integral. How do I multiply out of this to
get a
solution for the life table function? Please help!!
D
===
Subject: Re: integration-please help
>I have the following problem relating to a life table
function
> X
>exp(-S 1/1600 u du )
> 0
>where S is definite integral. How do I multiply out of this
to get a
>solution for the life table function?
You dont multiply out; you evaluate the integral.
Did you actually mean the integrand to be 1/1600u, which is
what you
and the first one isnt much harder.
If youre truly stuck after looking at this a second time,
post
again and SHOW US WHAT YOU TRIED.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html
===
Subject: Questions on Calculus
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8MLgAX06095;
A.How do you prove?
1. lim f(x)=2 if f(x)= 4-2x, x<1
B.Show by example that the following statement is wrong:
1. The number L is the limit of f(X) as X approaches Xo if
f(X) gets
closer to L as x approaches Xo.
Explain why the function in your in your example does not
have the
given value of L as a limit as X-->Xo
2.The number L is the limit of f(x) as x approaches Xo if
given any
epsilon>0, there exists a value of x for which
|f(x)-L|Xo
C.Find the limits
1.lim (X3-3x+2)/(X3-2x2)
note:x cube -3x +2 divided by x cube -2 x square
when the limit is
a)X-->0+
b)X-->2+
c)X-->2-
d)X-->2
e)what can be said about the limit as x--->0
D.Theory and examples
1.Once you know lim x-->a+ f(x) and lim x-->a- f(x) at an
interior
point of the domain of f, do you then know lim x-->a?
Giv resons for your answer.
2.If you know lim x-->c f(x) exist, can you find its value by
calculating lim x-->c+ f(x)? Give reasons for your answer
3.Suppose that f is an odd function of x. Does knowing that
lim
reasons for
your answer
E.Formal definitions od one -sided limits
1. Given epsilon >0 find an interval I = (5, 5.5+delta),
delta>0,such
that if x lies in I, then square root of
(x-5)0 , find an interval I = (4-delta , 4),
delta>0,
such that if x lies in I, then square (4-
x) A.How do you prove?
> 1. lim f(x)=2 if f(x)= 4-2x, x<1
> x->1 6x-4, x > and = 1
Do the right side and the left side limits separately.
> B.Show by example that the following statement is wrong:
> 1. The number L is the limit of f(X) as X approaches Xo if
f(X) gets
> closer to L as x approaches Xo.
How is 1 different than 2 other than 1 is less exact?
> Explain why the function in your in your example does not
have the
> given value of L as a limit as X-->Xo
> 2.The number L is the limit of f(x) as x approaches Xo if
given any
> epsilon>0, there exists a value of x for which
> |f(x)-L| Explain why the function in your example does not have the
given value
> of L as a limit as x-->Xo
Huh? Youre asked to find a function and a
number L for which
lim(x->x0) f(x) /= L ?
If thats whats being asked,
its most easy.
> C.Find the limits
> 1.lim (X3-3x+2)/(X3-2x2)
> note:x cube -3x +2 divided by x cube -2 x square
The proper way to write that is
(x^3 - 3x + 2)/(x^3 - 2x^2)
> when the limit is
> a)X-->0+
> b)X-->2+
> c)X-->2-
> d)X-->2
> e)what can be said about the limit as x--->0
> 1 Define g(3)ina way that extends g(x) = (x2 -9)/(x-3) to be
> continuous at x = 3
Do you mean
(x^2 - 9)/(x - 3) = x + 3 ?
Thats a lot of homework for you to do and you
havent even
show any
attempts at doing any of it. Seems you dont want any help
but only
somebody to do your homework for you.
===
Subject: typo
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8MLnb506437;
my e-mail is ohyes_tw@yahoo.com
===
Subject: What is y=f(x)
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) with ESMTP id h8N0BwB15486
by home.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision: 1.4
nullclient) id h8N0BvH16699;
I know the basic concept of y equals a function of x. But can
someone
give a beeter explanation of this funciton?
===
Subject: Re: What is y=f(x)
>I know the basic concept of y equals a function of x. But
can someone
>give a beeter explanation of this funciton?
Which part of the basic concept are you having trouble with?
Otherwise youre just asking us to take shots in the dark,
and any
improvement on whats in your textbook would be a matter of
luck.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html
===
Subject: function
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8NDArA00566;
hi,
i saw the briefexplanation of function at this page
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51453.html
hope its useful to you. =)
extract from
Implicit Functions
===
Subject: Implicit functions
---------
In order to be a *function*, of course, given a value of the
independent variable, there must be a *unique* value of the
dependent
variable which makes the equation true. If there is more than
one,
you dont have a function, but something called a relation.
For the
sake of clarity, consider x to be the independent variable,
and y the
dependent variable. For x = y^2, y is *not* a function of x,
because
for each positive value of x, there are two values of y which
work:
y = Sqrt[x] and y = -Sqrt[x]
===
Subject: Why was my message posted twice?
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) with ESMTP id h8N0C2B15492
by home.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision: 1.4
nullclient) id h8N0C0m16707;
Although I know what Sin(0) is, I sure havent been able to
figure out
how to post on this forum without creating all kinds of silly
little
Anyway, sorry for the clutter.
===
Subject: riddle
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) with ESMTP id h8N0C9B15529
by home.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision: 1.4
nullclient) id h8N0C8716727;
You can find us in darkness but never in light.
We are present in daytime but absent at night.
In the deepest of shadows, We hide in plain sight.
What am I?
===
Subject: Re: riddle
> You can find us in darkness but never in light.
> We are present in daytime but absent at night.
> In the deepest of shadows, We hide in plain sight.
> What am I?
A shadowy character.
===
Subject: Proving monotonous functions.
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8N5Yi307332;
question:
Prove by (1) a calculus approach
and (2) an algebra approach
That f(x)=arctan(x) is 1-1 for x between (-pi/2, pi/2).
Hint for (2) be careful you dont say;
arctan(a)=arctan(b) -> a=b - you will need the identity
arctan(x)-arctan(y) = arctan((x-y)/(1+xy)).
Any help would be appreciated.
===
Subject: Re: Proving monotonous functions.
> question:
> Prove by (1) a calculus approach
> and (2) an algebra approach
> That f(x)=arctan(x) is 1-1 for x between (-pi/2, pi/2).
Likely you made mistake about the range of x.
Are you trying to indicate arctan is the pricipal value?
Show f(x) is positive and use mean value theorem.
> Hint for (2) be careful you dont say;
> arctan(a)=arctan(b) -> a=b - you will need the identity
> arctan(x)-arctan(y) = arctan((x-y)/(1+xy)).
> Any help would be appreciated.
tan arctan x = x
===
Subject: Re: Proving monotonous functions.
>question:
>Prove by (1) a calculus approach
> and (2) an algebra approach
>That f(x)=arctan(x) is 1-1 for x between (-pi/2, pi/2).
>Hint for (2) be careful you dont say;
>arctan(a)=arctan(b) -> a=b - you will need the identity
>arctan(x)-arctan(y) = arctan((x-y)/(1+xy)).
Have you thought carefully about the hint? To prove that a
function
is 1-1 you need to prove that f(a)=f(b) if a=b and f(a)<>f(b)
if
a<>b. But f(a)=f(b) is the same as f(a)-f(b)=0. You are given
f(a)-
f(b) in convenient form.
As for the calculus method, you should have learned a theorem
about
monotonic functions being 1-1.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html
===
Subject: Using a delta/epsilon argument to show continunity
by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum,
$Revision:
1.9 primary) id h8NDCUH00698;
Hey, any used a delta/epsilon argument to prove a limit?
Q: Using a delta, epsilon argument show that f(x) = x^2+x+1 is
continuous at x=a.
The basis for doing this is , given e>0, there is d>0 such
that if
|x-a|Q: Using a delta, epsilon argument show that f(x) = x^2+x+1
is
>continuous at x=a.
>The basis for doing this is , given e>0, there is d>0 such
that if
>|x-a|With my question I cant get my |f(x)-f(a)| to sometihng in
terms of
>|x-a|, so Im kinda stuck.
Why not? f(x) = x^2+x+1; f(a) = a^2+a+1.
f(x)-f(a) = x^2-a^2 + x-a = (x-a)(x+a+1).
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html
===
Subject: Re: Uniqueness of gcd(a,b) = as + bt
> Hi everyone,
>
> It is well known that gcd(a, b) = as + bt for some integers
a, b, s, t,
> with
> a > b > 0. What I need to know is whether s and t are
unique. Any
hints?
>
> Bernd
Rationale behind search for counterexample (or proof):
> Suppose they arent. Suppose p,q do the job too. Then;
> as + bt = gcd(a, b) = ap + bq
> a(s-p) = b(q-t)
> So how about letting;
> s-p = b => p = s-b
> q-t = a => q = a+t
> So;
> gcd(a, b) = ap + bq = a(s-b) + b(a+t) = as + bt
> as required.
> I hope. (Getting practice in before term starts...!)
So p and q are not unique. Which isnt surprising, since ma
+
nb = 0 has
infinitely many solutions.
Jon Miller
===
Subject: Re: Uniqueness of gcd(a,b) = as + bt
>> Hi everyone,
It is well known that gcd(a, b) = as + bt for some integers
a, b, s,
t,
>> with
>> a > b > 0. What I need to know is whether s and t are
unique. Any
>> hints?
Bernd
>> Suppose they arent. Suppose p,q do the job too. Then;
>> as + bt = gcd(a, b) = ap + bq
>> a(s-p) = b(q-t)
>> So how about letting;
>> s-p = b => p = s-b
>> q-t = a => q = a+t
The argument is bogus. Why not let s - p = q - t = 0. Then p
= s, q = t
> and ap + bq = as + bt as desired.
Wrong! The argument is spot on!
>> So;
>> gcd(a, b) = ap + bq = a(s-b) + b(a+t) = as + bt
>> as required.
>> I hope. (Getting practice in before term starts...!)
===
Subject: Desire for fame is a bitch
I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish my
paper
on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I figured
that
now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
wrong.
So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping it,
there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
So here are some concessions.
If mathematician wish to dismiss my prime counting function.
Ok.
Im not conceding any of that wacky bull like that
its just
Legendres Method as any idiot can look at the two and see
theyre
different, but its not worth arguing over as
Ive figured out
people
dont give a damn about counting prime numbers anyway.
And as for Fermats Last Theorem, its not
worth the effort
arguing
about it.
If you want to believe Wiles proved it, then Im not
interested in
arguing with your need. If youve personally traced out his
work and
are certain based on your own intellect then...GOOD FOR YOU!!!
So quit the lying you dark evil people as Im not out here
claiming to
have a proof of Fermats Last Theorem and Im
not out here
claiming to
have found THE prime counting function.
Take down all those webpages attacking me, and quit with the
posts
calling me a crank. Im finally tired of being
called a crank.
I want to go legit.
Um, there is that little problem with algebraic integers to
discuss
though; however, Im open-minded and willing to consider
*proof* that
Im wrong.
Lets get back to it folks. No FLT. NO ING PRIME COUNTING!!!
But finally I want some straight answers on the ring of
algebraic
integers.
Thats all thats on the table.
And theres no website of mine, so no way to claim that
Im
NOT
dropping FLT and THE prime counting you evil bastards.
LETS GET BACK TO BUSINESS!!!
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
>I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my paper
>on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
>now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
>wrong.
Tee-hee. The rest of us mathematicians are stuck publishing in
plain old low-IQ mathematical journals. Curious how you
cant
get your stuff published there...
>So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping it,
>there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
>So here are some concessions.
>If mathematician wish to dismiss my prime counting function.
>Ok.
>Im not conceding any of that wacky bull like that
its just
>Legendres Method as any idiot can look at the two and see
theyre
>different, but its not worth arguing over as
Ive figured
out people
>dont give a damn about counting prime numbers anyway.
>And as for Fermats Last Theorem, its not
worth the effort
arguing
>about it.
>If you want to believe Wiles proved it, then Im not
interested in
>arguing with your need. If youve personally traced out his
work and
>are certain based on your own intellect then...GOOD FOR
YOU!!!
>So quit the lying you dark evil people
Tee-hee. A second ago you said youd realized that
theres no
way
youll get anywhere pissing off mathematicians. And now
youre
back referring to us as dark evil liars.
You should give up math and go with your strength: start a
seminar on how to win friends and inßuence people.
>as Im not out here claiming to
>have a proof of Fermats Last Theorem and Im
not out here
claiming to
>have found THE prime counting function.
So this is the end of cycle n+1: the retraction. I guess n+2
is
starting soon, eh?
>Take down all those webpages attacking me, and quit with the
posts
>calling me a crank. Im finally tired of being
called a crank.
>I want to go legit.
>Um, there is that little problem with algebraic integers to
discuss
>though;
Oops, I was wrong, n+1 is not quite over yet.
>however, Im open-minded and willing to consider *proof*
that
>Im wrong.
Um, first you have to state coherently exactly what the
supposed
problem _is_. Last I recall the problem was that the algebraic
integers were incomplete, but in spite of repeated requests
you declined to define incomplete. Tired of being called a
crank,
then define your terms - insisting on Truths involving terms
you
refuse to define makes you a crank.
>Lets get back to it folks. No FLT. NO ING PRIME
COUNTING!!!
>But finally I want some straight answers on the ring of
algebraic
>integers.
Answers to what? You havent shown that there are any
problems.
The algebraic integers are incomplete is meaningless until
you give that definition, and all the _specific_
assertions
youve
made about funny stuff in the algebraic integers are easily
seen
to be simply false.
Exactly what is the question you want straight answers to?
>Thats all thats on the table.
>And theres no website of mine, so no way to claim that
Im
NOT
>dropping FLT and THE prime counting you evil bastards.
Hmm. Not just dark evil liars, were evil bastards. But you
dont
want to piss people off. Huh.
HINT: Today you say youre no longer claiming to have a
proof
of FLT. You should also include an apology to all the people
youve called various names (incompetent liars, etc) for
stating that the Proof was wrong.
>LETS GET BACK TO BUSINESS!!!
>James Harris
David C. Ullrich
**************************
As far as Im concerend youre trying to wait
until I die, so
I figure
maybe you should die instead. How about that, eh? Wouldnt
that be a
better twist?
You refuse to follow the math, so the great Powers that
control
reality and *speak* in mathematics decide to kill you instead
of me.
So what do you think about that, eh? Oh, cant hear Them
talking?
Well, I guess thats because you dont really
understand
Mathematics,
the true language, which is THE language.
Theyre talking about you now, and They agree with my
assessment, and
will not penalize me as They allowed the others like Galois
and Abel
to be penalized.
They will kill you instead.
James Harris speaking on Weird factorization, genius
===
Subject: Algebraic Integers
In sci.physics, James Harris
> I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping it,
> there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
So here are some concessions.
If mathematician wish to dismiss my prime counting function.
Dismiss, no.
Blow away, yes. Christian Bau did a remarkably good job with
his implementation at the higher numbers, although he had
help from Meissel and Lehmer. :-)
And you still havent proved that Z[1/2] = R, either.
Or for that matter Q. (Is 1/3 in Z[1/2]? No.) But I
for one can let that slide for now, as discussions thereon
will probably lead us far astray into the transfinite realm.
[snippage]
> But finally I want some straight answers on the ring of
algebraic
> integers.
Thats all thats on the table.
And theres no website of mine, so no way to claim that
Im
NOT
> dropping FLT and THE prime counting you evil bastards.
LETS GET BACK TO BUSINESS!!!
> James Harris
Fine. Whats the issue regarding algebraic integers?
Its a ring, not a field, first
off; both 1 and 2 are
algebraic integers, but 1/2 is not.
Neither pi nor e are algebraic integers -- or even algebraic
numbers.
If a number x != 0 satisfies an equation
x^n + a_{n-1} * x^{n-1} + ... + a_0 = 0,
as required by the definition of an algebraic integer,
then its reciprocal y = 1/x satisfies the equation
a_0 * y^n + a_1 * y^{n-1} + ... + 1 = 0. This means
that x is an algebraic unit if a_0 = 1 or -1. (Not sure
how to prove the only if part, mostly because y could
satisfy some alternate equation -- although its highly
unlikely if the equation defining x is irreducible over Q.)
I suspect part of the reason one can uniquely factor
any nonzero integer in the ring of integers into primes
(otherwise known as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic),
is because there are only two units in the ring of
integers: +1 and -1. This is certainly not true in the
algebraic integer ring; 4 - sqrt(15), for instance, is
a unit, as it is defined by the equation x^2 - 8x + 1;
the other root 4 + sqrt(15) is also a unit, and the
reciprocal to boot.
This also means units are not confined to the unit circle
on the complex plane; from the looks of it theyre scattered
all over the place.
(Does anyone know if the ring of algebraic integers is
a principal ideal ring? Its clear that the algebraic
integers, like their namesake the integers, form an
integral domain.
I doubt that the set of algebraic integers however is a
principal ideal ring, since 2, 3, 6, and sqrt(6) are all
algebraic integers (2 and 3 being prime in the integer
ring), yet 6 = 2 * 3 = sqrt(6) * sqrt(6). Hardly unique.)
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Its still legal to go .sigless.
===
Subject: Re: Algebraic Integers
> In sci.physics, James Harris
>
> I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping it,
> there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
So here are some concessions.
If mathematician wish to dismiss my prime counting function.
Dismiss, no.
Blow away, yes. Christian Bau did a remarkably good job with
> his implementation at the higher numbers, although he had
> help from Meissel and Lehmer. :-)
Thats false. All Christian Bau even claimed was that he was
rehashing old work and I never claimed to have the fastest
prime
counting algorithm.
So youre caught in a falsehood as its
impossible for my
position to
have been blown away by someone putting up someone elses
work when my
position was never the one that you imply.
However, someone naive who actually *trusted* you might have
believed
you and the implication, which is that Christian Bau actually
did
something, versus copy from what other researchers found, and
that my
position was that I had the fastest prime counting algorithm,
when
that was not my position.
But now they can put you in their list of sources not to be
trusted.
who looks for targets to attack to bring attention to
yourself. You
probably figured I was a good and easy target, so you trotted
out your
bogus claim.
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Algebraic Integers
Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Montana.
[.snip.]
>Thats false. All Christian Bau even claimed was that he
was
>rehashing old work and I never claimed to have the fastest
prime
>counting algorithm.
You did insinuate it many times (or at least, said that you
->thought<- you did) early on:
(May 26, 2002)
Um, I have a feeling that record will fall VERY soon.
I think that the actual prime counting function will allow for
counted all the primes up to 10,000,000 in 12.8 seconds
(program
has been posted).
But you did in fact make it explicit you were not claiming
that it was
->necessarily<- the fastest around:
(May 29, 2002)
Not surprisingly the function in its purest form is not
necessarily the *fastest* form, which is something that comes
up
repeatedly in mathematics.
Though of course once again you left wiggle room about how
fast you
could make it:
For those of you who more focused on speed and records (like
the current prime counting record of 10^29) the method can be
optimized *greatly*.
How that would work is where you see loops where the program
currently using the pi function to determine if a number is
prime, instead find all of the primes below the square root of
the max, and then loop using them.
The fastest way to do that is to use a sieve.
The speed should surprise you and put a few records within
reach.
(May 29, 2002)
Again, I suspect the current prime counting record will be
broken in a few days.
(June 29, 2002)
Its actually kind of scary because I could probably blow
away
the 10^22 record on my pc, this afternoon.
You seem to have backed away from such claims shortly after
that.
(Posts found by searching
James Harris prime counting record group:sci.math author:James
author:Harris
[Gabriele Rossetti] has left a vast body of writings... in
which
he has attempted to prove the truth of his unorthodox
interpre-
tation of medieval literature. They present a formidable
record of unsystematic research in which we see an enthusiast
plunging farther and farther and farther from the logic of
facts
and good sense until truth is lost in the dreadful nightmare
of an idee fixe. There is no real evolution of the Theory
although it grows and expands until it embraces ever wider
horizons. The numerous inaccuracies of deduction,
mis-statements
of historical fact, and self-contradictions...have caused
critics
to turn away from them in disgust... [...] It is impossible to
read far... without realizing that we have to deal with a
work of
faith and imagination rather than of reasoning. There is an
appearance of reason, for the author is set on proving by
logic
the truth of what he already believes by intuition. The truth
is plain to him and he cannot comprehend why others do not
immediately accept it, but as they desire demonstration he has
multiplied his proofs. It is the redundancy and confusion of a
prophet expounding by a familiar method the truth revealed to
his
own simple soul in a ßash of inspiration... In such work as
this... it is idle to look for the calm reasoning of a
scholar;
we do not find it, and there is little or no advantage in
attacking the obvious inconsistencies and absurdities that
abound.
-- E.R. Vincent, _Gabriele Rossetti in England_, quoted in
_The Shakespearan Ciphers Examined_, by William F.
Friedman and Elizebeth S. Friedman
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
===
Subject: Re: Algebraic Integers
Ive been reading this list for years. Im an
amateur/hobbyist
mathematician that studies number theory in his spare time
(lately Ive
had a lot of that). There are people on this list that know
way more
than I do, I hope at some point I can become as well versed.
If youre so convinced in your findings then go
find people who
will
listen to you. Obviously the 100k -> 1M+ people who read
usenet groups
havent gratified your needs, so why are you
still here trying
to
convince them? You cant still be typing away because you
think you
can regain your credibility with them. All youve managed to
do is
undermine any possibility that if you do actually figure
something out
they wont listen to you. And in your wake of burining
bridges have
now moved on to disparaging people not even in the argument
with you.
Ive seen people post here and get positive feedback and
others not.
You didnt get the accolades you were looking for, tough -
thats the
way life is. Now move on.
P-
> In sci.physics, James Harris
>
> I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
> So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping
it,
> there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
> So here are some concessions.
> If mathematician wish to dismiss my prime counting function.
Dismiss, no.
Blow away, yes. Christian Bau did a remarkably good job with
> his implementation at the higher numbers, although he had
> help from Meissel and Lehmer. :-)
Thats false. All Christian Bau even claimed was that he was
> rehashing old work and I never claimed to have the fastest
prime
> counting algorithm.
So youre caught in a falsehood as its
impossible for my
position to
> have been blown away by someone putting up someone elses
work when my
> position was never the one that you imply.
However, someone naive who actually *trusted* you might have
believed
> you and the implication, which is that Christian Bau
actually did
> something, versus copy from what other researchers found,
and that my
> position was that I had the fastest prime counting
algorithm, when
> that was not my position.
But now they can put you in their list of sources not to be
trusted.
who looks for targets to attack to bring attention to
yourself. You
> probably figured I was a good and easy target, so you
trotted out your
> bogus claim.
> James Harris
--
#############
Imagination is more important than knowledge - A. Einstein
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish my
paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping it,
> there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
Let alone getting the mathematics wrong!
So here are some concessions.
If mathematician wish to dismiss my prime counting function.
Ok.
Im not conceding any of that wacky bull like that
its just
> Legendres Method as any idiot can look at the two and see
theyre
> different, but its not worth arguing over as
Ive figured
out people
> dont give a damn about counting prime numbers anyway.
And as for Fermats Last Theorem, its not
worth the effort
arguing
> about it.
If you want to believe Wiles proved it, then Im not
interested in
> arguing with your need. If youve personally traced out
his
work and
> are certain based on your own intellect then...GOOD FOR
YOU!!!
So quit the lying you dark evil people as Im not out here
claiming to
> have a proof of Fermats Last Theorem and
Im not out here
claiming to
> have found THE prime counting function.
Take down all those webpages attacking me, and quit with the
posts
> calling me a crank. Im finally tired of being
called a
crank.
I want to go legit.
Um, there is that little problem with algebraic integers to
discuss
> though; however, Im open-minded and willing to consider
*proof* that
> Im wrong.
Lets get back to it folks. No FLT. NO ING PRIME COUNTING!!!
But finally I want some straight answers on the ring of
algebraic
> integers.
Thats all thats on the table.
And theres no website of mine, so no way to claim that
Im
NOT
> dropping FLT and THE prime counting you evil bastards.
LETS GET BACK TO BUSINESS!!!
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish my
paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping it,
> there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
Let alone getting the mathematics wrong!
Ah, but you see, I know I do NOT have the math wrong as I
explained
the argument in my paper to a Professor McKenzie at Vanderbilt
University *in person* and used a lot of chalkboard space
while doing
it.
Heres a link to Vanderbilts page on him:
http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/czXIYM
He even shot down the objections of Magidin who intriguingly
enough
went to a school where Professor McKenzie spent some
time--Berkeley.
Yes, I mentioned the objections raised by people on the
sci.math
newsgroup.
However, Professor McKenzie began claiming my work is
algebraic
geometry which is out of his field. So I explained the entire
thing
over more than an hour, having driven up four hours from
Atlanta
metro, and he tells me its out of his field.
I checked with a Professor Kovaks at University of Washington
and he
tells me its not algebraic geometry, but is algebraic
number
theory.
Worse, I specifically told Professor McKenzie that I was
interested in
explaining my work, and would appreciate any help from my
alma mater.
He claimed no one at Vanderbilt had the expertise, but a
Professor
Kalman pointed out to me in an email that theres a
Professor
Megibben
at the school who does.
So at this point theres no doubt about the correctness of
the paper
Advanced Polynomial Factorization.
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
> Ah, but you see, I know I do NOT have the math wrong as I
explained
> the argument in my paper to a Professor McKenzie at
Vanderbilt
> University *in person* and used a lot of chalkboard space
while doing
> it.
Heres a link to Vanderbilts page on him:
> http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/czXIYM
He even shot down the objections of Magidin who intriguingly
enough
> went to a school where Professor McKenzie spent some
time--Berkeley.
Yes, I mentioned the objections raised by people on the
sci.math
> newsgroup.
However, Professor McKenzie began claiming my work is
algebraic
> geometry which is out of his field. So I explained the
entire thing
> over more than an hour, having driven up four hours from
Atlanta
> metro, and he tells me its out of his field.
I checked with a Professor Kovaks at University of Washington
and he
> tells me its not algebraic geometry, but is algebraic
number theory.
Worse, I specifically told Professor McKenzie that I was
interested in
> explaining my work, and would appreciate any help from my
alma mater.
> He claimed no one at Vanderbilt had the expertise, but a
Professor
> Kalman pointed out to me in an email that theres a
Professor Megibben
> at the school who does.
Yeah, my old advisor also had a crank file. Whenever
hed get
a call
Mr. so-and-so, I was intrigued by the clear exposition on
your letter,
unfortunately this topic seems slightly outside my own field
but I
have a *good colleague* who has been working on similar
problems for a
while and his address is ... and thereby effectively
short-circuiting
the kooks with each other.
He claimed he had never heard back from any of them.
This was before email or the internet.
> So at this point theres no doubt about the correctness of
the paper
> Advanced Polynomial Factorization.
So how long exactly do people have to give you the run-around
before
you get the hint?
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
So at this point theres no doubt about the correctness of
the paper
> Advanced Polynomial Factorization.
Youve been blown off repeatedly and this is your
conclusion?
Well you deleted out the part where I pointed out explaining
the paper
*in person* and yes for those who wonder Professor McKenzie
did
challenge me repeatedly at points. Luckily the argument is
simple as
I could meet each and every such challenge and show how each
step
followed logically, and therefore correctly.
> Btw, you do realise that some of the people that are
responding to you
> here have very similar credentials to the ones you talk to
in real life?
> Why would you believe the one and not the other?
Its not about believing any of you but about your
willingness or
unwillingness to accept correct mathematics. What I verified
is my
suspicion that others besides posters on sci.math, who might
feel safe
because of the medium, could see the explanation, see that it
is
correct, yet still just *decide* to not accept the importance
of the
mathematics.
After all, I have repeatedly answered objections put forward
on
sci.math but found that posters would just lie and then no
one would
catch them on lies!!!
Later theyd toss out the same objections that
Id refuted
and that
includes posters like Magidin and Nora Baron.
What my meeting with Professor McKenzie also confirmed for me
is that
a professional mathematician wouldnt accept their primary
objection,
which confirms to me that they were deliberately lying, as
its
nonsensical to believe that factors of f vary as functions or
as
dependents on m, which Professor McKenzie didnt even
seriously
consider as a possibility.
It seems to me that many of you are quite willing to lie on
Usenet,
and now I have the proof. At least Professor McKenzie didnt
toss out
wacky lies like Magidin repeatedly did.
So as I said there is no doubt about the correctness of the
paper
Advanced Polynomial Factorization.
What I have clearly verified is that certain posters who *are*
mathematicians, like Magidin, have been lying about the
mathematics,
and lying repeatedly with objections that a professional
mathematician
quickly rejected.
If the poster Victor Eijkhout wishes to challenge that
directly then I
suggest he point out an error in the paper and if he doesnt
have it,
Id be happy to send it.
I have nothing to hide. Its mathematicians like Magidin who
are
being now caught in deliberate and hurtful lies which are
against
mathematics.
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
>>
>> I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my paper
>> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
>> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune.
I was
>> wrong.
>>
>> So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping it,
>> there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
>>
>> Let alone getting the mathematics wrong!
>Ah, but you see, I know I do NOT have the math wrong as I
explained
>the argument in my paper to a Professor McKenzie at
Vanderbilt
>University *in person* and used a lot of chalkboard space
while doing
>it.
Huh? The fact that you explained it shows its not wrong?
>Heres a link to Vanderbilts page on him:
>http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/czXIYM
>He even shot down the objections of Magidin who intriguingly
enough
>went to a school where Professor McKenzie spent some
time--Berkeley.
Again: Did he shoot down _verbatim_ _quotations_ of
Magidins
objections, or was he dealing with your _paraphrases_ of
Magidins
objections.
It matters, because it happens really a lot that you say
someone
said something that turns out to bear almost no resemblance to
what he actually said.
In any case, you say elsewhere that he blew you off. You
seem to be implying that he agreed your work was correct -
given that its very hard to figure out what you
mean by saying
he blew you off...
>Yes, I mentioned the objections raised by people on the
sci.math
>newsgroup.
>However, Professor McKenzie began claiming my work is
algebraic
>geometry which is out of his field. So I explained the entire
thing
>over more than an hour, having driven up four hours from
Atlanta
>metro, and he tells me its out of his field.
>I checked with a Professor Kovaks at University of
Washington and he
>tells me its not algebraic geometry, but is algebraic
number theory.
Of course its not algebraic geometry. Anyone who thought it
was
is really not a very reliable source...
>Worse, I specifically told Professor McKenzie that I was
interested in
>explaining my work, and would appreciate any help from my
alma mater.
>He claimed no one at Vanderbilt had the expertise, but a
Professor
>Kalman pointed out to me in an email that theres a
Professor Megibben
>at the school who does.
>So at this point theres no doubt about the correctness of
the paper
>Advanced Polynomial Factorization.
One of the most bizarre things youve ever said. The fact
that there
exists someone at Vanderbilt who knows something about some
field shows that your work is correct?
Heres a question: Supposing for the sake of argument that
you found a professional mathematician who says your work
is correct. Its not clear from what youre
saying today
whether
or not youre even claiming that thats
happened, but never
mind, suppose its happened. You know that there exist
many professional mathematicians who say your work is
nonsense, or rather that the better parts of it are nonsense,
while most of it is not clear enough to qualify for that
label.
Since the pros saying youre wrong dont prove
youre wrong,
_why_ do the hypothetical pros saying youre right prove
youre right?
Just curious.
>James Harris
David C. Ullrich
**************************
As far as Im concerend youre trying to wait
until I die, so
I figure
maybe you should die instead. How about that, eh? Wouldnt
that be a
better twist?
You refuse to follow the math, so the great Powers that
control
reality and *speak* in mathematics decide to kill you instead
of me.
So what do you think about that, eh? Oh, cant hear Them
talking?
Well, I guess thats because you dont really
understand
Mathematics,
the true language, which is THE language.
Theyre talking about you now, and They agree with my
assessment, and
will not penalize me as They allowed the others like Galois
and Abel
to be penalized.
They will kill you instead.
James Harris speaking on Weird factorization, genius
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Montana.
>
> I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
>
> So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping
it,
> there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
>
> Let alone getting the mathematics wrong!
>>Ah, but you see, I know I do NOT have the math wrong as I
explained
>>the argument in my paper to a Professor McKenzie at
Vanderbilt
>>University *in person* and used a lot of chalkboard space
while doing
>>it.
>Huh? The fact that you explained it shows its not wrong?
No, its the fact that he used a lot of chalkboard space
while doing
it that shows its not wrong.
Duh.
[.snip.]
>>Heres a link to Vanderbilts page on him:
>>http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/czXIYM
>>He even shot down the objections of Magidin who
intriguingly enough
>>went to a school where Professor McKenzie spent some
time--Berkeley.
Yes, he did. I know him, though he probably does not remember
me. I
used to play spades and bridge with a couple of his graduate
students
while I was a graduate student.
>Again: Did he shoot down _verbatim_ _quotations_ of
Magidins
>objections, or was he dealing with your _paraphrases_ of
Magidins
>objections.
>It matters, because it happens really a lot that you say
someone
>said something that turns out to bear almost no resemblance
to
>what he actually said.
>In any case, you say elsewhere that he blew you off. You
>seem to be implying that he agreed your work was correct -
>given that its very hard to figure out what
you mean by
saying
>he blew you off...
Well, theres another point. One of the problems with his
Advanced
Polynomial Factorization is that it is not clear what it is
he is
saying; and as many have pointed out over several months, he
could be
saying true things, or he could be saying false things.
However, as
many others have pointed out as well, the true things he
could be
saying are not applicable to the situation he wants to apply
them to,
and the things which are applicable are not true. So it is
entirely
possible (even likely) that someone could say that what James
says in
Advanced Polynomial Factorization is correct; that does not
mean
that it is what James thinks he is saying is correct.
[Gabriele Rossetti] has left a vast body of writings... in
which
he has attempted to prove the truth of his unorthodox
interpre-
tation of medieval literature. They present a formidable
record of unsystematic research in which we see an enthusiast
plunging farther and farther and farther from the logic of
facts
and good sense until truth is lost in the dreadful nightmare
of an idee fixe. There is no real evolution of the Theory
although it grows and expands until it embraces ever wider
horizons. The numerous inaccuracies of deduction,
mis-statements
of historical fact, and self-contradictions...have caused
critics
to turn away from them in disgust... [...] It is impossible to
read far... without realizing that we have to deal with a
work of
faith and imagination rather than of reasoning. There is an
appearance of reason, for the author is set on proving by
logic
the truth of what he already believes by intuition. The truth
is plain to him and he cannot comprehend why others do not
immediately accept it, but as they desire demonstration he has
multiplied his proofs. It is the redundancy and confusion of a
prophet expounding by a familiar method the truth revealed to
his
own simple soul in a ßash of inspiration... In such work as
this... it is idle to look for the calm reasoning of a
scholar;
we do not find it, and there is little or no advantage in
attacking the obvious inconsistencies and absurdities that
abound.
-- E.R. Vincent, _Gabriele Rossetti in England_, quoted in
_The Shakespearan Ciphers Examined_, by William F.
Friedman and Elizebeth S. Friedman
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
>
>
> I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my
paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
>
> So here I am back again, humbled yet again, as theres no
escaping
it,
> there is no way Ill get anywhere pissing off
mathematicians.
>
> Let alone getting the mathematics wrong!
Ah, but you see, I know I do NOT have the math wrong as I
explained
>>the argument in my paper to a Professor McKenzie at
Vanderbilt
>>University *in person* and used a lot of chalkboard space
while doing
>>it.
>
>Huh? The fact that you explained it shows its not wrong?
No, its the fact that he used a lot of chalkboard space
while doing
> it that shows its not wrong.
Duh.
[.snip.]
Well, rationally, one would suppose that in explaining a math
argument
a person has to go step-by-step, which reveals all the
logical links.
>>Heres a link to Vanderbilts page on him:
>>http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/czXIYM
He even shot down the objections of Magidin who intriguingly
enough
>>went to a school where Professor McKenzie spent some
time--Berkeley.
Yes, he did. I know him, though he probably does not remember
me. I
> used to play spades and bridge with a couple of his
graduate students
> while I was a graduate student.
I didnt give your name as it wasnt
relevant.
However, youve given the information that you know of him,
and he IS
your senior.
He dismissed the objection youve used so often, and in
fact,
thats
not surprising as it never made any sense to think that f
divided off
P(m) as some function of m or dependent on m, as its just
not
mathematics.
Ive called it voodoo math.
>Again: Did he shoot down _verbatim_ _quotations_ of
Magidins
>objections, or was he dealing with your _paraphrases_ of
Magidins
>objections.
>
>It matters, because it happens really a lot that you say
someone
>said something that turns out to bear almost no resemblance
to
>what he actually said.
>
>In any case, you say elsewhere that he blew you off. You
>seem to be implying that he agreed your work was correct -
>given that its very hard to figure out what
you mean by
saying
>he blew you off...
Well, theres another point. One of the problems with his
Advanced
> Polynomial Factorization is that it is not clear what it is
he is
> saying; and as many have pointed out over several months,
he could be
> saying true things, or he could be saying false things.
However, as
> many others have pointed out as well, the true things he
could be
> saying are not applicable to the situation he wants to
apply them to,
> and the things which are applicable are not true. So it is
entirely
> possible (even likely) that someone could say that what
James says in
> Advanced Polynomial Factorization is correct; that does not
mean
> that it is what James thinks he is saying is correct.
A math professor senior to Magidin when presented with the
objection
Magidin has given for months, quickly dismissed it.
Rather than simply tell the truth, Magidin now backs away
from his
original position, I guess now claiming that Professor
McKenzie didnt
understand what I was discussing.
The conclusion of the paper Advanced Polynomial Factorization
is that
for the factorization
65x^3 - 12x + 1 = (a_1 x + 1)(a_2 x + 1)(a_3 x + 1)
where the as are all algebraic integers, one of them is
coprime to 5.
The mathematics is mostly basic algebra with some basic
algebraic
manipulations.
There simply isnt a lot of room for confusion.
What some of you need to realize is that Magidin lied to you.
You
apparently wanted to believe the lie, so you accepted it
*against* the
math.
Well I went and talked to a math professor in person and
verified what
I already knew, and it plays better so that now you see that
Magidin
stands against the discipline of mathematics.
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Montana.
[.snip.]
>Well, rationally, one would suppose that in explaining a
math argument
>a person has to go step-by-step, which reveals all the
logical links.
You would think so. Ive explained step by step why your
claims about
the roots of x^3+3x-2 are false. Did you look at it?
[.snip.]
>However, youve given the information that you know of him,
and he IS
>your senior.
Surely thats irrelevant? I thought it wasnt
about who had
what
degree, but about the math?
(Yes, he is my better, by far. Hes a world-renowned expert
in
Universal Algebra, he solved the Tarski Problem a few years
back, he
invented Tame Congruence Theory, and has a significant number
of
accomplishments under his bel)
>He dismissed the objection youve used so often, and in
fact, thats
>not surprising as it never made any sense to think that f
divided off
>P(m) as some function of m or dependent on m, as its just
not
>mathematics.
Apparently, he dismissed what you think or what you told him
was my
objection. Your track record is clear: you have great
difficulty in
correctly paraphrasing other peoples objections.
We have no way of knowing if what you told him was an accurate
representation of my view, other than your say so. And you
have been
wrong on this subject pretty much every time youve tried to
state
what my objection is.
But, tell you what: state my objection in full context, and
provide
a link to a post where I made it.
Its not that f divided off P(m) as some function of m or
dependent
on m because I have never used the words divided off, so
thats
your paraphrase. And it depends very much on just what the
heck f and
P(m) are supposed to be.
So, go ahead. Provide the complete statement, well see how
accurate
you were in reporting it.
>Ive called it voodoo math.
Yes. Youve also said that saying that something is a
parameter is
rejecting algebra. Did this professor also agree with you on
that
point?
[.snip.]
>>In any case, you say elsewhere that he blew you off. You
>>seem to be implying that he agreed your work was correct -
>>given that its very hard to figure out what
you mean by
saying
>>he blew you off...
>>
>> Well, theres another point. One of the problems with his
Advanced
>> Polynomial Factorization is that it is not clear what it
is he is
>> saying; and as many have pointed out over several months,
he could be
>> saying true things, or he could be saying false things.
However, as
>> many others have pointed out as well, the true things he
could be
>> saying are not applicable to the situation he wants to
apply them to,
>> and the things which are applicable are not true. So it is
entirely
>> possible (even likely) that someone could say that what
James says in
>> Advanced Polynomial Factorization is correct; that does
not mean
>> that it is what James thinks he is saying is correct.
>A math professor senior to Magidin when presented with the
objection
>Magidin has given for months, quickly dismissed it.
Non sequitur.
By your own standards, seniority is irrelevant, but let that
be as it
may. I have absolutely no problems admitting that Ralph
McKenzie is
way smarter than I am.
However, there is not an iota of evidence that what you
presented to
this professor was an accurate report of my objection.
>Rather than simply tell the truth, Magidin now backs away
from his
>original position,
What was my original position?
>I guess now claiming that Professor McKenzie didnt
>understand what I was discussing.
No, I did not make that claim. What I said, as shoudl be
clear from a
simple reading of the above, is that your Advanced Polynomial
Factorization is unclear, and many statements are ambiguous.
That
certain interpretations of those statements lead to
absolutely correct
statements, which are not applicable in the situation you are
trying
to apply them (your FLT argument); and that certain
interpretations of
the ambiguous statements lead to absolutely false statements.
Which interpretation did you present?
>The conclusion of the paper Advanced Polynomial
Factorization is that
>for the factorization
> 65x^3 - 12x + 1 = (a_1 x + 1)(a_2 x + 1)(a_3 x + 1)
>where the as are all algebraic integers, one of them is
coprime to 5.
And that conclusion is false. Weve gone over it, in detail.
But here
it is again, just for you. Tell me which step you think is
wrong. (Original calculations done by Dale Hall):
1. Let
q1 = 8 (a_1)^2 - 76 (a_1) - 185
r1 = 8 (a_1)^2 - 4 (a_1) - 45
s1 = 4 (a_1)^2 - 37 (a_1) - 104
Since a_1 is an algebraic integer, each of q1, r1, s1 are
algebraic
integers.
2. Likewise, let
q2 = 8 (a_2)^2 - 76 (a_2) - 185
r2 = 8 (a_2)^2 - 4 (a_2) - 45
s2 = 4 (a_2)^2 - 37 (a_2) - 104
and
q3 = 8 (a_3)^2 - 76 (a_3) - 185
r3 = 8 (a_3)^2 - 4 (a_3) - 45
s3 = 4 (a_3)^2 - 37 (a_3) - 104
Each of q2, r2, s2, q3, r3, s3 are algebraic integers.
3. We have that
q1*r1 = [8(a_1)^2 - 76(a_1) - 185][8(a_1)^2 - 4(a_1)-45]
= 64(a_1)^4 - 32(a_1)^3 - 360(a_1)^2
-608(a_1)^3 + 304(a_1)^2 + 3420(a_1)
-1480(a_1)^2 + 740(a_1) + 8325
= 64(a_1)^4 - 640(a_1)^3 - 1536(a_1)^2 + 4160(a_1) + 8325
Since (a_1)^3 - 12(a_1)^2 + 65 = 0, we have that
(a_1)^3 = 12(a_1)^2 - 65
(a_1)^4 = 12(a_1)^3 - 65(a_1)
= 12( 12(a_1)^2 - 65) - 65(a_1)
= 144(a_1)^2 - 780 - 65(a_1)
= 144(a_1)^2 - 65(a_1) - 780,
so
q1*r1 = 64(a_1)^4 - 640(a_1)^3 - 1536(a_1)^2 + 4160(a_1) +
8325
= 64 [144(a_1)^2 - 65(a_1) - 780]
- 640 [12(a_1)^2 - 65]
- 1536(a_1)^2 + 4160(a_1) + 8325
= 9216(a_1)^2 - 4160(a_1) - 49920 - 7680(a_1)^2 + 41600
-1536(a_1)^2 + 4160(a_1) + 8325
= 41600+8325-49920
= 5.
Since (a_2)^3 - 12(a_2)^2 + 65 = 0 and (a_3)^3 - 12(a_3)^2 +
65 = 0,
we also have
q2*r2 = 5.
q3*r3 = 5.
4. Using the same definitions, we have:
r1*s1 = ( 8(a_1)^2 - 4(a_1) - 45) * (4(a_1)^2 - 37(a_1) - 104)
= 32(a_1)^4 - 296(a_1)^3 - 832(a_1)^2
- 16(a_1)^3 + 148(a_1)^2 + 416(a_1)
- 180(a_1)^2 +1665(a_1) + 4680
= 32(a_1)^4 - 312(a_1)^3 - 864(a_1)^2 + 2081(a_1) + 4680
= 32( 144(a_1)^2 - 65(a_1) - 780) - 312( 12(a_1)^2 - 65)
- 864(a_1)^2 + 2081(a_1) + 4680
= 4608(a_1)^2 - 2080(a_1) - 24960 - 3744(a_1)^2 + 20280
- 864(a_1)^2 + 2081(a_1) + 4680
= (a_1) + 20280 + 4680 - 24960
= a_1
And so we also have
r2*s2 = a_2
r3*s3 = a_3.
5. Since r1, s1, q1 are algebraic integers, r1*q1 = 5 and
r1*s1 = a_1,
it follows that r1 is a common algebraic integer factor of
a_1 and
5.
6. Since r2, s2, q2 are algebraic integers, r2*q2 = 5 and
r2*s2 = a_2,
it follows that r2 is a common algebraic integer factor of
a_2 and
5.
7. Since r3, s2, q3 are algebraic integers, r3*q3 = 5 and
r3*q3 = a_3,
it follows that r3 is a common algebraic integer factor of
a_3 and
5.
8. We claim that r1, r2, and r3 are roots of the polynomial:
f(x) = x^3 - 969 x^2 + 315 x + 5.
To verify this, plug in the value of r1, and use the following
identities:
(a_1)^3 = 12(a_1)^2 - 65.
(a_1)^4 = 144(a_1)^2 - 65(a_1) - 780.
(a_1)^5 = (a_1)^3(a_1)^2 = (12(a_1)^2-65)(a_1)^2
= 12(a_1)^4 - 65(a_1)^2
= 12(144(a_1)^2 - 65(a_1)-780) - 65(a_1)^2
= 1728(a_1)^2 - 780(a_1) - 9360 - 65(a_1)^2
= 1663(a_1)^2 - 780(a_1) - 9360.
(a_1)^6 = (a_1)^4 (a_1)^2
= (144(a_1)^2 - 65(a_1) - 780) (a_1)^2
= 144(a_1)^4 - 65(a_1)^3 - 780(a_1)^2
= 144 (144(a_1)^2 - 65(a_1) - 780)
- 65(12(a_1)^2 - 65)
- 780(a_1)^2
= 20736(a_1)^2 - 9360(a_1) - 112320
-780(a_1)^2 + 4225
-780(a_1)^2
= 19176(a_1)^2 - 9360(a_1) - 108095.
Same for r2 and r3, replacing a_1 for a_2 and a_3,
respectively
(omitted for space).
9. f(x) is monic, primitive, and irreducible over Q. For the
latter,
the polynomial is reducible over Q if and only if it has a
root
over Q, since it is degree 3. The only possible rational
roots, by
the p/q test, are 1, -1, 5, and -5, and
f(1) = -648
f(-1)=-1280
f(5) = -22520
f(-5)=-25920.
10. r1 is an algebraic integer unit if and only if 1/r1 (its
multiplicative inverse) is also an algebraic integer. But
1/r1 is
a root of the polynomial we obtain from
f(x) = x^3 - 969 x^2 + 315 x + 5.
by plugging in 1/x, setting equal to 0, and solving, that is,
1/r1
is a root of
g(x) = 5x^3 + 315x^2 - 969x + 1
which is a primitive, non-monic, irreducible polynomial over
Q. Therefore, none of its roots are algebraic integers. So
1/r1, a
root, is not an algebraic integer. So r1 is not an algebraic
integer unit.
11. Neither r2 nor r3 are algebraic integer units, since they
are also
roots of g(x).
12. So r1 is (a) an algebraic integer;
and (b) a common factor of a_1 and 5 in the ring of algebraic
integers;
and (c) not a unit.
Therefore, r1 is a non-unit common factor of a_1 and 5 (in the
ring of algebraic integers).
13. By the same reasoning, r2 is a non-unit common factor of
a_2 and 5
(in the ring of algebraic integers).
14. By the same reasoning, r3 is a non-unit common factor of
a_3 and
5 (in the ring of algebraic integers).
15. Two algebraic integers x and y are not coprime (in the
ring of all
algebraic integers if and only if there is a common non-unit
factor of x and y in the ring of all algebraic integers.
[This is the definition you are using, and it is equivalent
for this
ring to the standard one]
16. Therefore, a_1 is not coprime to 5, a_2 is not coprime to
5, and
a_3 is not coprime to 5.
17. Therefore, the claim that one of them is coprime to 5 is
false.
>The mathematics is mostly basic algebra with some basic
algebraic
>manipulations.
The mathematics is basic algebraic manipulations, together
with a
basic theorem of algebra (roots of non-monic, primitive,
irreducible
polynomials with integer coefficients are not algebraic
integers)
which you have agreed.
>There simply isnt a lot of room for confusion.
>What some of you need to realize is that Magidin lied to you.
You have never managed to justify this. It is nothing but
your (false)
assertion, made over and over again. It is libel.
>Well I went and talked to a math professor in person and
verified what
>I already knew, and it plays better so that now you see that
Magidin
>stands against the discipline of mathematics.
Whatever.
Interesting that you now start claiming that professional
standing
->is<- important. Why is it important that one professor, who
did not
say you were correct (the best you can say is he did not find
an
error), is my senior, but it is ->completely irrelevant<-
that I am
->your<- senior in mathematics?
Just curious.
Why do you take so much trouble to expose such a reasoner as
Mr. Smith? I answer as a deceased friend of mine used to
answer
on like occasions - A mans capacity is no measure of his
power
to do mischief. Mr. Smith has untiring energy, which does
something; self-evident honesty of conviction, which does
more;
and a long purse, which does most of all. He has made at least
ten publications, full of figures few readers can critize. A
great
many people are staggered to this extend, that they imagine
there
must be the indefinite something in the mysterious all this.
They are brought to the point of suspicion that the
mathematicians
ought not to treat all this with such undisguised contempt,
at least.
-- A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol. 2 p. 129 by Augustus de Morgan
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
> And theres no website of mine, so no way to claim that
Im
NOT
> dropping FLT and THE prime counting you evil bastards.
Mr. Harris,
that should have been you evil mathematical bastards!
Oh, and thank you for such kind words regarding the folks in
this group and
mathematicians all over the world.
You missed us didnt you!
Hey!
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
> I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
>
Didnt you go away?
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
>> I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish
my paper
>> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
>> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune.
I was
>> wrong.
>Didnt you go away?
I *knew* we couldnt trust him to get lost and stay lost.
Id
hoped,
though, that it might take longer for him to come back this
time since
hed at least found some people he could *pay* to listen to
him.
--
Wayne Brown | When your tails in a crack, you improvise
fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if youre good enough. Otherwise you
give
| your pelt to the trapper.
e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers,
Silverlock
===
Subject: Re: Desire for fame is a bitch
I thought I was set. With a high I.Q. group set to publish my
paper
> on factoring polynomials into non-polynomial factors I
figured that
> now certainly I could push my agenda to fame and fortune. I
was
> wrong.
The High IQ group is the same kind of jackass stunt you are,
Harris. It is discredited as being a psychotics personal
fetish.
Said psychotic has been successfully sued to cease and desist.
Here, Harris, go look at your sorry self,
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
===
Subject: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
I know you undergraduates have been frustrated with my
continuing
proclamations when I tend to go out of my way to piss off
mathematicians. Ok, yeah, I admit it. Ive said some nasty
stuff
about mathematicos, but Ive recognized that pissing off
mathematicians will NOT get me anywhere as hey, Im talking
mathematics!!!
In any event, I went back to my alma mater and talked to a
Professor
McKenzie.
Heres a link to Vanderbilts page on him:
http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/czXIYM
And yes, Im very happy in one thing as finally
sitting down
with an
actual mathematician I explained my entire paper Advanced
Polynomial
Factorization and he couldnt find anything
wrong with it.
He even shot down the objection that Magidin and others have
used for
so long dismissing it almost on sight.
Then he said it was out of his area and thought it was
algebraic
geometry.
So I contacted a Professor Kovacs at the University of
Washington who
happens to specialize in algebraic geometry.
Heres what he said:
James,
%> If nothing else can you evaluate for me his claim that this
paper is
%> in the field of algebraic geometry?
I looked at your paper, and actually, although related, this
is not
algebraic geometry. It belongs to algebraic number theory, as
in
general the study of algebraic integers does, as well as for
example
Galois Theory.
Number theory connects to algebraic geometry through
arithmetic
geometry, but this is still not arithmetic geometry, either.
Your professor was not far though as algebraic geometry
studies
solutions of polynomials. However, those solutions are
generally
regarded in a field and not among algebraic integers.
-SK
Well then that established that Professor McKenzie had been
off, but
was he really just toying with me?
Its a good question. Then again I drove over FOUR HOURS to
get to
Nashville from here to talk to him. Sure hed said come by
next time
I was in Nashville, but what choice did I have? Im called a
crank
all over the web, desperate to get some kind of official
recognition,
so I drove up.
Heres his invitation:
If you are ever in Nashville, drop by my office (with some
advance
email notice so I can be sure to be there). If you can
present these
ideas to me for about an hour in a setting where I can ask a
jillion
questions, I imagine either I will come to understand what
you are
doing and possibly be able to show you some tricks for
explaining it
to other, or maybe I can be helpful even if it remains a
mystery to
me.
Ralph McKenzie
So I tried to get him to let me call him on the phone. Here
was his
reply:
Sorry, over the phone will not work. Blackboard, time, two
people
present is the minimum requirement to accomplish anything.
So I did it. I drove back to Vanderbilt, which was my first
visit in
over 12 years. I explained to Professor McKenzie, answered ALL
objections, and he blew me off.
Im a loser. ING super math discovery, a ING ERROR
thats
over a hundred years old and I ING piss off the only people
who
can help me. Screw with my alma mater Vanderbilt and all
because I
cant seem to work with people.
But youre so dumb!!! Why cant any of you
just accept
mathematics?
Why do you listen to proven liars like Magidin?
Im screwed. Mathematicians dont accept
mathematics.
What can you do?
Whats wrong with freaking mathematicians??!!!
Whats wrong
with
you??!!!
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
James Harris:
not only you seem to have a slanted understanding of
mathematics (at
best), but you also seem to have a lack of understanding of
reason and
implication. Furthermore, why do you think that misjudging
the field
where your nonsense might belong is toying with you?
If you had seen the smallest glimpse of mathematics, you would
appreciate the fact that it is sometimes hard to tell where a
particular paper belongs to, especially, if
1) the paper does not make much sense,
2) the possible area is not ones expertise.
These professors you are so ready to criticize and accuse
devoted
you. They gave you a respectable chance. Then they tried to
give you
their opinion in the most gentle way possible. They could
have been
much harsher on you. Instead of appreciating their efforts to
protect
your feelings, you come back with empty accusations.
By the way, I am also a mathematician, so I am evil, too...
Complete Moron
===
Subject: Re: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
> I know you undergraduates have been frustrated with my
continuing
> proclamations when I tend to go out of my way to piss off
> mathematicians. Ok, yeah, I admit it. Ive said some nasty
stuff
> about mathematicos, but Ive recognized that pissing off
> mathematicians will NOT get me anywhere as hey, Im
talking
> mathematics!!!
> In any event, I went back to my alma mater and talked to a
Professor
> McKenzie.
> Heres a link to Vanderbilts page on him:
> http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/czXIYM
> And yes, Im very happy in one thing as
finally sitting down
with an
> actual mathematician I explained my entire paper Advanced
Polynomial
> Factorization and he couldnt find anything
wrong with it.
> He even shot down the objection that Magidin and others
have used for
> so long dismissing it almost on sight.
> Then he said it was out of his area and thought it was
algebraic
> geometry.
> So I contacted a Professor Kovacs at the University of
Washington who
> happens to specialize in algebraic geometry.
> Heres what he said:
>
> James,
> %> If nothing else can you evaluate for me his claim that
this
> paper is
> %> in the field of algebraic geometry?
> I looked at your paper, and actually, although related,
this is not
> algebraic geometry. It belongs to algebraic number theory,
as in
> general the study of algebraic integers does, as well as
for example
> Galois Theory.
> Number theory connects to algebraic geometry through
arithmetic
> geometry, but this is still not arithmetic geometry, either.
> Your professor was not far though as algebraic geometry
studies
> solutions of polynomials. However, those solutions are
generally
> regarded in a field and not among algebraic integers.
> -SK
>
> Well then that established that Professor McKenzie had been
off, but
> was he really just toying with me?
> Its a good question. Then again I drove over FOUR HOURS
to
get to
> Nashville from here to talk to him. Sure hed said come by
next time
> I was in Nashville, but what choice did I have? Im called
a crank
> all over the web, desperate to get some kind of official
recognition,
> so I drove up.
> Heres his invitation:
>
> If you are ever in Nashville, drop by my office (with some
advance
> email notice so I can be sure to be there). If you can
present these
> ideas to me for about an hour in a setting where I can ask
a jillion
> questions, I imagine either I will come to understand what
you are
> doing and possibly be able to show you some tricks for
explaining it
> to other, or maybe I can be helpful even if it remains a
mystery to
> me.
> Ralph McKenzie
>
> So I tried to get him to let me call him on the phone. Here
was his
> reply:
>
> Sorry, over the phone will not work. Blackboard, time, two
people
> present is the minimum requirement to accomplish anything.
>
> So I did it. I drove back to Vanderbilt, which was my first
visit in
> over 12 years. I explained to Professor McKenzie, answered
ALL
> objections, and he blew me off.
> Im a loser. ING super math discovery, a ING ERROR
thats
> over a hundred years old and I ING piss off the only people
who
> can help me. Screw with my alma mater Vanderbilt and all
because I
> cant seem to work with people.
> But youre so dumb!!! Why cant any of you
just accept
mathematics?
> Why do you listen to proven liars like Magidin?
> Im screwed. Mathematicians dont accept
mathematics.
> What can you do?
> Whats wrong with freaking mathematicians??!!!
Whats wrong
with
> you??!!!
> James Harris
Maybe, you should stick to nursing in the Army Reserves James.
Lurch
===
Subject: Re: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
> Im screwed. Mathematicians dont accept
mathematics.
> What can you do?
> Whats wrong with freaking mathematicians??!!!
Whats wrong
with
> you??!!!
You know, when everyone tells you youre wrong, that does
NOT
mean that
youre wrong. On the other hand, in that case you should at
least consider
the possibility.
I might add that when you ask such questions as Whats wrong
with you?
you
are acconplishing little more than assuring that you have an
unsympathetic
audience.
If you have something valid to say, it should stand on its
own merits, this
is true. It shouldnt matter whether anyone likes you.
However, thats
not
how things really work. Especially in a matter that requires
training and
thought, few people are going to exert themselves much to
review your work,
or even to glance at it if youve pissed them off. Asking
someone whats
wrong with you? is very likely to piss them off.
Rather than just trying to fix blame on people, I think
youd
be better
served simply showing them your work and asking for their
professional
opinion. Otherwise, youll very likely remain a voice crying
in the
wilderness. And Ill add that you should be open to the
possibility that
there may be errors in your work, lest you end up persisting
in error and
becoming more of a pariah.
Just some thoughts...
===
Subject: Re: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Montana.
>He even shot down the objection that Magidin and others have
used for
>so long dismissing it almost on sight.
He did? Did he shoot down my (single?) objection? Did he read
->my<-
words, or was it something you, ehr, explained to him?
Because you have a track record of just not getting what the
objection
is. It is interesting that I do not see anything in your
correspondences below with Ralph McKenzie or anyone else that
even
mentions me, though.
Its not denial. Im just very selective
about
what I accept as reality.
--- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
===
Subject: Re: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
>I know you undergraduates have been frustrated with my
continuing
>proclamations when I tend to go out of my way to piss off
>mathematicians. Ok, yeah, I admit it. Ive said some nasty
stuff
>about mathematicos, but
[i]
>Ive recognized that pissing off
>mathematicians will NOT get me anywhere
>as hey, Im talking
>mathematics!!!
>In any event, I went back to my alma mater and talked to a
Professor
>McKenzie.
>Heres a link to Vanderbilts page on him:
>
>http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/czXIYM
[ii]
>And yes, Im very happy in one thing as finally
sitting down
with an
>actual mathematician I explained my entire paper Advanced
Polynomial
>Factorization and he couldnt find anything
wrong with it.
>He even shot down the objection that Magidin and others have
used for
>so long dismissing it almost on sight.
>[...]
[ii]
> I drove back to Vanderbilt, which was my first visit in
>over 12 years. I explained to Professor McKenzie, answered
ALL
>objections, and he blew me off.
>Im a loser. ING super math discovery, a ING ERROR
thats
>over a hundred years old and I ING piss off the only people
who
>can help me. Screw with my alma mater Vanderbilt and all
because I
>cant seem to work with people.
[iv]
>But youre so dumb!!! Why cant any of you
just accept
mathematics?
>Why do you listen to proven liars like Magidin?
>Im screwed. Mathematicians dont accept
mathematics.
>What can you do?
>Whats wrong with freaking mathematicians??!!!
Whats wrong
with
>you??!!!
We have serious problems with consistency here. [ii] says
youre
happy that McKenzie shot down Magidins objections (just
curious: did you show him some _verbatim_ _quotes_ of
Magidins objections, or did he shoot down your _paraphrase_
of Magidin? See, it happens a lot that you misrepresent
peoples positions...) and then in [iii] you say he blew you
off. Dont get it - he agreed that youre
right about
everything
but also explained why youre all wrong?
Then theres the apparent inconcistency between [i] and
[iv]...
Hint: if you dont want to piss people off then a good start
would be to refrain from calling them dumb liars.
>James Harris
David C. Ullrich
**************************
As far as Im concerend youre trying to wait
until I die, so
I figure
maybe you should die instead. How about that, eh? Wouldnt
that be a
better twist?
You refuse to follow the math, so the great Powers that
control
reality and *speak* in mathematics decide to kill you instead
of me.
So what do you think about that, eh? Oh, cant hear Them
talking?
Well, I guess thats because you dont really
understand
Mathematics,
the true language, which is THE language.
Theyre talking about you now, and They agree with my
assessment, and
will not penalize me as They allowed the others like Galois
and Abel
to be penalized.
They will kill you instead.
James Harris speaking on Weird factorization, genius
===
Subject: Re: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
> Im a loser. ING super math discovery, a ING ERROR
thats
> over a hundred years old and I ING piss off the only people
who
> can help me. Screw with my alma mater Vanderbilt and all
because I
> cant seem to work with people.
> But youre so dumb!!! Why cant any of you
just accept
mathematics?
> Why do you listen to proven liars like Magidin?
> Im screwed. Mathematicians dont accept
mathematics.
> What can you do?
> Whats wrong with freaking mathematicians??!!!
Whats wrong
with
> you??!!!
Maybe mathematics is not what you think it is.
Dirk Vdm
===
Subject: Re: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
> Im a loser. ING super math discovery, a ING ERROR
thats
> over a hundred years old and I ING piss off the only people
who
> can help me. Screw with my alma mater Vanderbilt and all
because I
> cant seem to work with people.
So post this discovery for all to see.
Sure there are naysayers whos only job in life is to make
sure no one
knows
anything they dont already understand. A few naysayers are
capable of
disproving things, and so can be used to find problems with a
theory.
Problems that might be interesting to solve.
There are also explorers here, people interested in the
interesting. So
post
away
===
Subject: Re: Professor McKenzie, problem with ring of A.I.
Im a loser. ING super math discovery, a ING ERROR
thats
> over a hundred years old and I ING piss off the only people
who
> can help me. Screw with my alma mater Vanderbilt and all
because I
> cant seem to work with people.
So post this discovery for all to see.
Sure there are naysayers whos only job in life is to make
sure no one
knows
> anything they dont already understand. A few naysayers
are
capable of
> disproving things, and so can be used to find problems with
a theory.
> Problems that might be interesting to solve.
There are also explorers here, people interested in the
interesting. So
post
> away
Ive posted it before as I found a way using *non*
polynomial
factors
of a polynomial to show a problem with the ring of algebraic
integers.
Id be happy to explain again in detail in this thread.
However, you
might want to check out the following link where Ive gone
into detail
at a site that takes LaTeX, so it looks prettier:
http://mathdb.math.cuhk.edu.hk/forum/e_show.php?msg=759
Hope that works. Tell me if it doesnt.
I call using non-polynomial factors to factor a polynomial,
non-polynomial factorization.
James Harris
===
Subject: one-sided limits
Suppose f is bounded, measurable on R. How do you show
Lim (t -> 0) 1/(4 pi t) INTEGRAL( -oo , oo ) exp[ -(x-y)^2 /
(4t) ]
f(y) dy = [ F_l(x) + F_r(x) ] / 2
where
F_l(x) = lim f(y) as y goes to x from the left and
F_r(x) = lim f(y) as y goes to x from the right
(assuming of course that these one-sided limits exist for f)?
If both limits are equal, I have no problem showing
Lim (t -> 0) 1/(4 pi t) INTEGRAL( -oo , oo ) exp[
-(x-y)^2/(4t) ] f(y)
dy = f(x)
using real analysis methods and things like this, but what to
do when
the limits dont necessarily agree?
===
Subject: Re: one-sided limits
> Suppose f is bounded, measurable on R. How do you show
Lim (t -> 0) 1/(4 pi t) INTEGRAL( -oo , oo ) exp[ -(x-y)^2 /
(4t) ]
> f(y) dy = [ F_l(x) + F_r(x) ] / 2
where
F_l(x) = lim f(y) as y goes to x from the left and
> F_r(x) = lim f(y) as y goes to x from the right
(assuming of course that these one-sided limits exist for f)?
If both limits are equal, I have no problem showing
Lim (t -> 0) 1/(4 pi t) INTEGRAL( -oo , oo ) exp[
-(x-y)^2/(4t) ] f(y)
> dy = f(x)
using real analysis methods and things like this, but what to
do when
> the limits dont necessarily agree?
I assume t > 0 in the above.
WLOG, x = 0. Define g = 1 to the right of 0, g = -1 to the
left of 0. Then
the result holds for g, because exp(-y^2/t) is even. If f has
limit R from
the right and limit L from the left, consider f +
[(L-R)/2]*g; this
function has the same limit from left and right.
===
Subject: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
Obviously Im rather gleeful at having managed to talk over
my work
which reveals that wacky problem with algebraic integers with
an
actual, real-live mathematician, and not a possibly fake one
that just
posts a lot on Usenet!!!
Yes I used chalk and went over it all on the chalkboard and
even
talked over some of the math history like talking about
Dedekind.
What I verified is that oddity that you CAN talk to a
mathematician,
give a correct math argument, go over each and every point
step-by-step, yet have that mathematician simply dismiss you.
In this
case the professor claimed it was out of his area, and gee,
guess
what? According to him no one else at Vanderbilt University
had the
necessary expertise.
Basically he was blowing me off, but not because I was wrong.
Remember, Id gone over each and every point step-by-step.
It
seems
to me that clearly he *knew* he could simply reject my work
because
hes a mathematician, and thats what a
mathematician can do.
However, now at least I know that I can explain my work,
refute all
objections, and still face mathematicians willing to just
ignore it
like that professor, or lie about it on Usenet.
And hey, you all knew that, right? You knew that people on
Usenet
like lie all the time and that even mathematicians who post
will lie.
Well Ill give that professor one bit of praise, at least he
didnt
claim my work was incorrect. And he dismissed the objection
that
certain lying mathematician posters have used repeatedly, I
guess
because they know that most of you are too stupid to catch
them. The
professor trashed it in an instance.
Too bad other mathematicians who have posted a lot on Usenet
werent
smart enough at least not to lie about my work, but hey, they
know
they can lie to most of you, now cant they?
And I dont really think its that
youre all too stupid to
catch the
lies, as I think you just *want* to believe. After all, its
a
simpler world where Im just a nut, instead of a major
discoverer who
found an over hundred year old error in core mathematics,
right?
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
>Obviously Im rather gleeful at having managed to talk over
my work
>which reveals that wacky problem with algebraic integers
with an
>actual, real-live mathematician, and not a possibly fake one
that just
>posts a lot on Usenet!!!
>Yes I used chalk and went over it all on the chalkboard and
even
>talked over some of the math history like talking about
Dedekind.
>What I verified is that oddity that you CAN talk to a
mathematician,
>give a correct math argument, go over each and every point
>step-by-step, yet have that mathematician simply dismiss you.
Fascinating. He did in fact dismiss your work, but nonetheless
this fills you with glee.
>In this
>case the professor claimed it was out of his area, and gee,
guess
>what? According to him no one else at Vanderbilt University
had the
>necessary expertise.
>Basically he was blowing me off, but not because I was wrong.
Of course not. No matter how many people, usenet posters,
journal editors, famous mathematicians you pester with email,
mathematicians you visit in person, no matter _how_ many of
them say youre wrong, its simply not
possible that the
reason
theyre all saying that is that youre
_wrong_.
>Remember, Id gone over each and every point step-by-step.
It seems
>to me that clearly he *knew* he could simply reject my work
because
>hes a mathematician, and thats what a
mathematician can do.
>However, now at least I know that I can explain my work,
refute all
>objections, and still face mathematicians willing to just
ignore it
>like that professor, or lie about it on Usenet.
>And hey, you all knew that, right? You knew that people on
Usenet
>like lie all the time and that even mathematicians who post
will lie.
>Well Ill give that professor one bit of praise, at least
he
didnt
>claim my work was incorrect. And he dismissed the objection
that
>certain lying mathematician posters have used repeatedly, I
guess
>because they know that most of you are too stupid to catch
them. The
>professor trashed it in an instance.
Answer the question. Youve been asked at least four times
by
now:
Did he refute a _verbatim_ _quote_ of Magidins objections,
or your
paraphrase of them?
>Too bad other mathematicians who have posted a lot on Usenet
werent
>smart enough at least not to lie about my work, but hey,
they know
>they can lie to most of you, now cant they?
>And I dont really think its that
youre all too stupid to
catch the
>lies, as I think you just *want* to believe. After all,
its
a
>simpler world where Im just a nut, instead of a major
discoverer who
>found an over hundred year old error in core mathematics,
right?
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
>
>Obviously Im rather gleeful at having managed to talk over
my work
>which reveals that wacky problem with algebraic integers
with an
>actual, real-live mathematician, and not a possibly fake one
that just
>posts a lot on Usenet!!!
>
>Yes I used chalk and went over it all on the chalkboard and
even
>talked over some of the math history like talking about
Dedekind.
>
>What I verified is that oddity that you CAN talk to a
mathematician,
>give a correct math argument, go over each and every point
>step-by-step, yet have that mathematician simply dismiss you.
Fascinating. He did in fact dismiss your work, but nonetheless
> this fills you with glee.
However, the imporant point is that he couldnt
find an error.
There are people who *dismiss* the idea that man landed on
the moon.
The key issue here is mathematical correctness. My point is
that I
went through the math point-by-point and the professor could
not find
an error.
>In this
>case the professor claimed it was out of his area, and gee,
guess
>what? According to him no one else at Vanderbilt University
had the
>necessary expertise.
>
>Basically he was blowing me off, but not because I was wrong.
Of course not. No matter how many people, usenet posters,
> journal editors, famous mathematicians you pester with
email,
> mathematicians you visit in person, no matter _how_ many of
> them say youre wrong, its simply not
possible that the
reason
> theyre all saying that is that youre
_wrong_.
But youre now lying David Ullrich as my point is that
Professor
McKenzie did NOT say that I was wrong.
It is such an obvious falsehood that I feel confident in
calling you
out here as a liar.
The issue is mathematical correctness.
And your implication that its so rejected is false, as in
fact a key
paper of mine is to be published.
See http://www.megasociety.net/NoesisHighlights.html
>Remember, Id gone over each and every point step-by-step.
It seems
>to me that clearly he *knew* he could simply reject my work
because
>hes a mathematician, and thats what a
mathematician can do.
>
>However, now at least I know that I can explain my work,
refute all
>objections, and still face mathematicians willing to just
ignore it
>like that professor, or lie about it on Usenet.
>
>And hey, you all knew that, right? You knew that people on
Usenet
>like lie all the time and that even mathematicians who post
will lie.
>
>Well Ill give that professor one bit of praise, at least
he
didnt
>claim my work was incorrect. And he dismissed the objection
that
>certain lying mathematician posters have used repeatedly, I
guess
>because they know that most of you are too stupid to catch
them. The
>professor trashed it in an instance.
Answer the question. Youve been asked at least four times
by
now:
> Did he refute a _verbatim_ _quote_ of Magidins
objections,
or your
> paraphrase of them?
He refuted the assertion that f or factors in common with f
can divide
off dependent on m or as functions of m.
He quickly dismissed it, which confirmed for me that an
experienced
mathematician wouldnt take it seriously, even for a moment,
confirming that Magidin was, as I figured, lying.
Unless you
wish to
claim that Magidin is incompetent.
>Too bad other mathematicians who have posted a lot on Usenet
werent
>smart enough at least not to lie about my work, but hey,
they know
>they can lie to most of you, now cant they?
>
>And I dont really think its that
youre all too stupid to
catch the
>lies, as I think you just *want* to believe. After all,
its
a
>simpler world where Im just a nut, instead of a major
discoverer who
>found an over hundred year old error in core mathematics,
right?
That quick dismissal of a key objection confirmed my suspicion
of a
high *tolerance* of readers to lies from certain sources.
Apparently, many of you decided to accept false mathematics
from
posters like Magidin; however, in a different context--off
Usenet--an
experienced mathematician quickly rejected the same objection
which
apparently satisfied many of you who are on sci.math for
MONTHS.
Magidin gave you what you wanted, where you clearly wanted to
hear
that I was wrong, and the mathematical truth didnt matter
to
you, as
you so readily accepted the lies.
The point is that the math didnt matter to readers on the
sci.math
newsgroup, or Magidins false claims would have been
dismissed as
quickly there, as in that professors office.
The math didnt matter to you.
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
> The key issue here is mathematical correctness. My point is
that I
> went through the math point-by-point and the professor
could not find
> an error.
The key issue here is that weve seen *many* people point
out
*many*
errors to you, which you simply ignore. Then you post another
load
of tripe claiming that no one can find an error. So,
Im
certain
this professor found errors which you refused to acknowledge,
until he
finally gave up and fobbed you off with that excuse about it
being out
of his area. (Translation: Its clear youre
just wasting my
time,
so Im going to get rid of you however I can.)
> And your implication that its so rejected is false, as in
fact a key
> paper of mine is to be published.
> See http://www.megasociety.net/NoesisHighlights.html
Yes, its being published in a vanity rag by a group of con
artists who
charge crackpots like yourself for the feeling of being
special.
--
Wayne Brown | When your tails in a crack, you improvise
fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if youre good enough. Otherwise you
give
| your pelt to the trapper.
e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers,
Silverlock
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
[.snip.]
>> Answer the question. Youve been asked at least four
times
by now:
>> Did he refute a _verbatim_ _quote_ of Magidins
objections, or your
>> paraphrase of them?
>He refuted the assertion that f or factors in common with f
can divide
>off dependent on m or as functions of m.
Absent context, this statement is meaningless.
>He quickly dismissed it, which confirmed for me that an
experienced
>mathematician wouldnt take it seriously, even for a
moment,
>confirming that Magidin was, as I figured, lying.
Unless you
wish to
>claim that Magidin is incompetent.
Please provide a verbatim quote of:
(1) What I am alleged to have said;
(2) What you said;
(3) What Prof. McKenzie said;
Then explain why that means that I was lying.
For instance, I have never used the words divide off
dependent on m,
so the statement above cannot be something ->I<- said. It
looks, as
usual, like what you claim or think I said, based on your
lack of
understanding.
You have accused me of lying for years now. Will you ever
produce a
direct quote of something I said, in context, which is a lie?
Challenging your current assertion does not count, because the
correctness of your current assertion is ->precisely<- the
matter at
issue. I could just as easily call you a liar for saying
something is
true when Ive said its false and given you
an explanation
for why it
is false.
>That quick dismissal of a key objection confirmed my
suspicion of a
>high *tolerance* of readers to lies from certain sources.
I have never said that something divides off, let alone
dependent
on m. I have no idea what it is you think was my objection,
but it is
certainly not what you have just reported here.
What it looks like is that you either presented something
DIFFERENT
from what I objected to, or you reported my objection as
something
DIFFERENT from what I actually said.
Which would make you a...n individual confused as to the
truth.
>The point is that the math didnt matter to readers on the
sci.math
>newsgroup, or Magidins false claims would have been
dismissed as
>quickly there, as in that professors office.
Please provide verbatim quote of me saying that something
divides off
dependent on m, or else admit that what may or may not have
been
dismissed in that office was YOUR VERSION of what I may or may
not
have said.
[Gabriele Rossetti] has left a vast body of writings... in
which
he has attempted to prove the truth of his unorthodox
interpre-
tation of medieval literature. They present a formidable
record of unsystematic research in which we see an enthusiast
plunging farther and farther and farther from the logic of
facts
and good sense until truth is lost in the dreadful nightmare
of an idee fixe. There is no real evolution of the Theory
although it grows and expands until it embraces ever wider
horizons. The numerous inaccuracies of deduction,
mis-statements
of historical fact, and self-contradictions...have caused
critics
to turn away from them in disgust... [...] It is impossible to
read far... without realizing that we have to deal with a
work of
faith and imagination rather than of reasoning. There is an
appearance of reason, for the author is set on proving by
logic
the truth of what he already believes by intuition. The truth
is plain to him and he cannot comprehend why others do not
immediately accept it, but as they desire demonstration he has
multiplied his proofs. It is the redundancy and confusion of a
prophet expounding by a familiar method the truth revealed to
his
own simple soul in a ßash of inspiration... In such work as
this... it is idle to look for the calm reasoning of a
scholar;
we do not find it, and there is little or no advantage in
attacking the obvious inconsistencies and absurdities that
abound.
-- E.R. Vincent, _Gabriele Rossetti in England_, quoted in
_The Shakespearan Ciphers Examined_, by William F.
Friedman and Elizebeth S. Friedman
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
David C. Ullrich scribbled the
following
on sci.math:
>>In this
>>case the professor claimed it was out of his area, and gee,
guess
>>what? According to him no one else at Vanderbilt University
had the
>>necessary expertise.
>>Basically he was blowing me off, but not because I was
wrong.
> Of course not. No matter how many people, usenet posters,
> journal editors, famous mathematicians you pester with
email,
> mathematicians you visit in person, no matter _how_ many of
> them say youre wrong, its simply not
possible that the
reason
> theyre all saying that is that youre
_wrong_.
What a wonderful quote, David. Can I have your permission to
print
this out and put on my wall?
--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi)
---------------------------
| Kingpriest of The Flying Lemon Tree G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+
ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
----------------------------------------- Finland rules!
------------/
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside a
dog, its too
dark
to read anyway.
- Groucho Marx
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
.... After all, its a
> simpler world where Im just a nut, instead of a major
discoverer who
> found an over hundred year old error in core mathematics,
right?
Yes, right. Or at least, nearly so. Id replace nut with
silly
person who could learn some [not all that difficult]
mathematics, but
chooses not to.
--
G.C.
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
.... After all, its a
> simpler world where Im just a nut, instead of a major
discoverer who
> found an over hundred year old error in core mathematics,
right?
Yes, right. Or at least, nearly so. Id replace nut with
silly
> person who could learn some [not all that difficult]
mathematics, but
> chooses not to.
Which defies the fact that I *explained* my mathematical
argument
point-by-point in person to an actual math professor. That
professor
did NOT find any error, but instead claimed my work was out of
his
area.
However, given that information, you choose to claim that I
am a
silly person who needs to learn mathematics, which is an odd
response.
Oh, in case any of you are wondering, he did challenge me
throughout
the discussion on many points. Its just that the
mathematics
is
rather basic and easy, so even a well-trained mathematician
cant
successfully challenge a *single* point of it with
mathematics.
What has happened on Usenet when I discuss the same argument
is
simple, posters have lied. When Ive called them on lies,
they lie
again. Strangely, on the sci.math newsgroup, these lies have
simply
not been challenged by other posters.
If any wish to dispute that assessment, I welcome them or any
of those
who have disputed my argument in the past to come forward
here with a
*mathematical* objection and Ill explain--yet again--why
its wrong
or doesnt apply.
James Harris
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
>
> .... After all, its a
> simpler world where Im just a nut, instead of a major
discoverer who
> found an over hundred year old error in core mathematics,
right?
>
> Yes, right. Or at least, nearly so. Id replace nut with
silly
> person who could learn some [not all that difficult]
mathematics, but
> chooses not to.
> Which defies the fact that I *explained* my mathematical
argument
> point-by-point in person to an actual math professor. That
professor
> did NOT find any error, but instead claimed my work was out
of his
> area.
> However, given that information, you choose to claim that I
am a
> silly person who needs to learn mathematics, which is an odd
> response.
> Oh, in case any of you are wondering, he did challenge me
throughout
> the discussion on many points. Its just that the
mathematics is
> rather basic and easy, so even a well-trained mathematician
cant
> successfully challenge a *single* point of it with
mathematics.
Nonsense. It has not only been successfully challenged,
repeatedly, but
successfully refuted, repeatedly. You are in denial to the
point of complete fabrication.
> What has happened on Usenet when I discuss the same
argument is
> simple, posters have lied. When Ive called them on lies,
they lie
> again. Strangely, on the sci.math newsgroup, these lies
have simply
> not been challenged by other posters.
> If any wish to dispute that assessment, I welcome them or
any of those
> who have disputed my argument in the past to come forward
here with a
> *mathematical* objection and Ill explain--yet again--why
its wrong
> or doesnt apply.
You do not explain--yet again when confronted with dispute.
You either
ignore the specific challenge completely (too often to
count) or simply repeat your faulty argument, over and over.
Case in point:
Arturo Magidins recent post with 7 specific
questions
requiring little more than Ôyes or
Ôno answers. Shame on
you. Thats not
rational.
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the
unprovable -- and
the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
===
Subject: Re: Talk to a mathematician (Op-Ed)
Obviously Im rather gleeful at having managed to talk over
my work
> which reveals that wacky problem with algebraic integers
with an
> actual, real-live mathematician, and not a possibly fake
one that just
> posts a lot on Usenet!!!
Hey stooopid Harris, one demonstrated disproof is death of a
theory.
You have been killed so many times you are rotted in place.
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The Net!