mm-114 But dont expect to get answers with a digital volmeter because of the complexchemistry. Internal restance will not be strictly linear and batteries areuse usually quite inecient.-- Bruce Harveybruce@bearsoft.co.ukThe Alternative Physics Sitehttp://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft> You have a ashlight that holds 2 (1.5 volts) batteries. If you reverse> just one battery the ashlight will not work if you turn on the> ashlight.> But do the batteries get used up if you leave the switch on.> Now you have a ashlight with 4 batteries. You have 3 batteries> positioned> correctly and 1 backwards. Now the ashlight works as if there are only2> batteries (1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 - 1.5 = 2 x 1.5) and my question is which> batteries are being used. I cant imagine the answer is 2 because thenI> would not understand which 2 (of the 3) would be the ones being used.> Steven All 3 batteries that have current going through them in the properdirection> are being used. The other one is being recharged, which it probablywont> tolerate for too long, and getting warm. Study the *Einstein Shift* and the Pound-Rebka>> experiment. Rich, I respect your intelligence, so>> Im curious about your age and education. Imho,>> you well craft responses, at times *near genius*,>> but other times you astonish me with contrarian>> opinions, that may be a result of an unfamiliarity>> with the subject.>> Ken S. TuckerOne might say the same about yourself, or for that matter about the>majority of the regulars around here, with a few notable exceptions,>some completely unfamiliar with anything physics, and others who are>walking textbooks. I am for the most part self-taught Ken, which might explain my>unhandiness with terminology and symbolism on occasion. OTOH I learned>everything the hard way, by going back over it again and again until I>was able to derive it for myself, more often than not from a different>approach. I suppose that this is something I picked up in H.S. geometry,>where we learned theorems by deriving them for ourselves, as homework>assignements, in the form of formal proofs. A very enlightening and even>entertaining approach. I recall that my instructor was impressed with my>tendency to formulate proofs on average that were about half as long as>even those provided in his teachers manual. Now as for yourself, if you have the formal background as you imply>above, then you have no excuse. Why would somebody with a familiarity>with the material posit something like tired light? On the basis of the evidence, and in accord withknown physical law.>I suggest you read>the formal arguments made against this view by those that are much>more familiar with the material than either you or I, and youll see>that it is not I who exhibit the lack of familiartiy with the subject,>though it might seem so to you because I am not familiar with all of the>works of others in this area. As for claiming that familiarity with the>latter is somehow equivalent to correctness, well this is why I chose>purposely not to become familiar with all of the works others, I was>more interested in the truth, the bottom line. The Truth, ok, theological physics...>Im not advancing a>physics career, and this puts me at an advantage in that I am not in the>slightest obliged to conform to your expectations, I am always free to>call a spade a spade;)>Richard PerryI read your site on magnetism and see the effort,have you had someone qualied referee your ...>> Study the *Einstein Shift* and the Pound-Rebka>> experiment. Rich, I respect your intelligence, so>> Im curious about your age and education. Imho,>> you well craft responses, at times *near genius*,>> but other times you astonish me with contrarian>> opinions, that may be a result of an unfamiliarity>> with the subject.>> Ken S. TuckerOne might say the same about yourself, or for that matter about the>majority of the regulars around here, with a few notable exceptions,>some completely unfamiliar with anything physics, and others who are>walking textbooks.I am for the most part self-taught Ken, which might explain my>unhandiness with terminology and symbolism on occasion. OTOH I learned>everything the hard way, by going back over it again and again until I>was able to derive it for myself, more often than not from a different>approach. I suppose that this is something I picked up in H.S. geometry,>where we learned theorems by deriving them for ourselves, as homework>assignements, in the form of formal proofs. A very enlightening and even>entertaining approach. I recall that my instructor was impressed with my>tendency to formulate proofs on average that were about half as long as>even those provided in his teachers manual.Now as for yourself, if you have the formal background as you imply>above, then you have no excuse. Why would somebody with a familiarity>with the material posit something like tired light?> On the basis of the evidence, and in accord with> known physical law.>I suggest you read>the formal arguments made against this view by those that are much>more familiar with the material than either you or I, and youll see>that it is not I who exhibit the lack of familiartiy with the subject,>though it might seem so to you because I am not familiar with all of the>works of others in this area. As for claiming that familiarity with the>latter is somehow equivalent to correctness, well this is why I chose>purposely not to become familiar with all of the works others, I was>more interested in the truth, the bottom line.> The Truth, ok, theological physics...>Im not advancing a>physics career, and this puts me at an advantage in that I am not in the>slightest obliged to conform to your expectations, I am always free to>call a spade a spade;)>Richard Perry> I read your site on magnetism and see the effort,> have you had someone Ken S. TuckerI have had the paper refereed, sent it to SCIENCE. Bottom line, theydidnt want any part of it. But, they made a few slips in theircover-up, said a good portion of the [rather large] editorial staffhad reviewed it, they referred to me as Dr. Perry (LOL), and theycalled the work meritorious. They then urged me to continue seekingpublication, but elsewhere. IOW they wouldnt touch it with a ten footpole even though they couldnt argue with it. I just found out that Heaviside was self taught, thats very uplifting.Now as for my paper, I take exactly the approach to magnetism that isprescribed by special relativity, namely that the relative motions ofthe charge components in the conductors produces the magnetic force. Ishow that what we perceive as a state of rest is actually motion at c,in random directions, and thus the only net speed is zero. IOW theelectron soup is quite hot. The macroscopic currents in conductorsproduce just an increase in the already present relative velocity. Where the special relativistic solution fails is in perpendicularconductors, which as you know exert a torque on one another. Accordingto my theory the force is just a function of tangential speed of pointcharges (which is a vector component of the scalar speed. Now specialrelativity, in the case of parallel conductors derives the force bypositing a length contraction of opposing lines of charge that is afunction of relative motion of the lines of charge. This is of courseequivalent to my formulation, except that I frame no hypothesis, i.e. nolength contraction. There is a good reason that I dont introduce lengthcontraction, namely because this assumption can be proven contradictory.Now consider the case of two conductors that are perpendicular.According to experiment a torque will be exerted on these conductors,and though Biot-Savart predicts the force fairly accurately, specialrelativity is at a complete loss, for you see, in special relativitythere is no transverse length contraction, and thus the reason for theforce in the case of parallel conductors cannot be applied here becausethe lines of charge are not contracted. What then is the solution?Now here special relativity will change tracks a bit (pardon the pun)and posit that each electron is contracted individually because themotion wrt an electron in the other conductor doesnt describe aperpendicular path. This is true enough, but certainly if this electroncontraction occurs here, then it must also occur in the parallelconductors, and if it is the source of the magnetic force, then why onearth do we need length contraction of the line of charge, i.e. why dowe need an increase in line density of charge via length contraction,since contraction of the individual electrons along the non contractedline is sufcient, as is a premise of the perpendicular conductorsolution? In fact taking into account both effects, electron pancakingand line contraction, the force on parallel conductors would be exactlytwice the actual force. IOW, length contraction is contradictory to theexperimental evidence. OTOH I account for all forces based upon only one assumption, i.e. onemodel, that is, that the force is related directly to the relativefor any conceivable arrangement of charges, symmetrical and asymmetricalalike.The equation:-F = k Q Q ( 1 + ( 3 v^2) / ( 4 c^2 ))/d^2This equation was also derived by Heaviside, though I cannot nd anyreferences to the details of his derivation.The charge signs are to be included as algebraic operators, thus thedirection of the resultant force depends upon the types of charge inputinto the equation. Q and Q are macroscopic point charges, such asobtained by taking a short segment of a conductor, in Biot-Savart style.For two quanta of charge the equation reduces to:-F = ( k Q Q 3 v^2) / ( 4 c^2 d^2 )Though this corresponds exactly, in a mathematical sense, to thepancaking of point electrostatic elds, the electrostatic component ishowever no longer present, and thus there is no electrostatic eld topancake, or IOW, the force is not due to a deformation of anelectrostatic eld, in fact it doesnt even require a eld, this is aRichard Perry =[snip old stuff]>> I read your site on magnetism and see the effort,>> have you had brief...>> Ken S. Tucker...snip personal stuff...>Now as for my paper, I take exactly the approach to magnetism that is>prescribed by special relativity, namely that the relative motions of>the charge components in the conductors produces the magnetic force. I>show that what we perceive as a state of rest is actually motion at c,>in random directions, and thus the only net speed is zero. IOW the>electron soup is quite hot. The macroscopic currents in conductors>produce just an increase in the already present relative velocity. >Where the special relativistic solution fails is in perpendicular>conductors, which as you know exert a torque on one another. Off hand I think you have a valid objection whenyou employ perpendicular DC currents on wires. So I recommend you embody a question and create a new thread on that very subject. If you send your question to s.p.research it must be formed as a question (jeopeody), contain no speculation, and give then give them time to unstick their tongues from the popsicles there are frozen to. Offhand Id like to learn more about prependicularcurrent forces.Ken S. Tucker >Maybe it is my bias as a topologist, but I would pick the path category>>of, say, the plane. [The path category has points as objects, and>>continuous directed paths as morphisms. It needs some ne-tuning to>>make associativity to come out right in set-based discourse, but that is>>not essential in giving the idea.]> Does this category have products? pullbacks? end-object?> Or some other constructions that you will nd in other> categories as well?> If not, then it would not be a very prototypical example, right?I didnt know that there was a prototypical category. Anyway, a`random category isnt going to have much of anything either.The trouble with giving only concrete categories is thatpeople start thinking of categories as collections ofsets with structure. The point is that this is the wrongway to think of categories. =|The trouble with giving only concrete categories is that|people start thinking of categories as collections of|sets with structure. The point is that this is the wrong|way to think of categories.this is perhaps not a perfectly well-dened question because theconcept of structure perhaps doesnt have an independent precisedenition, but yes, collections of sets with structure isabsolutely the right way to think of categories. the path category ofa space is a lovely example of a category such that the right way tothink about it as a category of sets with structure. but then, so areall other categories, since they all can be thought of that way.(i dont count big sets (aka classes or whatever) as being reallyany different than sets. theorems that say that certain categoriessuch as the homotopy category of spaces require the use of quite bigsets in order to be thought of as categories of sets with structureare very interesting, but they dont negate the fact that allcategories can (and often should) be thought of as categories of setswith structure.)-- = : this is perhaps not a perfectly well-dened question because the : concept of structure perhaps doesnt have an independent precise : denition, But surely, category theory and structuralism in generalare sort of mutually justifying. I mean, if you cant denestructure in _category theory_ (of *all* places), then whereCAN you dene it?? : but yes, collections of sets with structure is : absolutely the right way to think of categories.No, it isnt.What is a set? is a question that category theoryATTACKS, NOT answers.Just what particular set(s) would you even HAVE IN MINDas being relevant to category theory anyhow?If you want a set of all objects, then it as a separateentity basically never gets referred to INside the category,and the only other sets that automatically leap to mind arehom-sets between (ordered) pairs of objects. The only representationtheorem that I know of that guarantees the relevance of an isomorphicset-based category is one that combines arrows incident upon an objectinto a set, and then makes that set an object (ONE object) in the newcategory. That is hardly what you have in mind when you talk aboutviewing the category as sets with structure. In the case of the pathcategory through the plane, if the objects are individual points,in what sense are sets relevant? : the path category of : a space is a lovely example of a category such that the right way to : think about it as a category of sets with structure.I dont see how. If I have some separate, unconnected, non-set-groupedpoints, and some paths between them, then why do I care about setsat all? The fact that each path is itself viewable AS a set isalmost a red herring; it generates more difculties than help.The only obvious relevant sets are, again, inescapably as usual,hom-sets. : (i dont count big sets (aka classes or whatever) as being really : any different than sets. theorems that say that certain categories : such as the homotopy category of spaces require the use of quite big : sets in order to be thought of as categories of sets with structure : are very interesting, but they dont negate the fact that all : categories can (and often should) be thought of as categories of sets : with structure.)I still say that that thesis needs some support;truth by blatant assertion is not going to cut it here.The fact that a plane is a set of points is NOT helpful.In the rst place, it could be a class instead of a set,and in the second, once you have the points, what do youneed the set for?Sets are no more relevant to categories than they areto groups (which is hardly surprising since groupsARE a well-behaved subclass of the 1-object categories).Elementary treatments will allege to you that a groupis a set of objects; more adolescent ones will retreatto referring to such sets as carriers for the group;but my point is simply that grownups know that setsare just irrelevant period. The ACTUAL elements of groupsgroup are permutations, which are SORT OF like functionsbut actually even more general than that, since they canin some sense permute *any* set of any appropriate size.When the smoke clears they wind up being best thought ofas applied TO EACH OTHER; the difference between composinga function (with another function) applying it (TO anotherfunction, as an argument, once you move up to allowing that)becomes problematic in itself.-- --- Its difcult ... you need to be united to have any strength, but internal issues have to be addressed. --- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America Elementary treatments will allege to you that a group>is a set of objects; more adolescent ones will retreat>to referring to such sets as carriers for the group;>but my point is simply that grownups know that sets>are just irrelevant period. The ACTUAL elements of groups>group are permutations, which are SORT OF like functions>but actually even more general than that, since they can>in some sense permute *any* set of any appropriate size.Sheesh, rst james dolan, now you.In what (or should I type WHAT?) sense are the ACTUAL elements of a braid group permutations in any NATURALway? Lee Rudolph = |The trouble with giving only concrete categories is that> |people start thinking of categories as collections of> |sets with structure. The point is that this is the wrong> |way to think of categories. this is perhaps not a perfectly well-dened question because the> concept of structure perhaps doesnt have an independent precise> denition, but yes, collections of sets with structure is> absolutely the right way to think of categories. the path category of> a space is a lovely example of a category such that the right way to> think about it as a category of sets with structure. but then, so are> all other categories, since they all can be thought of that way.I think theres some ambiguity here. There are at least two senses inwhich a category may be sets with structure.(1) The objects of the category forms a set (or class) and the arrowsprovide structure. This would be a trivial sense.(2) The objects of the category are sets with additional structure andthe arrows (typically) preserve this structure.Is the path category really an instance of (2) in any interesting way?The objects are points and the arrows paths, right? Points arentsets in any interesting way, are they? Maybe Im not sure what the path category is.Even if so, I still dont think that arbitrary posets ought to bethought of as consisting of sets with inclusions, or that categoriesin which the objects are formulas and the arrows proofs are usefulthought of as a collection of sets with structure.I agree with Herman. Sets and concrete categories are very useful,but there is more to category theory than that.-- A recruitment consultant I know thinks the most important quality ina winner is to be lucky. To avoid wasting his time with unluckyapplicants, he takes half the resumes piled on his desk and throwsthem straight in the bin. -- John Ramsden =||>|> |The trouble with giving only concrete categories is that|> |people start thinking of categories as collections of|> |sets with structure. The point is that this is the wrong|> |way to think of categories.|>|> this is perhaps not a perfectly well-dened question because the|> concept of structure perhaps doesnt have an independent precise|> denition, but yes, collections of sets with structure is|> absolutely the right way to think of categories. the path category|> of a space is a lovely example of a category such that the right|> way to think about it as a category of sets with structure. but|> then, so are all other categories, since they all can be thought of|> that way.||I think theres some ambiguity here. There are at least two senses|in which a category may be sets with structure.||(1) The objects of the category forms a set (or class) and the arrows|provide structure. This would be a trivial sense.im not talking about this somewhat trivial sense.|(2) The objects of the category are sets with additional structure|and the arrows (typically) preserve this structure.||Is the path category really an instance of (2) in any interesting|way?yes, it really is. _all_ categories are really instances of (2) in asomewhat interesting way (the magic words are think of an object asits collection of generalized points and/or yoneda embedding), butas a matter of fact theres an even more interesting way in which pathcategories in particular are instances of (2). ill try to post adescription soon of what i have in mind, but right now im mulling itover to see if i can make it a bit nicer rst.|The objects are points and the arrows paths, right? Points arent|sets in any interesting way, are they? yes, they are.|Maybe Im not sure what the path category is.its probably what you think it is, except that, as nath rao pointedout, its a somewhat ambiguous concept due in part to the necessity ofxing it up a bit to get the associativity law to work correctly.|Even if so, I still dont think that arbitrary posets ought to be|thought of as consisting of sets with inclusions, or that categories|in which the objects are formulas and the arrows proofs are useful|thought of as a collection of sets with structure.||I agree with Herman. Sets and concrete categories are very useful,|but there is more to category theory than that.again, i pretty much disagree with this. i think the situation isalmost exactly the same as with group theory. saying theres more tocategory theory than concrete categories is much like saying theresmore to group theory than concrete groups. maybe theres a _little_more to group theory than that, but not really, since:1. by cayleys theorem all groups are concrete groups (though eachone is concrete in many different ways!).2. the great and pervasive and unforgivable pedagogical mistake is inthe exact opposite direction: namely, to teach people group theorywithout teaching them that the whole point of group theory is toconsider concrete groups aka symmetry groups aka permutation groupsaka group actions aka group representations, and that there neverwould have been any theory of abstract groups if the study of concretegroups hadnt come before it.consider for example the category of icosahedrons. an object isdened to be a set of points (called vertexes) equipped with abinary relation (called forming an edge) and there are certainaxioms saying that theres a total of 12 vertexes and each vertexforms an edge with exactly 5 other vertexes and blah blah blah; amorphism is dened to be a map between vertex sets preserving theedge structure. intuitively, a morphism maps the parts of oneobject to another object in a structure-preserving way. but there aremany different ways of re-interpreting the concept of basic parts outof which an object is built, and each such re-interpretation givesyou a different way of thinking of the category as a concretecategory. thus for example instead of taking the vertexes as thebasic parts of an icosahedron, you could take the faces as the basicparts, and then the morphisms would be interpreted asstructure-preserving maps between face sets instead of between vertexsets. this is how the concepts of abstract category and abstractgroup arise from prior more fundamental concepts of concretecategory and concrete group- you often nd yourself inventing somenew and different concrete category or concrete group simply by takingan old one and applying to it some re-interpretation of the concept ofbasic part, and then eventually you realize, hey, even though thisis a different concrete category from the one that we started outwith, theres still something thats recognizably the same about it,and we need a name for that essential core of the concrete categorythat stays the same no matter how you re-interpret the concept ofbasic parts out of which an object of the category is built, and thename that well use is abstract category.thus in progressing from the concrete category to the abstractcategory, we do tend to give up our former vertex chauvinism orface chauvinism (or whatever narrow viewpoint we started out with)for a more even-handed treatment. but we _dont_ give up ourunderstanding of how the abstract category is really a concretecategory- we just give up to some extent our absolute preference forone way of thinking of it as concrete (for example the vertex way)over some other way (for example the face way). [there are further complications that you can pursue if you reallyfeel like pursuing them. for example, theres a fairly nice way tointerpret sets themselves as structured vector spaces (a set isdened to be a vector space equipped with an unordered basis). thatmeans that any kind of object that can be interpreted as a structuredset could in principle also be interpreted as a structured vectorspace. you can try to imagine some bizarro-world where mathematicsdeveloped like that- for some reason the inhabitants of the world tookvector spaces as their intuitive foundation and then studied otherkinds of objects like sets and metric spaces and so forth asstructured vector spaces. theres a point to such imaginings, buttheres probably even more of a point to not worrying about themunless youre really into it. in a sense though theres no realdifference between for example structured sets and structuredvector spaces, and if you feel like it you can emphasize this bythinking of them as something like structures instead of asstructured sets or structured vector spaces or structuredwhatevers.]-- = : |I agree with Herman. Sets and concrete categories are very useful, : |but there is more to category theory than that. : again, i pretty much disagree with this. i think the situation is : almost exactly the same as with group theory. I do too, but that cuts AGAINST your thesis. : saying theres more to category theory than concrete categories : is much like saying theres more to group theory than concrete groups. : maybe theres a _little_ more to group theory than that, but not really, : since: : : 1. by cayleys theorem all groups are concrete groups (though each : one is concrete in many different ways!).Being concrete and being tightly wedded to sets are not the same thing. : 2. the great and pervasive and unforgivable pedagogical mistake is in : the exact opposite direction:Excuse me for having BEEN pedagogued that way, but since I was,I think that that direction is Just Fine, and that YOURS is the onethat is mistaken. : namely, to teach people group theory : without teaching them that the whole point of group theory is to : consider concrete groups aka symmetry groups aka permutation groupsWHOA, hoss.What makes you think that permutation groups are concrete??WHAT IS a permutation, EXACTLY?For that matter, since symmetries often permuate vertices, ifthe concreteness of permutation groups is in doubt, then thatof symmetry groups cannot be far behind. I mean, if youdecide to talk about the symmetries of the equilateral triangle,well, do you have any PARTICULAR, CONCRETE equilateral trianglein mind? WHAT IS an equilateral triangle, anyway? Is it a concreteset of points? An incidence matrix? Concretely, represetnationsand approximations are all anyone has. The whole point about groupsin general is that they are MORE general than that. : aka group actions aka group representations,By denition all the concrete groups are isomorphic to somecanonical representative as dened by a representation theorem.The question of whether the representative xor its constitutentsdeserves the TITLE of group gets purely semantic. But there is NOquestion that the representative is in some sense MORE IMPORTANT,from a mathematical point of view. Thats WHY the representativeGOT ELECTED. : and that there never would have been any theory of abstract : groups if the study of concrete : groups hadnt come before it.There never wouldve been any relativity if the study of the etherhadnt come before it. There never wouldve been any chemistry ifphlogiston hadnt come before it. There never wouldve been anyheliocentric astronomy if Ptolemaic epicycles hadnt come before it.Good riddance to all. : consider for example the category of icosahedrons. an object is : dened to be a set of points (called vertexes)Its not just a set of points. Its 12 points, exactly.This matters because the fact that its nite means you DONTNEED ANY *SET* THEORY to do any of this. This particular introductionof sets is just unnecessary and irrelevant. : equipped with a binary relation (called forming an edge) and : there are certain axioms saying that theres a total of 12 : vertexes and each vertex forms an edge with exactly 5 other : vertexes and blah blah blah;So far, you can do all of that in propositional logic withoutANY reference to categories, objects, or arrows, let alone sets. In fact, if all you want to say is THAT, you can say it withno more machinery than a 12x12 connection matrix or a 12x30incidence matrix. So JUST WHAT *IS* an icosahedron,ANYhow??? There are a lot of continuous deformationsof the usual regular icosahedron that dont look terribly icosahedral.There are even a few things with the right number of intersections, thingsin 3-space that conform to the incidence matrix, that dont looklike convex polyhedra at all, let alone like icosahedrons.There is a strong case to be made for the philosophical position thatan icosahedron is not JUST anything that satises these axioms. In particular, the nature of the universe of things that CAN satisfy axioms needs somePRIOR denition. : a morphism is dened to be a map between vertex sets preserving the : edge structure.But again, that irrelevantly presumes some prior universal class of pointsfrom which vertex-sets COULD come. That is just irrelevant. : intuitively, a morphism maps the parts of one : object to another object in a structure-preserving way. but there are : many different ways of re-interpreting the concept of basic parts out : of which an object is built,Well, yes, but that largely contradicts what you said before, because whatyou said before was that set of vertices was a relevant primary part.Unless you are going to extend this radical-indeterminacy-of-translationfrom part to encompass vertex as well, this is all going to getsilly rather quickly. : as those primary parts, and each such re-interpretation gives : you a different way of thinking of the category as a concrete : category.Everything you are saying here is ENTIRELY analogous to the fact that[the domain of] A MODEL OF a [consistent] set of rst-order axioms can be just about anything. There is simply no way (nor desire) to bindor restrict the potential universe of applicability. But saying setall over the place DOES tend to do that, because naive set theory wontwork; if you are going to say set then you are going to, whether youwant to or not, invoke SOME set THEORY and associated restrictions andcomplexities that ARE necessary to a coherent notion of set but thatyou do NOT want to respect as far as applicability of your structure. : thus for example instead of taking the vertexes as the : basic parts of an icosahedron, you could take the faces as the basic : parts, and then the morphisms would be interpreted as : structure-preserving maps between face sets instead of between vertex : sets.But does this give you the same or a different set of icosahedra?And did you NEED to introduce sets AT ALL in order to do this?And if you take different how the concepts of abstract category and abstract : group arise from prior more fundamental concepts of concrete : category and concrete groupNo, really, IT ISNT.NO MATTER HOW they arose, ONCE YOU HAVE DEFINED the abstract ANYthing,NOTHING but its denition is relevant. : - you often nd yourself inventing some : new and different concrete category or concrete group simply by taking : an old one and applying to it some re-interpretation of the concept of : basic part, and then eventually you realize, hey, even though this : is a different concrete category from the one that we started out : with, theres still something thats recognizably the same about it, : and we need a name for that essential core of the concrete category : that stays the same no matter how you re-interpret the concept of : basic parts out of which an object of the category is built, and the : name that well use is abstract category.I sincerely appreciate this entertaining account of the real workinglife of real working mathematicians but I dont consider it relevantto the theoretical question we were trying to debate, which was,what role, specically, do sets NEED to play here? : thus in progressing from the concrete category to the abstract : category, we do tend to give up our former vertex chauvinism or : face chauvinism (or whatever narrow viewpoint we started out with) : for a more even-handed treatment. but we _dont_ give up our : understanding of how the abstract category is really a concrete : category- we just give up to some extent our absolute preference for : one way of thinking of it as concrete (for example the vertex way) : over some other way (for example the face way). Are you sure you even know what concrete category MEANS?? =JFH asks: : |(2) The objects of the category are sets with additional structure : |and the arrows (typically) preserve this structure. : | : |Is the path category really an instance of (2) in any interesting : |way? : yes, it really is.No, really, it isnt. : _all_ categories are really instances of (2) in a : somewhat interesting way (the magic words are think of an object as : its collection of generalized points and/or yoneda embedding),That is not only not interesting, it is the opposite of reasonable.If the object is itself something as trivial and structureLESS as a point,to begin with, asking ANYbody to think of it as something BIGGER(e.g., the collection of all arrows ending at it) is simply RIDICULOUS. : but as a matter of fact theres an even more interesting way in which path : categories in particular are instances of (2). ill try to post a : description soon of what i have in mind, but right now im mulling it : over to see if i can make it a bit nicer rst.Trust me, we are NOT holding our breath. : |The objects are points and the arrows paths, right? Points arent : |sets in any interesting way, are they? : : yes, they are.Well, in the plane, they could be as interesting as say, orderedpairs. If theyre any bigger sets than that then NO, they are NOTinteresting. ESPECIALLY not if you are going to try to identifythem with the class of paths ending at them. Those paths, in setterms, would have to consist OF points, would have to have points ASMEMBERS, which violates foundation/regularity. : |Maybe Im not sure what the path category is. : : its probably what you think it is, except that, as nath rao pointed : out, its a somewhat ambiguous concept due in part to the necessity of : xing it up a bit to get the associativity law to work correctly.Surely there is a single unambiguous canonical x. Continuous paths I guess can get hard to concatenate properly if they intersect each other at verychaotic neighborhoods, but while amateurs shouldnt try that at home,Im sure the experts know what theyre doing. : |Even if so, I still dont think that arbitrary posets ought to be : |thought of as consisting of sets with inclusions, or that categories : |in which the objects are formulas and the arrows proofs are useful : |thought of as a collection of sets with structure.Well, excuse me for appearing to switch sides in mid-stream,but I dont see any problem with treating categories in which theobjects are formulas and the arrows are proofs as sets with structure,for the sole reason that in the dissertation I am currently workingon, formulas ARE represented as sets. The fact that conjunction anddisjunction are both commutative and associative means that formulasbuilt out of them, UNLIKE POINTS IN A PLANE, are very NATURALLYrepresented as sets (you want to exploit the non-ordered-ness).But we have 3 different ways in which sets might just barelymanage to be relevant. I am going to number them 0 through 3 because0), thinking of the class of the categorys objects as a set, istrivial. That leaves: 1) the individual objects themselves could berepresented as sets. That is cleary good when the objects are complex,but equally clearly bad when they are being viewed as atomic or aspoints; 2) Hom-sets arise unavoidably, but unfortunately,they are not the kind of sets JD had in mind; 3) some intermediatesize of sets, smaller than the whole-class-of-objects of 0) and biggerthan the individual-object of 1), might matter, but its hard to seehow in any GENERAL sense. Which kinds of sets pop up as interestingwould seem like the kind of thing that would vary in interesting waysfrom category to category. That is not only not interesting, it is the opposite of reasonable.> If the object is itself something as trivial and structureLESS as a point,> to begin with, asking ANYbody to think of it as something BIGGER> (e.g., the collection of all arrows ending at it) is simply RIDICULOUS.I suppose you see projective duality (to pick another example where soMETHIng as TRIvial anD STRuctureless AS A poiNT is viewed as something larger -- the collection of all hyperplanes passing through it) as also being uninteresting and unreasonable?-- David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science = : : > That is not only not interesting, it is the opposite of reasonable. : > If the object is itself something as trivial and structureLESS as a point, : > to begin with, asking ANYbody to think of it as something BIGGER : > (e.g., the collection of all arrows ending at it) is simply RIDICULOUS. : I suppose you see projective duality (to pick another example where : soMETHIng as TRIvial anD STRuctureless AS A poiNT is viewed as : something larger -- the collection of all hyperplanes passing through : it) as also being uninteresting and unreasonable?Of course not; that is DUALITY.What contains what is osciallatory, there.The hyperplane itself is also in turn viewable as the collection ofpoints in IT. If you iterate this one more time then the hyperplanebecomes the set of all things containing all hyperplanes passingthrough them; it winds up containing itself an innitely deep numberof times. You are not using passing through correctly here.That is metaphorical. In projective geometry, points and linesare either related or not. Getting all directional about itis just inappropriate, precisely BECAUSE of the duality.-- --- Its difcult ... you need to be united to have any strength, but internal issues have to be addressed. --- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America = : > If the object is itself something as trivial and structureLESS as a point, : > to begin with, asking ANYbody to think of it as something BIGGER : > (e.g., the collection of all arrows ending at it) is simply RIDICULOUS. : I suppose you see projective duality (to pick another example where : soMETHIng as TRIvial anD STRuctureless AS A poiNT is viewed as : something larger -- the collection of all hyperplanes passing through : it) as also being uninteresting and unreasonable?NR invited people to think about the path category over THE AFFINEplane. IF one thinks instead about a path category over the 2d PROJECTIVEIN THAT plane (which they ARE NOT in the plane that NR was talking about)might well mean that points&Paths have some natural near-dualrelationship that would make identifying sets-paths-through-the-PROJECTIVE-plane with points-in-the-PROJECTIVE-plane REASONABLE.But it is not reasonable in the afne plane.-- --- Its difcult ... you need to be united to have any strength, but internal issues have to be addressed. --- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America NR invited people to think about the path category over THE AFFINE> plane. IF one thinks instead about a path category over the 2d PROJECTIVE> IN THAT plane (which they ARE NOT in the plane that NR was talking about)Points and non-vertical lines are dual in the afne plane.Anyway, my point had nothing to do with path categories specicallyit was entirely about your refusal to accept the general phenomenon that different ways of looking at the same mathematical objects can lead to better insights about those objects. Why do you want to blinker us?-- David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science 2. the great and pervasive and unforgivable pedagogical mistake is in>the exact opposite direction: namely, to teach people group theory>without teaching them that the whole point of group theory is to>consider concrete groups aka symmetry groups aka permutation groups>aka group actions aka group representations, and that there never>would have been any theory of abstract groups if the study of concrete>groups hadnt come before it.Hey! By and large Im agreeing with the thrust of your points(as I understand them, and to the extent I care about the subjectsunder discussion, which is not as much as many participants in thisthread, I fear), but I for one am very fond of the braid groups.They are as concrete as you could like, yet their concretenessdoes *not* arise (to my eye) from their being symmetry groups,or permutation groups, or group actions, or group representations.Lee Rudolph =||>2. the great and pervasive and unforgivable pedagogical mistake is in|>the exact opposite direction: namely, to teach people group theory|>without teaching them that the whole point of group theory is to|>consider concrete groups aka symmetry groups aka permutation groups|>aka group actions aka group representations, and that there never|>would have been any theory of abstract groups if the study of concrete|>groups hadnt come before it.||Hey! By and large Im agreeing with the thrust of your points|(as I understand them, and to the extent I care about the subjects|under discussion, which is not as much as many participants in this|thread, I fear), but I for one am very fond of the braid groups.|They are as concrete as you could like, yet their concreteness|does *not* arise (to my eye) from their being symmetry groups,|or permutation groups, or group actions, or group representations.the braid groups can be forced into the tranformation/permutation moldquite willingly. most simply, braid groups can be construed asmapping class groups of something like a multi-punctured plane.(details swept under rug; also i hope this isnt too much of a stretchof the terminology mapping class group.) then since the braid groupacts on the multi-punctured plane it also acts on the fundamentalgroup of the multi-punctured plane, namely the free group, and this isa very useful and elegant and concrete (in your non-technical sense)concrete (in my technical sense) representation of the braid group.(for example i tend to think of this as providing the moststraightforward way of checking whether a braid is equal to anotherbraid; just check whether they act the same way on the free group.)but presumably you already know all this, so im not sure what part ot you nd unconvincing. maybe youre just saying that thephysical picture of a braid as made out of string seems intuitivelymore concrete to you than the action-on-free-group picture. ihonestly think though that for example the swirl picture of a braidis very nearly as intuitively concrete as the string picture, andthe swirl picture is an extremely graphic and direct record of theaction of the braid on the free group.anyway its true that when there are a bunch of more or lessequivalent viewpoints from which to understand a subject i often liketo seize on one of them and push it as far as possible (in this casethe all groups/all categories are concrete viewpoint). quite theopposite of the philosophy alfred einstead was promoting earlier inthis thread, of trying to see from all viewpoints simultaneously. ithink he likes that philosophy because it makes math seem like a gamefor supermen, whereas i like my philosophy because i think it makesmath seem like a game for ordinary mortals: once you learn the grandequivalences between different viewpoints, thats basically an excusefor going back to always seeing things from your old favoriteviewpoint, secure in the knowledge that its really equivalent to allthose other viewpoints. and of course whenever you want to impresspeople you pretend youre seeing from all the viewpoints when reallyyoure just up to your old tricks.by the way i could also try to respond to the point youre making byappealing to my previously stated intention to try to describe aparticularly nice way of thinking of path categories as concretecategories, since braid groups are (more or less) an example of pathcategories, a braid being more or less a continuous path in a space ofdiscrete subspaces of the plane.-- the braid groups can be forced into the tranformation/permutation mold>quite willingly. [the representation as automorphisms of a free group]>but presumably you already know all thisYeah, but I forgot it. Sorry. Just ignore me. Lee Rudolph [caveats on imprecision] but yes, collections of sets with structure is> absolutely the right way to think of categories. There is some dangerous ambiguity here.Sets with structure can be interpreted two ways.1) That the indivdual objects are sets with structure, and the arrows preserve that structure in some way;2) That the whole category is a set (of individual monic objects) whose structure is *determined* by the arrows.Type 1 includes the more standard types, sets & functions, topologiesand continuities, algebras and morphisms, and so on.Type 2 includes the slightly articial types that are nevertheless oftenstressed (but little used) in text books. Such as a transitive directedgraph *being* a category; a semi-group *being* a category with one object;the category of statements with implications as arrows; and so on.To bundle these two very motivationally different types together asall being sets with structure is a nasty conation, as the typedistinctions are completely ignored in such a uniform description!------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Bill Taylor W.Taylor@math.canterbury.ac.nz------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------My idea of excitement is lying in bed thinking about n-categories - John Baez---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- =| > | >>Colombus was wrong about what?| > | > About the circumference of the Earth.| | That is contraversial. Some say he deliberately fudged the numbersto| make it more likely to get support for his journey.Well, in the movie ;-) (1492: Conquest of Paradise), they havehim knowing hes lying, but thinking hopefully that the correct,larger gure will still turn out to be okay. This seemed unpleasantlylike the kind of combination of wishful thinking and fakery thatwe had with Enron, for example. Eventually it can get hard todistinguish between honest error, wishful thinking, and intentionaldeception. (I also dont give these gold-obsessed explorers a lotof credit for level-headed realism.)Im guessing he probably didnt actually ask for absolution forit, however.... sinned. MARCHENA recognizes COLUMBUS voice. MARCHENA I am listening, my son. COLUMBUS Father, I have betrayed my family. I betrayed my men. And I betrayed you. MARCHENA What are you saying? COLUMBUS I lied. The journey will be longer than I said. MARCHENA How long? COLUMBUS I am not sure... It could be twice the distance. A pause. MARCHENA May God forgive you...! You must tell them! You must tell your men! COLUMBUS If I tell them, they wont follow me. You know that I am right, Father. You trust me... MARCHENA My son, my son... (he shakes his head) Your certitudes are sometimes frightening... (pause) Christopher, you must speak to them. And if you dont I will. COLUMBUS You are bound by an oath, Father. A long silence. MARCHENA I believed in you... COLUMBUS Give me absolution. No response. COLUMBUS Give me absolution, Father! Devastated, MARCHENA reluctantly makes the sign of the cross.------Keith RamsayP.S. This is wholly off topic, but I had the impression thatpriests were and are considered able to grant absolution thatis conditional on performance of penances, which could be suchthings as returning stolen goods or correcting misinformationyouve spread around. If anyone happens to know, Id be amusedto hear. >Heavens>>http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/ heavens.html>>is where he proves with mind-numbing sophistry that the>>Earth must be the center of the universe. I dont see any>>appeal to observation anywhere in it, although I admit>>its difcult to wade through.> Sure, but I havent seen any appeal to observation to prove that> all> matter was once condensed in the radius of a proton. But its true> anyhow, because its a true extrapolation from known physical facts. > Thats because you have little idea what youre talking about.> Actually, thats based primarily on observation; namely, starting> with the observed expansion of the universe and working backwards.> Prior to that observation, it was assumed the universe was static.This is exactly what I mean by a true extrapolation from knownphysical facts. Those physical facts are known by observation. > It is a perfectly reasonable thing--even an expected one--to take a> known physical theory and extrapolate from it to make claims about> what one has not seen.> Which shows you havent read the material; there was essentially> nothing about observation.Huh? Aristotle talks about observations. I guess you havent readmuch? > In any event, I believe its enough to counter your claim that> Ptolemy was a thoroughgoing rejection of Aristotelian astronomy,> unless youd care to go to the trouble of explaining what you> meant by that.The basic principle of Aristotelian astronomy is that heavenly bodiestravel naturally in circles around the center of the cosmos, whereassublunar bodies travel in straight line paths towards or away from thecenter of the cosmos. This was a bedrock principle of the system(based, I hasten to add, on observation).Ptolemy, doing more careful computation, showed that the orbits of theplanets cannot be explained as circular paths around the center of thecosmos, and proposed instead a system of epicycles. The resultingsystem was the best predictor of planetary motions until Kepler.(Most notably, it was considerably better than Copernicus.)Thomas =_The Almaghast_ was a hoax;there are two things that show this! Hail Brittanica!... where youll nd outabout the observation of the expandingness of Universe, orthe redshit so-interpreted, at any rate. thats Hubbles Law, yup yup yup! > Actually, thats based primarily on observation; namely, starting> with the observed expansion of the universe and working backwards. > In any event, I believe its enough to counter your claim that> Ptolemy was a thoroughgoing rejection of Aristotelian astronomy, > OK, Ill admit I used an obscure one - the Encyclopedia Brittanica.--Give the Gift of Dick Cheney -- out of ofce! =--www.StealthHostiing.com You rule Truman. http://tinyurl.com/iky4 Hey Trueman...love the show. YOU ARE the Truman I heard him. Very spooky! >Is the truman living in Townsville? Ive been hearing stuff, yeah.Webmasters help the TRUEman by joining www.theBanner.net Current:1 Goal:1000---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------of them reasonably, but because Aus Skeptics had one single man decide my claimsThis puts great weakness in the entire testing mechanism when the skeptics companiescan choose who they want to test. The only man who has made a decision on mypresented claims is the same man who featured on A Current Affair, Australias Current Affairsshow as degrading applicants and backing down and not providing tests for applicants.The same man that claims on a formal media release that Australia Skeptic Society is*no longer* investigating Fermats Last Theorem along with half dozen other skeptical interesttopics they may or may not have also being lying about doing any work on. We all know FLTwas solved in 1995.> http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm>This is a very simple demonstration of paranormal that no psychic investigator, companyor otherwise has even considered.Just nd some test subjects to see if these posts can be matched to their author :----1------------------------------------------------------- --------------------Randi will test you when you properly apply to be tested. Sign up here:http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html----2------- ------------------------------------------------------------- --------It really all depends on the situation.----3---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------If ever I actually found myself in that situation, Id hold it upright,with the intent of attacking my assailants knife hand.-----------------A cliff86B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56C ShanxD NormDePloomE Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randi http://tinyurl.com/nd52F CNoteG JeffH See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all depends http://tinyurl.com/nd53I SomeoneJ Greg Neillme!))PLUS I forcasted it : www.tinyurl.com/gutrPROOF OF GOD 02 02 2002..preminition..http://tinyurl.com/nw1r> What the hell... rec.knives> --> Will Tinglegood for you young man, now while I make a post to rec.knivesI must ask the audience for absolute silence, i.e. dont go therespouting Im doing a trick!Herc--------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------This is easy to show as being paranormal once you get people to sit the 10 option3 question test. The answers are trivial, all the names *closely* match their posts.If we further tested that even from 100 names the posts can be consistently guessedthis makes it a 1 in 1,000,000 coincidence, on the day I predicted. NOONE herecan 1,000,000 to 1!By denition its paranormal, the evidence is right before you, the replies to me allreect their name, 3 strong datapoints all on the one day. Skeptic companies wonteven examine it!Herc = Will Tinglegood for you young man, now while I make a post to rec.knives>I must ask the audience for absolute silence, i.e. dont go there>spouting Im doing a trick!Herc>-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------>This is easy to show as being paranormal once you get people to sit the 10 option>3 question test. The answers are trivial, all the names *closely* match their posts.>If we further tested that even from 100 names the posts can be consistently guessed>this makes it a 1 in 1,000,000 coincidence, on the day I predicted. NOONE here>can nd 3 replies to them on the same paranormal, the evidence is right before you, the replies to me all>reect their name, 3 strong datapoints all on the one day. Skeptic companies wont>even examine it!This is coming from a nutcase who apparently cannot get laid, despitenumerous over the top approaches to women on Usenet, who has arestraining order against him, who has apparently remained unemployedfor years,and STILL thinks hes Truman on the Truman show.Based on this set of established facts, you can safely assume Herctalks out of his arse.Imm still waiting for him to cooperate on the tests people setup forhim on Yahoo. No sign of that, It seems-- Find out about Australias most dangerous Doomsday Cult:http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htmYou cant fool me, its turtles all the way down. = --> www.StealthHostiing.com You rule Truman.http://tinyurl.com/iky4> Hey Trueman...love the show. YOU ARE the Truman I heard him. Veryspooky!>Is the truman living in Townsville? Ive been hearing stuff,yeah.> Webmasters help the TRUEman by joining www.theBanner.net Current:1Goal:1000> ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------me, half> of them reasonably, but because Aus Skeptics had one single man decide myclaimsBull herc. We have seen numerous skeptics try to help you test yourclaims. Your cooperation has always been forthcoming. Soon. Tomorrow.Youre as conrmed a kook now as any is likely to ever be.le moo This puts great weakness in the entire testing mechanism when the skepticscompanies> can choose who they want to test. The only man who has made a decision onmy> presented claims is the same man who featured on A Current Affair,Australias Current Affairs> show as degrading applicants and backing down and not providingtests for applicants.> The same man that claims on a formal media release that Australia SkepticSociety is> *no longer* investigating Fermats Last Theorem along with half dozen otherskeptical interest> topics they may or may not have also being lying about doing any work on.We all know FLT> was solved in 1995.> http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm This is a very simple demonstration of paranormal that no psychicinvestigator, company> or otherwise has even considered.> Just nd some test subjects to see if these posts can be matched to theirauthor : ----1-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------> Randi will test you when you properly apply to be tested. Sign up here: http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html> ----2-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------> It really all depends on the situation.> ----3-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------> If ever I actually found myself in that situation, Id hold it upright,> with the intent of attacking my assailants knife hand.> -----------------> A cliff86> B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56> C Shanx> D NormDePloom> E Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randihttp://tinyurl.com/nd52> F CNote> G Jeff> H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all dependshttp://tinyurl.com/nd53> I Someone> J Greg Neill> atleast one in 100*100*100 chance of these 3 posts on the same day (02> me!))> PLUS I forcasted it : www.tinyurl.com/gutr> PROOF OF GOD 02 02 2002> ..preminition.. http://tinyurl.com/nw1r> What the hell... rec.knives> --> Will Tingle good for you young man, now while I make a post to rec.knives> I must ask the audience for absolute silence, i.e. dont go there> spouting Im doing a trick! Herc> ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------> This is easy to show as being paranormal once you get people to sit the 10option> 3 question test. The answers are trivial, all the names *closely* matchtheir posts.> If we further tested that even from 100 names the posts can beconsistently guessed> this makes it a 1 in 1,000,000 coincidence, on the day I predicted. NOONEhere> can 1,000,000to 1! By denition its paranormal, the evidence is right before you, thereplies to me all> reect their name, 3 strong datapoints all on the one day. Skepticcompanies wont> even examine it! Herc> =---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ me, half> of them reasonably, but because Aus Skeptics had one single man decide my> claims Bull herc. We have seen numerous skeptics try to help you test your> claims. Your cooperation has always been forthcoming. Soon. Tomorrow.All the test proposals thought up by skeptics here have been1 / A skeptic acts as intermediary of the medium instead of just using public newsgroups2 / I have to pass a written test because skeptics dont allow seperate test subjects to show a correlation that is evident and public.Just look at the following 3 questions at face value, Ive tried to cooperate withskeptics and their proposals but get very little cooperation back to my side of things.Usually if I agree to *try* a test even if I am unsure how I will go on the test theskeptics will end up writing up an afdavit that I failed my own proposal.You will only ever be able to isolate paranormal if you work *with* the claimants,you have to allow some room to concentrate on successess, THEN use scienticmethod to isolate possible cause. This tryiing to debunk people for a laugh is patheticas it is popular.----1------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------Randi will test you when you properly apply to be tested. Sign up here:http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html----2------- ------------------------------------------------------------- --------It really all depends on the situation.----3---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------If ever I actually found myself in that situation, Id hold it upright,with the intent of attacking my assailants knife hand.-----------------A cliff86B RustC ShanxD NormDePloomE Rich ShewmakerF CNoteG JeffH See You In Hell My Friend.I SomeoneJ Greg Neill ANSWERSE Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randi http://tinyurl.com/nd52H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all depends http://tinyurl.com/nd53B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56This will prove paranormal to very high signicance, certainly enough to warrantfurther investigation.STEP 1 : Give the 3 question test to a random sample of peopleSTEP 2 : Calculate the signicance of the coincidence as a gure (e.g. 1 in 10,000 againstchance)STEP 3 : Offer to the public to try and defeat the coincidence.Its no different to rolling a 6 on a dice 10 times running, (although paranormal.Herc you have to allow some room to concentrate on successess, THEN usescientic> method to isolate possible cause.If you do not see the aw in this, then you will never be convincedof the falsity of any proposition you make your mind up to believe. you have to allow some room to concentrate on successess, THEN use> scientic> method to isolate possible cause. If you do not see the aw in this, then you will never be convinced> of the falsity of any proposition you make your mind up to believe.dittoIf you establish scientic method before the APE you may miss it.Anythiing that is repeatable can have scientic method applied at any time.Did you check these 3 posts, have a look and see if you can put in words somethingparticular about them.E Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randi http://tinyurl.com/nd52H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all depends http://tinyurl.com/nd53B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56If you have no scientic abililty or skills as a skeptic then you would not consider torst mutually establish my claim would you? you would just ignore this evidence.Herc you have to allow some room to concentrate on successess, THEN use> scientic> method to isolate possible cause. If you do not see the aw in this, then you will never be convinced> of the falsity of any proposition you make your mind up to believe.> ditto> If you establish scientic method before the APE you may miss it.> Anythiing that is repeatable can have scientic method applied at any time.> Did you check these 3 posts, have a look and see if you can put in words something> particular about them.> E Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randi http://tinyurl.com/nd52> H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all depends http://tinyurl.com/nd53> B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56> If you have no scientic abililty or skills as a skeptic then you would not consider to> rst mutually establish my claim would you? you would just ignore this evidence.> HercIgnore evidence? You are the one who wants to concentrate onsuccesses. That sounds to me like ignoring the failures. When I beton football games, I am 100% correct - if I am allowed to ignore thefailures. =--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------->you have to allow some room to concentrate on successess, THEN use> scientic> method to isolate possible cause. If you do not see the aw in this, then you will never be convinced> of the falsity of any proposition you make your mind up to believe. ditto If you establish scientic method before the APE you may miss it.> Anythiing that is repeatable can have scientic method applied at any time. Did you check these 3 posts, have a look and see if you can put in words something> particular about them. E Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randi http://tinyurl.com/nd52> H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all depends http://tinyurl.com/nd53> B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56 If you have no scientic abililty or skills as a skeptic then you would not consider to> rst mutually establish my claim would you? you would just ignore this evidence.> Herc Ignore evidence? http://tinyurl.com/nd52 http://tinyurl.com/nd53 http://tinyurl.com/nd56This is my evidence, Ive posted it 5 times now, they are links to posts evidence. Did you look at them yes or no?> You are the one who wants to concentrate on> successes. That sounds to me like ignoring the failures.Notice the capitalised word after successes which I have already explained.> When I bet> on football games, I am 100% correct - if I am allowed to ignore the> failures.If you want your football predictions tested just come to sci.skeptic, well set upa divining experiment for you.Has anyone looked at my evidence?Really honestly, is there ANY person that actually investigates paranormal claims?paranormal claims? It a 1st year statistics exercise to examine my claim, 1000 mathematiciansreading this assume Im rigging itHercHypothesis : the names are related to the message of the posts suggesting causality. http://tinyurl.com/nd52 http://tinyurl.com/nd53 http://tinyurl.com/nd56 =I dont even know why I bother; you are obviously a crank.Any reasonable intelligent person can do better than chance matching namesto posts, if given a large enough sample. This is because peoiple inventtheir names just as they invent their posts, so some correlation is likely.In this maths group, the serious mathematicians generally use what appear tobe their own (real) names. Give me 1000 posts, and a choice of two names foreach one (one a real name, the other a nic/handle), and I bet I coulddetermine which of the two names was correct 51% of the time by assessingwhether the post content was mathematically sophisticated. If I can maintain51% correct of 10,000 posts this produces a microscopic chance of thisresult being achieved by chance alone.And similar connections between posts and names appear in most groups.Trolls and cranks in general dont use their real names (James Harris is anexception, but this is still generally true). Who couldnt easily match theposts from Astro Guru and Bush for 911 to their respective authors? Evenif real names are used, these often give away much information - foreignnames may often use different sentence construction from anglo names, havedifferent opinions, and use different examples.All of this explains why such a test is meaningless - you can easily succeedin doing better than chance in matching, but this doesnt prove you have anyspecial power. Indeed, you dont; you are simply (probably subconciously)applying the types of rules I have given examples of above.you have to allow some room to concentrate on successess, THEN use> scientic> method to isolate possible cause. If you do not see the aw in this, then you will never be convinced> of the falsity of any proposition you make your mind up to believe. ditto If you establish scientic method before the APE you may miss it.> Anythiing that is repeatable can have scientic method applied at anytime. Did you check these 3 posts, have a look and see if you can put in wordssomething> particular about them. E Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randihttp://tinyurl.com/nd52> H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all dependshttp://tinyurl.com/nd53> B Rust 3 attacks metalhttp://tinyurl.com/nd56 If you have no scientic abililty or skills as a skeptic then you wouldnot consider to> rst mutually establish my claim would you? you would just ignore thisevidence.> Herc> Any reasonable intelligent person can do better than chance matching nameswait a minute, its a false positive, *must* be a fraudHerc = Any reasonable intelligent person can do better than chance matchingnames> wait a minute, its a false positive, *must* be a fraud Herc>Wow, guessing names. Thats an amazing power you have there.You deserve all the ridicule that you get. I dont even know why I bother; you are obviously a crank.But he is right. Randi admits he is a fraud.Then he points out that if an admitted fraud can do exactly what the realmagician or psychic can do shouldnt you be a bit curious? =------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------> I dont even know why I bother; you are obviously a crank. Any reasonable intelligent person can do better than chance matching names> to posts, if given a large enough sample. This is because peoiple invent> their names just as they invent their posts, so some correlation is likely. In this maths group, the serious mathematicians generally use what appear to> be their own (real) names. Give me 1000 posts, and a choice of two names for> each one (one a real name, the other a nic/handle), and I bet I could> determine which of the two names was correct 51% of the time by assessing> whether the post content was mathematically sophisticated. If I can maintain> 51% correct of 10,000 posts this produces a microscopic chance of this> result being achieved by chance alone. And similar connections between posts and names appear in most groups.> Trolls and cranks in general dont use their real names (James Harris is an> exception, but this is still generally true). Who couldnt easily match the> posts from Astro Guru and Bush for 911 to their respective authors? Even> if real names are used, these often give away much information - foreign> names may often use different sentence construction from anglo names, have> different opinions, and use different examples. All of this explains why such a test is meaningless - you can easily succeed> in doing better than chance in matching, but this doesnt prove you have any> special power. Indeed, you dont; you are simply (probably subconciously)> applying the types of rules I have given examples of above.This does not come close to refuting my claim!1st of all if you seriously want to end this debate you MUST examinemy datapoints :> http://tinyurl.com/nd52> http://tinyurl.com/nd53> http://tinyurl.com/nd56This is my entire proof all in these 3 posts! click click click and youre done!These posts have 3 things in common :1 they are replies to me3 ?ANYONE can deduce a paranormal claim is wrong from theory, thats what it means.If you can nd 3 posts that are replies to you with the same properties then letssee them!51% is better than random not average. Id get 75% from 2 choices in any newsgroup,the maths factor will be insignicant. Wriiting styles is not a disproof of paranormal.Why is every parameter of my claim instantly interpreted as it being a wrong claim?Herc : I can guess namesUsenet : no you cantrepeatHerc =|-|erc claims. Your cooperation has always been forthcoming. Soon. Tomorrow.> All the test proposals thought up by skeptics here have been 1 / A skeptic acts as intermediary of the medium instead of just usingpublic newsgroups> 2 / I have to pass a written test because skeptics dont allow seperatetest subjects> to show a correlation that is evident and public.Bull.> You will only ever be able to isolate paranormal if you work *with* theclaimants,> you have to allow some room to concentrate on successess, THEN usescientic> method to isolate possible cause. This tryiing to debunk people for alaugh is pathetic> as it is popular.Herc, you are the author of your own misfortune. You are unable to simplymake a concise claim and have it tested. Ignoring your failures, as yousubtly suggest above, wont lead to anything but a continuation of yourfantasies.moo =---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------> Herc, you are the author of your own misfortune. You are unable to simply> make a concise claim and have it Australian Skeptics,My name is xxx xxx, I would like to demonstrate aparanormal ability being able to guess peoples namesfrom what they say, write or do.Contact: [private]xxx xxxKangaroo House!27 Enoggera TceBrisbanemobile: xxx xxx this is our only chance Jenna, with Blake and crew on cygnas alpha we can take the Liberator. You know with Blake as leader we wont last, he cant win. With all this wealth we have new lives.JennaJenna Im sorry, this teleport service is not operating.--<^> <()> <^> Was that an attempt to create a teleport catchphrasem like Beam me up>> scotty?>Hmm . . I dont really get that feeling. Bring us up/back seems quite>a natural phrase to me. As for Avons um . . little trip into>trekland, I just pretend I didnt hear it. ;o))>________________________________________________________ favour dug,http://www.skeptics.com.au/contact screen, ask why the commitee is forbidento test me,Great Southern LandHe walks alone>The answer to this question is probably obvious to most of you, but Im new>here. Should I be blocking all messages from /Buck7 and Mr Ules?|| Douglass ||()________________________>nally, a nice personask , ive lost the topic,skeptics wont pay up, i beat their million to one claim on their website______________________>Do you claim to have a power and actually go through their test? What is>your power?>and inuence each other, but not transmit information, i dontunderstand it well.our roles in life and mentality all interact on a quantum level,basically i can telepath with our sentient earth.i saw an actress Laurie Holden on tv and said im gonna marry her,year later i meet a girl a bit like her with green eyes, well....adam eve..... perfect 10, herc complex.ction, history, people, media, computers have a level of parallelsmy claim was to get a question and ask the wolrd for the answer,but the question was detailed and no information source wouldever say it, but the post i directed them to had a post fromthe ghost : newbie questions at the top !!!!gods rst public words in a way.so i did an information entropy analysis of the response and concludedconsidering the question i passed one in a million.Herci honestly think they dont have the money>Understandably a skeptic,understandable_________>Are you the same person as /Buck7? If SO, I dont have any idea what your>point is, your text is practically gibberish... no offence. If NOT, what>the hell are you talking about?|| Douglass ||rather than other people point it out for youdouglass adams______________________________________________________ bow ditch any more obvious?james randi ignores me 18 months then sends thisThis discussion was terminated. It remains terminated. James Randiran away from my offer, then tells me king, pen rose, tiger woods, lady diBritney Spears ~ cupidEg. in the 1st example I made a post about Blake, Avon and Jenna.I get a reply from a lady, guess what her name is ?It happens to be Gemma (very close to Jenna), easy enough to guessfrom a list of possible names.Thats the formal application with the claim clearly at the top that got :DONT EVER CONTACT US AGAIN!Herc =Hash: SHA1> ------------------------------------------------------------- -------> -------------- >> Herc, you are the author of your own misfortune. You are unable>> to simply make a concise claim and have it tested. ------------------------------------------I dont know what to make of your claim. What are the examplesbelow?Lets start off right. You claim to be able to guess someones name,right? What would you need in order to demonstrate this claim?How about this: You and I sit in a room together with a telephoneand a computer. Twenty-ve people are randomly chosen, and ofthose, a random ten are selected. Each calls our room on the phone,and reads a block of text selected in advance, and approved by you toyou over the phone. Then you tell us the persons name. Then tenpeople are again randomly selected from our twenty-ve, and theseten type a poem they select from a book provided to them for thispurpose. You tell us each persons name.Got a better idea? Share it.- -- Enkidu- -----Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyonethinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are thehardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of itthanthey already have.Ren.8e Descartes, Discours de la M.8ethode. 1637.iQA/AwUBP9PREedBYuvF/ qvfEQLUfwCeLhBLxc9LDfqpEbtzD0SEa782NgsAoJL/ xPcZXC5upDmhqX1XKElJPaJm=Lua5 = I dont know what to make of your claim. What are the examples> below?More recent examples here, all replies to me on the same day, I said the daybefore I was doing a paranormal test in usenet.E Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randi http://tinyurl.com/nd52H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all depends http://tinyurl.com/nd53B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56Just investigate each link until it clicks what is ODD about all 3 posts!Were not going anywhere until someone investigates my evidence. * * * * * * * * * Lets start off right. You claim to be able to guess someones name,> right? What would you need in order to demonstrate this claim?A usenet terminal and someone to analyse the responses, i.e. getsomeone to guess the names. How about this: You and I sit in a room together with a telephone> and a computer. Twenty-ve people are randomly chosen, and of> those, a random ten are selected. Each calls our room on the phone,> and reads a block of text selected in advance, and approved by you to> you over the phone. Then you tell us the persons name. Then ten> people are again randomly selected from our twenty-ve, and these> ten type a poem they select from a book provided to them for this> purpose. You tell us each persons name. Got a better idea? Share it.No the people have to volunteer without knowing their names are controllingtheir actions.I make a post to usenet from the test room.The computer is removed.Im given all the replies without the names on them.I tell you the name!Will take a while until I get the name perfect, but if you give me a listto choose from Ill pick it from 10 names every second go!Herc > I dont know what to make of your claim. What are the examples>> below? More recent examples here, all replies to me on the same day, I said> the day> before I was doing a paranormal test in usenet.You are not making yourself clear. Just what do you do? Match a usenetpost to the posters name? And are the people youve corrosponded with, andcould potentially recognize writing styles and vocabularies for? Or arethey people youve never written to or heard from?>> Lets start off right. You claim to be able to guess someones name,>> right? What would you need in order to demonstrate this claim? A usenet terminal and someone to analyse the responses, i.e. get> someone to guess the names.See above. The details are missing.>> How about this: You and I sit in a room together with a telephone>> and a computer. Twenty-ve people are randomly chosen, and of>> those, a random ten are selected. Each calls our room on the phone,>> and reads a block of text selected in advance, and approved by you to>> you over the phone. Then you tell us the persons name. Then ten>> people are again randomly selected from our twenty-ve, and these>> ten type a poem they select from a book provided to them for this>> purpose. You tell us each persons name.>> Got a better idea? Share it.> No the people have to volunteer without knowing their names are> controlling their actions.How do their names control their actions?> I make a post to usenet from the test room.> The computer is removed.> Im given all the replies without the names on them.> I tell you the name!People you know by previous encounters or people who respond to a randompost dropped into a random newsgroup? And where are you in advance of the matching?> Will take a while until I get the name perfect, but if you give me a> list to choose from Ill pick it from 10 names every second go!I can see why they didnt go for it. Your talent is not clearly dened,and your proposed test is not either.information, making sure to leave no clues as to the number of letters inthe name. Amaze me.--------------letter begins-----------------------I was referred to you by *name* (BTSA) for classroom observation. Ifat all possible I would like to spend the day at *school* to observeyourself and a few other teachers on Wednesday 12/10/03. I promise notto be a burden, and will assist any teacher that needs some help.I am looking for delivery procedures.*name**school*7th Grade Math---------------letter ends-----------------------Enkidu-----Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyonethinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are thehardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it thanthey already have.Ren.8e Descartes, Discours de la M.8ethode. 1637. *name*> *school*> 7th Grade Mathen kid uamazed yet?do you think someone could spot your name from a small list by reading your post about this kid?Herc > *name*>> *school*>> 7th Grade Mathen kid u>amazed yet?relieved, and eliminated the names. You didnt get the name of theperson that posted the message. do you think someone could spot your name from a small list by reading your post about this kid?-- Find out about Australias most dangerous Doomsday Cult:http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htmYou cant fool me, its turtles all the way down. > *name*> *school*> 7th Grade Math>> en kid u>> amazed yet? relieved, and eliminated the names. You didnt get the name of the> person that posted the message.Correct.-- Enkidu-----Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyonethinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are thehardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it thanthey already have.Ren.8e Descartes, Discours de la M.8ethode. 1637. You are not making yourself clear.Thats because YOU didnt look at my evidence, its futile explaining a blackbox to someone over and over.Now, if you open the links that are my evidence, you would notice X, then youwould make up a scientic explanation for Y, therefore you dont need toexamine any evidence right? Some practice some theory mate, Ive heardit all before.>Just what do you do? Match a usenet> post to the posters name?Yes>And are the people youve corrosponded with, and> could potentially recognize writing styles and vocabularies for? Or are> they people youve never written to or heard from?majority are unknown to me.> Lets start off right. You claim to be able to guess someones name,>> right? What would you need in order to demonstrate this claim? A usenet terminal and someone to analyse the responses, i.e. get> someone to guess the names. See above. The details are missing.Nope, you asked what I needed, thats what I need, a usenet terminal andsomeone to guess the names.> How about this: You and I sit in a room together with a telephone>> and a computer. Twenty-ve people are randomly chosen, and of>> those, a random ten are selected. Each calls our room on the phone,>> and reads a block of text selected in advance, and approved by you to>> you over the phone. Then you tell us the persons name. Then ten>> people are again randomly selected from our twenty-ve, and these>> ten type a poem they select from a book provided to them for this>> purpose. You tell us each persons name.>> Got a better idea? Share it.> No the people have to volunteer without knowing their names are> controlling their actions. How do their names control their actions?Read the JREF conditions, the reason and explanation is not important. I make a post to usenet from the test room.> The computer is removed.> Im given all the replies without the names on them.> I tell you the name! People you know by previous encounters or people who respond to a random> post dropped into a random newsgroup?Random>And where the posts in advance of the matching?Under skeptic controlled test in a sealed room like I just said.Since they refuse I can posts match. Will take a while until I get the name perfect, but if you give me a> list to choose from Ill pick it from 10 names every second go! I can see why they didnt go for it. Your talent is not clearly dened,> and your proposed test is not either.That is rediculous to insist a perfect protocol is made on the 1st formal applicationwith no corrependance either way. go back to skeptic skool. information, making sure to leave no clues as to the number of letters in> the name. Amaze me.> --------------letter begins----------------------- I was referred to you by *name* (BTSA) for classroom observation. If> at all possible I would like to spend the day at *school* to observe> yourself and a few other teachers on Wednesday 12/10/03. I promise not> to be a burden, and will assist any teacher that needs some help. I am looking for delivery procedures.> *name*> *school*> 7th Grade Math> ---------------letter ends-----------------------give me 4 options to select fromIf you want to converse please tell me you checked the 3 links to =Why? Is that how your talent works?FRIEDA BAUCHRICHARD KOEBERLEINTOM FREEMANBILL STAPLESCECILIA FARIAS> give me 4 options to select fromTen choices. Go for it, no second chances.-- Enkidu-----Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyonethinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are thehardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it thanthey already have.Ren.8e Descartes, Discours de la M.8ethode. 1637. RICHARD KOEBERLEIN> TOM ADEMAI get 2 choices since I asked for only 4 options :)note this is my 1st attempt at someone elses reply so dont get excited.Herc [...]> I dont know what to make of your claim. What are the examples> below?> Lets start off right. You claim to be able to guess someones > name, right? What would you need in order to demonstrate this > claim?Enkidu, I applaud your helpful spirit. Im not sure how familiar you are with Herc, though. I suggest you check out his posting history in Google. He seems to remain |-|erc, as far as I can tell.with each new post, like an onion being peeled. Im going to try to speed up the process:-- Herc guesses names.-- He guesses authors names from USEnet posts (and possibly other media).-- He guesses authors names from USEnet posts, given the postsand the names. Well, actually what he does a postdiction, coming up with links between post content and authors, no matter how strained. For example, My rst name is James and I seem to be obsessing about his mental health. William *James* was a great *psychologist*. Ta daaa, obvious link. (He didnt make that one up, but hes done others even more tenuous.) By the way, these guesses are only between posting names and posts, not real names.claim is the names are evident in the content of the posts. Herc doesnt do as well at this, so his claim is only statistical: he can do it better than random...or maybe he can guess with 90% signicance 10% of the time, 95% signicance 5% of the time,99% signicance 1% of the time, and so on. Im not sure here. Im thinking back to the things hes bragged about. Herc is welcome to clarify and/or amplify, if hes reading.Herc. He has various startling theories as to why this may be the case: He is The Truman, that is, a real-life version of the main character of The Truman Show movie. (He will quote people agreeing with him.) He is God. He is a progenitor-to-be of the new, improved version of the human race, a New Adam, and he has a xed time-frame within which to nd his Eve, and being recognized by us as Truman/God/Adam is an essential part of the process.-- The allegedly paranormal event (APE) that Herc wishes to have tested is not his guessing the links between authors names and posts. It is the formation of these links that is the APE. Once the posts in response to his post have been made, the links shouldbe evident to any unprejudiced eye. Guessing the link betweenname and post just veries (statistically) the occurence of an APE that is already over by that time. Unfortunately, in the past, Herc would conclude from someone guessing wrong that they did not have an unprejudiced eye.I do not wish to discourage you, Enkidu. I honestly think Herc needs help of some kind beyond assistance in his paranormal project. It may be working with you or someone else on that project is how he will nally get that help.But I do want you to understand what youre getting into.All this information may be incomplete or old or just wrong. I havent checked my memories against Google. I am depending on Hercto defend himself by telling us exactly where I went wrong.Herc doesnt seem to believe in putting his remarks in any kind ofcontext. I hope Ive given you enough context to understand most of what he means. Thats the main thing I wanted to accomplish.Yours,Jim Burns =---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ [...]> I dont know what to make of your claim. What are the examples> below? Lets start off right. You claim to be able to guess someones> name, right? What would you need in order to demonstrate this> claim? Enkidu, I applaud your helpful spirit. Im not sure how familiar> you are with Herc, though. I suggest you check out his posting> history in Google. He seems to remain |-|erc, as far as I can> tell. with each new post, like an onion being peeled. Im going to try> to speed up the process: -- Herc guesses names. -- He guesses authors names from USEnet posts (and possibly> other media). -- He guesses authors names from USEnet posts, given the posts> and the names. Well, actually what he does a postdiction, coming> up with links between post content and authors, no matter how> strained. For example, My rst name is James and I seem to be> obsessing about his mental health. William *James* was a great> *psychologist*. Ta daaa, obvious link. (He didnt make that one> up, but hes done others even more tenuous.) By the way, these> guesses are only between posting names and posts, not real names. claim is the names are evident in the content of the posts. Herc> doesnt do as well at this, so his claim is only statistical: he> can do it better than random...or maybe he can guess with> 90% signicance 10% of the time, 95% signicance 5% of the time,> 99% signicance 1% of the time, and so on. Im not sure here. Im> thinking back to the things hes bragged about. Herc is welcome> to clarify and/or amplify, if hes reading. Herc. He has various startling theories as to why this may be the> case: He is The Truman, that is, a real-life version of the main> character of The Truman Show movie. (He will quote people> agreeing with him.) He is God. He is a progenitor-to-be of the new,> improved version of the human race, a New Adam, and he has a xed> time-frame within which to nd his Eve, and being recognized by> us as Truman/God/Adam is an essential part of the process. -- The allegedly paranormal event (APE) that Herc wishes to have> tested is not his guessing the links between authors names and> posts. It is the formation of these links that is the APE. Once> the posts in response to his post have been made, the links should> be evident to any unprejudiced eye. Guessing the link between> name and post just veries (statistically) the occurence of an APE> that is already over by that time. Unfortunately, in the past, Herc> would conclude from someone guessing wrong that they did not have> an unprejudiced eye. I do not wish to discourage you, Enkidu. I honestly think Herc needs> help of some kind beyond assistance in his paranormal project. It> may be working with you or someone else on that project is how he> will nally get that help. But I do want you to understand what youre getting into. All this information may be incomplete or old or just wrong. I> havent checked my memories against Google. I am depending on Herc> to defend himself by telling us exactly where I went wrong. Herc doesnt seem to believe in putting his remarks in any kind of> context. I hope Ive given you enough context to understand most> of what he means. Thats the main thing I wanted to accomplish.>burns = condem religion? too long a post to pick that out thougha fair analysis, perhaps the context of the claims is complicated and itsa continuing saga for me which you are probably only getting samples of myclarication. to me it makes sense, to several people it also makes sensewhether they agree there is an ability or not.First up, this is obviously unfair to reply to this formal application Skeptics,My name is xxx xxx, I would like to demonstrate aparanormal ability being able to guess peoples namesfrom what they say, write or do.-----------------------------------------with this response :>I told you on the occasion you phoned me that if you seek to be tested by>the Skeptics you must write down, clearly and in detail, what it is you>claim to be able to doYou have made no testable claim to Australian Skeptics and there will be no>further communication from us.----------------------------------------------Theyve obviously already made their decision not to pool any resources for a test(which I would say is typical considering their almost non existent testhistory and media coverage regarding that).The web site says the commitee will review all claims, my claim was dismissed by a singleman, one mans decision against a member of the publics claim, and the cascading effectis JR now refuses to examine my claim. 50 years of skeptic protocol regarding mutualtest conditions, unbiased 3rd party umpires, commitee inspections, judges, media protocols alldown the tube because ANY skeptic in a company can discard ANY claimant.Check the coverage ACA did on Australia Skeptics :> http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htmThe formal application is the CLAIM, not the test procedure, I made a clear claim thatis easy to establish a test for, I also refute he mentioned necessary detail about the teston the application when I phoned him, it was more like lets start again just send in awritten application so we can go from that.Im quite willing to match the names myslef before I have seen the posts, all that is requiredis a testing booth where I make posts to usenet then am isolated until Im given thereplies and authors seperately. But consider this situation. Ive scored perfectly 3 daysrunning I just need to match the nal name on day 4. They bring in the reply on one sheetof paper and the list of possible authors on the other. The reply is :BURN IN HELL YOU WITCH. The names on the sheet are :Jim Burns, Terry Water, Mary Nice, Ray Sunshine. The guy bringing in the testquestions looks at the answers.... what is he thinking? Will I win? Do I reallyhave to match Im glad to happy dog in a booth?Herc =----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------> |-|erc Bull herc. We have seen numerous skeptics try to help you test your> claims. Your cooperation has always been forthcoming. Soon. Tomorrow.> All the test proposals thought up by skeptics here have been 1 / A skeptic acts as intermediary of the medium instead of just using> public newsgroups> 2 / I have to pass a written test because skeptics dont allow seperate> test subjects> to show a correlation that is evident and public. Bull. You will only ever be able to isolate paranormal if you work *with* the> claimants,> you have to allow some room to concentrate on successess, THEN use> scientic> method to isolate possible cause. This tryiing to debunk people for a> laugh is pathetic> as it is popular. Herc, you are the author of your own misfortune. You are unable to simply> make a concise claim and have it tested. Ignoring your failures, as you> subtly suggest above, wont lead to anything but a continuation of your> fantasies.I put on a formal application to Oz SkepticsMy claim is : I can guess peoples namesThat is clearly a paranormal and consise claim. That is exactly how I wordedit several times. I happened also to try to give anecdotal examples which gavehim the *excuse* to write :>I told you on the occasion you phoned me that if you seek to be tested by>the Skeptics you must write down, clearly and in detail, what it is you>claim to be able to do. You must understand what these details are, given>that you downloaded them from our web site and forwarded them to me. You>have failed to do this.THIS IS ANOTHER LIE. I WROTE :My claim is : I can guess peoples names>All you have done is to send us copies of totally>irrelevant nonsense you have written on the internet. Further, you failed>utterly to respond to the simple preliminary test I offered, preferring to>reply with even more irrelevant postings.THIS IS ANOTHER LIE :The preliminary test he gave me was to guess the names, ages and type ofanimal of his TEN pets.Would anyone in their right miind call this a simple test? Simple to formulate maybe,but simple to pass?And in actual fact I *did* pass. My claim was to channel an in context response,not to actually give the answer to the question. I told him the day before to lookat rec.org.mensa, the top post there the next day after his test was by theghost : newbiequestions.i.e. the answer I that I responded with was those are newbie questions. the claim (originally)was to get in context answers from a medium, like asking someone questions you dontalways get the consise answer you may get a related response.You have made no testable claim to Australian Skeptics and there will be no>further communication from us.OK soStep 1 : Skeptic company interprets all claims as you can pass this rediculous impossible test he makes up off the top of his head.Step 2 : Applicant makes a clear and consise claim on a formal application : I can guess peoplesnamesStep 3 : Skeptic ignores the claim and focusses on supplementary material stating : the claim is not clear or detailedStep 4 :>You have made no testable claim to Australian Skeptics and there will be no>further communication from us.To bad I went for consise with examples, he wanted clear with details.Try to word it differently next lifetime.Herc =WTF?Geez, I cant even follow th thing....Starting off with a sig? : --: www.StealthHostiing.com You rule Truman. http://tinyurl.com/iky4: Hey Trueman...love the show. YOU ARE the Truman I heard him. Very spooky!: >Is the truman living in Townsville? Ive been hearing stuff, yeah.: Webmasters help the TRUEman by joining www.theBanner.net Current:1 Goal:1000: -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------: of them reasonably, but because Aus Skeptics had one single man decide my claims: This puts great weakness in the entire testing mechanism when the skeptics companies: can choose who they want to test. The only man who has made a decision on my: presented claims is the same man who featured on A Current Affair, Australias Current Affairs: show as degrading applicants and backing down and not providing tests for applicants.: The same man that claims on a formal media release that Australia Skeptic Society is: *no longer* investigating Fermats Last Theorem along with half dozen other skeptical interest: topics they may or may not have also being lying about doing any work on. We all know FLT: was solved in 1995.: > http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm: >: This is a very simple demonstration of paranormal that no psychic investigator, company: or otherwise has even considered.: Just nd some test subjects to see if these posts can be matched to their author :: ----1-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------: Randi will test you when you properly apply to be tested. Sign up here:: http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html: ----2-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------: It really all depends on the situation.: ----3-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------: If ever I actually found myself in that situation, Id hold it upright,: with the intent of attacking my assailants knife hand.: -----------------: A cliff86: B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56: C Shanx: D NormDePloom: E Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randi http://tinyurl.com/nd52: F CNote: G Jeff: H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all depends http://tinyurl.com/nd53: I Someone: J Greg Neill: me!)): PLUS I forcasted it :: www.tinyurl.com/gutr: PROOF OF GOD 02 02 2002: ..preminition..: http://tinyurl.com/nw1r: > What the hell...: >: > rec.knives: > --: > Will Tingle: good for you young man, now while I make a post to rec.knives: I must ask the audience for absolute silence, i.e. dont go there: spouting Im doing a trick!: Herc: ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------: This is easy to show as being paranormal once you get people to sit the 10 option: 3 question test. The answers are trivial, all the names *closely* match their posts.: If we further tested that even from 100 names the posts can be consistently guessed: this makes it a 1 in 1,000,000 coincidence, on the day I predicted. NOONE here: score 1,000,000 to 1!: By denition its paranormal, the evidence is right before you, the replies to me all: reect their name, 3 strong datapoints all on the one day. Skeptic companies wont: even examine it!: Herc-- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.comComoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683Mondays child is fair of face,Tuesdays child is full of grace,Wednesdays child is full of woe,Thursdays child has far to go,Fridays child is loving and giving,Saturdays child works hard for its living,But a child thats born on the Sabbath dayIs bonny and blithe, and good and gay. =posted in alt.atheism:>WTF?Geez, I cant even follow th thing....Starting off with a sig? If you actually try to follow |-|erc too closely you risk losing yoursanity.-- Christianity has already had the chance to governthe world according to its own ethical standards.It was called the Dark Ages.- Bill, The Avender(random sig, produced by SigChanger)rukbat at optonline dot net =Lately I have grown skeptic about my sanity. The summer vacationbegins, and I brought home Foundations of Set Theory (Fraenkel,After much struggle, I nally reached page 31. AXIOM OF COMPREHENSION: For any condition P(x) on x there exists a setwhich contains exactly those elements x which full this condition.Fair enough. [BTW, is that a P or a B?]The very next page says.AXIOM OF PAIRING: For any two elements a and b there exists the set ywhich contains just a and b.But isnt it already contained in the previous one? I intend toformulate P(x) as x = a or y = b---why would that be any differentfrom the later? Lately I have grown skeptic about my sanity. The summer vacation>begins, and I brought home Foundations of Set Theory (Fraenkel,After much struggle, I nally reached page 31. AXIOM OF COMPREHENSION: For any condition P(x) on x there exists a set>which contains exactly those elements x which full this condition.This is not correct as quoted, surely. Dont you mean: given a set S,and a condition P(x) on x, there exist a set which contains exactlythose elements x ->which belong to S<- and full this condition?>Fair enough. [BTW, is that a P or a B?]Does not matter, surely. Why does it matter if the name of thecondition is P or B?>The very next page says.AXIOM OF PAIRING: For any two elements a and b there exists the set y>which contains just a and b.But isnt it already contained in the previous one? I intend to>formulate P(x) as x = a or y = b---why would that be any different>from the later?It does ->not<- say for any two elements of a set. It just says,for any two elements. You are correct that it would be enough to sayFor any two elements a and b there exists a set y that contains botha and b, and then get the set that contains just a and b from theAxiom of Comprehension. But how do you know that there is a set thatcontains a and also contains b in the rst place, without the Axiomof Pairing?Suppose that so far, you know that there is a set that contains a,{a}; and also a set that contains b, {b}. Without the Axiom ofPairing, you cannot show, from these two facts, that there is a setthat contains both a and b (and perhaps other stuff)? (Your confusion may be arising from the incorrect statement of theAxiom of Comprehension you listed)-- =Its not denial. Im just very selective about what I accept as reality. --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) =Arturo Magidinmagidin@math.berkeley.eduIs there a formulation of set theory that does not have a pairing axiom?Have tolerable existence. Eli = > Is there a formulation of set theory that does not have a pairing axiom? Yes, ZF with the pairing axiom left out, which is equivalent to ZF. Is there a formulation of set theory that does not have a pairing axiom?> Yes, ZF with the pairing axiom left out, which is equivalent to ZF.Huh? Are you saying that the pairing axiom can be proven from theother axioms of ZF?Thomas that has been posted to sci.math as well.> Is there a formulation of set theory that does not have a pairing axiom? Yes, ZF with the pairing axiom left out, which is equivalent to ZF.How so?Have a tolerable existence. Eli How so? The pairing axiom is provable using replacement and power set. Thisis just a pointless technicality, of no interest. Lately I have grown skeptic about my sanity. The summer vacation>begins, and I brought home Foundations of Set Theory (Fraenkel,After much struggle, I nally reached page 31.AXIOM OF COMPREHENSION: For any condition P(x) on x there exists a set>which contains exactly those elements x which full this condition. This is not correct as quoted, surely.Hmm. I dont have a copy of that book handy, so I could be all wrong,but I thought the axiom of comprehension was precisely the statementgiven by the original poster. That axiom is not included among theaxioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory because it leads to acontradiction.> Dont you mean: given a set S, and a condition P(x) on x, there> exist a set which contains exactly those elements x ->which belong> to S<- and full this condition?That is one of the ZF axioms, but I dont think its called the axiomof comprehension. Id call it the axiom of separation or theaxiom of subsets.Ill have to look at that book and see what they actually say. Imbetting that, after stating the axiom of comprehension, they saidwere not going to use this axiom because its inconsistent and wenton to give the standard ZF axioms. Lately I have grown skeptic about my sanity. The summer vacation>>begins, and I brought home Foundations of Set Theory (Fraenkel,>>After much struggle, I nally reached page 31.>>AXIOM OF COMPREHENSION: For any condition P(x) on x there exists a set>>which contains exactly those elements x which full this condition.>> This is not correct as quoted, surely.Hmm. I dont have a copy of that book handy, so I could be all wrong,>but I thought the axiom of comprehension was precisely the statement>given by the original poster. That axiom is not included among the>axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory because it leads to a>contradiction.Perhaps thats the case. But if so, the poster is absolutely correctthat the Axiom of Pairings would be redundant, given this version ofthe Axiom of Comprehension. This is how the corresponding axiom is dened in Halmoss _Naive SetTheory_ (though, there, it is called the Axiom of Specication): Axiom of specication. To every set A and to every condition S(x), there corresponds a set B whose elements are exactly those elements x of A for which S(x) holds.>> Dont you mean: given a set S, and a condition P(x) on x, there>> exist a set which contains exactly those elements x ->which belong>> to S<- and full this condition?That is one of the ZF axioms, but I dont think its called the axiom>of comprehension. >Ill have to look at that book and see what they actually say. Im>betting that, after stating the axiom of comprehension, they said>were not going to use this axiom because its inconsistent and went>on to give the standard ZF axioms.Thats also possible. But if so, the original poster must have missedit. -- == ==Its not denial. Im just very selective about what I accept as reality. --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) =Arturo Magidinmagidin@math.berkeley.edu Lately I have grown skeptic about my sanity. The summer vacation>>begins, and I brought home Foundations of Set Theory (Fraenkel,>>After much struggle, I nally reached page 31.>>AXIOM OF COMPREHENSION: For any condition P(x) on x there exists a set>>which contains exactly those elements x which full this condition.>> This is not correct as quoted, surely.Hmm. I dont have a copy of that book handy, so I could be all wrong,>but I thought the axiom of comprehension was precisely the statement>given by the original poster. That axiom is not included among the>axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory because it leads to a>contradiction.> Perhaps thats the case. But if so, the poster is absolutely correct> that the Axiom of Pairings would be redundant, given this version of> the Axiom of Comprehension. Sorry guys, Im soooo sorry. Actually Fred Galvin is right...theauthors mension Comprehension only to point out that this cannot belegitimate...so goes on prescribing ways (such as Pairing) toconstruct sets, hopefully to keep it consistent.> This is how the corresponding axiom is dened in Halmoss _Naive Set> Theory_ (though, there, it is called the Axiom of Specication):> Axiom of specication. To every set A and to every condition> S(x), there corresponds a set B whose elements are exactly those> elements x of A for which S(x) holds.the replies.>> Dont you mean: given a set S, and a condition P(x) on x, there>> exist a set which contains exactly those elements x ->which belong>> to S<- and full this condition?That is one of the ZF axioms, but I dont think its called the axiom>of comprehension. > Separation, they say, is a translation of Zermelos aussonderung,which stands for, they say, separating, singling out, sifting,or selecting.>Ill have to look at that book and see what they actually say. Im>betting that, after stating the axiom of comprehension, they said>were not going to use this axiom because its inconsistent and went>on to give the standard ZF axioms.Yeah. Precisely. You won the bet. :(> Thats also possible. But if so, the original poster must have missed> it. :) sorry.> -- > == = Its not denial. Im just very selective about> what I accept as reality.> --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)> == = Arturo Magidin> magidin@math.berkeley.edu> Lately I have grown skeptic about my sanity. The summer vacation> begins, and I brought home Foundations of Set Theory (Fraenkel,> After much struggle, I nally reached page 31. > AXIOM OF COMPREHENSION: For any condition P(x) on x there exists a set> which contains exactly those elements x which full this condition.> Fair enough. [BTW, is that a P or a B?]> The very next page says.> AXIOM OF PAIRING: For any two elements a and b there exists the set y> which contains just a and b.> But isnt it already contained in the previous one? I intend to> formulate P(x) as x = a or y = b---why would that be any different> from the later?What you missed is that comprehension always related to an already given set, i.e. given a set X, you can only dene the set (informally) {x in X | P(x)}This assures that the Russell paradoxon cannot be applied here. As there is nothing like a set of all sets, you can not conclude the existence of a set {x | x notin x}Using the correct notion of comprehension, one can easily see why the pairing axiom is still necessary, as you can not dene {x | x = a or x = b}because a and b would have to be taken from a set known in advance. Marco Lately I have grown skeptic about my sanity. The summer vacation> begins, and I brought home Foundations of Set Theory (Fraenkel, After much struggle, I nally reached page 31. AXIOM OF COMPREHENSION: For any condition P(x) on x there exists a set> which contains exactly those elements x which full this condition.>No! Thats exactly the notion of set theory that led to the Russelparadox. Let P(x) be x not in x and let R be the Russel set thatcontains exactly those elements that full P.Thus R in R iff R not in Ra starkly obscene contradiction.Now you look closer and see if youve transcribed Comprehension correctlyfor what you stated isnt Comprehension, its an wishful simplication.> Fair enough. [BTW, is that a P or a B?]>What difference does it make? P(x) or B(x) are both how a condition on xmay be notated. Is it a capital German P?> The very next page says. AXIOM OF PAIRING: For any two elements a and b there exists the set y> which contains just a and b. But isnt it already contained in the previous one? I intend to> formulate P(x) as x = a or y = b---why would that be any different> from the later?>Likely cause you havent read the ne print in comprehension. algebra> system,> which runs in any computer with Java. You can play itonline. www.SymbMath.com It plots and analyses any x-y data for peak location, peak height,> peak> width, semi-derivative, derivative, integral, semi-integral,> convolution,> deconvolution, curve tting, and separating overlappedpeaks> and> background. www.chemSoftware.com =Hallo,Can anybody explain me illustratively, why the descriptivematrix of a rotation in |R^2 is [cos(a), -sin(a); sin(a), cos(a)]?(And what can I do with this descriptive matrix (?).)Karl. =This should be in any standard text book!!More interesting is that a 3x3 matrix can do both rotation and translationin 2D and is explained in the Acorn Advanced manual.-- Bruce Harveybruce@bearsoft.co.ukThe Alternative Physics Sitehttp://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft> Hallo, Can anybody explain me illustratively, why the descriptive> matrix of a rotation in |R^2 is [cos(a), -sin(a); sin(a), cos(a)]?> (And what can I do with this descriptive matrix (?).)> Karl.> =One more comment in addition to the others.Using sine and cosine takes advantage of the fact that sin^2(angle) +cos^2(angle) = 1, or that the magnitude of the rotation vectors is 1 whichguarantees that the rotation matrix is invariant, i.e. it does not change themagnitude of the vectors (or their distances) but only rotates them. Thisinvariant property holds true in the higher Rn spaces also for these types ofmatrices. Hallo,Can anybody explain me illustratively, why the descriptive>matrix of a rotation in |R^2 is [cos(a), -sin(a); sin(a), cos(a)]?First show that the rotation denes a linear map from R^2to itself - this follows for example if you think of vector additionin terms of those parallelograms and believe that a rotatedparallelogram is a parallelogram. So its given by somematrix. In general if you have a linear map T from R^2 toitself the rst column is T(1,0) and T(0,1); you can seewhat (1,0) and (0,1) become after rotation by drawinga picture and doing a little trigonometry.>(And what can I do with this descriptive matrix (?).)>Karl.************************David C. Ullrich Hallo,Can anybody explain me illustratively, why the descriptive>matrix of a rotation in |R^2 is [cos(a), -sin(a); sin(a), cos(a)]?>(And what can I do with this descriptive matrix (?).)>Karl.By denition, the conditions imposed on a rotation matrix M is that Mis orthogonal, so M*transpose(M)=Identity, and det(M)=1.So using your notation, let M=[a, b; c,d].These conditions mean that you have the following equations:a^2+c^2=1b^2+d^2=1ab + cd = 0ad - bc=1The rst equation implies there is always some real number theta,such that a=cos(theta) and c=sin(theta)The last 2 equations therefore require that b=-sin(theta) andd=cos(theta)and the second equation is also conrmed by this. So thats wherethe rotation matrix format in R^2 comes from. illustratively, why the descriptive> matrix of a rotation in |R^2 is [cos(a), -sin(a); sin(a), cos(a)]?> (And what can I do with this descriptive matrix (?).)> Karl.> If you have many vectors with x,y-coordinates in the matrix M x y !--------! v1 ! x1 y1 ! v2 ! x2 y2 ! v3 ! x3 y3 ! v4 ! x4 y4 ! v5 ! x5 y5 ! ....and have the rotation-matrix R c s -s cthen you can compute the new coordinates of the rotatedvectors by simple matrix-multiplication of M_rotated = M * VGottfried =(Sorry that the subject is so general, and apologies in advance forsloppiness in language because Im not a mathematician....)I am looking for guidance in understanding what area of mathematics, whattheories, what resources might be available to help me address thisparticular need. I want to generate predictable sequences of integerswithin a given range. The predictable part Im interested in has to dowith patterns of the binary representations of the numbers. Forinstance, I would like to know what can generate such a sequence:10000 1600001 110001 1701000 800010 201010 1000100 410100 2000101 510101 2101100 1200110 601110 1411110 3001111 1511111 31I am not necessarily interested in generating *all* the integers within acertain range, but I want to guarantee that no number will be repeated.And I want to generate the same pattern no matter what the range -- or,at least, as long as the range is between 0 and some power of 2.I am interested in different classes of patterns, too; basically, I wantto nd some way of either knowing how to nd the algorithm that willgenerate a given pattern, or what kinds of algorithms can be used togenerate sequences in this way.I understand very vaguely that group theory probably addresses this sortof thing, but in trying to poke around for a way in I nd it a bitoverwhelming.My interest here (to begin with, at least) is in being able to tinker; Imean that Im not aiming to get a comprehensive background in some theoryyet (unless its absolutely necessary to even begin to understand whatsgoing on). I would like most to nd algorithms that I can implement in aprogramming language and experiment with. I can take care of theimplementation part myself; its the math thats a mystery for me here! :-)Noel (Sorry that the subject is so general, and apologies in advance for> sloppiness in language because Im not a mathematician....)> I am looking for guidance in understanding what area of mathematics, what> theories, what resources might be available to help me address this> particular need. I want to generate predictable sequences of integers> within a given range. The predictable part Im interested in has to do> with patterns of the binary representations of the numbers. For> instance, I would like to know what can generate such a sequence:> 10000 16> 00001 1> 10001 17> 01000 8> 00010 2> 01010 10> 00100 4> 10100 20> 00101 5> 10101 21> 01100 12> 00110 6> 01110 14> 11110 30> 01111 15> 11111 31> I am not necessarily interested in generating *all* the integers within a> certain range, but I want to guarantee that no number will be repeated.> And I want to generate the same pattern no matter what the range -- or,> at least, as long as the range is between 0 and some power of 2.> I am interested in different classes of patterns, too; basically, I want> to nd some way of either knowing how to nd the algorithm that will> generate a given pattern, or what kinds of algorithms can be used to> generate sequences in this way.> I understand very vaguely that group theory probably addresses this sort> of thing, but in trying to poke around for a way in I nd it a bit> overwhelming.> My interest here (to begin with, at least) is in being able to tinker; I> mean that Im not aiming to get a comprehensive background in some theory> yet (unless its absolutely necessary to even begin to understand whats> going on). I would like most to nd algorithms that I can implement in a> programming language and experiment with. I can take care of the> implementation part myself; its the math thats a mystery for me here! :-)> Have you tried linear feedback shift registers? (AKA LFSRs)Multiplicative or linear congruential pseudo-random number generators might do the trick too.Phil-- Unpatched IE vulnerability: Web Archive buffer overowDescription: Possible automated code execution.Reference: http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/bugtraq0303/107.html= Try the Encyclopedia of Integer sequences. You can enter a sequence intoan online program that will tell you if anything is known about thesequence. Here it is:http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/Lurch> (Sorry that the subject is so general, and apologies in advance for> sloppiness in language because Im not a mathematician....) I am looking for guidance in understanding what area of mathematics, what> theories, what resources might be available to help me address this> particular need. I want to generate predictable sequences of integers> within a given range. The predictable part Im interested in has to do> with patterns of the binary representations of the numbers. For> instance, I would like to know what can generate such a sequence: 10000 16> 00001 1> 10001 17> 01000 8> 00010 2> 01010 10> 00100 4> 10100 20> 00101 5> 10101 21> 01100 12> 00110 6> 01110 14> 11110 30> 01111 15> 11111 31 I am not necessarily interested in generating *all* the integers within a> certain range, but I want to guarantee that no number will be repeated.> And I want to generate the same pattern no matter what the range -- or,> at least, as long as the range is between 0 and some power of 2. I am interested in different classes of patterns, too; basically, I want> to nd some way of either knowing how to nd the algorithm that will> generate a given pattern, or what kinds of algorithms can be used to> generate sequences in this way. I understand very vaguely that group theory probably addresses this sort> of thing, but in trying to poke around for a way in I nd it a bit> overwhelming. My interest here (to begin with, at least) is in being able to tinker; I> mean that Im not aiming to get a comprehensive background in some theory> yet (unless its absolutely necessary to even begin to understand whats> going on). I would like most to nd algorithms that I can implement in a> programming language and experiment with. I can take care of the> implementation part myself; its the math thats a mystery for me here!:-)> Noel =I need some help with a mathematical claim that came up whilediscussing a different topic.To summarize: I had been explicating Huxleys agnostic principle(believe nothing unless you have logically satisfactory evidence todo so), and argued that merely dening a god as having an a propertywas *not* giving logically satisfactory evidence that that god hadthat property. One persons reply was: no highest prime number cant be an agnostic. All of math is based > on persuasive denition, not evidence.Not being a mathematician, I dont know the best way to respond tothis; so I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the subjectcould address it. I need some help with a mathematical claim that came up while> discussing a different topic.> To summarize: I had been explicating Huxleys agnostic principle> (believe nothing unless you have logically satisfactory evidence to> do so), and argued that merely dening a god as having an a property> was *not* giving logically satisfactory evidence that that god had> that property. One persons reply was:> no highest prime number cant be an agnostic. All of math is based > on persuasive denition, not evidence.> Not being a mathematician, I dont know the best way to respond to> this; so I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the subject> could address it.Huxley supports evidence before belief in the physical world, but what about the mathematical world? If (physical) evidence is requred there, then should one believe *anything* mathematical? My own view is that the logical consequences of an assumption, such as the innitude of primes following from the denition of natural numbers, requires logical proof, not physical evidence. If someone chooses to call that persuasive denition, that is his problem, and is irrelevant in issues of agnosticism. Huxley supports evidence before belief in the physical world, but> what about the mathematical world? If (physical) evidence is requred> there, then should one believe *anything* mathematical?I dont know about the entire mathematical world but the natural number in particular, ARE based on physical evidence: the experience of counting concrete objects. Amu deniiton that contradicts this experience would be unacceptable.Have a tolerable existence. Eli Huxley supports evidence before belief in the physical world, but> what about the mathematical world? If (physical) evidence is requred> there, then should one believe *anything* mathematical?> I dont know about the entire mathematical world but the natural number in > particular, ARE based on physical evidence: the experience of counting > concrete objects. Amu deniiton that contradicts this experience would be > unacceptable.> Have a tolerable existence. EliOur actual experiences with counting in the physical world are restricted to use of an innitesimally small part of the set of natural numbers, so most of what we say about the system of natural numbers by analogy, not by experience. For example, we have no compelling reason to believe that there are innitely many things in the physical universe, but we insist on innitely many things in our descriptions of vaarious numerical universes, and even innities sof different sizes. I need some help with a mathematical claim that came up while> discussing a different topic.> To summarize: I had been explicating Huxleys agnostic principle> (believe nothing unless you have logically satisfactory evidence > to do so), and argued that merely dening a god as having an a > property was *not* giving logically satisfactory evidence that > that god had that property. One persons reply was:> no highest prime number cant be an agnostic. All of math is > based on persuasive denition, not evidence.> this; so I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the > subject could address it.There is no highest prime, not by denition (directly) but ratherby a clear chain of reasoning from denitions. Its not a hard proof to understand: assume there are a nite number of primes; multiply them all together and add one; no prime divides this new number, so it is a new prime: contradiction, thus there are an innite number of primes. (Im pretty sure I left out some important and difcult steps, but the structure should be clear.)Thats the only part of your question which would seem to requirethe services of a mathematician. The rest of it seems to be more about the nature of mathematical truth, evidence, and so on. I could understand mathematicians being interested in all that (I am, myself), but it doesnt really impact what they do as mathematicians, it seems to me.I went to your original thread to try to understand how persuasivedenition was being used, but I got caught in some kind of hall-of-mirrors effect, with you and Paul Filseth going a couple rounds of each trying to out-agnostic the other. Here is my understanding of your discussion, at least as it pertainsto persuasive denitions.[paraphrase] quoteGD: [So-called agnostics can not prove its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god.]PF: [Can you prove that they can not prove that? Anyway, for some denitions of God, it is provable.]GD: [You can prove anything you want from a properly chosen (persuasive) denition.]PF: [Then it would follow that all of math is based on persuasive denitions.]GD: Excuse me? An example of persuasive denition in math would be one of someone proving that 2+2=4 (for example) simply by dening 2+2 as 4 or vice versa. But thats not how all of math is done, so I guess you mean something else by the phrase.PF: Math is persuasion by exhibiting the collective implications of groups of denitions. Its the same sort of argument as my argument above about omnipotence; it asks you to contemplate denitions rather than observe the world.What you called a persuasive denition was a short argument starting from a commonly used (partial) characterization of God. As I see it, PF took the denition of persuasive denition implicit in that and applied it to mathematics. You then claried persuasive denition so that it did not apply to all of mathematics -- but that claried version doesnt apply to PFs short argument either.Thats how it seems to me. If youre asking me how you should respond, I would tell you to concede that one point and move on. Alternatively, I think you should back up to his point that its impossible for us to distinguish between an omnipotent being (God) and super-powerful yet nite being (Godzilla). Show how that isequivalent to proving 2+2=4 by dening 2+2=4.Jim Burns There is no highest prime, not by denition (directly) but rather> by a clear chain of reasoning from denitions. Its not a hard proof > to understand: assume there are a nite number of primes; multiply > them all together and add one; no prime divides this new number, so > it is a new prime: contradiction, thus there are an innite number > of primes.None of the primes *you already know about* divide this number. Either it is a new prime, or it is composite and divisible by a new prime.> (Im pretty sure I left out some important and difcult > steps, but the structure should be clear.)Only one I saw.Mark Atherton > There is no largest prime, not by denition (directly) but rather>> by a clear chain of reasoning from denitions. Its not a hard proof>> to understand: assume there are a nite number of primes; multiply>> them all together and add one; no prime divides this new number, >> so its a new prime: contradiction> None of the primes *you already know about* divide this number. Either> it is a new prime, or it is composite and divisible by a new prime.Jims proof is in fact correct (but not as clear as it could be).Your criticism applies only to an alternative presentation ofEuclids proof, namely: given a nite set S of known primes there exists a prime not in S, i.e. a new prime. However Jims proof, being by contradiction, merely needs todeduce a contradiction from the hypothesis that there are onlynitely many primes. The simplest way to do such is Euclids:show that there exists an integer N > 1 with no prime factor,which contradicts: every integer N > 1 has a prime factor,a theorem already known (its trivial proof follows immediately by induction and the denition of prime). Jims proof deducesa contradiction to a minor variation of this theorem, namely:every integer N > 1 with no _proper_ prime factor is prime.Now since weve shown N has no prime factors, it certainly has no _proper_ prime factors, so N is prime by the theorem.But any prime has itself as a prime factor, a contradiction[alternatively note that the prime N isnt equal to any ofthe given primes since it is not divisible by any of them].This variation is not as clear as Euclids. Indeed, abovewe see how its extra subtlety led to your misinterpretation.Of course, by their very nature, proofs by contradiction maybe confusing at rst glance - especially when negating theconclusion easily yields statements contradicting hardwiredintuitions about a fundamental structure like the integers.Finally, in another post, after noting that sequences ontegers generated by Euclids proof neednt all be prime, e.g. 1 + 2 3 5 7 11 13 = 30031 = 59 509 you ask why this is not a counterexample to Jims proof. Thats because Jims proof, by contradiction, assumes as hypothesis that there are only a nite number of primes(e.g. 2,3,5,7,11,13 above). Since this doesnt hold truefor the integers, neither need any consequences of such.Thus although Jims proof does conclude that 30031 isprime in the hypothetical structure the integers withonly 2,3,5,7,11,13 as primes, it does not reach thesame conclusion for the integers alone, since the extrahypothesis is quite crucial to the success of the proof.There are countless minor variations of Euclids proof.For example, instead of deducing N prime, Jims proof could just as well have deduced N = 1, since one is the only positive integer without any prime factors.Since we know the integers so intimately, weve manywell-known theorems as targets for a contradiction.Again, such is the nature of proofs by contradiction.By the way, Euclids original proof may be found online athttp://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookIX/ propIX20.html-Bill Dubuque = > There is no highest prime, not by denition (directly) but rather > by a clear chain of reasoning from denitions. Its not a hard proof > to understand: assume there are a nite number of primes; multiply > them all together and add one; no prime divides this new number, so > it is a new prime: contradiction, thus there are an innite number > of primes. > None of the primes *you already know about* divide this number. Either > it is a new prime, or it is composite and divisible by a new prime.No. The proof was complete. It was not you know about that wasmentioned. When you assume nitely many primes, and multiply *all*those primes together you did not leave any one out. So the productwith 1 added to is is not divisible by *any* existing prime.-- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ There is no highest prime, not by denition (directly) but rather> by a clear chain of reasoning from denitions. Its not a hard proof > to understand: assume there are a nite number of primes; multiply > them all together and add one; no prime divides this new number, so > it is a new prime: contradiction, thus there are an innite number > of primes.> None of the primes *you already know about* divide this number. Either > it is a new prime, or it is composite and divisible by a new prime.> No. The proof was complete. It was not you know about that was> mentioned. When you assume nitely many primes, and multiply *all*> those primes together you did not leave any one out. So the product> with 1 added to is is not divisible by *any* existing prime.Agreed, but why must it be true that the resulting number is itself prime?For example, assuming that the only primes are the rst seven leads to: 2*3*5*7*11*13*17+1 = 510510+1 = 510511 = 17*26869Here 17 is the prime not in the original list, and contradicts the assumption that the original list of primes is complete. The possibility that the resulting number is composite is included in the proof in Silverman (A Friendly Introduction To Number Theory).Mark Atherton resulting number is itself prime?> For example, assuming that the only primes are the rst seven leads to:> 2*3*5*7*11*13*17+1 = 510510+1 = 510511 = 17*26869 ^^^^^^^^510511 = 19*97*277> Here 17 is the prime not in the original list, and contradicts the > assumption that the original list of primes is complete. The possibility > that the resulting number is composite is included in the proof in > Silverman (A Friendly Introduction To Number Theory).> Mark AthertonJim Buddenhagen --To reply copy jbuddenh@REMOVEtexas.net to address bar and edit out REMOVE Agreed, but why must it be true that the resulting number is itself prime?A contradiction leads to all manner of conclusions, both true and false.If you hang on to the assumption that the original list of primes iscomplete, it is not possible for 19*97*277 to be a prime factorizationof 510511.-- Daniel W. Johnsonpanoptes@iquest.nethttp://members.iquest.net/~panoptes /039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W >Agreed, but why must it be true that the resulting number is itself prime?> A contradiction leads to all manner of conclusions, both true and false.I am not sure what this means. Surely a contradiction (as in proof by contradiction) leads only to the conclusion that at least one of our assumptions was incorrect.> If you hang on to the assumption that the original list of primes is> complete, it is not possible for 19*97*277 to be a prime factorization> of 510511.Again, agreed.But Jims post stated that if we multiply all of our nite list of primes together and add one we get another prime. I dont understand why that has to be true. My list of primes was an counterexample to this: a nite list of primes whose product plus one is not prime.Also, the proofs in elementary texts all (as far as I recall) include the possibility that the product plus one is composite, with prime factors not in our original nite list.I appreciate that I am probably missing some subtle point here so please enlighten me! :-)Mark Atherton Agreed, but why must it be true that the resulting number is itself prime?>> A contradiction leads to all manner of conclusions, both true and false.> I am not sure what this means. Surely a contradiction (as in proof by > contradiction) leads only to the conclusion that at least one of our > assumptions was incorrect.>> If you hang on to the assumption that the original list of primes is>> complete, it is not possible for 19*97*277 to be a prime factorization>> of 510511.> Again, agreed.> But Jims post stated that if we multiply all of our nite list of > primes together and add one we get another prime. I dont understand why > that has to be true. My list of primes was an counterexample to this: a > nite list of primes whose product plus one is not prime.No, its not a counterexample, because your list was not a complete listof primes. The conclusion that the new number is prime is derived fromthat assumption.Another way of putting it is that the new number is obviously composite(because it is greater than 1 and is not prime, by hypothesis) but yet itis not divisible by any prime (again, by hypothesis). Thats just adifferent way of getting a contradiction from the given assumptions.-- Dave SeamanJudge Yohns mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. I need some help with a mathematical claim that came up while> discussing a different topic.> To summarize: I had been explicating Huxleys agnostic principle> (believe nothing unless you have logically satisfactory evidence to> do so), and argued that merely dening a god as having an a property> was *not* giving logically satisfactory evidence that that god had> that property. One persons reply was:> no highest prime number cant be an agnostic. All of math is based > on persuasive denition, not evidence.> Not being a mathematician, I dont know the best way to respond to> this; so I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the subject> could address it.Its not too complicated, but its not obvious.Let me dene Foo-Bar as the mile-high diamond cube outside of LasVegas. As a denition, thats ne, its clear what Foo-Bar wouldbe like if it existed, and if youre standing there staring at something, you know how to tell whether it is Foo-Bar or not.Note that this denition doesnt tell you anything about whether ornot Foo-Bar exists or not. You have to go to Las Vegas and look tond that out.Thus, the denition doesnt commit you in one way or another aboutwhether Foo-Bar exists. It isnt *persuasive*.On the other hand, suppose my dog is named Rover and I say Rover isbrown. Thats not a denition, since the word Rover already has ameaning. Its a statement of fact. Of course, to tell whether itstrue or not, you have to go look at Rover.In regard to God, one has to rst gure out how you want to deneGod. Let us suppose your correspondent means by God that beingwhich is more powerful than any other thing in the universe. Goodenough. Now you have to go check whether there actually *is* such abeing -- your denition only says what youd call it if it existed.But your correspondent may prefer that being which is more powerfulthan any other thing in the universe and which observes everythingthat happens in the universe. In that case, you have to go checkagain -- hes made a new denition for what is really a new word, andyouve got to go out and check whether there is a thing that tsunder the new denition.In regard to there is no highest prime number, that isnt a matterof denition. You can work out a proof of that fact.Dale On the other hand, suppose my dog is named Rover and I say Rover is> brown. Thats not a denition, since the word Rover already has a> meaning. Its a statement of fact. Of course, to tell whether its> true or not, you have to go look at Rover.Suppose Rover is actually brown, then the statement is true bydenition, since you dened some animal to be called Rover. Anyproperties of the-thing-labeled-Rover follow from the properties ofthe-animal and the fact that you dened Rover to be the name of theanimal.> In regard to there is no highest prime number, that isnt a matter> of denition. You can work out a proof of that fact.Doesnt the statement follow from the denition of prime number? Onceyouve dened a prime number, the fact that there is no largest followsfrom, is implicit in, this denition.(note: I dont mean any of the above, Im just trying to imagine how thethe anselmist would answer.)V.-- homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname <1g5lvrt.txro7d1vsinejN%see.sig@for.addy> On the other hand, suppose my dog is named Rover and I say Rover is>> brown. Thats not a denition, since the word Rover already has a>> meaning. Its a statement of fact. Of course, to tell whether its>> true or not, you have to go look at Rover. Suppose Rover is actually brown, then the statement is true by> denition, since you dened some animal to be called Rover. Any> properties of the-thing-labeled-Rover follow from the properties of> the-animal and the fact that you dened Rover to be the name of the> animal.This is the weakest form of true by denition Ive ever seen.By this reasoning, any true sentence in which a proper name(essentially[1]) occurs is true-by-denition. Ive never seen anyonethat cares to use this term so loosely and trivially. Every statementinvolving a proper noun is true by denition, regardless of whetherit is a contingent, possibly temporary, truth? Odd.Once, my dog Mikhi was young. Evidently, he was young bydenition. Today he is very old, again by denition?Moreover, he may not be using Rover as a proper noun here,appearances notwithstanding. Rover may be a dened term, meaningDales dog. In this case, do you still want to say that Rover isbrown by denition? Nothing in the denition entails that Roveris brown, but only accidental features of the world as it is at thisinstant make the sentence true.Footnotes: [1] Where essentially loosely means that the proper name occurs inthe sentence in such a way that its usage contributes to the truth ofthe sentence -- so that there are other proper names which, ifsubstituted, would make the sentence false. Even this is probably asmaller set than the set of sentences which youve just madetrue-by-denition.-- But he himself was not to blame for his vices. They grew out of a personaldefect in his mother. She did her best in the way of ogging him while aninfant... but, poor woman! she had the misfortune to be left-handed, and achild ogged left-handedly had better be left unogged. -- E.A. Poe =... > In regard to there is no highest prime number, that isnt a matter > of denition. You can work out a proof of that fact. > Doesnt the statement follow from the denition of prime number? Once > youve dened a prime number, the fact that there is no largest follows > from, is implicit in, this denition.That is false. Not all contexts where the denition of prime numbercould make sense do have innitely many prime numbers. So theinnitely many can be shown in some contexts and not in other, henceit is not the denition alone that leads to innitely many primes.Starting with the basic (but slightly wrong) denition of primes thatis best-known (and always cited by newspapers): a prime is a number that is only divisible by 1 and itselfthere are obvious contexts where this denition leads to no primesat all. Real numbers for instance. But also *all* integers. Theabove denition gives only innitely many primes in the positiveintegers. It fails for all integers, because 2 is divisible by 1,-1, 2 and -2, and so is not prime. A better denition is: a prime is a non-unit number that is only divisible by units and conjugates of itself. (A unit is a number that is a divisor of 1, a conjugate of a number you will get by multiplying the number by a unit.)This solves the problem with all integers (2 and -2 are both prime;they are conjugates). Also this solves the problem in other contexts(quadratic elds for instance), But when you use it with integers mod 6,you will nd that the only primes are 3, and the conjugate pair (2, 4).[ 5 is a unit, and 2*5 = 4 and 4*5 = 2.]The whole proof of the innitude of primes depends on two things.The rst assumption is that there is at least one prime.The second assumption is that the arithmetic rules for integersapply, but they do *not* apply with the integers mod 6: 2*3 = 0.So it is *not* the denition of primes that lead to an innitude,you need context for that.-- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ On the other hand, suppose my dog is named Rover and I say Rover is> brown. Thats not a denition, since the word Rover already has a> meaning. Its a statement of fact. Of course, to tell whether its> true or not, you have to go look at Rover.> Suppose Rover is actually brown, then the statement is true by> denition, since you dened some animal to be called Rover. Any> properties of the-thing-labeled-Rover follow from the properties of> the-animal and the fact that you dened Rover to be the name of the> animal.> In regard to there is no highest prime number, that isnt a matter> of denition. You can work out a proof of that fact.> Doesnt the statement follow from the denition of prime number? Once> youve dened a prime number, the fact that there is no largest follows> from, is implicit in, this denition.> No, not at all. How do you gure that? I dene a prime number as a positive whole number greater than 1, divisible only by itself and 1. Then I tell you that Im pretty sure that 957983459439538958854858484584794589437 is the largest prime number. How are you going to refute that? With Euclids proof, you can show with pencil and paper that there is no largest prime number. follow from the denition of prime number? Once> youve dened a prime number, the fact that there is no largest follows> from, is implicit in, this denition.> No, not at all. How do you gure that? I dene a prime number as a > positive whole number greater than 1, divisible only by itself and 1. > Then I tell you that Im pretty sure that > 957983459439538958854858484584794589437 is the largest prime number. > How are you going to refute that? With Euclids proof, you can show > with pencil and paper that there is no largest prime number.One doesnt need Euclid to see that 957983459439538958854858484584794589437 is divisible by 3 and hence not prime. So the largest prime must be some other number.Jim Buddenhagen-- To reply copy jbuddenh@REMOVEtexas.net to address bar and edit out REMOVE >By that standard you could insist that anybody who says theres >>no highest prime number cant be an agnostic. All of math is based >>on persuasive denition, not evidence.> Not being a mathematician, I dont know the best way to respond to> this; so I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the subject> could address it.It is *false* that the statement there is no highest prime is trueby denition. If some number p was the highest prime, then p! + 1 wouldnot be prime, since it would be greater. But, not being prime, it canbe written has a product of several prime numbers. If p is one suchprime number, then p! + 1 is a multiple of p. But then so is p! andtherefore 1 is a multiple of p, which is not possible, since everyprime number is greater than 1.Jose Carlos Santos =Jos.8e Carlos Santos scribbled the following:>> By that standard you could insist that anybody who says theres >no highest prime number cant be an agnostic. All of math is based >on persuasive denition, not evidence.> > Not being a mathematician, I dont know the best way to respond to>> this; so I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the subject>> could address it.> It is *false* that the statement there is no highest prime is true> by denition. If some number p was the highest prime, then p! + 1 would> not be prime, since it would be greater. But, not being prime, it can> be written has a product of several prime numbers. If p is one such> prime number, then p! + 1 is a multiple of p. But then so is p! and> therefore 1 is a multiple of p, which is not possible, since every> prime number is greater than 1.I dont understand this proof. Are you saying that if p is prime, thenp! + 1 must also be prime? That cant be what you are saying, because 5is prime, but 5! + 1 = 120 + 1 = 121 is not prime, its 11^2.But it seems like you are trying to get a contradiction from theassumption that p is prime and p! + 1 is composite. Please explain inmore detail so that stupid undergraduates like me can understand.-- /-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.) ------------- Finland ---------- http://www.helsinki./~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/B-but Angus! Youre a dragon! - Mickey Mouse Jos.8e Carlos Santos scribbled the following:> It is *false* that the statement there is no highest prime is true> by denition. If some number p was the highest prime, then p! + 1 would> not be prime, since it would be greater. But, not being prime, it can> be written has a product of several prime numbers. If p is one such> prime number, then p! + 1 is a multiple of p. To make it slightly clearer: p is a prime number, and p was assumed to be the largest prime number. Therefore p >= p. p! is the product of all integers up to p, one of those integers is p, therefore p! is a multiple of p. > But then so is p! which means that both p! and p! + 1 are multiples of p> and> therefore 1 is a multiple of p, which is not possible, since every> prime number is greater than 1.> I dont understand this proof. Are you saying that if p is prime, then> p! + 1 must also be prime? That cant be what you are saying, because 5> is prime, but 5! + 1 = 120 + 1 = 121 is not prime, its 11^2.> But it seems like you are trying to get a contradiction from the> assumption that p is prime and p! + 1 is composite. Please explain in> more detail so that stupid undergraduates like me can understand. Jos.8e Carlos Santos scribbled the following:> >By that standard you could insist that anybody who says theres >>no highest prime number cant be an agnostic. All of math is based >>on persuasive denition, not evidence.>> > Not being a mathematician, I dont know the best way to respond to> this; so I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the subject> could address it.> It is *false* that the statement there is no highest prime is true>> by denition. If some number p was the highest prime, then p! + 1 would>> not be prime, since it would be greater. But, not being prime, it can>> be written has a product of several prime numbers. If p is one such>> prime number, then p! + 1 is a multiple of p. But then so is p! and>> therefore 1 is a multiple of p, which is not possible, since every>> prime number is greater than 1.I dont understand this proof. Are you saying that if p is prime, then>p! + 1 must also be prime?Not at all. He is saying that there is no prime p such that everynumber strictly larger than p is composite. Since the existence of a highest prime would imply the existence ofa prime p such that every number larger than p is not a prime (hencecomposite), it follows that there is no highest prime.The argument is that if p were a prime with the property that for alln, if n>p then n is composite, then we would have that p!+1 iscomposite (by being larger than p), and so must be divisible by someprime q. Since q>p implies q composite, we must have q<=p, andtherefore, q|(p!); since q also divides p!+1, you deduce that qdivides 1, which is impossible. The contradiction arose form assumingthat there existed a prime p such that every number strictly largerthan p is a composite.-- == ==Its not denial. Im just very selective about what I accept as reality. --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) =Arturo Magidinmagidin@math.berkeley.edu> > Not being a mathematician, I dont know the best way to respond to> this; so I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the subject> could address it.The assumption that there is a largest prime leads to a at out contradiction. Therefore there is no largest prime.Bob Kolker = In Ch.10 of Edward G. HOFFMANs book, Jig and Fixture Design, 3d ed.,> pp.164-167, one nds a skimpy explanation of how to design eccentric> cam clamps and spiral cam clamps. What follows is my synopsis, not what> Hoffman says. In an eccentric cam, the cam is basically a disk and is rotated about an> interior point (called the pivot point) other than the center. Thedistance> between the center of the disk and the pivot point is called theeccentricity.> The throw seems to be the angle one wishes to rotate the disk, but the> characteristics of the end points of the rotation are not articulated.> A certain change of distance associated with that rotation is called the> rise but never dened. Naively, one might expect it to be the difference> in the distances of the pivot point to the points on the diskcorresponding> to the end points of the rotation, but Fig.10-24 suggests that it mighthave> a different meaning. The formula E=R(1-cos throw) is given, where R is the> rise and E the eccentricity. The formula for the required radius of the> disk depends not only on the geometry but also on the coefcient Cf of> friction of the material, which is usually assumed to be 0.1. The formula> is: radius=E(cos throw + (sin throw)/Cf). For spiral cams, I think they are talking about an arc of an Archimdeanspiral,> viewed as a small deformation of an arc of a base circle, and the centerof> rotation is the center of the spiral, which coincides with the center ofthe> base circle. Here, the coefcient of friction doesnt enter explicitlyinto> the formula, which says that the rise equals 0.001 x radius of the base> circle x throw. But maybe the coefcient of friction is hidden in the0.001> just as it could have been stashed in the number 0.1 in the earlierformula. Id like to know where these formulas are derived and explained in more> detail. Id also like to know what the German word for cam is, on the off> chance that I can look this up in the Encyclopadie der Mathematischen> Wissenschaften, or else a pointer to where in that reference old stuff> like this might be discussed. Ignorantly,> Allan Adler> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu**************************************** ************************************> ***> * Intelligence Lab. My actions and comments do not reect*> * in any way on MIT. Moreover, I am nowhere near the Boston*> * metropolitan area.*> **>********************************************************** ******************>Im not sure what a spiral cam is, but most cams we come across are those incars.The simplest way to think of an automotive cam is as two circles, one on topof the other, with the upper circle having a smaller radius of curvaturethan the other, and continuous lines are drawn to connect up the circle.This make up a continuous shape, but I would surprised if there were asimple analytical expression for the shape. The cam rotates around thecentre of the lower circle (this is known as the base circle).As a cam rotates around it pushes on the valve, pushing it into thecombustion chamber. The shape of the cam is determined by what type of valvelift prole is required for effective combustion. The valve lift curveoften is an analytical function.A good description may be found in the following book: Cam Design &Manufacturing Handbook by R.L. NortonHope this helpsIan Taylor =dont speak German, but babelsh says cam is Nockenif im not mistaken...throw and rise for cams is sometimes interchangeable.though i believe rise is the proper name for cam displacementthrow is sometimes used to describe the overall motion ofa system (& throw intends a direction, whereas rise might not.sort of the scalar/vector thing)rise is the total change in distance at a contact point during onerevolution... or the difference between the base circle and acircumscribed one. (for a cylindrical cam)throw, for a cam used directly as a mechanical clamp, may bethe rotation required, in degrees or inches (depending on design),to exert a predetermined pressure on the work. this may includea few more degrees (+ % rotation) to place the cam in a stableposition for clamping (or it may be designed into the cam)..although maximum pressure would be exerted at the point ofmaximum rise, that point may not be stable (the cam could rollback).those coefcients of frictions may be ratios, and not directcoefcients. depending on your design (or the one mentionedin the book), you may be dealing with both sliding and rollingcontact. in which case two coefcients would need considerationand may be reduced into their ratios (0.1 or 0001, etc)for further info on cam design id suggested either Marks Standard Handbookfor MechanicalEngineers or the Machinerys Handbook.dont know if any of that helps,-tony =Here are solutions for the rst 3 morning problems:1. n ways. In fact, for xed q, n can be written asa+a+a+...+(a+1)+...+(a+1) with (q-r) as and r (a+1)s if and only ifn = q*a+r, 0<=r<=q-1. But we know there is one and only one way ofwriting n in this form for xed q (division algorithm). Since,1<=q<=n, this gives n partitions.2. Put ai = xi^n, bi=yi^n. We need to show that(x1x2...xn + y1y2...yn)^n <= (x1^n + y1^n)(x2^n+y2^n)...(xn^n+yn^n) Switching (x1,x2,y1,y2) for(sqrt(x1x2),sqrt(x1x2),sqrt(y1y2),sqrt(y1y2)), the LHS (LE) dontchange, while the RHS gets smaller, since:(sqrt(x1x2) ^n + sqrt(y1y2) ^n)^2 = (x1x2)^n + (y1y2)^n + 2sqrt((x1x2y1y2)^n ) <=(x1x2)^n + (y1y2)^n + (x1y2)^n + (x2y1)^n = (x1^n + x2^n)(y1^n+y2^n). Now just repeat the process for (x1,xk,y1,yk) and k=3,4...,n. Inthe end, we have: LE = LD_nal < LD_initial3. In terms of sin and cos, we have f(x) = |1+(senx+cosx)(1+senx *cosx)| /|senx*cosx|.But, (senx+cosx)^2 = 1 + 2senx * cosx and therefore, for u=sinx+cosx:f(x) = |(u^3+u+2)/(u^2-1)| = |(u^2-u+2)/(u-1)|Now u = senx+cosx = (sqrt(2))*sen(x+pi/4) implies-sqrt(2)<=u<=sqrt(2).Besides, (u^2-u+2)/(u-1) > 0 for u>1 and <0 for u<1. Therefore, theminimum of |f| comes from the minimum of f (be it in (1,oo) or(-oo,1)). Differentiating, one gets f(u) = 0 u^2 - 2u - 1 = 0 u= 1-sqrt(2). And this gives min |f(x)| = 2*sqrt(2) - 1 (obs: f(u) >0)Friendly,Marcio Show that there are n!/2 even permutations and n!/2 odd permutations>> (assuming |A_n|=n!/2, and |S_n|=n!) without dening a bijective map. So heres my work:> Let R_n be the set of odd permutations |S_n|=|A_n U R_n| = |A_n|+>> |R_n| - |A_n int R_n| but A_n and R_n are disjoint, hence:>> n! = n!/2 + |R_n| so |R_n|=n! - n!/2 = n!/2. Is this correct?> im unclear as to what youre allowed to assume. what is the denition of>> A_n that you are using? i mean, the question is fairly content free if you>> think about it. If you dene A_n to be the set of all even permutations>> (or the maximal subgroup containing only even elements) AND youre allowed>> to assume |A_n| is n!/2, then showing there are n!/2 even permutations is>> a bit easy. > i would guess you might not be allowed to assume any knowledge of A_ns>> order. then the question is a specic example of:> show any subgroup of S_n is contained in A_n, or has the same number of>> even and odd elements.> Assume S_n has order n! and let A_n be the set of all even> permutations and assume A_n has order n!/2. Show the set of all odd> permutations have the same order of A_n, WITHOUT establishing a> bijective map.> So see what i typed above..is that valid?if you have three nite sets, A, B and C. and A is the union of B and C,which are disjoint, then nding the cardinality of the third set giventhe other two is trivial. thats why im wondering if there ought to bemore going on. Hmmm...that reminds me to check this thread. Remember my original> post is a direct request for *someone* to explain how my prime> counting function works.> > I have seen at least one attempt at explanation.> After a bit, if necessary, Ill give the rather simple explanation for> how it actually works.> My purpose is to show that posters acting as if they are experts, are> nonesuch, but are actually *cheaters* who want you to believe in them> and their pronouncements, when they dont even understand the> mathematics involved!!!> James Harris> My math discoveries, found for prot> http://mathforprot.blogspot.com/James, you asked for someone to explain how your recursion counts primes.But then you had to admit that it doesnt count primes, but actually thecomposites. So are you going to retract your request for an explanation?Of course the most interesting thing will be seeing you explain how itdoes something that even you now admit it doesnt do. unnecessary insults to our profession. Remember my original> post is a direct request for *someone* to explain how my prime> counting function works. I have seen at least one attempt at explanation. After a bit, if necessary, Ill give the rather simple explanation for> how it actually works. My purpose is to show that posters acting as if they are experts, are> nonesuch, but are actually *cheaters* who want you to believe in them> and their pronouncements, when they dont even understand the> mathematics involved!!!Unfortunately, your method of choice leads to no such conclusion and fails to serve your purpose.. If declining to postexplanations of your work proves incompetence, then you have conclusively succeeded in proving your own incompetence by notposting answers to the questions about the connection your partial differential equation has with prime counting -- and byyour own criteria!So far, you are the only poster in this newsgroup who *consistently* fails to back up his pronouncements, claims, boasts,etc.Wheres the proof the your partial differential equation provides a solution to the prime counting function? Wheres yourevidence? Wheres your data?Put up or SHUT UP!--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 Approximation ? In the following I try to present an answer. By approximation I meanlinearapproximation.INPUT DATA: Y[a,b] = a linear space of functions :[a,b]-->R , Y[a,b]=subset ofC[a,b]. (.,.): Y[a,b] x Y[a,b]--->R a dot product in Y[a,b] . ||f||= sqrt{(f,f)} the norm induced by scalar product (f,g) , f,g inY[a,b] . S[a,b] = a linear subspace in Y[a,b] with dim(S[a,b])=4 . P={p_0(x),p_1(x),p_2(x),p_3(x)}= a complete Chebychev system(=CT-systyem), of order 3, in S[a,b] ,p_0(x)= 1 , p_1(x)= a strictly monotonicfunction on [a,b], and p_2(x),p_3(x) are selected such that for all distinct points t_0,t_1,t_2,t_3 from [a,b], the determinants | 1 p_1(t_0) p_2(t_0) | | 1 p_1(t_0) p_2(t_0) p_3(t_0) | | 1 p_1(t_1) p_2(t_1) | and | 1 p_1(t_1) p_2(t_1) p_3(t_1) | | 1 p_1(t_2) p_2(t_2) | | 1 p_1(t_2) p_2(t_2) p_3(t_2) | | 1 p_1(t_3) p_2(t_3) p_3(t_3) | are not zero. An equivalent denition is: for each k in {0,1,2,3} any linear (real) combination of form c_0*p_0(x)+c_1*p_1(x)+...+c_k*p_k(x) , with c_0^2+...+c_k^2 >0 , has at most k zeros in [a,b]. Note that P is a basis in S[a,b]. f = a function from Y[a,b] , f not in S[a,b] . OUTPUT DATA: g^* in S[a,b] , g^*=g^*(f,.) , which best approximates f withrespect to norm ||.|| induced by the scalar product (.,.), that is(1) ||f -g^*|| = min_{g in S[a,b]} ||f-g|| .It is known that such element g^* exists and is unique.DEFINITION 1. If P={p_0(x),p_1(x),p_2(x),p_3(x)}is a CT-systyem, any linear combination of form g(x)=c_0*p_0(x) + c_1*p_1(x) + c_2*p_3(x) + c_3*p_3(x)is called a ,,generalized polynomial of degree 3 .DEFINITION 2. We shall say that g^*(f;.) is the best ,,cubic(linear) approximation element of f by means of elements from S[a,b] .Its clear that the problem of cubic best approximation depends onINPUT DATA. How we nd g^*(f;x) ? == A SOLUTION ==i) Find an orthogonal basis in S[a,b] . To do this we can use the following steps: i.1)select a CT system P={ p_0(x),p_1(x),p_2(x),p_3(x) } inS[a,b]. i.2) starting with P , determine an orthogonal B={b_0(x),b_1(x),b_2(x),b_3(x)} in S[a,b]. For instance | (p_0,p_0) (p_0,p_1) ... (p_0,p_j) | | (p_1,p_0) (p_1,p_1) ... (p_1,p_j) | b_j(x)=c_j* | . . ... . | | (p_{j-1},p_0) (p_{j-1},p_1) ... (p_{j-1},p_j)| | p_0(x) p_1(x) ... p_j(x) |where j in {0,1,2,3} is such an orthogonal basisBy c_j , c_j=/=0, are denoted real numbers.Further I used following NOTATION : SUM = SUM_{k=0 to k=3} I(f)= Integral_{x=a to x=b}f(x) dxTHEOREM : The best ,,cubic approximation element of f, f in Y[a,b], may be written as == (f,b_k)(2) g^*(f;x)= SUM ----------- * b_k(x) . (b_k,b_k) =[1] LAGRANGE INTERPOLATION. = Y[a,b]=C^4[a,b] , S[a,b]=P_3=the cubic polynomials restricted to[a,b]. (f,g)= SUM f(x_k)g(x_k) + I(f^{(4)}*g^{(4)}) where a=< x_0 < x_1 < x_2 < x_3 =< b are prescribed points(,,knots) . P=P_3=real polynomials of degree 3 B={l_0(x),l_1(x),l_2(x),l_3(x)} where w(x) l_k(x)=-------------- , w(x)=(x-x_0)...(x-x_3) . (x-x_k)w(x_k) One nds(2.1) g^*(f,x)=Lagrange polynomial of f at poins x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3. In case F(x)=sin(x) , x_0=-pi/2, x_1=0 , x_2=pi/2 ,x_3=a*piwe nd(2.1) g^*(F;x)= A*x^3-B*x with A=4(sin(a*pi)-2a)/(a(4a^2-1)*pi^3) B=4(sin(a*pi)-8a^3)/(a(4a^2-1)*pi). [2] NEWTON INTERPOLATION POLYNOMIAL. = Y[a,b]=C^4[a,b] , S[a,b]=P_3 , (f,g)= f(x_0)*g(x_0)+[x_0,x_1;f]*[x_0,x_1,g]+ +[x_0,x_1,x_2;f]*[x_0,x_1,x_2;g]+ +[x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3;f]*[x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3;g]+ I(f^{(4)}*g^{(4)}) , B={f_0(x),f_1(x),f_2(x),f_3(x)} f_0(x)=1 , f_1(x)=x-x_0 , f_2(x)=(x-x_0)(x-x_1) , f_3(x)=(x-x_0)(x-x_1)(x-x_2) .I use the notation [x_0,x_1,...,x_j; f] for divided differences. Forinstance[x_0,x_1;f]=(f(x_1)-f(x_0)/(x_1-x_0)[x_0,x_1,...,x _j; f]== ([x_1,x_2,...,x_j; f]- [x_0,x_1,...,x_{j-1}; f])/(x_j -x_0) .One obtains(2.2) g^*(f,x)=Newton polynomial of f at x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3=Lagrange polynomial at same knots. [3] TAYLOR POLYNOMIAL . == Y[a,b]=C^4[a,b] , S[a,b]=P_3 , x_0 is xed in [a,b] (f,g)=SUM f^{(k)}(x_0)*g^{(k)}(x_0) + I(f^{(4)}*g^{(4)}) , B={t_0(x),t_1(x),t_2(x),t_3(x)} , t_j(x)=(x-x_0)^j .(2.3) g^*(f,x)=Taylor polynomial of f near point x_0= =SUM ((x-x_0)^k/k!)f^{(k)}(x_0) . [4] Chebychev expansion (truncated ) Y=C[-1,1] , S[-1,1]=P_3 dx (f,g)=INT_{x=-1 to x=1} f(x)g(x)----------- . sqrt(1-x^2) (2.4) g^*(f;x)=SUM q_k*(f,T_k)*T_k(x)q_0 =1/pi , q_1=2/pi , T_k(x)=cos(k*arccos x) . If F(x)=sin(x) x in [-1,1], then(2.4) g^*(F;x)= A*T_1(x) + B*T_3(x)= A*x+B*(4x^3-3x)with A ~= 0.880101171489867... , B~= -0.039126707965337 . ==[5]Legendre expansion (truncated) = Y=C[-1,1] , S[-1,-1]=P_3 , (f,g)=INT_{x=-1 to x=1}f(x)g(x) dx.(2.5) g^*(f;x)=SUM v_k*(f,P_k)*P_k(x) v_k=(2k+1)/2 , P_k(x)=(1/k!2^k)*((x^2-1)^k)^{(k)} . ==[6] Jacobi expansion (truncated) =Y=C[-1,1] , S[-1,-1]=P_3 , (f,g)=INT_{x=-1 to x=1} f(x)g(x)(1-x)^a(1+x)^b dx with a>-1,b>-1.(2.6) g^*(f;x)=SUM u_k*(f,J_k)*J_k(x)u_k=E(k)/L(k) with E(k)= (2k+a+b+1)*G(k+a+b+1)*G(k+a+1) L(k)=2^{a+b+1}*G(k+b+1)*G(k+1)|G(a+1)|^2 G(.) being Gamma function , andJ_k(x)=F(-k,k+a+b+1; a+1; (1-x)/2)==r_k*(1-x)^{-a}(1+x)^{-b}((1-x)^{k+a}(1+x)^{k+b})^{( k)}.Here r_k is a constant and J_k(1)=1. [7 ??] Cubic spline approximation seems no to be in above described method. The dimension dim(S[a,b]) > 4.(?) wondering if anyone could inform me whether I have answered thefollowing question correctly, because when I try to answer it with anothermethod I get a completely different answer! I am not sure in which method Ihave gone wrong--if I have not made a mistake in both:A 3 by 3 matrix A has eigenvalues 1,2,4 and corresponding eigenvectorsa=(1,-1,1), b=(1,0,-1), and c=(1,2,1).1) Express x=(3,0,3) as a linear combination of a,b and c.2) Hence, without nding A, calculate (A^4)*x.Well the answer to the rst part is clearly x=2a+c. The second part iswhere I could have gone wrong. My method:(A^4)*x=2(A^4)*a+(A^4)*c= 2(1^4)*a+(4^4)*c (using the fact that Av=kv where k is the eigenvalueof eigenvector v)=2a+256c=2(1,-1,1)+256(1,2,1)=(258,510,258)Now to me this method seemed sound but then when I went ahead to check myanswer by obtaining A through the diagonalisation process((A^n)=E*(D^M)*(E^t)where t means transpose, D is the diagonal matrix and E the matrix ofeigenvaluesI obtained (A^4)*x=(1542,3066,1542)!If I have made a mistake in the rst method then please tell me where andhow to x it.~Darkness~ I was wondering if anyone could inform me whether I have answered the>following question correctly, because when I try to answer it with another>method I get a completely different answer! I am not sure in which method I>have gone wrong--if I have not made a mistake in both:A 3 by 3 matrix A has eigenvalues 1,2,4 and corresponding eigenvectors>a=(1,-1,1), b=(1,0,-1), and c=(1,2,1).>1) Express x=(3,0,3) as a linear combination of a,b and c.>2) Hence, without nding A, calculate (A^4)*x.Well the answer to the rst part is clearly x=2a+c. The second part is>where I could have gone wrong. My method:(A^4)*x=2(A^4)*a+(A^4)*c>= 2(1^4)*a+(4^4)*c (using the fact that Av=kv where k is the eigenvalue>of eigenvector v)>=2a+256c>=2(1,-1,1)+256(1,2,1)>=(258,510,258)Right, unless I missed an arithmetic error.>Now to me this method seemed sound but then when I went ahead to check my>answer by obtaining A through the diagonalisation process>((A^n)=E*(D^M)*(E^t)Typo for ((A^n)=E*(D^n)*(E^t). Which is wrong, it should be((A^n)=E*(D^n)*(E^(-1)). (Thats the same if E is orthogonal,but this E is not orthogonal.)>where t means transpose, D is the diagonal matrix and E the matrix of>eigenvaluesE is the matrix that has the eigen_vectors_ for columns.>I obtained (A^4)*x=(1542,3066,1542)!If I have made a mistake in the rst method then please tell me where and>how to x it.Evidently theres a mistake in the second method. There are severalerrors in what you say about it - hard to tell which errors are realand which are just typos in your post...~Darkness~>************************David C. Ullrich Evidently theres a mistake in the second method. There are several> errors in what you say about it - hard to tell which errors are real> and which are just typos in your post...The result is consistent with the mistake of using the transpose ratherthan the inverse.If the original poster is still not sure which result is correct,perhaps the second method should be tried with x equal to one of theeigenvectors, such as (1,-1,1).-- Daniel W. Johnsonpanoptes@iquest.nethttp://members.iquest.net/~panoptes /039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W Im a guy who over 18 months ago made a major math discovery in the> area of prime numbers, but unfortunately have had difculty being> fully heard.> Ive been posting this partial difference equation, but the math is> kind of dry, so I thought Id post *values* from that partial> difference equation to prove uniqueness.> > If someone wishes to dispute my uniqueness claim, they can just give> their own math formula and post values from it, showing that it> matches mine.> Nothing like a demonstration, eh?> The formula I have is> dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,> sqrt(y-1))],> and here are some values from the calulation of p(100,10):> dS(100,2)=49> dS(100,3)=16> dS(100,4)=0> dS(100,5)=6> dS(100,6)=0> dS(100,7)=3> dS(100,8)=0> dS(100,9)=0> dS(100,10)=0> So theres the formula and some values. The sum of all those values> is 74, which subtracts from 100 to give 26, and subtracting 1 from> that gives you 25, which is the count of primes up to 100. You see,> the dS values are composite counts, which is how the formula can be> used to count prime numbers.> The fact that its a partial difference equation is why you can> evaluate it for all those values, which is a key difference from> anything else in the math world.> Here the challenge to posters is a simple one: give a formula and> values that can match my formula feature for feature.> Lets see what happens.> Want more information? > See more at my blog http://mathforprot.blogspot.com/> make your own dS calculations.> James Harris> My math discoveries, found for prot> http://mathforprot.blogspot.com/ok, ive got one.let p(x) denote the number of primes less than or eqaul to n.p(x) satises the following difference equationdp(x) = p(x) -p(x-1)and dp is either 0 or 1. Now the amazing thing here is that unlike yourone, James, I can give a nite set in which dp takes values. Your dSs(or dSs if you prefer) are not given by some nice formula. Or at least youhavent given one that doesnt involve S, which is kind of cheating alittle. So if you want to claim yours is better than mine then please give me the nice closed expression for dS, that is one not in terms of S, and from which S can be found.For instance. f(n) - f(n-1) = 0 ; n in N, f(0)=1 has a somewhat different solution thanf(n) - f(n-1) = n ; n in N, f(0)=0and as for the challenge to produce numbers:dp(0)=0dp(1)=0dp(2)=1dp(3)=1dp(4)=0dp(5)=1dp(6)=0dp(7 )=1from which i conclude p(7)=4, let me check....2,3,5,7. yep it works.m Try parameter values from 3.83 to 3.855. Then try from 3.85383 to 3.8541.> -- > Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/ Bukharin.html> To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html> r c A game: .../Keynes.html> v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or> i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth> e a e of a man is a question t perhaps to be discussed by> n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly> @ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of> d o the truth. -- RousseauOk great, the input is appreciated. What is the longest period in theentire logistic map and at what parameter does it reside ?Unrelated to that, is there a self referencing way of manipulaing thelogistic map such that we can avoid zooming in by using an externalcoordinate system and thereby avoid calculating large oating pointvalues ? =The fact that my original post has to date attracted 19 repliessuggests that there are others who do not see Riemann surfaces as anentirely nished subject. As a techniques man rather than anabstractions man I am not convinced that the geometric approachentirely supercedes the classical approach but cannot properly arguethe point until I have picked up more understanding of the geometrictheory which I intend to do. In the meantime sympathetic readers mightrefer to my website www.riemannsurfaces.info. The fact that my original post has to date attracted 19 replies>suggests that there are others who do not see Riemann surfaces as an>entirely nished subject. Huh? How in the world does it suggest that? None of the replieshave agreed with you...>As a techniques man rather than an>abstractions man I am not convinced that the geometric approach>entirely supercedes the classical approach but cannot properly argue>the point until I have picked up more understanding of the geometric>theory which I intend to do. In the meantime sympathetic readers might>refer to my website www.riemannsurfaces.info.************************David C. Ullrich The fact that my original post has to date attracted 19 replies> suggests that there are others who do not see Riemann surfaces as an> entirely nished subject. As a techniques man rather than an> abstractions man I am not convinced that the geometric approach> entirely supercedes the classical approach but cannot properly argue> the point until I have picked up more understanding of the geometric> theory which I intend to do. In the meantime sympathetic readers might> refer to my website www.riemannsurfaces.info.hmm, but how many of the replies have been supporting your arguments(excluding your own)? how many have been pointing out errors? =How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4?I assume I could multiply it out but there must be some simpler method... How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4?> I assume I could multiply it out but there must be some simpler method...Actually, multiplying is what has the simpler method, which helpsyou directly with this. If you express two complex numbers inpolar form (i.e., magnitude and argument), then multiplyingthem is trivial: the magnitude of the result is the product ofthe magnitudes of the operands, and the argument of the resultis the sum of the arguments.There, you can see that the magnitude of z^n will be the magnitudeof z to the n, and the argument will be n times the argument of z.With this, you can gure out your result (just take the argumentto the interval (-pi,pi] by adding some multiple of 2pi, if whatyou obtain falls outside that interval)HTH,Carlos-- How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4?> I assume I could multiply it out but there must be some simpler method... Back in the early 1960s I learned the mnemonic add the arguments, multiply the moduli ...Jim Buddenhagen-- To reply copy jbuddenh@REMOVEtexas.net to address bar and edit out REMOVE =Bezier curves and surfaces generate an innite number of lines/etc.Computer programs set a limit called the smoothness.> Im attempting to connect two 3D squares together. They are of 16> points each and I?ve run them through the Bernstein equation.> Now, I?m quite new to 3 dimensional mathematics and new to the> Bernstein formula, but its proving to be very interesting. Ive been trying for days now to get the squares to match up smoothly.> There is a curvature in the surface of the one square/patch and I?m> attempting to keep the same curvature through the second square (to> make half a at oval). Ive heard about the tangents method, about> having tangents from the control points on the one square to the> control points on the other square, which should create a smooth> surface. And here in is the problem, there is a denite line, an> inward slope as the two squares/patches meet. As far I can tell the> tangents line up along the join, I just dont have a clue why the join> isnt perfectly smooth. Many people must have run into this problem. If you have any thoughts,> ideas or possible directions to pursue, they would all be very much> appreciated. T. Overton =How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4?I assume I could multiply it out but there must be some simpler method... How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4?Try reading your text in the section on DeMoivres Theorem. = How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4? Try reading your text in the section on DeMoivres Theorem.I did, but as far as I can see De Moivres Theorem raises (cosx + jsinx) tothe power n. How can I relate that to (-1 - sqrt3i) to the power n? How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4?>Try reading your text in the section on DeMoivres Theorem.>I did, but as far as I can see De Moivres Theorem raises (cosx + jsinx) to>the power n. How can I relate that to (-1 - sqrt3i) to the power n?>Read about expressing complex numbers in polar form.-- Stephen J. Herschkorn herschko@rutcor.rutgers.edu How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4?> I assume I could multiply it out but there must be some simpler method...> Assuming that you can nd the modulus, r, and argument, t, of z = -1 -i sqrt(3), then z^n has modulus r^n and argument (n t) for every positive integer n.More succinctly, ( r e^(i t) )^n = r^n e^(i n t). = How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4? I assume I could multiply it out but there must be some simplermethod...> Assuming that you can nd the modulus, r, and argument, t, of> z = -1 -i sqrt(3), then z^n has modulus r^n and argument (n t) for> every positive integer n. More succinctly, ( r e^(i t) )^n = r^n e^(i n t).OK, in the above example the modulus is 2 and the argument is -2pi/3... nowwhat? Is the modulus 2^4? What about the argument? = How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4? I assume I could multiply it out but there must be some simpler> method...> Assuming that you can nd the modulus, r, and argument, t, of> z = -1 -i sqrt(3), then z^n has modulus r^n and argument (n t) for> every positive integer n. More succinctly, ( r e^(i t) )^n = r^n e^(i n t).> OK, in the above example the modulus is 2 and the argument is -2pi/3... now> what? Is the modulus 2^4? What about the argument?If r = 2 then r^4 = 2^4.If t = -2 pi/3 then 4 t = -8 pi/3, or if t = 4 pi/3, ... How do I nd the modulus and principle argument of (-1 -sqrt3i)^4?> I assume I could multiply it out but there must be some simpler method...Back in the early 1960s I learned the mnemonic add the arguments, multiply the moduli ... (is this mnemonic sill used or taught?)Jim Buddenhagen-- To reply copy jbuddenh@REMOVEtexas.net to address bar and edit out REMOVE Been reading The Theory of Groups: An Introduction (2nd> Edition), a huge and advanced tome by Rotman. In one of the> exercises, he casually mentions that Z[x], the polynomials with> integer coefcients, considered as a group under addition, is> isomorphic to the positive rationals considered as a group under> multiplication. The exercise was to prove this by exhibiting such an> isomorphism explicitly, and I solved it thus:> a > - = (p1^k1) * (p2^k2) * (p3^k3) * ...> b> where p1,p2,... are the prime numbers and k1,k2,... are integers> which, by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, exist and are unique.> (They are not necessarily nonnegative, as for example 1/2 = 2^(-1))> Therefore, given a positive rational q, we are also given k1,k2,k3,...> and we use these to construct> i(q) = k1*(x^0) + k2*(x^1) + ... + kn(x^(n-1)) + ...,> a function from the positive rationals to Z[x].> Its not hard to show that i is an isomorphism.> As some examples:> i(0) = the zero polynomial> i(1/2) = -1 (the polynomial)> i(3/5) = x - x^2> i(3.14159265) = -8 + 2x - 7x^2 + x^3 + x^30 + x^991> This all seems incredibly interesting and profound. It means, for> example, that we can sensibly refer to the zeros, the degree, the> maxima, the derivative, etc. of a positive rational, or of the> value at x=5 of the same. Given a rational, we can gure its> isomorphic image among Z[x], differentiate this and go back to Q to> obtain a new rational.. like so:> d/dx 3.14159265 = i^-1(2 - 14x + 3x^2 + 30x^29 + 991x^990)> = (2^2)*(5^3)*(113^30)*(7841^991)/(5^14)> It seems there is no limit to the amount of new operations we can> invent using this isomorphism, the above are just a few examples. We> could speak of irreducible rationals, the minimum rational of an> algebraic (ie, the rational image of its minimal polynomial), etc.> etc. etc.> but none of these is meaningful, as you can dene as many differentisomorphisms as you may wish, and the information you want to be encodeddepends on the isomorphism. for instance, just swap over any twocoefcients in you polynomials. this alters the degree of some of therationals, the maxima and the roots too.for something like this, you would need the information you want to studyto be independent of any choices made, or something akin to that anyway. as a further example, you can articially make the degree independent ofthe choice of isomorphism by claiming two degrees are equivalent if thereis an isomorphism of Z[x] which sends polys of the rst degree to thesecond. however you can map swap any two coeffs, so that identies alldegrees. you do things like that all the time. for instance, the trace of a linearoperator (on a nite dimensional vector space). pick a basis and work itout. then show that for any two bases the answer is the same. AllI would like to nd a program to draw the domain of the followingfunction as an exportable picture to be inserted into a LaTeXdocument:f(x,y)=sqrt(tan(x)).(Please, notice that f is a function on two variables.)Could somebody here please help me?Paul to draw the domain of the following> function as an exportable picture to be inserted into a LaTeX> document:> f(x,y)=sqrt(tan(x)).> (Please, notice that f is a function on two variables.)> Could somebody here please help me?> > Paul> you can always use a drawing program. Thats what I usually do. On the other hand, you might able to use the feature of Maple or one of its counterparts that graphs inequalities.Have a tolerable existence. Eli A traditional lune on a sphere is measured from the poles.>Is there any such thing as a transversal lune, where the vertex is>at the equator, not the pole?I *believe* it should be transVERSE lune, not transVERSAL P=)> If a lune is the area between 2 great circles then yes, I would think> so, you can have the great circles intersect at the equator. If they> intersect at the poles then they are called meridians.Hmmm...transverse may be the key word to some of the concepts I amdealing with--see Technical Name Of Equatorially Concentric Rings?: doing a GOOGLE search and checking out some of theresults, it would seem that: Transverse Latitude = my vertical annular Ring; Transverse Longitude/Meridian = my Arc Path (AP, sin{AP} = Clairauts Formula); Transverse Lune = GEODETIC surface area between the lunes boundaries (i.e., AP_lo and AP_hi);Since both the geodetic (regular) and transverse latitudes arerings and the rings can be thought of as lobes of an annulus, alogical name for them would be ANNULOBES.However, as it would help if there was a terminological distinctionbetween the geodetic/regular, horizontal annulobes and thetransverse, vertical annulobes, this writer suggests that--fordiscussions involving annuli--the horizontal annulobes be denedas HANNULOBES and the vertical as VANNULOBES--unless someonehas a better idea?Tying this in to this thread (and others of mine from the past),is there a known formula for nding the area of a *spheroidal*transverse lune? ~Kaimbridge~----- WantedKaimbridge (w/mugshot!): http://www.angelre.com/ma2/digitology/Wanted_KMGC.html ----------DigitologyThe Grand Theory Of The Universe: http://www.angelre.com/ma2/digitology/index.html ***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. ***** =I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning mysanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--postersverbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on forYEARS.Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that Istarted posting several years back ideas that I thought might solveFermats Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when Ithought Id actually solved it.In response several posters would call me horrendous names, questionmy sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup.I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to expressyour ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenetby calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow themto succeed.So its been a back-and-forth, as they keep posting, and talking aboutme as just some crazy nut who wont shut-up, when I refuse to give into people who think of bullying and insults as a legitimate means tocontrol dissent.Remember posters like Uncle Al are *used* to winning!!!Posters like him hurl insults, call names, and bully people intoshutting up and leaving the newsgroups they control knowing thatusually that works.Those of you who act like its ok for several posters to gang up onone person and insult them with impunity, while accepting that personmust be a crank or crackpot because so many others attack them,are helping to create a continually hostile environment to new ideas.An Uncle Al cant produce on his own. Why do you think he attacksso many posters? But when you validate him by helping him chasepeople off of Usenet, then hes just sitting there like a mad dogready to attack *anyone* he chooses!You give him the power, but cant take it away.Now some of you may think Im annoying, or many of you may think Imannoying.You may be certain Im wrong, but why does that allow other people tocome after me, insult me endlessly, and then strut around on thenewsgroups like theyre decent people?Remember, I create a thread, people *reply* in threads that I started,and then the attack basically comes down to my speech. These peoplepost in reply to me and the idea is that its *my* fault!!!!!I dont make you read my posts. I dont force people to reply in mythreads. I dont force you to comment in reply to me.But why am I a crank for expecting people to behave on Usenet? Whymust I be crazy for refusing to buckle down to bullies who are intenton driving me off of Usenet by insulting me off? all of you if you think Ill let you control my speech on Usenetwith insults!!! you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!! you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!James Harris Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I>started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve>Fermats Last Theorem. Oh, that old thing. I solved that years ago, whilst sitting on the john.(The place where most of us do our deepest thinking.) Keep plugging away,Im sure youll gure it out eventually.-- Roger Blake >Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I>>started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve>>Fermats Last Theorem. Oh, that old thing. I solved that years ago, whilst sitting on the john.>(The place where most of us do our deepest thinking.) Keep plugging away,>Im sure youll gure it out eventually.Wow, you too? I managed to unify gravity with the other forces while sitting on the john, but then I realized there was no toilet paper. Oh, well. Ive been eating beer and sauer kraut, so that will give me plenty of time to reproduce my work later.-- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. -- Albert Einstein I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my>sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters>verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for>YEARS.Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I>started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve>Fermats Last Theorem. Nope. Two inaccuracies here. First, your posts didnt say that youthought you might prove FLT - you insisted for many years thatyou _had_ proved FLT. Including hundreds of hilarious posts,reading ok, so the last few hundred proofs I gave were wrong,but this ones right, and anyone who says its wrong is a liar.Second, theres a teensy difference between saying youveproved FLT and saying things like youre one of the greatestnumber theorists on the planet, calling people ingdog, etc.> A couple of times I became very excited when I>thought Id actually solved it.In response several posters would call me horrendous names, question>my sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup.I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to express>your ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenet>by calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow them>to succeed.Hypocrite. The only person in all this who has actually _done_ something to try to get people to stop posting is _you_ (youve_stated_ that the motivation for your ridiculous complaints tomy employer(!) were to get me to shut up.)>So its been a back-and-forth, as they keep posting, and talking about>me as just some crazy nut who wont shut-up, when I refuse to give in>to people who think of bullying and insults as a legitimate means to>control dissent.Remember posters like Uncle Al are *used* to winning!!!Posters like him hurl insults, call names, and bully people into>shutting up and leaving the newsgroups they control knowing that>usually that works.Those of you who act like its ok for several posters to gang up on>one person and insult them with impunity, while accepting that person>must be a crank or crackpot because so many others attack them,>are helping to create a continually hostile environment to new ideas.An Uncle Al cant produce on his own. Why do you think he attacks>so many posters? But when you validate him by helping him chase>people off of Usenet, then hes just sitting there like a mad dog>ready to attack *anyone* he chooses!You give him the power, but cant take it away.Now some of you may think Im annoying, or many of you may think Im>annoying.You may be certain Im wrong, but why does that allow other people to>come after me, insult me endlessly, and then strut around on the>newsgroups like theyre decent people?Remember, I create a thread, people *reply* in threads that I started,>and then the attack basically comes down to my speech. These people>post in reply to me and the idea is that its *my* fault!!!!!I dont make you read my posts. I dont force people to reply in my>threads. I dont force you to comment in reply to me.But why am I a crank for expecting people to behave on Usenet? Why>must I be crazy for refusing to buckle down to bullies who are intent>on driving me off of Usenet by insulting me off? all of you if you think Ill let you control my speech on Usenet>with insults!!! you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!! you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!>James Harris************************David C. Ullrich I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for> YEARS.Gee, it must suck to be a crank. Why dont you pull yourself together,and get some professional help?-jcr =James,You never responded to my post a few weeks ago. Im copying it below.------------------------------------------------------- --------------I saw your message about your algorithm for counting prime numbers. Iintended to read some of the background on thistopic and some of the preceding posts, but I dont know where to startbecause there are literally thousands of posts between you and yourresponders. It seems that you have an algorithm which works, but a lotof the mathematicians on usenet feel that it is just a modied formof earlier sieve algorithms or of Legendres inclusion/exclusionalgorithm. Perhaps your work would get a better reception if itfollowed a more traditional presentation format. You should discussthe existing work in this area and show how your formula differs fromexisiting algorithms. Since you know that some people feel this isjust a form of Legendres algorithm, you should especially addressthat point. Youhave to make it easier for other researchers to tell exactly what youhave done and how it ts into a larger context. Once you have writtensend to a journal for peer review. Or perhaps, you will nd thatthere are a lot of existing algorithms for counting prime numbers andyour approach might be true but not particularly interesting. Inaddition, some of the responses to your posts indicate that there aremore efcient and faster algorithms for counting prime numbers. Ifyou write a summary report, you might make a comparison of run-timefor your formula and some of the other formulas. (Even if your formula isslower, it might still have academic interest). It seems that such anapproach would be more productive than trying to convince the usenetaudience by periodically sending them the same post. I can tell fromlooking back over some of the history of these posts that, at rst,you received serious responses and serious criticisms, and then peoplegot tired and testy because they felt you werent responding to theirsincere questions. Since then, these posts have degenerated intoaccusations by you that the math community is scheming against you andretorts by them that you are a crank. Rather than trying to sway ahandful ofmathematicians on usenet, who have stopped taking you seriously, whydont you submit your ndings to a journal or submit your algorithmfor a patent? What do you think? James,> You never responded to my post a few weeks ago. Im copying it below.> ------------------------------------------------------------- --------> I saw your message about your algorithm for counting prime numbers. I> intended to read some of the background on this> topic and some of the preceding posts, but I dont know where to start> because there are literally thousands of posts between you and your> responders. It seems that you have an algorithm which works, but a lot> of the mathematicians on usenet feel that it is just a modied form> of earlier sieve algorithms or of Legendres inclusion/exclusion> algorithm. Perhaps your work would get a better reception if itIm glad you mentioned the word sieve as in fact what Ive found isdistinctive in that it is NOT a sieve.> followed a more traditional presentation format. You should discuss> the existing work in this area and show how your formula differs from> exisiting algorithms. Since you know that some people feel this is> just a form of Legendres algorithm, you should especially address> that point. YouI have.> have to make it easier for other researchers to tell exactly what you> have done and how it ts into a larger context. Once you have written> send to a journal for peer review. Or perhaps, you will nd that> there are a lot of existing algorithms for counting prime numbers and> your approach might be true but not particularly interesting. In> addition, some of the responses to your posts indicate that there are> more efcient and faster algorithms for counting prime numbers. If> you write a summary report, you might make a comparison of run-time> for your formula and some of the other formulas. (Even if your formula is> slower, it might still have academic interest). It seems that such an> approach would be more productive than trying to convince the usenet> audience by periodically sending them the same post. I can tell from> looking back over some of the history of these posts that, at rst,> you received serious responses and serious criticisms, and then peopleReally? Actually there were a couple of people who were astonishedthat what I had clearly worked. Quite soon, however, there were manymore posters attacking my work.Did you go back over 18 months in your research to when I *rst*talked of my nd?> got tired and testy because they felt you werent responding to their> sincere questions. Since then, these posts have degenerated into> accusations by you that the math community is scheming against you and> retorts by them that you are a crank. Rather than trying to sway aThe math community is showing its *true* interest in pure math,which is the point Im emphasizing.Besides, Usenet is small potatoes. Ive gone directly tomathematicians all over the world, and received a consistentlynegative reaction.However, the distinctive features of my nd are so extraordinary,like it not being a sieve, that its clear that something is notright.Believe me, Id prefer to nd some sensible mathematician willing todiscuss my work than deal with hostile, rude and obnoxious posters onUsenet!!!Its the math world that has the problem, as I cant seem to ndsensible mathematicians.> handful of> mathematicians on usenet, who have stopped taking you seriously, why> dont you submit your ndings to a journal or submit your algorithm> for a patent? > What do you think?Ill answer some questions you raised and answer those suggestions atthe end.First off, getting a prime count strictly from the math, that is, astraight summing of the partial difference equation I found, is*faster* than Legendres Method, by a bit, even though Legendres usesa sieve, which was veried by a poster who implemented Legendres awhile back and made a direct comparison.If you start building algorithms from my nd, you can swiftly createfaster and faster algorithms, and no one found the limit to how fastthey can go.I personally built a program that was on par with Mathematica, with alittle advice on particulars from a couple of posters.Beyond algorithms though, my partial difference equation leads to apartial differential equation.Now then, the potential ground to cover in a math paper is quitegreat, and Ive had some experience with math journal editors thatmakes me leery of expecting any better outcome from that path.Mathematicians here have a chance to show a caring for pure math orshow a disdain for it. After all, its not hard to see that what Ihave is important enough to at least record.I dont see a value in a patent.James HarrisMy math discoveries, found for prothttp://mathforprot.blogspot.com/ =I understand your point of view, but I dont agree with it. Journaland formalism. It forces you to review the literature in order to makeit clear how your work ts into (and differs from) previous work.have done and how it is new, and this, in turn, helps protect yourintellectual property. The Usenet news groups are OK for tossing ideasaround and getting some feedback, but they are not the best way to---- it takes a lot of time; you have to use conventional terminologyand formalism; you have to typeset equations; you have to learn aparticular journals convention for bibliographic references; you haveto respond to referee reports; etc. In spite of these drawbacks, thereare still good reasons for such a system. It has clear advantages overposting to usenet or sending incomplete summaries to random faculty.I know in physics, there are sites where you can post un-refereedpapers (e.g. http://arxiv.org/) I see that this site also has anarchive for math. You could post a paper there. In the end, Irecommend that you produce a report which is more formal than a usenetpost and then put it on one of the archive sites, or turn it into a =.......> I know in physics, there are sites where you can post un-refereed> papers (e.g. http://arxiv.org/) I see that this site also has an> archive for math. You could post a paper there. In the end, I> recommend that you produce a report which is more formal than a usenet> post and then put it on one of the archive sites, or turn it into aUnfortunately, to post in the archiv, you need to be a§iated witha university. I know, because I tried and was bouncedbecause I was just me.:(Martin Cohen personally built a program that was on par with Mathematica, with a> little advice on particulars from a couple of posters.Whoops! No you havent! Not even close!> Beyond algorithms though, my partial difference equation leads to a> partial differential equation.By your methodology *every* partial difference equation leads to a partial differential equation.Unfortunately, the derived result does not solve the original problem.James, you are so enamored of yourself Ill bet that if you ever make love to a beautiful woman, youllfantasize that youre masturbating.--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 James,You never responded to my post a few weeks ago. Im copying it below.You know having read the post below I could only wish this was thegeneral reaction to revisionist ideas on the usenet. Far too sensibleapparently. JSH is probably just an amateur who got a little tooemotionally attached to his own ideas. He doesnt seem to want todiscuss anything except motives and methods pro and con.--------------------------------------------------------- ------------I saw your message about your algorithm for counting prime numbers. I>intended to read some of the background on this>topic and some of the preceding posts, but I dont know where to start>because there are literally thousands of posts between you and your>responders. It seems that you have an algorithm which works, but a lot>of the mathematicians on usenet feel that it is just a modied form>of earlier sieve algorithms or of Legendres inclusion/exclusion>algorithm. Perhaps your work would get a better reception if it>followed a more traditional presentation format. You should discuss>the existing work in this area and show how your formula differs from>exisiting algorithms. Since you know that some people feel this is>just a form of Legendres algorithm, you should especially address>that point. You>have to make it easier for other researchers to tell exactly what you>have done and how it ts into a larger context. Once you have written>send to a journal for peer review. Or perhaps, you will nd that>there are a lot of existing algorithms for counting prime numbers and>your approach might be true but not particularly interesting. In>addition, some of the responses to your posts indicate that there are>more efcient and faster algorithms for counting prime numbers. If>you write a summary report, you might make a comparison of run-time>for your formula and some of the other formulas. (Even if your formula is>slower, it might still have academic interest). It seems that such an>approach would be more productive than trying to convince the usenet>audience by periodically sending them the same post. I can tell from>looking back over some of the history of these posts that, at rst,>you received serious responses and serious criticisms, and then people>got tired and testy because they felt you werent responding to their>sincere questions. Since then, these posts have degenerated into>accusations by you that the math community is scheming against you and>retorts by them that you are a crank. Rather than trying to sway a>handful of>mathematicians on usenet, who have stopped taking you seriously, why>dont you submit your ndings to a journal or submit your algorithm>for a patent? What do you think? =Someone who wasnt already familiar with you might be taken in by most ofthe pack of lies you posted. But your last three sentences demonstrateclearly why nothing you say deserves to be taken seriously.(Has anyone else noticed that James tends to post his most obscenity-ladendiatribes on Sunday afternoons? My theory is that Sunday is his favoritedrinking-day. I suggest he try church instead; it would be a much lessself-destructive use of his time.)-- Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | When your tails in a crack, you improvisefwbrown@bellsouth.net | if youre good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper.e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, Silverlock Someone who wasnt already familiar with you might be taken in by most of> the pack of lies you posted. But your last three sentences demonstrate> clearly why nothing you say deserves to be taken seriously.> > (Has anyone else noticed that James tends to post his most obscenity-laden> diatribes on Sunday afternoons? My theory is that Sunday is his favorite> drinking-day. I suggest he try church instead; it would be a much less> self-destructive use of his time.)I did not notice that, but let me guess as to the motivation. Possibly JSH can chime in if he spots any errors in my reasoning.The few people remaining who can tolerate JSH in person have jobs toMonday through Friday, those who are not sick of James are unable tolisten to his diatribes against the sci.math machine. He knows hewill be all alone for the upcoming week. He becomes disconsolate onSunday after fully realizing both this and the fact that he struck outbigtime with the ladies on Friday and Saturday night.He may have noticed (or may not, it is JSH after all) that he holdscourt for a smaller and smaller group of regulars -- some of them maynot reappear the next weekend. If he does notice, he will, of course,attribute that to something other than his asinine personality. Rather than reassess his [lack of] social standing or scour the wantads for a job, James hits the bottle.Sufciently looped, James lashes out at David Ullrich. :):):) Davidand the rest (myself a willing specator/occasional participant in thistrainwreck) then have a weekly party at James expense.What amazes me is that anybody responds to the mathematics in hisposts. IMO, JSH deserves *only* the ridicule he gets, and none of thehelp/corrections.Bye,Jayof your responses to me earlier, I should have realized what thequotes signify. So, with your instructions in mind, I retract callingyou a tool in favor of calling you a tool. I know you may disagree,but to me you are a total loser. Keep up the good work. IdiotP.P.S. JSH, no hard feelings. Please let me state that this is apsychological experiment I am it in marketing class. I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for> YEARS. I dont know from crank but when great breakthroughs and advances are only posted on usenet one has to draw some obvious conclusions.-- What do you get when you cross a gas chamber witha bottle of Manischewitz?The most expensive whine in the world. -- The Iron Webmaster, 2966 I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for> YEARS.Thats your fault. Everytime you post, you subject yourself to this abuse.Its like that kid that punches himself in the nose and says Mom, it hurtswhen I do this and his mother replies Well, then dont do it. Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I> started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve> Fermats Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when I> thought Id actually solved it. In response several posters would call me horrendous names, question> my sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup. I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to express> your ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenet> by calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow them> to succeed. So its been a back-and-forth, as they keep posting, and talking about> me as just some crazy nut who wont shut-up, when I refuse to give in> to people who think of bullying and insults as a legitimate means to> control dissent. Remember posters like Uncle Al are *used* to winning!!! Posters like him hurl insults, call names, and bully people into> shutting up and leaving the newsgroups they control knowing that> usually that works. Those of you who act like its ok for several posters to gang up on> one person and insult them with impunity, while accepting that person> must be a crank or crackpot because so many others attack them,> are helping to create a continually hostile environment to new ideas. An Uncle Al cant produce on his own. Why do you think he attacks> so many posters? But when you validate him by helping him chase> people off of Usenet, then hes just sitting there like a mad dog> ready to attack *anyone* he chooses! You give him the power, but cant take it away. Now some of you may think Im annoying, or many of you may think Im> annoying. You may be certain Im wrong, but why does that allow other people to> come after me, insult me endlessly, and then strut around on the> newsgroups like theyre decent people? Remember, I create a thread, people *reply* in threads that I started,> and then the attack basically comes down to my speech. These people> post in reply to me and the idea is that its *my* fault!!!!! I dont make you read my posts. I dont force people to reply in my> threads. I dont force you to comment in reply to me. But why am I a crank for expecting people to behave on Usenet? Why> must I be crazy for refusing to buckle down to bullies who are intent> on driving me off of Usenet by insulting me off? all of you if you think Ill let you control my speech on Usenet> with insults!!! you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!! you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!> James HarrisDavid Moran Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I>started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve>Fermats Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when I>thought Id actually solved it.Maybe the problem is that people tried to help you, putting in timethem.>In response several posters would call me horrendous names, question>my sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup.You post a pretty good bunch of insults yourself.>I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to express>your ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenet>by calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow them>to succeed.You are still posting. It seems that nobody has cut you off. Yourfreedom of speech remains. Your critics also deserve freedom ofspeech to post their objections.>So its been a back-and-forth, as they keep posting, and talking about>me as just some crazy nut who wont shut-up, when I refuse to give in>to people who think of bullying and insults as a legitimate means to>control dissent.>Remember posters like Uncle Al are *used* to winning!!!>Posters like him hurl insults, call names, and bully people into>shutting up and leaving the newsgroups they control knowing that>usually that control my speech on Usenet>with insults!!!> you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!!> you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!Now what was that you were saying about posting insults? Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I>started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve>Fermats Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when I>thought Id actually solved it.> Maybe the problem is that people tried to help you, putting in time> them.No maybe about it, thats not what happened.I had an idea, maybe wacky, that I could nd a simple and short proofof Fermats Last Theorem, and when I started posting, the insultsstarted ying!I had people who admitted in posts that simply by *saying* that Ithought I might nd a short and simple proof of Fermats Last Theoremthat I was insulting mathematicians.In all that noise there were occasionally a few posters who wouldsometimes post nicely, but that was always temporary.My point though is that math people behaved oddly by trying to controlmy postings, as if they had the right to *command* what could beposted on the newsgroup sci.math, and consistently back then I sawpeople agreeing that members of a group have the right to command whatgets posted.But its Usenet. Who is a group member?On sci.math, I think the consensus was that *mathematicians* and mathstudents were the only real group members, and that they had the rightto command postings from others, so that if you pissed them off, youshould leave if they commanded you to leave the group.Some of you might nd that strange to hear today, as its no longerlike that on sci.math, but you see, I changed it.James Harris On sci.math, I think the consensus was that *mathematicians* and math> students were the only real group members, and that they had the right> to command postings from others, so that if you pissed them off, you> should leave if they commanded you to leave the group.I did not know that. On sci.math, I think the consensus was that *mathematicians* and math> students were the only real group members, and that they had the right> to command postings from others, so that if you pissed them off, you> should leave if they commanded you to leave the group. Some of you might nd that strange to hear today, as its no longer> like that on sci.math, but you see, I changed it.Yeah? *I* drove the snakes from Ireland.-- There are people [...] who think its socially acceptable to levelaccusations of mental illness in insulting exchanges to makepoints[...] [They] are rather sick [them]selves, and in reality, aresociopathic. --- James Harris, evidently a self-described sociopath I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for> braying jackass that gets a whole page at crank.netHey stooopid loud troll James Harris, put up or shut up,http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/ faq.htmlhttp://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/ factoring/numbers.htmlIs a $10,000 prize no questions asked too small to justify yoursubmission of two little prime numbers?-- Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The Net! =Uncle Al I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going Its not every braying jackass that gets a whole page at crank.net Hey stooopid loud troll James Harris, put up or shut up, http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/ faq.html> http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/ numbers.html Is a $10,000 prize no questions asked too small to justify your> submission of two little prime numbers?Peanuts:) Consider the real importance of the RSA cipher. If it suddenlybecame insecure, a lot of generals and bankers would go grey overnight, andthe solver would at once become The Man Who Knew Too Much.Heres an easier prize problem:http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/saoub.htm:)LH Uncle Al I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, http://www.crank.net/harris.html> Its not every braying jackass that gets a whole page at crank.net Hey stooopid loud troll James Harris, put up or shut up, http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/ faq.html> http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/ numbers.html Is a $10,000 prize no questions asked too small to justify your> submission of two little prime numbers?> Peanuts:) Consider the real importance of the RSA cipher. If it suddenly> became insecure, a lot of generals and bankers would go grey overnight, and> the solver would at once become The Man Who Knew Too Much.> Heres an easier prize problem:> http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/saoub.htmHes a Klingon! James Harris is merely a dingleberry.-- Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The Net! I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanityThere is no question. They are coming to take you away Ha-Ha HoHo HeeHee tothe funny farm where life is beautiful all the time..... But why am I a crank for expecting people to behave on Usenet? Youre a crank for refusing to learn.Youve wasted seven years of your life, provided us with seven years ofreliable amusement. If you dont shape up thats what youll be knownfor, and there will be no one to dispute it.Man, Id be so depressed if I was in your shoes.V.-- homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for> YEARS. Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I> started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve> Fermats Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when I> thought Id actually solved it. In response several posters would call me horrendous names, question> my sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup. I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to express> your ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenet> by calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow them> to succeed. So its been a back-and-forth, as they keep posting, and talking about> me as just some crazy nut who wont shut-up, when I refuse to give in> to people who think of bullying and insults as a legitimate means to> control dissent. Remember posters like Uncle Al are *used* to winning!!! Posters like him hurl insults, call names, and bully people into> shutting up and leaving the newsgroups they control knowing that> usually that works. Those of you who act like its ok for several posters to gang up on> one person and insult them with impunity, while accepting that person> must be a crank or crackpot because so many others attack them,> are helping to create a continually hostile environment to new ideas. An Uncle Al cant produce on his own. Why do you think he attacks> so many posters? But when you validate him by helping him chase> people off of Usenet, then hes just sitting there like a mad dog> ready to attack *anyone* he chooses! You give him the power, but cant take it away. Now some of you may think Im annoying, or many of you may think Im> annoying. You may be certain Im wrong, but why does that allow other people to> come after me, insult me endlessly, and then strut around on the> newsgroups like theyre decent people? Remember, I create a thread, people *reply* in threads that I started,> and then the attack basically comes down to my speech. These people> post in reply to me and the idea is that its *my* fault!!!!! I dont make you read my posts. I dont force people to reply in my> threads. I dont force you to comment in reply to me. But why am I a crank for expecting people to behave on Usenet? Why> must I be crazy for refusing to buckle down to bullies who are intent> on driving me off of Usenet by insulting me off? all of you if you think Ill let you control my speech on Usenet> with insults!!! you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!! you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!> James HarrisHey James, I think you could be letting them get to you, take long breaksaway from the computer and relax dont let them make you become obsessivewith their bullying, go for a walk or something. I get bullied and insulted,and people gang up on me in, alt.meditation.transcendental, just because mygrammar is not very good, but mainly because I keep asking them a simplequestion: why do they think they can y; and, why do they try and chargeother people a lot of money to teach them to y, especially when you canget Easy Jet to Spain from Britain for 50 pounds, and they charge peoplethousands of dollars to teach people to y without any mechanicalcontrivance at all.James, you can learn something from the bullies as well because they are notwrong all the time. I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for> YEARS.Any abuse you received, you earned. If you dont like people responding toyour posts, dont post.> Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I> started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve> Fermats Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when I> thought Id actually solved it.Nope! That was not your crime. You posted, emphatically and often, thatyou *did* solve FLT. You attacked anyone who identied the innumerableerrors in your so-called proof. Later you insisted that you were the*only* one who had found a solution and that Wiles proof was wrong. Youaccused your critics of conspiracies and threatened to have your opponentsred or subjected to penalties by the FBI or U.S. Army.> In response several posters would call me horrendous names, question> my sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup.Stop snivellling, you big crybaby. Questioning your sanity is an exercisein identication, not bad manners. Its entirely appropriate that youshut up or leave this newsgroup. Or, and heres a novel thought, why dontyou simply correct your errors, abandon your awed arguments, reconsideryour work in an objective light, and start behaving like a rational human?(Not like the snarling, drooling animal suggested at the end of thispost.)> I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to express> your ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenet> by calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow them> to succeed.Usenet? Sure, post away. But this is sci.math, i.e. it is a specialinterest group. You are not expected to express just any preposterous ideathat may pop into the tangled rats nest you call your brain in anynewsgroup picked at random. Try limiting your posts to math topics. Leavethe conspiracy theories to other special interest groups.> So its been a back-and-forth, as they keep posting, and talking about> me as just some crazy nut who wont shut-up, when I refuse to give in> to people who think of bullying and insults as a legitimate means to> control dissent.Its back-and-forth, alright. But *you* keep posting crap and others havesimply tried to improve the SNR. No one is trying to control your dissent-- it is your passionate defense of you think Ill let you control my speech on Usenet> with insults!!! you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!! you if you think you can insult me into silence!!! James HarrisWell put, James. An appropriate tag to your transparent attempt atreasonable dialogue. (You forgot the CAPS LOCK key again!)--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 I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for> YEARS.> Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I> started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve> Fermats Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when I> thought Id actually solved it.> In response several posters would call me horrendous names, question> my sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup.> I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to express> your ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenet> by calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow them> to succeed.Well, lets see now. Suppose I came up to you and declared I canap my arms and y to the moon! How much of your time would youallocate to evaluating the truth of my claim?Now suppose you patiently explained to me that it was extremelyunlikely that I was telling the truth, and so you were politelyrequesting that I organize a clear, coherent demonstration of myability, rather than ranting randomly about the subject.Now suppose I came up to you *the next day* and declared I can apmy arms and y to the moon!Wouldnt you get a little short-tempered?But Im just exercising my freedom of speech!Dale all of you if you think Ill let you control my speech on Usenet> with insults!!!> you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!!> you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!> I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am Not at all. Youre good. Youre the best troll in the history of the Internet. And youre a pretty good crank. Youre the best troll in the history of the Internet. Hardly. Hes not even the best troll in the history of sci.math/physics.Doug =[snot]> I dont make you read my posts. I dont force people to reply in my> threads. I dont force you to comment in reply to me.No one forces you to read the replies you get.Dirk Vdm =Lots of stuff like this.> But why am I a crank for expecting people to behave on Usenet? Why> must I be crazy for refusing to buckle down to bullies who are intent> on driving me off of Usenet by insulting me off?Pot, kettle... you know the rest. See the remainder of your post.> **** all of you if you think Ill let you control my speech on Usenet> with insults!!!> **** you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!!> **** you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!> James HarrisExpletives deleted. And a merry Christmas to you too, James.Mark Atherton I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my> sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters> verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for> YEARS.> Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I> started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve> Fermats Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when I> thought Id actually solved it.> > In response several posters would call me horrendous names, question> my sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup.> I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to express> your ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenet> by calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow them> to succeed.> So its been a back-and-forth, as they keep posting, and talking about> me as just some crazy nut who wont shut-up, when I refuse to give in> to people who think of bullying and insults as a legitimate means to> control dissent.> Remember posters like Uncle Al are *used* to winning!!!> Posters like him hurl insults, call names, and bully people into> shutting up and leaving the newsgroups they control knowing that> usually that works.> Those of you who act like its ok for several posters to gang up on> one person and insult them with impunity, while accepting that person> must be a crank or crackpot because so many others attack them,> are helping to create a continually hostile environment to new ideas.> An Uncle Al cant produce on his own. Why do you think he attacks> so many posters? But when you validate him by helping him chase> people off of Usenet, then hes just sitting there like a mad dog> ready to attack *anyone* he chooses!> You give him the power, but cant take it away.> Now some of you may think Im annoying, or many of you may think Im> annoying.> You may be certain Im wrong, but why does that allow other people to> come after me, insult me endlessly, and then strut around on the> newsgroups like theyre decent people?> Remember, I create a thread, people *reply* in threads that I started,> and then the attack basically comes down to my speech. These people> post in reply to me and the idea is that its *my* fault!!!!!> I dont make you read my posts. I dont force people to reply in my> threads. I dont force you to comment in reply to me.> But why am I a crank for expecting people to behave on Usenet? Why> must I be crazy for refusing to buckle down to bullies who are intent> on driving me off of Usenet by insulting me off?> all of you if you think Ill let you control my speech on Usenet> with insults!!!> you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!!> you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!> James HarrisYou are failing to take into account that you are wrong! =If you do a Google Search on my name James Harris and math, like youput in James Harris math, youll currently see a link towww.crank.net coming up third, and I dont know how many of you knowthat site is run by a guy named Erik Max Francis who used to be aregular sci.math poster.I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and pleaseexplain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, whatmakes me a crackpot.Can *any* of you go there to what he has and tell me whats supposedto be so bad about what Im doing?Some people talk about going to look for something like an importantmath result, and others try quietly. So I talk about my efforts onUsenet.Whats so wrong with that? Why do I rate such an intense and activereaction from the math community?Why do mathematicians and math groupies spend so much time and effort,create webpages, etc. to bother with my attempts at nding someimportant math?What gives?Can any of you explain their behavior to me?Im curious.James Harris If you do a Google Search on my name James Harris and math, like you> put in James Harris math, youll currently see a link to> www.crank.net coming up third, Hey, you dont give yourself enough credit. You are one oess than 10 people with their own *category* at crank.net!http://www.crank.net/contents.htmlEven George Hammond doesnt get his own category.I think youve nally accomplished something with your life.-E If you do a Google Search on my name James Harris and math, like you>put in James Harris math, youll currently see a link to>www.crank.net coming up third, and I dont know how many of you know>that site is run by a guy named Erik Max Francis who used to be a>regular sci.math poster.I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please>explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what>makes me a crackpot.Why do you need us to explain this to you? Cant you read what itsays on the page?>Can *any* of you go there to what he has and tell me whats supposed>to be so bad about what Im doing?Some people talk about going to look for something like an important>math result, and others try quietly. So I talk about my efforts on>Usenet.Whats so wrong with that? Why do I rate such an intense and active>reaction from the math community?Why do mathematicians and math groupies spend so much time and effort,>create webpages, etc. to bother with my attempts at nding some>important math?What gives?Can any of you explain their behavior to me?Im curious.>James Harris************************David C. Ullrich If you do a Google Search on my name James Harris and math, like you>put in James Harris math, youll currently see a link to>www.crank.net coming up third, and I dont know how many of you know>that site is run by a guy named Erik Max Francis who used to be a>regular sci.math poster.I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please>explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what>makes me a crackpot.> Why do you need us to explain this to you? Cant you read what it> says on the page?Yes I can, which is why Im asking.Curious readers who havent yet looked should checkhttp://www.crank.net/harris.htmland see what evidence Erik Max Francis presents to justify his insulting label.And remember, he used to be a regular sci.math poster.Now then, what does he put on his page to justify his insults?James Harris If you do a Google Search on my name James Harris and math, like you>put in James Harris math, youll currently see a link to>www.crank.net coming up third, and I dont know how many of you know>that site is run by a guy named Erik Max Francis who used to be a>regular sci.math poster.>>I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please>explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what>makes me a crackpot.>>Why do you need us to explain this to you? Cant you read what it>>says on the page?> Yes I can, which is why Im asking.> Curious readers who havent yet looked should check> http://www.crank.net/harris.html> and see what evidence Erik Max Francis presents to justify his insulting label.> Most of us have. It seems pretty cut and dried.-E> And remember, he used to be a regular sci.math poster.> Now then, what does he put on his page to justify his insults?> > James Harris =If you do a Google Search on my name James Harris and math, like you>put in James Harris math, youll currently see a link to>www.crank.net coming up third, and I dont know how many of you know>that site is run by a guy named Erik Max Francis who used to be a>regular sci.math poster.I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please>explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what>makes me a crackpot. Why do you need us to explain this to you? Cant you read what it> says on the page? Yes I can, which is why Im asking.Then your reading comprehension is at fault Harris. I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please>explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what>makes me a crackpot.Perhaps he calls you a crackpot because you are, in fact, a crackpot.--Peter BowditchThe Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsolesThe Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlightand The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please>explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what>makes me a crackpot.> Perhaps he calls you a crackpot because you are, in fact, a crackpot.Perhaps. Can you consider any other possibilities though?Just curious.The website ishttp://www.crank.net/harris.htmland its run by a guy named Erik Max Francis, who used to post a loton the sci.math newsgroup.Im interested in people going to his site, seeing what hes postedthere, and honestly answering what in what he says shows that Im acrank.My question isnt unreasonable, and is a test of rationality.James Harris =heres a little challenge:prove that any of these heptagon constructions are not real(only approximations; teh rst one seems to be the easiest .-) http://www.geocities.com/robinhuiscool/robinhu dodnt do it, before JSH has a chance to, please! > My question isnt unreasonable, and is a test of rationality.--Give the Gift of Dick Cheney -- out of ofce, at last! If you do a Google Search on my name James Harris and math, like you> put in James Harris math, youll currently see a link to> www.crank.net coming up third, and I dont know how many of you know> that site is run by a guy named Erik Max Francis who used to be a> regular sci.math poster.> I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please> explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what> makes me a crackpot.> Can *any* of you go there to what he has and tell me whats supposed> to be so bad about what Im doing?> Some people talk about going to look for something like an important> math result, and others try quietly. So I talk about my efforts on> Usenet.> Whats so wrong with that? Why do I rate such an intense and active> reaction from the math community?> Why do mathematicians and math groupies spend so much time and effort,> create webpages, etc. to bother with my attempts at nding some> important math?> What gives?> Can any of you explain their behavior to me?> Im curious.> James HarrisYou are too stupid to remember the crap you have UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3c65f87.0109061331.8baf07% post...*******************Believe it or not, it was kind of fun being one of the number onecranks on the newsgroup.*******************You, one of the biggest tools around, are the author of the post Ireferenced!It was fun then, but now you are whining? Pathetic.Have a nice day,Jay If you do a Google Search on my name James Harris and math, like you> put in James Harris math, youll currently see a link to> www.crank.net coming up third, and I dont know how many of you know> that site is run by a guy named Erik Max Francis who used to be a> regular sci.math poster.> I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please> explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what> makes me a crackpot.> Can *any* of you go there to what he has and tell me whats supposed> to be so bad about what Im doing?> Some people talk about going to look for something like an important> math result, and others try quietly. So I talk about my efforts on> Usenet.> Whats so wrong with that? Why do I rate such an intense and active> reaction from the math community?For those who dont know the website is http://www.crank.net/harris.htmlwhere the insults start even with the link!!!Remember the site is run by Erik Max Francis a used to be regularsci.math poster, and Im emphasizing that *math* society spends a lotof time and effort trying to label me.Im curious as to whether or not any of you can say why.> > Why do mathematicians and math groupies spend so much time and effort,> create webpages, etc. to bother with my attempts at nding some> important math?> What gives?> Can any of you explain their behavior to me?> Im curious.> James Harris> You are too stupid to remember the crap you have posted.No you are too stupid to consider *normal* reactions to being smearedby people you cant stop, who refuse to be reasonable. > > Here is a line from the post...> *******************> Believe it or not, it was kind of fun being one of the number one> cranks on the newsgroup.> *******************> You, one of the biggest tools around, are the author of the post I> referenced!> And youre too stupid to notice that I put cranks in quotes. Icreate controversy in a time honored technique attributed to Socrates. However, mathematicians reacted by smearing, namecalling, and beingabout as irrational as you can be! My hope has been that *some*people would see that reality and learn to question the labeling, butI kept seeing evidence it was just being swallowed.So now Im asking a reasonable question, what is Erik Max Francissaying athttp://www.crank.net/harris.htmlto justify the insults?Cant *any* of you manage a *reasonable* post without sounding like amad dog yourself?> It was fun then, but now you are whining? Pathetic.How am I whining by asking questions?Youre a mathematican or a math groupie, right?> Have a nice day,> JayCome on, you can admit it. Youre a math groupie.And, I hope you have a crappy day.Make that I hope you have a crappy week!James Harris For those who dont know the website is > http://www.crank.net/harris.html> where the insults start even with the link!!!James, did you read some of that web site? Do you agree that, youexcepted, all those people on crank.net *are* cranks?Do you suppose they themselves think they are cranks?Victor leaving the nal step as exercise to the reader-- homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname For those who dont know the website is > http://www.crank.net/harris.html My math discoveries, found for prothttp://mathforprot.blogspot.com/ James, did you read some of that web site? Do you agree that, you> excepted, all those people on crank.net *are* cranks?> Thats illogical Victor Eijkhout, as even if that were true, it> wouldnt prove that I am, as your induction is false.Im sorry, what induction? Im asking you a question.> Do you suppose they themselves think they are cranks?> Now youre trying to imply that because a crank probably wouldnt> accept the label that non-acceptance on my part would just be a sign> that Im a crank.No, Im asking you a question.> Victor leaving the nal step as exercise to the reader> Now the full import of your post is clear. You were speaking to the> crowd trying to convince others that I am indeed a crank by using> false induction and the implication that refusal to accept the label> is just more proof.No, the crowd already has their opinion of you. Im just asking you acouple of simple questions.> What I nd fascinating about your post though Victor Eijkhout is the> rather clumsily false induction you used, since presumably someone> trained as a mathematician would be more logical.Oh, when Im actually doing math Im pretty logical. When Im respondingto you its purely for amusement value since any correlation between youand mathematics is vanishingly small. = http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/ faq.htmlhttp://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/ factoring/numbers.htmlIs a $10,000 prize no questions asked too small to justify yoursubmission of two little prime numbers?-- Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) =