mm-1709 === Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders > Perhaps you missed the point. He didn't make a racist statement. He > *considered* making one and decided against it. > Would it have mattered if he _had_ made a racist statement? People are > far too sensitive about such things. Well that goes to public standards of proper conduct, as part of my point is that Ullrich is a professor at a state university, and as a tax paying American, I say, I don't want professors getting my tax dollars, even indirectly by way of federal funds, if they're going to go out and be publicly racist. Like, why should I support someone with such views? Some of you just don't seem to understand how America works: Universities are publicly funded. That means they rely on taxpayer dollars. As a taxpayer I have a right to be bothered if some university professor--being paid with public dollars--decides he wants to be racist in public comments. Now some of you seem to believe in a world without standards. To people around the world this may seem to be what America is about anyway--no rules, or bending the rules as people see fit. But I'm one American, who did what I had the right to do, complain, about offensive public statements by a professor at a state university. He then promptly came on the newsgroup, whined about it, got a lot of attention, and to this day some of you keep defending this person, when he's used you, and his conduct isn't defensible. Now when standards no longer apply to university professors, then I say, I shouldn't have to freaking pay tax dollars that go to them. When all universities wish to go without public funds then their professors can make public asses of themselves and live without standards. Hell, then, for all I care, they can go make porno movies, curse, scream, use every racial slur they wish--as long as they're not taking tax money. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders Discussion, linux) > Well that goes to public standards of proper conduct, as part of my > point is that Ullrich is a professor at a state university, and as a > tax paying American, I say, I don't want professors getting my tax > dollars, even indirectly by way of federal funds, if they're going to > go out and be publicly racist. The tenure system is in place partly to allow professors to offend others and say what they wish. It's not intended to support overt racism, perhaps (and this never was a case of overt racism), but it is intended to prevent the kind of censorship that you're advocating here. Of course, when the hammer swings, you can aim a blow at tenure too. -- What you want with a hen? What you want with a woman Won't cackle when she lays when she won't do nothin' I say? What you want with a hen? -- Charlie Patton, Won't cackle when she lays Banty Rooster Blues === Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders > What you want with a hen? What you want with a woman > Won't cackle when she lays when she won't do nothin' I say? > What you want with a hen? -- Charlie Patton, > Won't cackle when she lays Banty Rooster Blues Trying to show James what an offensive post looks like? === Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders <41c1e854$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net> > Perhaps you missed the point. He didn't make a racist statement. > He > *considered* making one and decided against it. > Would it have mattered if he _had_ made a racist statement? People > are > far too sensitive about such things. > Well that goes to public standards of proper conduct, as part of my > point is that Ullrich is a professor at a state university, and as a > tax paying American, I say, I don't want professors getting my tax > dollars, even indirectly by way of federal funds, if they're going to > go out and be publicly racist. > Like, why should I support someone with such views? > Some of you just don't seem to understand how America works: > Universities are publicly funded. That means they rely on taxpayer > dollars. As a taxpayer I have a right to be bothered if some > university professor--being paid with public dollars--decides he wants > to be racist in public comments. > Now some of you seem to believe in a world without standards. > To people around the world this may seem to be what America is about > anyway--no rules, or bending the rules as people see fit. > But I'm one American, who did what I had the right to do, complain, > about offensive public statements by a professor at a state university. | Secretary: Sir, there's a black, out-of-state 'concerned | citizen' on the line for you. | | Administrator: Why me, Lord? | Tell him all complaints about the Ebonics | curricula are handled by the Humanities | Department. | | Secretary: He says it's about math. | | Administrator: Tell him there's no such thing as Afro-centric | mathematics, mathematics is universal. | | Secretary: It's not about math, he wants to file a racism | complaint about one of the professors. | | Administrator: Oh. That could be serious. What did the professor | do and what class was it in? | | Secretary: The professor didn't do anything and the thing | he didn't do happened on an Internet newsgroup. | | Administrator: That makes about as much sense as | claiming to have proved Fermat's Last Theorem | with high school algebra! | | Secretary: | | Administrator: Don't say it... | | Secretary: Well, he also discovered THE Prime Counting | function and it's just a matter of time 'til | it solves the Riemann Hypothesis. | | Administrator: Ok, transfer him to Professor _____. | It's his turn this week to handle unappreciated | geniuses. Tell Professor _____ to pretend he's | the department head. And for God's sake have | him record it! We'll play it at the Christmas | party. | | Secretary: Yes, sir. | | Administrator: If we knew then what we know now, | we would have picked our own damn cotton. > He then promptly came on the newsgroup, whined about it, got a lot of > attention, and to this day some of you keep defending this person, when > he's used you, and his conduct isn't defensible. > Now when standards no longer apply to university professors, then I > say, I shouldn't have to freaking pay tax dollars that go to them. > When all universities wish to go without public funds then their > professors can make public asses of themselves and live without > standards. > Hell, then, for all I care, they can go make porno movies, curse, > scream, use every racial slur they wish--as long as they're not taking > tax money. > James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders <41c1e854$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net> > > Perhaps you missed the point. He didn't make a racist statement. > He > *considered* making one and decided against it. > > Would it have mattered if he _had_ made a racist statement? People > are > far too sensitive about such things. > Well that goes to public standards of proper conduct, as part of my > point is that Ullrich is a professor at a state university, and as a > tax paying American, I say, I don't want professors getting my tax > dollars, even indirectly by way of federal funds, if they're going to > go out and be publicly racist. Tax dollars supporting freedom of speech sounds like an excellent idea to me. === Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders Discussion, linux) > | Administrator: If we knew then what we know now, > | we would have picked our own damn cotton. Trying to show James what an offensive post looks like? -- For some reason mathematicians are pushing some weird mind-control crap which works quite well from what I've seen over the last two years, but I'm asking you to snap out of it!!!! -- James S. Harris learns the truth about the Mind Control Lasers === Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders === >Subject: Re: JSH: Those Ullrich defenders >Message-id: <87vfb12y38.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >> | Administrator: If we knew then what we know now, >> | we would have picked our own damn cotton. >Trying to show James what an offensive post looks like? Should I have said darn? >-- >For some reason mathematicians are pushing some weird mind-control >crap which works quite well from what I've seen over the last two >years, but I'm asking you to snap out of it!!!! > -- James S. Harris learns the truth about the Mind Control Lasers -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate being reminded of that fact. They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another dimension! But the reality is that much of a state university's funding comes from tax dollars. David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? He's tax payer supported. Now if he doesn't want to live by rules of basic conduct then he needs to get a job where he doesn't get funds from taxpayers. Now the nice way to handle this situation is to let it die down. I made my complaint, Oklahoma State University heard it, did whatever (basically nothing), Ullrich whined on the newsgroup, played the victim and got his attention from it. Let it die. Now I do understand that some of you keep bringing it up, like the yahoo who got me discussing this again, because you LIKE controversy, and wish to keep raking over old wounds. However, I'm not going to let you knuckleheads make up your own twisted history, just to make me look bad, where you leave out pertinent facts. Reality is David Ullrich is the one who brought up race in a negative context by talking abotu racial slurs. David Ullrich is the one who did so more than a year after comments which most people might find hard to get fighting mad over as I said he acted as my lapdog in an instance, and apologized soon after. David Ullrich is the one who made a point of coming on the newsgroup to say that I'd contacted his school. David Ullrich is the one who probably loved the attention when hordes of you rushed to his defense, said the usual nonsense about minorities just trying race to screw over white people, and acted like a big happy family defending yourselves from me. He used you, worked you like a pack of lab animals, and probably just thought it'd die. But some of you like to keep bringing it up, and I don't mind telling the full story. To me, your behavior is typical of people who prefer to be used in such a way, versus dealing with the real world. You like your fantasy world so you're easily used. Get over it. And don't worry. You'll be used again. And probably again, and again and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, and your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for an instance. James Harris === Subject: Re: Funding, real world, not fantasy > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? > He's tax payer supported. And only those who agree with James Harris should be tax payer supported... right... I was just thinkng making a racial slur........ but nope..... not today..... === Subject: Re: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate > being reminded of that fact. > They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another > dimension! > But the reality is that much of a state university's funding comes from > tax dollars. > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? > He's tax payer supported. Being unemployed, so are you. Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [snip inaccurate diatribe against Prof. Ullrich] > Let it die. OK. Your move. [snip continuation of above] -- There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious. -- Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle. -- http://www.crbond.com === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) > And don't worry. You'll be used again. And probably again, and again > and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, and > your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for an > instance. Whoa. David Ullrich has graduated from lapdog to lapdog master? And he uses his skills against his old master? I think some accolades are in order here. How about an award for Most Improved? But this plot sounds a little familiar: Pupil uses skills against his master. Say, have you been watching kung fu movies or something? -- If you like high adventure, come with me. If you like the stealth of intrigue, come with me. If you like blood and thunder, come with me. But first listen to a word from our sponsor. -- Adventures by Morse === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <871xdp4drl.fsf@phiwumbda.org> > And don't worry. You'll be used again. And probably again, and again > and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, and > your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for an > instance. > Whoa. > David Ullrich has graduated from lapdog to lapdog master? And he uses > his skills against his old master? I want to be a lapdog master. Are there any courses I can take? How does one know, when one is a lapdog master. Are there official lists. For all I know I might not even have made it as far as lapdog yet. > I think some accolades are in order here. How about an award for > Most Improved? > But this plot sounds a little familiar: Pupil uses skills against his > master. Say, have you been watching kung fu movies or something? > -- > If you like high adventure, come with me. > If you like the stealth of intrigue, come with me. > If you like blood and thunder, come with me. > But first listen to a word from our sponsor. -- Adventures by Morse === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I want to be a lapdog master. Are there any courses I can take? How > does one know, when one is a lapdog master. Are there official lists. > For all I know I might not even have made it as far as lapdog yet. A lapdog is just a dog small and tame enough to be held on one's lap. So a lapdog master is one who owns and controls, and perhaps trains a lagdog, I would think. In any case, good luck in your lapdog mastering plan, and please keep us updated from time to time. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) >> And don't worry. You'll be used again. And probably again, and > again >> and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, > and >> your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for > an >> instance. >> Whoa. >> David Ullrich has graduated from lapdog to lapdog master? And he > uses >> his skills against his old master? > I want to be a lapdog master. Are there any courses I can take? First, you must find a master who makes you his lapdog. Then, when the time is ready, you must defeat your master and gather lapdogs of your own. Typically, this involves considering a racial epithet and then thinking better of it. > How does one know, when one is a lapdog master. Are there official > lists. For all I know I might not even have made it as far as > lapdog yet. Never mind. You are not lapdog master material. -- A recruitment consultant I know thinks the most important quality in a winner is to be lucky. To avoid wasting his time with unlucky applicants, he takes half the resumes piled on his desk and throws them straight in the bin. -- John Ramsden === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <871xdp4drl.fsf@phiwumbda.org> <87k6rg6f6x.fsf@phiwumbda.org> > I want to be a lapdog master. Are there any courses I can take? > First, you must find a master who makes you his lapdog. Then, when > the time is ready, you must defeat your master and gather lapdogs of > your own. Typically, this involves considering a racial epithet and > then thinking better of it. > How does one know, when one is a lapdog master. Are there official > lists. For all I know I might not even have made it as far as > lapdog yet. > Never mind. You are not lapdog master material. === Subject: Re: Funding, real world, not fantasy >I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate > being reminded of that fact. Really? Where'd you get that idea? > They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another > dimension! Tuition, endowments, and corporate grants are not outer space, yet they provide far more funding for Professors at many universities than Federal funds. > But the reality is that much of a state university's funding comes from > tax dollars. > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? In 2002, Oklahoma State University received a grand total of $8,773,000 in Federal funding. That's for every person in every department. They have 33 people on the faculty right now just in the mathematics department there. They have hundreds of people getting that money. Let's be generous and say there are only 450 or so people receiving that money. That's under $20,000 each (which is too high by far, but we're being generous). Let's say David receives $20,000 from the Federal government each year. Only about 80% of Federal tax receipts are from taxpayers (as opposed to corporations etc), so say $16,000 from taxes. The government took in about 80% of $1.9 trillion in personal taxes, so about $1.5 trillion. Let's assume you're better than average in the money department. So you paid, say, $45,000 in taxes last year. That's quite a bit. That equals about 1/33,333,333 of Federal personal tax receipts. So, on average, if David received $16,000 from personal tax receipts, 1/33,333,333 of that $16,000, or $0.00048 came from you. That's less than 1/2000 of a dollar. I think David couldn't care less what your 1/20 of a cent thinks of him. > He's tax payer supported. > Now if he doesn't want to live by rules of basic conduct then he needs > to get a job where he doesn't get funds from taxpayers. He hasn't lives by rules of basic conduct? Good Heavens. What did he do? Oh, that's right, he didn't do anything. > Now the nice way to handle this situation is to let it die down. But, of course, you didn't, instead: > I > made my complaint, Oklahoma State University heard it, did whatever > (basically nothing), Ullrich whined on the newsgroup, played the > victim and got his attention from it. So, in other words, rather than letting it die down, you did everything you could to get him fired. You failed abjectly. As a result, you say: > Let it die. That's awfully generous of you. Try your best to get someone fired, and then when you fail, say Gee, what's wrong with you people? *I* let it die down. Why don't you? Hypocritical jerk. > Now I do understand that some of you keep bringing it up, like the > yahoo who got me discussing this again, because you LIKE controversy, > and wish to keep raking over old wounds. Some of *us* keep bringing it up? How many threads have you started about the subject recently? How about other people? Geez. One would think you'd be embarassed to see this in print over and over. Michael === Subject: Re: Funding, real world, not fantasy >I think David couldn't care less what your 1/20 of a cent thinks of him. A mil here, a mil there, pretty soon your talking real money. Rich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy impressive. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate > being reminded of that fact. > They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another > dimension! > But the reality is that much of a state university's funding comes from > tax dollars. > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? > He's tax payer supported. > Now if he doesn't want to live by rules of basic conduct then he needs > to get a job where he doesn't get funds from taxpayers. > Now the nice way to handle this situation is to let it die down. I > made my complaint, Oklahoma State University heard it, did whatever > (basically nothing), Ullrich whined on the newsgroup, played the > victim and got his attention from it. > Let it die. > Now I do understand that some of you keep bringing it up, like the > yahoo who got me discussing this again, because you LIKE controversy, > and wish to keep raking over old wounds. > However, I'm not going to let you knuckleheads make up your own twisted > history, just to make me look bad, where you leave out pertinent facts. > Reality is David Ullrich is the one who brought up race in a negative > context by talking abotu racial slurs. David Ullrich is the one who > did so more than a year after comments which most people might find > hard to get fighting mad over as I said he acted as my lapdog in an > instance, and apologized soon after. > David Ullrich is the one who made a point of coming on the newsgroup to > say that I'd contacted his school. > David Ullrich is the one who probably loved the attention when hordes > of you rushed to his defense, said the usual nonsense about minorities > just trying race to screw over white people, and acted like a big > happy family defending yourselves from me. David Ullrich is the one who knows math! > He used you, worked you like a pack of lab animals, and probably just > thought it'd die. But some of you like to keep bringing it up, and I > don't mind telling the full story. > To me, your behavior is typical of people who prefer to be used in such > a way, versus dealing with the real world. You like your fantasy world > so you're easily used. > Get over it. > And don't worry. You'll be used again. And probably again, and again > and again by people willing to use your prejudices, your laziness, and > your gullibility to make you into their lapdogs, even, if only for an > instance. > James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I know professors and people in America supported by tax dollars hate > being reminded of that fact. > They act as if the money just comes from outer space or maybe another > dimension! > But the reality is that much of a state university's funding comes from > tax dollars. How much of that is state vs federal money? > David Ullrich gets a paycheck from Oklahoma State University, right? > He's tax payer supported. > Now if he doesn't want to live by rules of basic conduct then he needs > to get a job where he doesn't get funds from taxpayers. > Now the nice way to handle this situation is to let it die down. I > made my complaint, Oklahoma State University heard it, did whatever > (basically nothing), Ullrich whined on the newsgroup, played the > victim and got his attention from it. > Let it die. That's why you started *another* thread on it? > Now I do understand that some of you keep bringing it up, like the > yahoo who got me discussing this again, because you LIKE controversy, > and wish to keep raking over old wounds. > However, I'm not going to let you knuckleheads make up your own twisted > history, just to make me look bad, where you leave out pertinent facts. facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about matters of (recent) history. -- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] ... [Will Twentyman] > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about > matters of (recent) history. Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) would be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought it would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. I don't agree it would have been appropriate, but there's nothing objectionable about discussing its appropriateness. Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course there's no shortage of people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. He doesn't rant about them. I view this as another manifestation of his extraordinary talent for deftly avoiding pesky facts to cut straight to the heart of a fantasy . === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> > [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] > ... This reply is distinctive in that David Ullrich replied to it claiming it represented his actual thinking. So, I think it worthy to step out what's being said. > [Will Twentyman] the > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about > matters of (recent) history. > Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to was in > early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David Ullrich was truly > pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, and a lapdog at one > point. JSH even apologized for that. As David has explained endlessly ever > since, he thought that delivering some sort of racial slur (that's as > specific as it ever got) would be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't > talk about other people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he > thought it would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of > it. So, according to Tim Peters, David Ullrich justifiably introduced race, in a context where he noted he was angry, to try and explain to me how NOT to talk to people! But, why pick a racial slur? Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking of the word nigger. Now then, his claim is that he wanted to teach me a lesson, and now in context his full claim then is that he thought that using the racial slur nigger would teach me a lesson. How is that better? > I don't agree it would have been appropriate, but there's nothing > objectionable about discussing its appropriateness. However, why does race matter? And why is it so important to teach me a lesson, when race hadn't been the subject at hand? After all, I'd said that David Ullrich had *acted* as my lapdog in an instance, which is a far cry from a demeaning racial insult meant to indicate that someone is some degraded thing. My comment was graded, and indicated that Ullrich was acting in a particular way, in an instance, while he thought it fit to hurl a racial epithet in reply, by his own words. Later he claims it was to teach me a lesson? And remember, David Ullrich is an actual professor at a state school. He *does* in fact teach students there lessons. His judgement is clearly questionable, at a minimum. > Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course there's no shortage of people > who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. He doesn't rant about them. I > view this as another manifestation of his extraordinary talent for deftly > avoiding pesky facts to cut straight to the heart of a fantasy . Now there's a paternalistic nature to the comments here, and there's also a paternalistic slant to the idea that Ullrich wished to teach me a lesson. However, the reality is that others hurling racial insults is not an excuse for Ullrich's own comments. And it's worth noting that NO ONE did ever call me nigger on the newsgroup until David Ullrich came here posting about my *private* communication to Oklahoma State University when I made my complaint. So, he actually created the very situation that he talked about, by proxy, as other posters chose to use the racial slur that he'd talked of thinking appropriate. I challenge you to find any response from David Ullrich to those people. As why *should* he challenge them, when he himself said he thought a racial slur the appropriate reply? Now then, others did for Ullrich what he was too afraid to do himself, though he tried in a backhanded manner. Ullrich introduced the subject of racial slurs. Ullrich whined on the newsgroup about my private complaint. Ullrich is the one who fleshed out his thinking with another post talking about when he felt racial slurs would be appropriate. His example was of someone breaking into his house to rape his daughter! Now as an American citizen, I have the right to complain about some professor at a state university publicly posting such things on Usenet. I think that David Ullrich reflects badly not only on his school, but on Americans in general, as I doubt anyone who looks at this objectively, can figure out how a professor at a state university could behave in such a way, and get away with breaking so many rules--like publicizing my private complaint. Then again, I fear that many will just say, yes, that's those Americans. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > But, why pick a racial slur? > Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, > as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South > African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking > of the word nigger. I'm a South African you insensitive clod!! Not all non-black South Africans are racists, ing idiot. BTW, we hardly know the word n*gg*r. This reverse racism is getting me down. It's ok for non-white people to bring up race in a conversation, but as soon as a white man says anything about race, he's considered a racist. Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, we're proud of what we achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add to the few problems we still have. People like you! Bringing up the issue of South Africa and racism just shows how racist your thoughts really are. Prick. kalix === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > But, why pick a racial slur? > Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be > applied to me, as in another post some time before, in a > discussion with a South African, I pointed out that I was black. > So he probably was thinking of the word nigger. > I'm a South African you insensitive clod!! Not all non-black South > Africans are racists, ing idiot. BTW, we hardly know the word > n*gg*r. This is a natural point of confusion. With a South African accent, that sounds like Kaffir. > This reverse racism is getting me down. It's ok for non-white > people to bring up race in a conversation, but as soon as a > white man says anything about race, he's considered a racist. Even writing as an American white, I think I can say that it's a tricky situation for American blacks (and, presumably, South African blacks). As a group, they remember a time when solidarity was close to the only weapon they had. It would be difficult to give that up by refusing to back an individual's complaint, even if they realize that individual is abusing that solidarity, playing the race card for non-race reasons (like trying to get a critic to go away). I think that's a big mistake. Recognition of the legitimacy of their complaints was slowly won, at great cost, but it can be quickly piddled away again if they don't police their own ranks. But, then, it's not my decision, is it? > Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, we're proud of what we > achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add to the few > problems we still have. People like you! Bringing up the issue of > South Africa and racism just shows how racist your thoughts > really are. Prick. Even from half-way around the world, I was and am proud of South Africa (as a human being). It's because of you all (and other stories in the same vein) that I sometimes think we're going to get out of the 21st century alive. However, many as the sins are that I would accuse Harris of, I have not seen him accuse any individual South African of racism, justly or otherwise. He did say he told a South African he was black. It looks to me like you just did what you just complained about, only with the name-plates of the positions reversed. Double-reverse racism? Jim Burns === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> <41C58D35.2E458A78@osu.edu> > Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, we're proud of what we > achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add to the few > problems we still have. People like you! Bringing up the issue of > South Africa and racism just shows how racist your thoughts > really are. Prick. > Even from half-way around the world, I was and am proud of South > Africa (as a human being). It's because of you all (and other > stories in the same vein) that I sometimes think we're going > to get out of the 21st century alive. > However, many as the sins are that I would accuse Harris of, I > have not seen him accuse any individual South African of racism, > justly or otherwise. He did say he told a South African he was black. > It looks to me like you just did what you just complained about, > only with the name-plates of the positions reversed. > Double-reverse racism? > Jim Burns Yup. I wasn't accusing South Africans of racism. I was giving information relevant to context, like how it turns out that I ended up mentioning my race on the newsgroup. It was not an angry conversation, and I don't think there was much of a stir on the newsgroup at the time. We just chatted about a few things--that ended up being racially related--and went on our separate ways. However, David Ullrich probably pulled from that discussion that I am what Americans typically call black, as I can't think of any other way that he got the information, and he used that information later, when he posted talking about the apropriateness of racial slurs, and remember he was replying to me. So he posted in reply to me that he'd been angry at my talking of him acting as my lapdog in an instance, and had thought the appropriate reply would have been a racial slur, but he says he was talked out of it. The blatancy of the statement makes it indefensible, as most of you are adults, and even a kid couldn't get away with, say, telling his father that he thought to disparage him with some insult about his anatomy but a school friend talked him out of it! It's not even vague what Ullrich was doing. And, after I communicated with his school--a private communication--he broke the rules by posting about it on the newsgroup, and in response there were posters who did then use racial slurs against me. How dumb do those of you who defend Ullrich really believe everyone else is? Ullrich introduced race, in a context of anger, and talked of the appropriateness of racial slurs. Ullrich came whining on the newsgroup about my *private* complaint to Oklahoma State University, and got a lot of sympathy as an outpouring of hatred went against me, where some posters actually used racial slurs. Ullrich's supporters keep bringing this issue up, repeatedly making posts saying that I tried to get him fired, or that I contact people's employers, or other statements of that effect, not giving the full story, as they wage a campaign of disinformation. In response I've been posting the full story. Now there's a problem I think with people who don't like the truth, but believe that all that matters is what the majority presents as the truth, and Ullrich has a lot of people with him, while I'm basically by myself. So to you people, it's perfectly fair that Ullrich introduced race, used the newsgroup, talked of private communications with his school, and did whatever--as long as he's part of the majority! And he knows that, I'm sure. Why else did he use you as he did? He does have tenure at Oklahoma State University. His job was never threatened. He couldn't have worried too much about sneakily introducing race--as long as he didn't actually hurl a racial slur. He used you. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > It's not even vague what Ullrich was doing. And, after I communicated > with his school--a private communication--he broke the rules by posting > about it on the newsgroup, and in response there were posters who did > then use racial slurs against me. He broke the rules? What rules are you talking about? === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> > >> Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, we're proud of what we >> achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add to the few >> problems we still have. People like you! Bringing up the issue of >> South Africa and racism just shows how racist your thoughts >> really are. Prick. >> Even from half-way around the world, I was and am proud of South >> Africa (as a human being). It's because of you all (and other >> stories in the same vein) that I sometimes think we're going >> to get out of the 21st century alive. >> However, many as the sins are that I would accuse Harris of, I >> have not seen him accuse any individual South African of racism, >> justly or otherwise. He did say he told a South African he was black. >> It looks to me like you just did what you just complained about, >> only with the name-plates of the positions reversed. >> Double-reverse racism? >> Jim Burns >Yup. I wasn't accusing South Africans of racism. I was giving >information relevant to context, like how it turns out that I ended up >mentioning my race on the newsgroup. >It was not an angry conversation, and I don't think there was much of a >stir on the newsgroup at the time. We just chatted about a few >things--that ended up being racially related--and went on our separate >ways. >However, David Ullrich probably pulled from that discussion that I am >what Americans typically call black, as I can't think of any other way >that he got the information, and he used that information later, when >he posted talking about the apropriateness of racial slurs, and >remember he was replying to me. >So he posted in reply to me that he'd been angry at my talking of him >acting as my lapdog in an instance, and had thought the appropriate >reply would have been a racial slur, but he says he was talked out of >it. >The blatancy of the statement makes it indefensible, as most of you are >adults, and even a kid couldn't get away with, say, telling his father >that he thought to disparage him with some insult about his anatomy but >a school friend talked him out of it! >It's not even vague what Ullrich was doing. And, after I communicated >with his school--a private communication--he broke the rules by posting >about it on the newsgroup, and in response there were posters who did >then use racial slurs against me. >How dumb do those of you who defend Ullrich really believe everyone >else is? >Ullrich introduced race, in a context of anger, and talked of the >appropriateness of racial slurs. >Ullrich came whining on the newsgroup about my *private* complaint to >Oklahoma State University, and got a lot of sympathy as an outpouring >of hatred went against me, where some posters actually used racial >slurs. >Ullrich's supporters keep bringing this issue up, repeatedly making >posts saying that I tried to get him fired, or that I contact people's >employers, or other statements of that effect, not giving the full >story, as they wage a campaign of disinformation. >In response I've been posting the full story. >Now there's a problem I think with people who don't like the truth, but >believe that all that matters is what the majority presents as the >truth, and Ullrich has a lot of people with him, while I'm basically by >myself. >So to you people, it's perfectly fair that Ullrich introduced race, >used the newsgroup, talked of private communications with his school, >and did whatever--as long as he's part of the majority! >And he knows that, I'm sure. Why else did he use you as he did? >He does have tenure at Oklahoma State University. His job was never >threatened. He couldn't have worried too much about sneakily >introducing race--as long as he didn't actually hurl a racial slur. >He used you. So you knew he had tenure and you knew his job was never in danger? Is that your story? So how does the call to the Attorney General fit into this scenario? How dumb do you think we are? One of these days you're going to pull a stunt like this on the wrong person. Every time you disappear I always wonder if you've finally ed with someone who doesn't take lightly your interfering with their job. Consider yourself lucky that you just get called a nigger. >James Harris -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >He does have tenure at Oklahoma State University. His job was never >threatened. He couldn't have worried too much about sneakily >introducing race--as long as he didn't actually hurl a racial slur. >He used you. > So you knew he had tenure and you knew his job was never in > danger? Is that your story? So how does the call to the > Attorney General fit into this scenario? How dumb do you > think we are? > One of these days you're going to pull a stunt like this on > the wrong person. Every time you disappear I always wonder > if you've finally ed with someone who doesn't take lightly > your interfering with their job. > Consider yourself lucky that you just get called a nigger. Go back to sleep, M. Ullrich never called Harris a nigger. You, however, are coming disgustingly close to threatening Harris. I would appreciate it if you didn't make Harris look good (in contrast to your incomparable self). I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. Jim Burns === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > Ullrich never called Harris a nigger. When did Jim Burns say that Ullrich called Harris a nigger? I missed that. > You, however, are coming disgustingly close to threatening > Harris. When did Jim Burns come close to threatening Harris? He was talking about what someone he referes to as the wrong person might do. > I would appreciate it if you didn't make Harris look good I cannot see how Jim Burns makes Harris look good. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41C5ED2E.A50C9F19@osu.edu> <6JidncokWvyG7VvcRVn-gg@whidbeytel.com> Discussion, linux) >> Ullrich never called Harris a nigger. > When did Jim Burns say that Ullrich called Harris a nigger? I missed that. >> You, however, are coming disgustingly close to threatening >> Harris. > When did Jim Burns come close to threatening Harris? He was talking about > what someone he referes to as the wrong person might do. >> I would appreciate it if you didn't make Harris look good > I cannot see how Jim Burns makes Harris look good. I think you need to check the program. You're mixing up the characters. -- Jesse F. Hughes Usenet is demonstrably dangerous. It needs to be regulated. --James S. Harris, voice of reason and moderation === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <41C5ED2E.A50C9F19@osu.edu> === >>Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> >>He does have tenure at Oklahoma State University. His job was never >>threatened. He couldn't have worried too much about sneakily >>introducing race--as long as he didn't actually hurl a racial slur. >>He used you. >> So you knew he had tenure and you knew his job was never in >> danger? Is that your story? So how does the call to the >> Attorney General fit into this scenario? How dumb do you >> think we are? >> One of these days you're going to pull a stunt like this on >> the wrong person. Every time you disappear I always wonder >> if you've finally ed with someone who doesn't take lightly >> your interfering with their job. >> Consider yourself lucky that you just get called a nigger. > Go back to sleep, M. >Ullrich never called Harris a nigger. I never said he called Harris a nigger. If you'll wake up and actually read what's been said, you'll see the part where Harris claims that Ullrich supporters have called him a nigger. >You, however, are coming disgustingly close to threatening >Harris. How did I threaten him? I realize that a word to the wise is wasted on Harris, but warning him that invading someone's personal space isn't a smart course of action is the right thing to do. >I would appreciate it if you didn't make Harris look >good (in contrast to your incomparable self). So you think right and wrong are relative? Sorry, but I believe that wrong is absolute and that NOTHING I say can ever make Harris look good. >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? >Jim Burns -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) >>I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. > So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris > never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? Damn near harmless, perhaps? Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? Harris's behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any obvious way since. I don't think the JSH threat requires any stand from Jim Burns or you. Or me. -- Jesse F. Hughes All Chinese are Confucianists when successful, and Taoists when they are failures. -- Lin Yutang, /My Country and My People/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >>So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >>never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? > Damn near harmless, perhaps? > Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? > Harris's behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not > particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any > obvious way since. That's not entirely accurate. He tried the same stunt with me in February of this year. Or so he claimed. Rick === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> Discussion, linux) >>I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? >> Damn near harmless, perhaps? >> Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >> Harris's behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >> particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >> obvious way since. > That's not entirely accurate. He tried the same stunt with me > in February of this year. Or so he claimed. Yes, another poster emailed me to remind me about that. Or so he claimed? Does that mean you're not sure whether he complained to Hamilton College? -- Jesse F. Hughes What you call reasonable is suspect since you've proven yourself to be an enemy of mathematics. -- James S. Harris defends the cause. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >> >>So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >>never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? >Damn near harmless, perhaps? >Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >Harris's behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >obvious way since. >>That's not entirely accurate. He tried the same stunt with me >>in February of this year. Or so he claimed. > Yes, another poster emailed me to remind me about that. > Or so he claimed? Does that mean you're not sure whether he > complained to Hamilton College? That's right. On or about February 10 of this year James posted, I hereby charge Rick Decker with academic fraud and note that his college is responsible for this rogue professor. I've deliberately involved an official at his college to take away plausible deniability for his school in a phone call I made months ago. His college has been made aware of his behavior. I haven't heard gales of laughter from the Dean's office, so I can't say for sure whether James actually contacted Hamilton or was simply blowing smoke. In either case, I really like the title rogue professor. I'd put it on my vita, but I can't figure where it belongs. Rick, Rogue Professor === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> <87pt15iuvv.fsf@phiwumbda.org> Discussion, linux) > Rick, Rogue Professor You will always be Rick Decker of Hamilton College for me. But even that has a bit of roguishness about it. Like Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest, say. -- Jesse F. Hughes You shouldn't hate Mother Mathematics. -- James S. Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >> So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >> never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? >Damn near harmless, perhaps? >Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >Harris's behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >obvious way since. I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that Harris contacted their employer. And Harris still claims that he was within his rights in doing what he did. If you try to murder someone and fail to pull it off, you still go to jail, don't you? > I don't think the JSH threat requires any stand >from Jim Burns or you. Or me. Yeah, what do I care, I don't even put my name on these posts. Let Harris with someone else's life. No skin off my nose. >-- >Jesse F. Hughes >All Chinese are Confucianists when successful, and Taoists when they >are failures. > -- Lin Yutang, /My Country and My People/ -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >>Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >>Message-id: <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >>I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. > So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris > never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? >>Damn near harmless, perhaps? >>Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >>Harris's behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >>particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >>obvious way since. >I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that >Harris contacted their employer. That's correct. >And Harris still claims that he was >within his rights in doing what he did. Of course he was within his rights! >If you try to murder someone and >fail to pull it off, you still go to jail, don't you? What planet are you from? Murder is illegal. Making bogus complaints is not. >> I don't think the JSH threat requires any stand >>from Jim Burns or you. Or me. >Yeah, what do I care, I don't even put my name on these posts. Let Harris > with someone else's life. No skin off my nose. >>-- >>Jesse F. Hughes >>All Chinese are Confucianists when successful, and Taoists when they >>are failures. >> -- Lin Yutang, /My Country and My People/ ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) === >>Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >>Message-id: <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >>I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. > So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris > never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? >>Damn near harmless, perhaps? >>Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >>Harris's behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >>particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >>obvious way since. > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > Harris contacted their employer. And Harris still claims that he was > within his rights in doing what he did. I'd say he was within his rights as well, depending on what you mean there. Are you suggesting he broke some law or something? > If you try to murder someone and fail to pull it off, you still go > to jail, don't you? >> I don't think the JSH threat requires any stand >>from Jim Burns or you. Or me. > Yeah, what do I care, I don't even put my name on these posts. Let Harris > with someone else's life. No skin off my nose. Very dramatic. -- One these mornings gonna wake | Ain't nobody's doggone business how up crazy, | my baby treats me, Gonna grab my gun, kill my baby. | Nobody's business but mine. Nobody's business by mine. | -- Mississippi John Hurt === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <87mzw9iusb.fsf@phiwumbda.org> === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <87d5x5q3ky.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >I like my newsgroup politics nice and tidy. >> >> So that you never have to take a stand? So that as long as Harris >> never intrudes into _your_ life, he's just a harmless clown? >Damn near harmless, perhaps? >Or, in deference to Douglas Adams, mostly harmless? >Harris's behavior in the OkState affair was reprehensible, but (1) not >particularly effective in this case and (2) not repeated in any >obvious way since. >> I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that >> Harris contacted their employer. And Harris still claims that he was >> within his rights in doing what he did. >I'd say he was within his rights as well, That explains a lot. >depending on what you mean >there. Are you suggesting he broke some law or something? Aren't there laws about making false and frivolous charges against someone? >> If you try to murder someone and fail to pull it off, you still go >> to jail, don't you? > I don't think the JSH threat requires any stand >from Jim Burns or you. Or me. >> Yeah, what do I care, I don't even put my name on these posts. Let Harris >> with someone else's life. No skin off my nose. >Very dramatic. >-- >One these mornings gonna wake | Ain't nobody's doggone business how > up crazy, | my baby treats me, >Gonna grab my gun, kill my baby. | Nobody's business but mine. >Nobody's business by mine. | -- Mississippi John Hurt -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) >>I'd say he was within his rights as well, > That explains a lot. >>depending on what you mean >>there. Are you suggesting he broke some law or something? > Aren't there laws about making false and frivolous charges against > someone? What does the word charges mean here? I'd guess that JSH's complaint to Oklahoma State wouldn't be illegal. I'd guess that even his complaint to the Attorney General is likely not illegal, but who knows? We're not sure what it contains. But it's hard to prove that JSH was knowingly lying in his complaints. This is a difficult fact to prove in a situation which allows for different interpretations. JSH behaved badly -- very badly -- throughout the episode, but I'd be surprised if he broke the law in any obvious way. -- This confused and outraged many Matrix fans, who'd already spent hours on the web explaining that man and computers could never really live in such a state of harmony and mutual benefit. -- http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > Harris contacted their employer. Actually it indeed happened twice. And one occurrence was successful. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) > > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > > Harris contacted their employer. > Actually it indeed happened twice. And one occurrence was > successful. Successful? Come on, details! Evidently, I don't know so much about these matters. It apparently happened three times. (1) Ullrich (2) Rick (who is apparently not positive that James did anything) (3) Your successful time (which must not be Rick) -- Not all features that are found on the Security tab are designed to help make your documents and files more secure. --Microsoft on Office security features (after it was pointed out by a third party that a certain password setting is easily bypassed.) === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > > Harris contacted their employer. > > Actually it indeed happened twice. And one occurrence was > successful. > Successful? Come on, details! > Evidently, I don't know so much about these matters. It apparently > happened three times. > (1) Ullrich > (2) Rick (who is apparently not positive that James did anything) > (3) Your successful time (which must not be Rick) Michael Varney, around 2000. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Mensanator] > I was under the impression that at least one other person claims that > Harris contacted their employer. [Dik T. Winter] >> Actually it indeed happened twice. And one occurrence was >> successful. [Jesse F. Hughes] > Successful? Come on, details! > Evidently, I don't know so much about these matters. It apparently > happened three times. > (1) Ullrich > (2) Rick (who is apparently not positive that James did anything) > (3) Your successful time (which must not be Rick) Be truthful now: have you personally seen Wiles cash a paycheck since JSH announced that his proof is most easily seen to be false by noting that the entire approach is logically fallacious ? === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> > > > Fokken Doos, keep your hands of my country, we're proud of > what we achieved in the last 10 years. Comments like these add > to the few problems we still have. People like you! Bringing > up the issue of South Africa and racism just shows how racist > your thoughts really are. Prick. > Even from half-way around the world, I was and am proud of South > Africa (as a human being). It's because of you all (and other > stories in the same vein) that I sometimes think we're going > to get out of the 21st century alive. > However, many as the sins are that I would accuse Harris of, I > have not seen him accuse any individual South African of racism, > justly or otherwise. He did say he told a South African he was black. > It looks to me like you just did what you just complained about, > only with the name-plates of the positions reversed. > Double-reverse racism? > Jim Burns > Yup. I wasn't accusing South Africans of racism. I was giving > information relevant to context, like how it turns out that I > ended up mentioning my race on the newsgroup. > It was not an angry conversation, and I don't think there was > much of a stir on the newsgroup at the time. We just chatted > about a few things--that ended up being racially related--and went > on our separate ways. > However, David Ullrich [snip Harris-crap] I don't need it explained to me. I saw it, before you deleted various parts of the story. [un-snip Harris-slap] : Even writing as an American white, I think I can say that it's : a tricky situation for American blacks (and, presumably, South : African blacks). : : As a group, they remember a time when solidarity was close to : the only weapon they had. It would be difficult to give that up : by refusing to back an individual's complaint, even if they : realize that individual is abusing that solidarity, playing the : race card for non-race reasons (like trying to get a critic to : go away). : : I think that's a big mistake. Recognition of the legitimacy of : their complaints was slowly won, at great cost, but it can be : quickly piddled away again if they don't police their own ranks. : But, then, it's not my decision, is it? Just to make sure you get the point, Harris: when you accused David Ullrich of racism in order to get him to stop criticizing your (alleged) mathematics, you were pissing on Martin Luther King Jr's grave. Just imagine whatever you would say to someone else who would do that, double it, and apply it to yourself. TIA. Jim Burns === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) >> But, why pick a racial slur? >> Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, >> as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South >> African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking >> of the word nigger. > I'm a South African you insensitive clod!! Not all non-black South > Africans are racists, ing idiot. BTW, we hardly know the word > n*gg*r. I think there's pronoun confusion here. The he in JSH's last sentence refers to David Ullrich, not the South African (whoever he was -- I don't know what conversation James is talking about). -- Jesse F. Hughes Would you please stop talking and start talking? -- Vincent Price as the Saint === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >But, why pick a racial slur? >Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, >as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South >African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking >of the word nigger. >>I'm a South African you insensitive clod!! Not all non-black South >>Africans are racists, ing idiot. BTW, we hardly know the word >>n*gg*r. > I think there's pronoun confusion here. The he in JSH's last > sentence refers to David Ullrich, not the South African (whoever he > was -- I don't know what conversation James is talking about). In which case, my sincerest appologies. Kinda a touchy feely subject these days ;) kalix === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [JSH] ... > So, according to Tim Peters, David Ullrich justifiably introduced race, You've misrepresented my position here, and badly. Waste your own time figuring out how (hint: it's obvious). > in a context where he noted he was angry, to try and explain to me how > NOT to talk to people! > But, why pick a racial slur? > Obviously David Ullrich knew that a racial slur could be applied to me, > as in another post some time before, in a discussion with a South > African, I pointed out that I was black. So he probably was thinking > of the word nigger. I don't know. It's plausible, but I'd expect David to be more imaginative than that. > Now then, his claim is that he wanted to teach me a lesson, and now in > context his full claim then is that he thought that using the racial > slur nigger would teach me a lesson. You're speculating. I don't know what he might have said, and neither do you. > How is that better? How is that better than what? ... > However, why does race matter? And why is it so important to teach me > a lesson, when race hadn't been the subject at hand? You hurt people with your ceaseless insults, accusations, disrespect, and even threats. People have tried to explain that to you more times than I could keep track of. Perhaps he thought that a stupid racial insult would make a point to you about your stupid insults that all attempts at rational explanation had failed to get across to you. Race doesn't matter at all. If you were a 500 pound slob and sensitive about that, then a stupid insult about your bulk would have been the same kind of thing. Accusing an academic of incompetence in their field, and of lying about work in their field, can be deeply offensive, and you do that routinely with seeming joy at the thought you might be causing pain. It's despicable behavior. But he didn't reply in kind to you, despite that you're still wishing he would. Tough luck for you. > After all, I'd said that David Ullrich had *acted* as my lapdog in an > instance, which is a far cry from a demeaning racial insult meant to > indicate that someone is some degraded thing. You forget that I read your messages from that time. Your abusiveness toward David was prolonged, and ugly even to observe. Your lapdog insult appeared much more to be the last straw than something unbearable on its own. Poor James, typed one harmless word, and suffered mass persecution as a result? Dream on -- you're just reaping what you sowed. Oh well. You can't let it die, but I don't have to play along. You can easily enough keep this alive for another decade on your own. [snipped yet another repetition of the same rant] === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw > [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] > ... > [Will Twentyman] >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about >> matters of (recent) history. > Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) would > be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought it > would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. Here is the sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he said that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: and this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you should be ashamed to even think of it. > I don't agree it would have been appropriate, Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? > but there's nothing objectionable about discussing its > appropriateness. > Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course there's no shortage of > people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has flung at others. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Tim Peters] >> [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] >> ... >> [Will Twentyman] > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible > about matters of (recent) history. [Tim] >> Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to >> was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David >> Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, >> and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As >> David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering >> some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) would >> be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other >> people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought it >> would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. [David Kastrup] > You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. It seems to me that when I was younger, people generally showed more skill in applying Occam's Razor . > Here is the sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing > was such that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be > some sort of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that > Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, > he said that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: > and this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. As you just quoted, some sort of racial slur seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply. Unless you attach surprising meaning to the difference between a and some sort of here, Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way just doesn't jibe with the quote calling some sort of racial slur a perfectly appropriate reply. I understand and appreciate the different contexts in which appropriate can be applied here, and I *believe* I understand what David meant at the time: that responding to JSH's baseless hurtful insults with some sort of racial slur would be a reply-in-kind that perhaps JSH could understand -- not specifically to hurt him, but as a way to get him to understand how his hurtful words sometimes made others feel. That's arguably appropriate so far as it goes. I happen to believe it's always wrong to use such speech in public, and from that more-distant view it would have been inappropriate to my eyes had he done so. Since he didn't so, I figure to his eyes too. > And even in this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. And I accept that he decided against it on his own (as he says). > And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting > his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you > should be ashamed to even think of it. >> I don't agree it would have been appropriate, > Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would > claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? I don't want to repeat the perfectly appropriate quote again. >> but there's nothing objectionable about discussing its >> appropriateness. >> Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course there's no shortage of >> people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. > There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has flung at > others. Or of insults of other kinds. But I don't expect civil behavior from JSH. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >[Tim Peters] > [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] > ... > [Will Twentyman] >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible >> about matters of (recent) history. >[Tim] > Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) would > be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought it > would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. >[David Kastrup] >> You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. >It seems to me that when I was younger, people generally showed more skill >in applying Occam's Razor . >> Here is the sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing >> was such that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be >> some sort of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that >> Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, >> he said that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: >> and this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. >As you just quoted, some sort of racial slur seemed to me a perfectly >appropriate reply. Unless you attach surprising meaning to the difference >between a and some sort of here, Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial >slur was appropriate in any way just doesn't jibe with the quote calling >some sort of racial slur a perfectly appropriate reply. >I understand and appreciate the different contexts in which appropriate >can be applied here, and I *believe* I understand what David meant at the >time: that responding to JSH's baseless hurtful insults with some sort of >racial slur would be a reply-in-kind that perhaps JSH could understand -- >not specifically to hurt him, but as a way to get him to understand how his >hurtful words sometimes made others feel. That's arguably appropriate so >far as it goes. I happen to believe it's always wrong to use such speech in >public, and from that more-distant view it would have been inappropriate to >my eyes had he done so. Since he didn't so, I figure to his eyes too. Congratulations, you got it. Of course, some might say that you don't really deserve a lot of smartness points for having figured out something that I've explicitly stated several times. But considering the difficulty some others (well, one other) seems to have here... ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Tim Peters] ... >> I understand and appreciate the different contexts in which appropriate >> can be applied here, and I *believe* I understand what David meant at the >> time: that responding to JSH's baseless hurtful insults with some sort >> of racial slur would be a reply-in-kind that perhaps JSH could >> understand -- not specifically to hurt him, but as a way to get him to >> understand how his hurtful words sometimes made others feel. That's >> arguably appropriate so far as it goes. I happen to believe it's always >> wrong to use such speech in public, and from that more-distant view it >> would have been inappropriate to my eyes had he done so. Since he didn't >> [do] so, I figure to his eyes too. [David C. Ullrich] > Congratulations, you got it. Yet for some reason I don't feel like celebrating <0.9 wink>. > Of course, some might say that you don't really deserve a lot of > smartness points for having figured out something that I've explicitly > stated several times. Nope, no smartness points at all. I would claim minimal points for reading comprehension and archive searching skills, but then I'm afraid I'd have to accept demerits too for actually spending the time to find and read all that stuff <0.9 wink>. > But considering the difficulty some others (well, one other) seems to > have here... Yup, another repetition sure does seem pointless. While I don't think your original post was entirely prudent, on an offensiveness scale from 1 to 10 I rate it near 0. I would have apologized for it anyway -- but that's easy to say given that I haven't been subjected to endless abuse from JSH myself. In all, I admire your restraint. just-another-ing-idiot-defending-your-immoral-ass-ly y'rs - tim === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >[Tim Peters] > [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] > > ... > > [Will Twentyman] >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible >> about matters of (recent) history. >[Tim] > > Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) would > be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought it > would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. >[David Kastrup] >> You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. >It seems to me that when I was younger, people generally showed more skill >in applying Occam's Razor . >> Here is the sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing >> was such that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be >> some sort of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that >> Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, >> he said that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: >> and this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. >As you just quoted, some sort of racial slur seemed to me a perfectly >appropriate reply. Unless you attach surprising meaning to the difference >between a and some sort of here, Ullrich _never_ claimed that a racial >slur was appropriate in any way just doesn't jibe with the quote calling >some sort of racial slur a perfectly appropriate reply. >I understand and appreciate the different contexts in which appropriate >can be applied here, and I *believe* I understand what David meant at the >time: that responding to JSH's baseless hurtful insults with some sort of >racial slur would be a reply-in-kind that perhaps JSH could understand -- >not specifically to hurt him, but as a way to get him to understand how his >hurtful words sometimes made others feel. That's arguably appropriate so >far as it goes. I happen to believe it's always wrong to use such speech in >public, and from that more-distant view it would have been inappropriate to >my eyes had he done so. Since he didn't so, I figure to his eyes too. > Congratulations, you got it. > Of course, some might say that you don't really deserve a lot of > smartness points for having figured out something that I've explicitly > stated several times. But considering the difficulty some others > (well, one other) seems to have here... David, you are the one who evidently brought race into the conversation ... in a sly, backhanded way. You should apologize and move on. JSH is right on this one. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> > [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] > ... > [Will Twentyman] the >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about >> matters of (recent) history. > Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) would > be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought it > would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. Notice the twisting and rationalization here. Supposedly I am to blame for David Ullrich talking about a racial slur being the appropriate reply. And remember, Ullrich made his comments MORE THAN A YEAR after I said he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, and more than a year after I'd apologized for those comments, as I noticed afterwards that his posts were...strange. I thought I was being nice by apologizing then, but with people like Ullrich, that's not enough. > You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. Here is the > sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such > that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort > of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich Notice that this poster has removed the part where Ullrich speaks of being angry. > _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he said > that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: and > this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in > this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. The fact is that Ullrich is TELLING me in a reply that he thought it appropriate to use some racial slur in reply to me on the newsgroup. That's a public post as Usenet is quite public. Like, let's say he wanted to call me a chink, or a jew-bastard. His own words are that he's thinking this is an appropriate reply but was talked out of it, but he wishes to share this information WITH THE NEWSGROUP, in reply to me, as posts here are quite public. > And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting > his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you > should be ashamed to even think of it. But if that were the case, why would he publicize it? Let's say you talk to a friend about ing a goat, saying you were thinking it would be an appropriate way to let out your sexual frustrations. Your friend tells you that it's a bad idea. You come on Usenet, and point out that you thought it a great idea to a goat, but were talked out of it!!! It makes no sense. Ullrich clearly wanted to use the power of racial slurs without having to suffer the consequences. If he came out and poster that I was a nigger or something like that, there's no way he could escape the consequences, so instead he just talked about WANTING to post a racial slur. It's not even vague. > I don't agree it would have been appropriate, > Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would > claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? Because that's what he said. > but there's nothing objectionable about discussing its > appropriateness. > Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course there's no shortage of > people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. Actually, the racial insults came *after* Ullrich came on the newsgroup talking about my private communication with his school (yet another ethics violation), and then there were posters who just started slinging the word nigger around. And remember, David Ullrich is the one who brought up racial slurs!!! He's the one who defended his comments. He's the one who publicized my complaint on the newsgroup. He's the one lapping up the attention, probably feeling quite proud of himself...at least for a while. > There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has flung at > others. Name one. > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Oh yeah, David Kastrup is one of the people who likes to keep bringing this topic up. And remember, I didn't start this, as yet again some poster put up something that shorted the story. Facts: David Ullrich introduced the subject of racial slurs. David Ullrich was reacting more than a year after I said he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance. David Ullrich is the one who came on the newsgroup to publicize my complaint. One of the odder posts from Ullrich came a little bit after his post talking about the appropriateness of a racial slur when he was defending his statement, and he argued about why a racial slur could be an appropriate reply. His example was of someone breaking into his house to rape his daughter. I assume he does in fact have a daughter. Why did he assume that a racial slur would apply in such a case? And for the record, I don't say you hurl a racial slur at someone breaking into your house to rape your daughter. You shoot the er. Shoot first. Talk later. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] >> >> ... >> >> [Will Twentyman] >the > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than >credible about > matters of (recent) history. >> >> >> Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to >> was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David >> Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, >> and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As >> David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that >delivering >> some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) >would >> be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other >> people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought >> would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. >Notice the twisting and rationalization here. Supposedly I am to blame >for David Ullrich talking about a racial slur being the appropriate >reply. >And remember, Ullrich made his comments MORE THAN A YEAR after I said >he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, and more than a year after I'd >apologized for those comments, as I noticed afterwards that his posts >were...strange. >I thought I was being nice by apologizing then, but with people like >Ullrich, that's not enough. >> You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. Here is the >> sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such >> that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort >> of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich >Notice that this poster has removed the part where Ullrich speaks of >being angry. >> _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he >said >> that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: and >> this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in >> this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. >The fact is that Ullrich is TELLING me in a reply that he thought it >appropriate to use some racial slur in reply to me on the newsgroup. >That's a public post as Usenet is quite public. >Like, let's say he wanted to call me a chink, or a jew-bastard. >His own words are that he's thinking this is an appropriate reply but >was talked out of it, but he wishes to share this information WITH THE >NEWSGROUP, in reply to me, as posts here are quite public. >> And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting >> his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you >> should be ashamed to even think of it. >But if that were the case, why would he publicize it? >Let's say you talk to a friend about ing a goat, saying you were >thinking it would be an appropriate way to let out your sexual >frustrations. >Your friend tells you that it's a bad idea. >You come on Usenet, and point out that you thought it a great idea to > a goat, but were talked out of it!!! >It makes no sense. Ullrich clearly wanted to use the power of racial >slurs without having to suffer the consequences. >If he came out and poster that I was a nigger or something like that, >there's no way he could escape the consequences, so instead he just >talked about WANTING to post a racial slur. >It's not even vague. >> I don't agree it would have been appropriate, >> Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would >> claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? >Because that's what he said. >> but there's nothing objectionable about discussing its >> appropriateness. >> >> Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course there's no shortage of >> people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. >Actually, the racial insults came *after* Ullrich came on the newsgroup >talking about my private communication with his school (yet another >ethics violation), and then there were posters who just started >slinging the word nigger around. >And remember, David Ullrich is the one who brought up racial slurs!!! >He's the one who defended his comments. >He's the one who publicized my complaint on the newsgroup. >He's the one lapping up the attention, probably feeling quite proud of >himself...at least for a while. >> There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has flung at >> others. >Name one. >> -- >> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum >Oh yeah, David Kastrup is one of the people who likes to keep bringing >this topic up. And remember, I didn't start this, as yet again some >poster put up something that shorted the story. >Facts: David Ullrich introduced the subject of racial slurs. David >Ullrich was reacting more than a year after I said he'd acted as my >lapdog in an instance. David Ullrich is the one who came on the >newsgroup to publicize my complaint. >One of the odder posts from Ullrich came a little bit after his post >talking about the appropriateness of a racial slur when he was >defending his statement, and he argued about why a racial slur could be >an appropriate reply. >His example was of someone breaking into his house to rape his >daughter. >I assume he does in fact have a daughter. >Why did he assume that a racial slur would apply in such a case? >And for the record, I don't say you hurl a racial slur at someone >breaking into your house to rape your daughter. >You shoot the er. Shoot first. Talk later. >James Harris Undeniably the nut makes a certain amount of sense here. A greater mystery is why the other nut (Ullrich) can't leave the poor guy alone. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw >> There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has flung at >> others. > Name one. I quote two in -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) James, speaking of distractions... I notice that you're not posting on factoring any more and you've deleted at least one of your posts from sci.crypt. I know that the issue may be sensitive, but just between pals... You can tell me... Your method works so well that you're trying to avoid the topic and erase traces just in the interest of preserving international commerce, right? Is this on your own initiative, or did MJ-12 ask you to take these steps? -- And yes, I will be darkening the doors of some of you, sooner than you think, even if it is going to be a couple of years, and when you look in my eyes on that last day of work at your school, then maybe you'll understand mathematics. -- James S. Harris on Judgment Day === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy === >Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >Message-id: <87sm643rcf.fsf@phiwumbda.org> >James, speaking of distractions... >I notice that you're not posting on factoring any more and you've >deleted at least one of your posts from sci.crypt. >I know that the issue may be sensitive, but just between pals... You >can tell me... >Your method works so well that you're trying to avoid the topic and >erase traces just in the interest of preserving international >commerce, right? Is this on your own initiative, or did MJ-12 ask you >to take these steps? Gosh, do you think so? He's obviously still alive, so maybe they just paid him off to stop development of his baby idea? So maybe I could make some quick holiday cash by merely _suggesting_ a novel approach to factoring? That would be great. I wouldn't have to actually make it work, just scare them into thinking BUT WHAT IF IT WORKS? Such as factoring by the Collatz Conjecture. In the regular 3x+1 system there are no known non-trivial loops. When generalizing that to 3x+C, the conjecture fails whenever C is not a power of 3. That failure is related to the factors of C, so if I started with 3x+RSA640 I could make the factors of RSA640 pop out of the appropriate Collatz sequence. I don't want to say any more at this time. I'll be waiting for a phone call. So, if you never hear me speak of this again... >-- >And yes, I will be darkening the doors of some of you, sooner than you >think, even if it is going to be a couple of years, and when you look >in my eyes on that last day of work at your school, then maybe you'll >understand mathematics. -- James S. Harris on Judgment Day -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Tim Peters] > [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] > ... > [Will Twentyman] >> facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than >> credible about matters of (recent) history. [Tim] > Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to > was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David > Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, > and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As > David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering > some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) > would be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other > people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought > it would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. [JSH] > Notice the twisting and rationalization here. Specifically where? I pointed to the precise message in question, and stand by my summary as accurate. > Supposedly I am to blame for David Ullrich talking about a racial > slur being the appropriate reply. No, but you are to blame for your bad behavior in response to David's message. You're also responsible for keeping this going for years. > And remember, Ullrich made his comments MORE THAN A YEAR after I said > he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, and more than a year after I'd > apologized for those comments, as I noticed afterwards that his posts > were...strange. > I thought I was being nice by apologizing then, I don't know your motives, but David was clearly appreciative of the apology at the time. > but with people like Ullrich, that's not enough. He accepted your apology, and quite graciously: It's your subsequent bad behavior that kept you in low esteem. [David Kastrup] >> You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. Here is the >> sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such >> that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort >> of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich [JSH] > Notice that this poster has removed the part where Ullrich speaks of > being angry. He didn't remove anything. Boy was I mad about that is a sentence from the original message linked to above that nobody bothered quoting in this thread. What of it? He _was_ angry. That's why you apologized to begin with (which, as far as I can tell, was your last honorable action in this affair). [David Kastrup] >> _never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he >> said that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: and >> this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in >> this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. [JSH] > The fact is that Ullrich is TELLING me in a reply that he thought it > appropriate to use some racial slur in reply to me on the newsgroup. In response to the things you were calling him a year earlier, he showed laudable restraint in not doing so. > That's a public post as Usenet is quite public. > Like, let's say he wanted to call me a chink, or a jew-bastard. So you apparently believe it's OK for you to spout racial epithets. I find them offensive regardless of context. > His own words are that he's thinking this is an appropriate reply but > was talked out of it, but he wishes to share this information WITH THE > NEWSGROUP, in reply to me, as posts here are quite public. I read his reply. Your paranoid tendencies don't help you in social interactions. If you were able to read it as a reply to you, in context, it would have been clear. [David Kastrup] >> And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting >> his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you >> should be ashamed to even think of it. [JSH] > But if that were the case, why would he publicize it? Apparently because you made a point of publicizing how you hurt his feelings a year earlier, as part of a goofy speculation that Ullrich was posting under the name Wilma in an attempt to sucker you. Of course you see no connection between the abusive things you say and the responses you get. > Let's say you talk to a friend about ing a goat, saying you were > thinking it would be an appropriate way to let out your sexual > frustrations. > Your friend tells you that it's a bad idea. > You come on Usenet, and point out that you thought it a great idea to > a goat, but were talked out of it!!! > It makes no sense. Ullrich clearly wanted to use the power of racial > slurs without having to suffer the consequences. He quite clearly did not. If you honestly believe this, hire a lawyer and sue him. Your own motives are also clear, which is why I'm sure you won't. [snipped the rest -- just another repeition of the same rant] === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw > [Tim Peters] >> It makes no sense. Ullrich clearly wanted to use the power of >> racial slurs without having to suffer the consequences. > He quite clearly did not. If you honestly believe this, hire a > lawyer and sue him. Your own motives are also clear, which is why > I'm sure you won't. He indeed contacted the Oklahama State Attorney and made a big Brouhaha from that until he was told that there was nothing there to prosecute. So he clearly managed to immerse himself sufficiently in that delusion to actually try something absurd like that: that's one thing you can't accuse him of. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy days. My association with the Department is that of an alumnus. >> [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] >> ... >> [Will Twentyman] > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about > matters of (recent) history. >> Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to >> was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David >> Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, >> and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As >> David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering >> some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) would >> be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other >> people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought it >> would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. >You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. Here is the >sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such >that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort >of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich >_never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he said >that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: and >this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in >this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. And as I recall, that was itself a poor choice of wording on David's part. He later expanded on his comments: it wasn't that somebody talked him out of it, but he decided on his own that of course it wouldn't do, then told someone else about his impulse, and that person said You can't do that!, which of course he hadn't. complaint. A bit hard, given the pruning that has been done. It seems to me that James had spent about a month talking himself into calling OSU, originally on incompetence and ethics grounds (David had said he didn't know how to prove some algebra thing or other, and James took it as an admission of incompetence or as lying, hence the ethics claim). Then he argued that his complaint would be because David had claimed that racial slurs are appropriate, when they are never appropriate. Finally, he admitted that his complaint had been an attempt to get him to stop posting, and that the claim of racism was pretextual, not germane. The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case occurred in October 2002, message though it is gone from Google. I tried finding it on mathforum, but couldn't. The subject of the thread was Current discussion on short FLT Proof in case anyone who knows how to search mathforum better than I do cares to look for it. -- It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality. --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) Arturo Magidin magidin@math.berkeley.edu === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Arturo Magidin] > ... > complaint. A bit hard, given the pruning that has been done. It seems > to me that James had spent about a month talking himself into calling > OSU, originally on incompetence and ethics grounds (David had said > he didn't know how to prove some algebra thing or other, and James > took it as an admission of incompetence or as lying, hence the > ethics claim). Then he argued that his complaint would be because > David had claimed that racial slurs are appropriate, when they are > never appropriate. Finally, he admitted that his complaint had been > an attempt to get him to stop posting, and that the claim of racism > was pretextual, not germane. > The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case > occurred in October 2002, message > though it is gone from Google. I tried finding it on mathforum, but > couldn't. The subject of the thread was Current discussion on short > FLT Proof in case anyone who knows how to search mathforum better > than I do cares to look for it. Is this it? http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 (I couldn't do anything with Dik's djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) Anyway, I don't really see James admit to anything there. Instead he appears to be giving David a lesson in appropriate posting behavior: ... > You're a disgrace to professors in general. > I never tried to get you fired. I never tried to get you to stop > posting. > I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! > You're a ing newsgroup stalker who has no morals who keeps getting > these ing idiots to defend your immoral ass and I'm sick of > it!!!!! > LEAVE ME THE ALONE YOU PIECE OF !!!!!!!! Interstingly enough, the number of exclamation points at the ends of the last three sentences is a segment of the Fibonacci sequence -- James does deep math even when seemingly just blowing a gasket . === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [...] >> I never tried to get you fired. I never tried to get you to stop >> posting. >> I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! >> You're a ing newsgroup stalker[...] He very definitely has a point here. I know it is a rather dreadful condition to have to teach math at places like Oklahoma State - but this doesn't excuse responding to every single message from JSH. Just ignore Harris and he will disappear. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >[...] > I never tried to get you fired. I never tried to get you to stop > posting. > I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! > You're a ing newsgroup stalker[...] >He very definitely has a point here. I know it is a rather dreadful >condition to have to teach math at places like Oklahoma State Huh? Have you ever taught math at Oklahoma State? >- but >this doesn't excuse responding to every single message from JSH. Huh? excuse what, exactly? I don't have the right to reply to the posts I feel like replying to? You think it would be a good thing if he got the idea that making bogus complaints to people's employers about racism was an effective way to get people to stop replying to his posts? >Just ignore Harris and he will disappear. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > Just ignore Harris and he will disappear. Yes, but some of us are addicts.... It makes life hard, but it is not easy to quite. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy ... > (I couldn't do anything with Dik's > djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com > reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) Although I have not yet found a way to see the complete message in or something like that.) -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> > [Arturo Magidin] > The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case > occurred in October 2002, message > though it is gone from Google. I tried finding it on mathforum, but > couldn't. The subject of the thread was Current discussion on short > FLT Proof in case anyone who knows how to search mathforum better > than I do cares to look for it. > Is this it? > http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 > (I couldn't do anything with Dik's > djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com > reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) > Anyway, I don't really see James admit to anything there. I never tried to get you fired. I never tried to get you to stop posting. I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! (I believe he had said something along these lines before, because around this time I had already said something about his express purpose; but I have been unable to substantiate my memory on this by finding his posts, possibly since so many of them have been removed) Note what he is saying: contrary to claims that he did so because he felt this behavior was inappropriate for a professor at a public university, or because he felt a sense of indignation, or because he felt insulted, he is saying that the reason he made the complaint was as an attempt to get David to stop replying to his posts; he had hoped that David's superiors would suggest, pressure, or order him to stop replying. If he did not realize that his actions were a possible threat to David's job, then he was being negligently careless; the fact that he used a very serious subject (racial discrimination and hate speech) as a ->pretext<- to get someone's actions in a public forum curtailed is what I find reprehensible. Even if the activity in question had actually taken place (which it did not, at least not the way James claimed it did at the time or since), using it as a ->pretext<- seems to me morally reprehensible. It is a serious enough issue that it should be pursued on its merits, not as a club to wield against someone you might not care to listen to. Arturo Magidin, sans .sig === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Arturo Magidin] > The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case > occurred in October 2002, message > though it is gone from Google. I tried finding it on mathforum, > but couldn't. The subject of the thread was Current discussion on > short FLT Proof in case anyone who knows how to search mathforum > better than I do cares to look for it. [Tim Peters] >> Is this it? >> http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 >> (I couldn't do anything with Dik's >> djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com >> reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) >> Anyway, I don't really see James admit to anything there. [Arturo] > I never tried to get you fired. I never tried to get you to stop > posting. > I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!! > (I believe he had said something along these lines before, because > around this time I had already said something about his express > purpose; but I have been unable to substantiate my memory on this by > finding his posts, possibly since so many of them have been removed) > Note what he is saying: contrary to claims that he did so because he > felt this behavior was inappropriate for a professor at a public > university, or because he felt a sense of indignation, or because he > felt insulted, he is saying that the reason he made the complaint was > as an attempt to get David to stop replying to his posts; he had hoped > that David's superiors would suggest, pressure, or order him to stop > replying. It could be consistent to hold all of these simultaneously: 1. James wanted David to stop replying. 3. James thought the comment was especially inappropriate given David's position at a public institution. Putting an ALL CAPS emphasis on #1 doesn't really preclude #2 and #3. When a person talks about their motivations, and even when they're trying to be truthful, what they say is usually just part of the story -- even if they go on for pages. If you get them to do it twice, they'll rarely say exactly the same things either. Motivations are usually complex. It's convenient for James that his original post vanished from most archives, and obviously self-serving to hold now that his only motivation was fighting the evils of racism. It's still possible that there was an element of the latter at the start, despite that he only mentioned #1 above. It's even possible that James claimed that to be the case so often later that now he really believes it was always so. Who knows? It's not even clear that James does. It appears to me that he truly wanted #1, and for a long time, and then tried to milk David's obscure remark for about a million times what it was worth. He's still trying, despite that it doesn't work. Remind you of any other JSH behaviors you've seen ? > If he did not realize that his actions were a possible threat > to David's job, then he was being negligently careless; I expect that he hoped they were, despite his disclaimer above (I didn't succeed, therefore that's not what I wanted <0.5 wink>). He's certainly ranted often enough later that David shouldn't receive public funds, and posted fantasies about mathematicians who criticize his work getting fired and disgraced (even jailed ...), so, overall, I simply don't believe his I never tried to get you fired claim above. > the fact that he used a very serious subject (racial discrimination and > hate speech) as a ->pretext<- to get someone's actions in a public forum > curtailed is what I find reprehensible. As above, I can't conclude it was entirely pretext at the time. Occam's Razor suggests it was, but people are complicated. > Even if the activity in question had actually taken place (which it did > not, at least not the way James claimed it did at the time or since), > using it as a ->pretext<- seems to me morally reprehensible. It is a > serious enough issue that it should be pursued on its merits, not as a > club to wield against someone you might not care to listen to. It requires a determined imagination to find racism in David's remark, and by all accounts JSH got nowhere trying to convince David's employer or the state attorney general that the remark was actionable in any way. Score one for sanity. But what does it matter now, given that it failed? I've seen the claim that it's important to keep rehashing this because it reveals something important about JSH's character. I have a hard time believing that this piece of history is necessary toward that end, though. I saw my first JSH post several months ago -- had never heard of him before then. Going from this guy is confused to and seems invincibly ignorant, manipulative, hostile and unstable didn't take a week. It's not like he did something dubious once years ago then learned to project a convincing illusion of saintliness -- to the contrary, having looked up the history, he hasn't changed his posting behaviors in positive ways at all. If someone here thought of him as morally beyond reproach before the trumped-up racism claim, and that's what opened their eyes, then I'll stand corrected on this point. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >[Arturo Magidin] >> [...] >It could be consistent to hold all of these simultaneously: >1. James wanted David to stop replying. >3. James thought the comment was especially inappropriate given > David's position at a public institution. >[...] It appears to me that he truly wanted #1, and for a >long time, and then tried to milk David's obscure remark for about a million >times what it was worth. He's still trying, despite that it doesn't work. >Remind you of any other JSH behaviors you've seen ? Giggle. >> If he did not realize that his actions were a possible threat >> to David's job, then he was being negligently careless; >[...] >It requires a determined imagination to find racism in David's remark, and >by all accounts JSH got nowhere trying to convince David's employer or the >state attorney general that the remark was actionable in any way. Score one >for sanity. Indeed. >But what does it matter now, given that it failed? I've seen the claim that >it's important to keep rehashing this because it reveals something important >about JSH's character. _My_ view is not that it's important to keep rehashing this. But I do, reasonably or not, feel it's important to make sure he doesn't get the idea that his behavior has succeeded in getting me to shut up. Important because that sanity we celebrate above is not universal in a world where people get in trouble for using the word niggardly. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy <41c24907$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> > [Arturo Magidin] > Even if the activity in question had actually taken place (which it did > not, at least not the way James claimed it did at the time or since), > using it as a ->pretext<- seems to me morally reprehensible. It is a > serious enough issue that it should be pursued on its merits, not as a > club to wield against someone you might not care to listen to. > It requires a determined imagination to find racism in David's remark, and > by all accounts JSH got nowhere trying to convince David's employer or the > state attorney general that the remark was actionable in any way. Score one > for sanity. I complained. I have a right to complain and in fact the newsgroup wouldn't have known about the complaint if David Ullrich hadn't come back on the newsgroup to complain himself. I acted well within my rights as a citizen. Now some of you may not believe that a citizen in this country should ever voice a complaint or you may believe that Ullrich's introduction of racial slurs in to the discusion didn't merit a complaint. But it was my decision. Now some of you may go on and on as if the discussion matters, but it doesn't change my rights, and I can assure you that I have no problem with registering complaints when people who work for taxpayers step over the line. I don't care what world you think you live in, but if you're representing a government agency in America, and I catch you stepping over the line, then I'm going to push you back, or at least try. It was part of my training as an Army officer. > But what does it matter now, given that it failed? I've seen the claim that > it's important to keep rehashing this because it reveals something important > about JSH's character. I have a hard time believing that this piece of It amazes me how often some of you attempt to rewrite history. Posters keep bringing it up, accusing me of various things, and at times I will give the full story. The full story is that David Ullrich brought up racial slurs. David Ullrich replied to me talking about racial slurs more than a year after a comment when I said he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, and more than a year after I'd apologized. All of that gets lost in posts like yours which end up being rants against me, with little real detail, or any actual facts, and then I'm supposed to be the bad guy? I was an Army officer. I don't know what makes you people think that you can blabber on Usenet and change anything. David Ullrich needed correction. I gave the correction. > history is necessary toward that end, though. I saw my first JSH post > several months ago -- had never heard of him before then. Going from this > guy is confused to and seems invincibly ignorant, manipulative, hostile > and unstable didn't take a week. It's not like he did something dubious > once years ago then learned to project a convincing illusion of > saintliness -- to the contrary, having looked up the history, he hasn't > changed his posting behaviors in positive ways at all. If someone here > thought of him as morally beyond reproach before the trumped-up racism > claim, and that's what opened their eyes, then I'll stand corrected on this > point. LOL. I wonder if some of you even take yourselves seriously. This is Usenet. I mainly use this forum to air out various ideas. There are posters like David Ullrich who obsessively reply to my posts, even though I mostly ignore them. You wish to join that club? Ok. But don't pretend to think that others on the newsgroup don't realize what you are. After all, I've been posting for years here. People like you have come and gone, over, and over, and over again. It's still my newsgroup. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> [Arturo Magidin] >[...] >I complained. I have a right to complain and in fact the newsgroup >wouldn't have known about the complaint if David Ullrich hadn't come >back on the newsgroup to complain himself. >I acted well within my rights as a citizen. Whoops. Hoist by your own petard again - you want to be careful about that! Hint: Nobody has ever disputed that making that complaint was within your rights as a citizen. It was a despicable thing to do regardless. You seem to be arguing that the fact that it was withing your rights means it's ok, but this is grossly inconsistent with the idea that you made the complaint in the first place! Whatever I said, I was within my rights as a citizen saying it. >Now some of you may not believe that a citizen in this country should >ever voice a complaint or you may believe that Ullrich's introduction >of racial slurs in to the discusion didn't merit a complaint. >But it was my decision. >Now some of you may go on and on as if the discussion matters, but it >doesn't change my rights, and I can assure you that I have no problem >with registering complaints when people who work for taxpayers step >over the line. The fact that I work for taxpayers does not change my rights as a citizen. >I don't care what world you think you live in, but if you're >representing a government agency in America, and I catch you stepping >over the line, then I'm going to push you back, or at least try. And I'm not representing a government agency here. >It was part of my training as an Army officer. >> [...] >David Ullrich needed correction. I gave the correction. You did, eh? Your attempts at giving correction seem to be about as effective as your attempts at proving theorems. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy Discussion, linux) > Hint: Nobody has ever disputed that making that complaint was > within your rights as a citizen. Well, lately Mensanator has disputed that. I think. -- Jesse F. Hughes But nothing's being Dr. Ullrich is a particular case of something's being such that nothing is it: (Ex)~(Ey)(y = x) -- John Correy on the failings of first order logic === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy !3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i;/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi $t^ VcLWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw > I complained. I have a right to complain and in fact the newsgroup > wouldn't have known about the complaint if David Ullrich hadn't come > back on the newsgroup to complain himself. It wasn't Ullrich that told us that you have contacted the Oklahoma State Attorney about this issue. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > I was an Army officer. And this is interesting? I do not give a crap what you were in the army. It means nothing here. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > It's still my newsgroup. > James Harris I did not know that. I suspect you believe it, though. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [JSH] ... > I complained. I think everyone knew that already. > I have a right to complain Yes. It doesn't make it a sensible or honorable thing to do, but you have the right. > and in fact the newsgroup wouldn't have known about the complaint if > David Ullrich hadn't come back on the newsgroup to complain himself. That's because the complaint had no merit and so failed (twice, right? when it failed to interest anyone at the University, you went on to complain to the Oklahoma attorney general too?). If it had succeeded, I bet sci.math would have heard about it with or without David exercising his rights. > I acted well within my rights as a citizen. So did David, of course. > Now some of you may not believe that a citizen in this country should > ever voice a complaint or you may believe that Ullrich's introduction > of racial slurs in to the discusion didn't merit a complaint. I don't believe Ullrich introduced racial slurs. You keep claiming it, but I actually read his message, and the messages leading up to it. So no, I don't believe it merited a complaint either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the university and state officials you contacted also found no merit in your complaint. > But it was my decision. I really didn't think it was David's decision -- unless you were just acting as his lapdog . > Now some of you may go on and on as if the discussion matters, but it > doesn't change my rights, and I can assure you that I have no problem > with registering complaints when people who work for taxpayers step > over the line. > I don't care what world you think you live in, but if you're > representing a government agency in America, and I catch you stepping > over the line, then I'm going to push you back, or at least try. > It was part of my training as an Army officer. What was? Complaining about professors replying to you on Usenet? It's unclear. [Tim, oddly snipped by JSH] >> But what does it matter now, given that it failed? I've seen the >> claim that it's important to keep rehashing this because it reveals >> something important about JSH's character. I have a hard time >> believing that this piece of > It amazes me how often some of you attempt to rewrite history. What, it didn't fail? > Posters keep bringing it up, accusing me of various things, and at > times I will give the full story. > The full story is that David Ullrich brought up racial slurs. That again. No, he didn't. He *mentioned* racial slurs. Your version of the full story is a transparently self-serving gross caricature. [another repetition of the self-serving gross caricature snipped] >> history is necessary toward that end, though. I saw my first JSH >> post several months ago -- had never heard of him before then. Going >> from this guy is confused to and seems invincibly ignorant, >> manipulative, hostile and unstable didn't take a week. It's not like >> he did something dubious once years ago then learned to project a >> convincing illusion of saintliness -- to the contrary, having looked up >> the history, he hasn't changed his posting behaviors in positive ways at >> all. If someone here thought of him as morally beyond reproach before >> the trumped-up racism claim, and that's what opened their eyes, then I'll >> stand corrected on this point. > LOL. I wonder if some of you even take yourselves seriously. > This is Usenet. I mainly use this forum to air out various ideas. > There are posters like David Ullrich who obsessively reply to my posts, > even though I mostly ignore them. That's a shame too, because it does real damage to your occassional claim to be interested in truth. David always strives to be accurate in his mathematical writing, is a highly competent mathematician, and has given you innumerable valid corrections to your work. If you paid attention to his criticims (instead of, say, ignoring them and calling him a liar by reflex), your work could improve rapidly. > You wish to join that club? Nope -- I don't see any point at all in talking math with you. > Ok. But don't pretend to think that others on the newsgroup don't > realize what you are. My reputation stands on my work, most of which isn't apparent here. Sorry, but I'm not worried about it. > After all, I've been posting for years here. > People like you have come and gone, over, and over, and over again. > It's still my newsgroup. I was posting here long before you first showed up, although I was absent during the years you were forging your reputation here. So if owning the newsgroup is a matter of seniority, it's my newsgroup, all mine. Well, mine and Dik Winter's. And Torkel Franzen's. And ... well, there are lots of people who have been posting here longer than you. Still, it's my newsgroup, but it's OK by me if you post here. Just don't go claiming it's your newsgroup -- that would really piss me off. I'd be so angry I'd probably blurt out something I'd regret in court later. Nice try . === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy > (I couldn't do anything with Dik's > djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com > reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) string in Message ID... Tomasso. === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy [Tim Peters] >> (I couldn't do anything with Dik's >> djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com >> reference -- perhaps that resolves for him on a local news server.) [Tomasso vs noise] > string in Message ID... Then that's a reply to http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 but looks like David skipped quoting the abuse at the original's end (which is the part I expect Arturo had in mind). === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy ... > [Tomasso vs noise] > string in Message ID... > Then that's a reply to > http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/449434/453184 > but looks like David skipped quoting the abuse at the original's end (which > is the part I expect Arturo had in mind). I have not yet found ways to let it show). -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy ... > The last pointer I have to an admission that this was the case > occurred in October 2002, message > though it is gone from Google. djonru4qop3hrnqhnclmhsc94f05shojrj@4ax.com -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: JSH: Funding, real world, not fantasy >> [snipped another repetition of JSH's standard Ullrich rant] >> ... >> [Will Twentyman] > facts for ourselves. You have been proven to be less than credible about > matters of (recent) history. >> Of course there's no slur to be found. The incident referred to >> was in early October of 1999. You can find it easily. David >> Ullrich was truly pissed at JSH for calling him a liar repeatedly, >> and a lapdog at one point. JSH even apologized for that. As >> David has explained endlessly ever since, he thought that delivering >> some sort of racial slur (that's as specific as it ever got) would >> be an object lesson in *why* people shouldn't talk about other >> people the way JSH did. But he didn't do so. He said he thought it >> would have been appropriate to do so, and that's the extent of it. >You are already falling victim to JSH's propaganda. Here is the >sentence: But I do recall that the game you were playing was such >that it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be some sort >of racial slur - someone talked me out of that. Note that Ullrich >_never_ claimed that a racial slur was appropriate in any way, he said >that a racial slur seemed to fit with what JSH was dealing out: and >this exactly because it was inappropriate to start with. And even in >this context, he let himself easily be convinced otherwise. I don't think that any of this shows that Tim is falling for anything James has said. You quote me as saying it seemed to me a perfectly appropriate reply would be - given that I said that it's perfectly reasonable for Tim to say He said he thought it would have been appropriate to do so. (The point of course being that there's appropriate and then there's appropriate - from one point of view it did seem perfectly appropriate, but from another point of view (that being the point of view of someone who agrees with the very point I was making) it would have been very inappropriate.) >And it did not quite seem like he ever actually contemplated putting >his impression ever into action: sounds more like he was told you >should be ashamed to even think of it. Again, just for the record, as I've clarified a few times: That someone talked me out of that was not accurate - it was typed before I realized this was going to become a federal case. In fact I talked myself out of it almost immediately - a little later someone arrived, I mentioned this to him, and he said something like whoa, you can't talk that way! to which I agreed, having already figured that out for myself. Someone talked me out of it seemed like a reasonable simplification of the above at the time - I had no idea it was going to follow me forever.... >> I don't agree it would have been appropriate, >Agree with who? How do you make from the above that Ullrich would >claim that racial slurs are an appropriate thing? >> but there's nothing objectionable about discussing its >> appropriateness. >> Well, except, apparently, to JSH. Of course there's no shortage of >> people who have slung actual racial insults at JSH. >There is no shortage of racial insults JSH himself has flung at >others. As long as we're on this again, we should also mention that James is on record saying that the reason he made his complaint was not that he was offended, it was an attempt to get me to stop replying in his threads. (Which of course explains why he was more offended by what I didn't say than by certain others who've actually called him vile names - those guys are just yahoos, no danger anybody's going to _listen_ to them regarding the math.) ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: review topic suggestions (ODE's)? > The structural analysis, and FEA stuff, though- that's very useful to > me, and I like it a lot. So there's good and bad about being back in > school, 15 years after I thought I was done with it. I see that you have sound reasons for taking this course, and I hope your determination will pay off. === Subject: Re: review topic suggestions (ODE's)? I'm an undergrad Junior in Mechanical Engineering, and I just registered for my FE Review course. I took a look at some of the sample FE exams, and God help me, I can't answer 90% of the questions. My advice to you....pray...and read your Diff Eq Book. I'd look at my old tests and notes-- those are always helpful. === Subject: Re: review topic suggestions (ODE's)? > I'm an undergrad Junior in Mechanical Engineering, and I just > registered for my FE Review course. I took a look at some of the sample > FE exams, and God help me, I can't answer 90% of the questions. My > advice to you....pray...and read your Diff Eq Book. I'd look at my old > tests and notes-- those are always helpful. why are you doing that now (as a junior) rather than next year? Your course load is heaviest in the junior year at ME school (believe me!!), much more so than in the Sr. year. Of course, that's assuming you have all your bac core stuff done and don't need to waste Sr. year time on World History and Speech classes. The advice I've gotten from many working and graduated engr's is to do the review as close to the time of testing as possible. Especially since the review courses and course materials are expensive, you don't want to do that twice! At least I don't. I have reviewed a few previous FE's as well, and if you're a junior I'm sure you can do better than 10% of the work! -kwallace === Subject: Re: review topic suggestions (ODE's)? >> I'm an undergrad Junior in Mechanical Engineering, and I just >> registered for my FE Review course. I took a look at some of the sample >> FE exams, and God help me, I can't answer 90% of the questions. My >> advice to you....pray...and read your Diff Eq Book. I'd look at my old >> tests and notes-- those are always helpful. >why are you doing that now (as a junior) rather than next year? Your >course load is heaviest in the junior year at ME school (believe me!!), >much more so than in the Sr. year. Of course, that's assuming you have >all your bac core stuff done and don't need to waste Sr. year time on >World History and Speech classes. > The advice I've gotten from many working and graduated engr's is to do >the review as close to the time of testing as possible. Especially since >the review courses and course materials are expensive, you don't want to >do that twice! At least I don't. > I have reviewed a few previous FE's as well, and if you're a junior >I'm sure you can do better than 10% of the work! One of the few things I have heard from educationists with which I agree is the proper time to examine on a course. It is a date chosen at random, not less than five years after the end of the course. Students do a good job of memorizing and forgetting soon afterward. So what is their performance worth? -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 === Subject: Re: nth term of the series > Can anybody find the general term of the following set series: > (1) 1, 4, 10, 20, 35, 56, 84, ... > (2) 4, 15, 36, 70, 120, 189, 280, ... > (3) 6, 20, 45, 84, 140, 216, 315, ... > satya Look up the sequences on the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. === Subject: Re: Positive functionals > Hello. > Let M denote the set of nxn-matrices with complex entries, and let f:M->C > be a linear functional. It is not hard to prove that there is a matrix h > such that f(m)=trace(hm) for all m in M. > If f(m^*m) is real and positive for all m in M, why must h be > self-adjoint? That is, h^*=h. I don't ask for a complete solution, only a > hint :-) Hint: what's the complex conjugate of f(m^*m) ? Igor === Subject: Spherical trigonometry question. How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of separation and distribution. One method I am considering is to assume that each point is positively charged, and that if left to float on the surface, the points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an optimum number of points for a given sphere. The purpose is of course to build a geodesic dome using one mold instead of the thirty needed now. I reason that if it is possible to cover a sphere with nearly identical triangles, it must be possible to cover it with identical pieces, if the problem is addressed correctly. *-----------------------* www.GroupSrv.com *-----------------------* === Subject: re:Spherical trigonometry question. this problem. And with a program to calculate coordinates for gravitating points. http://www.math-atlas.org/index/spheres.html A C++ program to calculate point migration. FILE points_on_sphere.cc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- #include #include #include #include typedef double vec3[3]; double frand(void){return ((rand()-(RAND_MAX/2))/(RAND_MAX/2.));} double dot(vec3 v1,vec3 v2){ return v1[0]*v2[0]+v1[1]*v2[1]+v1[2]*v2[2];} double length(vec3 v){ return sqrt(v[0]*v[0]+v[1]*v[1]+v[2]*v[2]); } double length(vec3 v1,vec3 v2) { vec3 v; v[0] = v2[0] - v1[0]; v[1] = v2[1] - v1[1]; v[2] = v2[2] - v1[2]; return length(v); } double get_coulomb_energy(int N,vec3 p[]) { double e = 0; for(int i = 0;i n); fprintf(stderr,output is printed in VRML format to stdoutn); fprintf(stderr,example of usage: points_on_sphere 10 1000 > dist10.wrl n); fprintf(stderr,nAuthor: V.Bulatov@ic.ac.uk nn); exit(-1); } N = atoi(argv[1]); if(argc > 2) Nstep = atoi(argv[2]); vec3 *p0 = new vec3[N]; vec3 *p1 = new vec3[N]; vec3 *f = new vec3[N]; int i,k; vec3 *pp0 = p0, *pp1 = p1; srand(time(NULL)); for(i = 0; i= e0){ // not successfull step step /= 2; if(step < minimal_step) break; continue; } else { // successfull step vec3 *t = pp0; pp0 = pp1; pp1 = t; e0 = e; step*=2; } fprintf(stderr,rn: %5d, e = %18.8f step = %12.10f,k,e,step); fflush(stderr); } fprintf(stdout,#VRML V1.0 asciin); fprintf(stdout,Separator {n); fprintf(stdout,Material {diffuseColor 1 1 0 specularColor 1 1 1}n); for(i = 0;i Would the icosidodecahedron (20+12) be more stable than either dodecahedron (12) or icosahedron (20) in this respect? Is there some stability index to evaluate in each case? === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the > sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is > positively charged, and that if left to float on the surface, the > points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a > wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time > more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an > optimum number of points for a given sphere. McDowell. Point Charge Approximation to a Spherical Charge Distribution (A Random Walk to High Symmetry). Journal of Chemical Education, Vol 67 No 12, December 1990. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the > sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is > positively charged, and that if left to float on the surface, the > points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a > wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time > more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an > optimum number of points for a given sphere. McDowell. Point Charge Approximation to a Spherical Charge Distribution (A Random Walk to High Symmetry). Journal of Chemical Education, Vol 67 No 12, December 1990. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of > the sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. Read about Platonic and Archimedean solids, Euler's formula P + N = E + 2 , where E = number of edges. Also Fuller's geodesic dome subdivision of the icosahedron. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? Mark off that many points equidistant around an equator and then segment the sphere like an orange. Then after a necessary rotation and translation each part is equal and identical. How can one divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts using some other method into regular polygons formed as connected neighboring points on the surface of the sphere, where the angle through the center of any two points forming one of those polygons is equal to each other? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the > sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. Maybe instead of trigonometry you want some kind of pyramidometry. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is > positively charged, and that if left to float on the surface, the > points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a > wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time > more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an > optimum number of points for a given sphere. That's reminiscent of 109.5 (?) as the tetrahedral bond angle of CH_4. Those are difficult to compute, particularly without the correct mathematical tools. There are easy solutions for regular polyhedra. > The purpose is of course to build a geodesic dome using one mold > instead of the thirty needed now. I reason that if it is possible to > cover a sphere with nearly identical triangles, it must be possible > to cover it with identical pieces, if the problem is addressed > correctly. There's a general solution, I forget what it is, as if I ever knew. When you section it like the orange, you'd expect one of the points in each section. Sometimes a point or multiple, two, points would be collinear with the meridien. That means for any equator of the sphere you select, ie by selecting a point and the point opposite it through the center, and the equator being the circle with each point equidistant from the poles, for any equator, you'd expect each orange slice to contain one of the points that is equally distributed about the sphere by some method. A point could be in each of the slices if it where coincident with a pole, otherwise it would be on a maximum of two, because each slice borders only its two adjacent slices except at the pole, where it borders (shares a point) with each of the other slices. They have those toys that fold among various spherical configurations, those guys would probably know something about it. Ross F. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. >How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an >arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the >sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of >separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is >positively charged, and that if left to float on the surface, the >points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. It won't work, unless N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 or 20. There aren't enough regular polyhedra. You will reach an equilibrium (at least a local minimum of the potential energy, but probably not a global one if N is large), but the parts won't be identical. You might look at Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. >How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an >arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the >sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of >separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is >positively charged, and that if left to float on the surface, the >points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > It won't work, unless N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 or 20. There aren't enough > regular polyhedra. You will reach an equilibrium (at least a local > minimum of the potential energy, but probably not a global one if N is > large), but the parts won't be identical. It won't work for 8 either. Phil -- The gun is good. The penis is evil... Go forth and kill. === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. impressive. > How can I divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts? > I start with the premise that the surface can be divided by an > arbitrary number N, and is enclosed by P points on the surface of the > sphere. I want to know the formula for the points, the angle of > separation and distribution. > One method I am considering is to assume that each point is > positively charged, and that if left to float on the surface, the > points will reach an equilibrium being equidistant from each other. > I would like a computer program to to trace the point layout on a > wiremesh model. I want also the the program to readjust each time > more points are added to the distribution. And to calculate an > optimum number of points for a given sphere. > The purpose is of course to build a geodesic dome using one mold > instead of the thirty needed now. I reason that if it is possible to > cover a sphere with nearly identical triangles, it must be possible > to cover it with identical pieces, if the problem is addressed > correctly. > *-----------------------* > www.GroupSrv.com > *-----------------------* === Subject: Re: Spherical trigonometry question. There is a trivial way to divide a sphere into N equal and identical parts, but I'm afraid it will not be satisfying to you. Draw N semicircular arcs from one pole to the other of the sphere and cut along these lines. Of course these pieces are not triangles, as each will have two edges and two vertices. === Subject: Re: sum of 1/((k+1)*(k+2)) In sci.math, G. A. Edgar >> >> Telescoping series. Note that 1/((k+1)*(k+2)) = 1/(k+1) - 1/(k+2). >> >> have tried this method to no avail....any help please? > If you sum 1/(k+1) - 1/(k+2) from k=1 to k=n, all but two of the (1/(1*2)) + (1/(2*3)) + (1/(3*4)) + ... and then splits it (1/1 - 1/2) + (1/2 - 1/3) + (1/3 - 1/4) + ... the series resulting from changing - to + gives us 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/4 + ... which is a variant of the harmonic series; therefore the rewritten series is conditionally convergent. Fortunately, the original series is absolutely convergent, as each term 1/(k*(k+1)) < 1/k*k, and sum(k=1,+oo) (1/k^2) = pi^2/6, if memory serves. The best way I can think of is taking limits of finite prefixes, which gives us 1/1 - 1/(k+1) anyway, and the answer is therefore quite obvious. -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. === Subject: Re: lim question >Is it true that for all integers x and m such that x >= 0 and m > 0 is true the following from http://img52.exs.cx/img52/1909/lim0qp.png? >In both cases: why? How did you create the image at http://img52.exs.cx/img52/1909/lim0qp.png? === Subject: Re: lim question >Is it true that for all integers x and m such that x >= 0 and m > 0 is true the following from http://img52.exs.cx/img52/1909/lim0qp.png? >In both cases: why? How did you create the image at http://img52.exs.cx/img52/1909/lim0qp.png? === Subject: Re: Online equation system solver interesting. === Subject: Re: INTEGRAL <1dydnfXz3NmJIVzcRVn-3w@hamilton.edu> If you integrate (x^4(1-x))^1/2 from -0.717 to 0 the answer comes out to be 16/105. Yippie!!! === Subject: Re: INTEGRAL > If you integrate (x^4(1-x))^1/2 from -0.717 to 0 the answer comes out > to be 16/105. Approximately. > Yippie!!! Approximately. Rick === Subject: Re: Is this space separable? > Is there any obvious relation between L_p(a,b) > (with a, b real) and L_p(-oo,oo)? linear isometry between L_p(a,b) and L_p(-oo,oo). === Subject: Re: Implicit Function Theorem >> Let (x*,y*) in S be a vector such h(x*,y*) = 0 and the matrix nabla_y >> h(x*,y*) is nonsingular, the implicit function states that >> there exist (x,y) in the neigborhood of (x*,y*) such that y = f(x) and >> h(x,f(x)) = 0. >You've badly mangled the IFT, omitting hypotheses, misstating the >conclusion, ... > sorry. >.... h is C^1, so because det[dh/dy](x*,y*) is nonzero, det[dh/dy] >is nonzero in a neighborhood of (x*,y*) by continuity; your >conclusion follows. > Any easy way to show this? I'm not sure how someone could miss it. Why not state the IFT precisely and completely? Then state your question precisely and completely. If you're still having trouble, we can try to sort it out. === Subject: Re: fERMAT 420 === >Subject: Re: fERMAT 420 >Message-id: >k wallace >> >ben ito > >>Fermat's Last Theorem >>Ben Tsutomu Ito >>12-16-04 >> >>I will show that Fermat's n=4 proof is invalid. >... >Where is James Harris when we need him? >I was too terse. I was hoping JSH and BTI would clash over FLT, And mutally annihilate each other in a burst of gamma rays? >saving others from any futile argument over these proofs. -- Mensanator Ace of Clubs === Subject: Re: Fibonacci problem, not easy Each row after the Fib. row can be represented as --- Second row 2+2 = 4 3+3 = 6 5+5 = 10 8+8 = 16 13+13 = 26 21+21 = 42 34+34 = 68 etc. Third row Using 2nd row results after 2 and using fib. seq. starting @ 5 2+5 = 7 4+8 = 12 6+13 = 19 10+21 = 31 16+34 = 50 26+55 = 81 42+89 = 131 68+144= 212 etc. Fourth row An offset add of the Fib. 1+8 = 9 1+13 = 14 2+21 = 23 3+34 = 37 5+55 = 60 8+89 = 97 13+144=157 21+233=254 etc. Fifth row Another offset add 3+8 = 11 5+13 = 18 8+21 = 29 13+34 = 47 21+55 = 76 34+89 = 123 55+144= 199 89+233= 322 etc. Sixth row Another offset add 2+13 = 15 3+21 = 24 5+34 = 39 8+55 = 63 13+89 = 102 21+144= 165 34+233= 267 55+377= 432 etc. Seventh row Using both 2nd row and sixth row results. (annex the 2) for second row 2+15 = 17 4+24 = 28 6+39 = 45 10+63 = 73 16+102=118 26+165=191 42+267=309 68+432=500 etc. Eighth row Results of sixth row add to Fib. number starting with 5. 15+5 = 20 24+8 = 32 39+13 = 52 63+21 = 84 102+34 =136 165+55 =220 267+89 =356 432+144 =576 etc. Ninth row Another Fib. offset add. 1+21 = 22 2+34 = 36 3+55 = 58 5+89 = 94 8+144 = 152 13+233= 246 21+377= 398 etc. Tenth row Using results of second row and Fib. start @ 21 4+21 = 25 6+34 = 40 10+55 = 65 16+89 = 105 26+144 = 170 42+233 = 275 68+377 = 445 etc. Just interesting that any of these rows of numbers that are not in the original Fibonacci sequence (row one) can be represented as a combination of Fib. numbers in sequence or results from a previous row along with Fib. numbers in order or just two previous rows added together in order to create a new row. Could have a typo error, but I believe it to be correct. Dan === Subject: ADV: Staff Announcement boundary=AF3D..B.__._.F.D..A_D.2. by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) with SMTP id iBH5vKI19410; by ASHTAR with SMTP; --------------------------------------------------------------------- Attention All School Staff: Teachers, Students and Faculty Members: Through a special arrangement, Avtech Direct is offering a limited allotment of BRAND NEW, top of-the-line, name-brand desktop computers at more than 50% off MSRP to all Teachers, Students,Faculty and Staff, All desktop computers are brand-new packed in their original boxes, and come with a full manufacturer's warranty plus a 100% satisfaction guarantee. These professional grade Desktops are fully equipped with 2005 next generation technology, making these the best performing computers money can buy. Avtech Direct is offering these feature rich, top performing Desktops with the latest technology at an amazing price to all who call: The fast and powerful AT-2800 series Desktop features: * Intel 2.0Ghz Processor for amazing speed and performance * 20 GB UDMA Hard Drive, -- Upgradeable to 80 GB * 52X CD-Rom Drive, -- Upgradeable to DVD/CDRW * Next Generation 2005 Technology * Premium video and sound -- For enhanced colors and graphics * Full Connectivity with Fax modem/Lan/USB 2.0 * Soft Touch Keyboard and scroll mouse * Internet Ready * Network Ready * 1 Year parts and labor warranty * Priority customer service and tech support MSRP $499 ........................................ Your Cost $257 How to qualify: 1. You must be a Teacher, Student, Faculty or Staff Member. 2. All desktop computers will be available on a first come first serve basis. and we will hold the desktops you request on will call. 4. You are not obligated in any way. 5. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. 6. Ask for Department C. Call Avtech Direct Visit our website at http://www.avtechcomputers.com If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please go to http://www.avtechcomputers.com/announcements.asp Avtech Direct 22647 Ventura Blvd. Suite 374 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 === Subject: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors Here's a kind of philosophical question, more philosophical than mathematical I think, but I figure the members of this group would be interested. A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom direction. It doesn't prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and bottom? I have what I think is a very short answer that goes to the heart of the issue. I'm interested to hear what other people think. -Mike === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors in part: >A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom >direction. It doesn't prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we >look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and >bottom? Look in a mirror that is along the north wall of a room. Your head, that points up, also points up in the mirror. Let your right hand point east. The reflection of your right hand points east in the mirror. But you're facing north, yet your image in the mirror faces south. That is what is reversed, the directions in and out of the mirror. It happens that right and left are defined in terms of angles from the reversed front and back directions, and so the mirror image's right hand is the one pointing west, the reflection of your left hand. If you look down from up, 'right' is whatever is 90 degrees clockwise from the front. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > Here's a kind of philosophical question, more philosophical than > mathematical I think, but I figure the members of this group would be > interested. > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesn't prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? Speak for yourself. When *I* look in a mirror I see front anfd back reversed, not left and right. :-) -- Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html Lacan, Jacques, 79, 91-92; mistakes his penis for a square root, 88-9 Francis Wheen, _How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World_ === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesn't prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? My two cents worth: As Dan Weiner already pointed out, you *do* see left on the left and right on the right. So your question becomes: why are we (well, most of us) fooled into thinking that there is a left-right flip although there actually isn't one? Well, when you look into a mirror, you picture a copy of your self stepping behind the mirror and turning around to face your (original) self. And that's the catch: turning around. So you *expect* a rotation r by 180 degrees (with vertical axis), but you *see* a reflection s that flips front and back. Hence it's the difference s^(-1)r that bothers you, i.e. a reflection flipping left and right. LD === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors <41c29465$0$14209$636a15ce@news.free.fr> Yes, this is approximately the answer I came up with. More specifically to answer the original question: when you imagine yourself turning around, you imagine turning around your vertical axis. If you imagined turning around a horizontal axis instead, swapping positions of head and feet, then you would perceive that mirrors flip top and bottom but not left and right. So it has to do with how we imagine turning ourselves around. Or in the case of turning an object to present it to a mirror, for example turning a page with a word on it, we turn it around a vertical axis and so perceive that it is reversed left-to-right. We could flip the page top-to-bottom and then end up perceiving that mirrors reversed top-bottom. Best, Mike === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > Here's a kind of philosophical question, more philosophical than > mathematical I think, but I figure the members of this group would be > interested. > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesn't prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? > I have what I think is a very short answer that goes to the heart of > the issue. I'm interested to hear what other people think. > -Mike Lateral (right/left) inversion is seen with respect to body height/length, the way eyes are fitted in the skull and seen by brain. Even if you are horizontally lying on a bed, or may be even a bat when hanging upside down would see mirror images laterally inverted. === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors Isn't it just that light rays from a specific point on your body reflect directly back toward you? So a light ray from your left side will be reflected on the left side of the mirrior, but that will appear to be the right side of your reflection, since your reflection is facing you. Curved mirrors can invert objects top to bottom, but it requires a substantial change in the light path. === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors Isn't it just that light rays from a specific point on your body reflect directly back toward you? So a light ray from your left side will be reflected on the left side of the mirrior, but that will appear to be the right side of your reflection, since your reflection is facing you. Curved mirrors can invert objects top to bottom, but it requires a substantial change in the light path. === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesn't prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? When I face my mirror, it reverses front and back. When I turn so that it's on my left, it reverses left and right. It seems to reverse the directions orthogonal to its surface, whatever I call them. I bet if I put it on the floor, it'll reverse up and down. -- Don Reble djr@nk.ca === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > When I face my mirror, it reverses front and back. When I turn so > that it's on my left, it reverses left and right. It seems to reverse > the directions orthogonal to its surface, whatever I call them. I bet > if I put it on the floor, it'll reverse up and down. The reflection of your feet will still be near the floor where your toes are. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Philosophical/mathematical question about mirrors > Here's a kind of philosophical question, more philosophical than > mathematical I think, but I figure the members of this group would be > interested. > A mirror is symmetrical in the left-right direction and top-bottom > direction. It doesn't prefer one axis over the other. So why, when we > look in a mirror, do we see left and right reversed but not top and > bottom? > I have what I think is a very short answer that goes to the heart of > the issue. I'm interested to hear what other people think. > -Mike This has nothing to do with math or philosophy. Or anything really. We don't see anything reversed in a mirror.... stuff on the left is on the left, and stuff on the right is on the right. --D === Subject: Re: Transivity of the Action of a Symetric Group by Conjugation on Subgroups > Good afternoon, > First let see the context of my question. > Let G be a subgroup of the symetric group S(F_2^m) (where F_2^m is a m > dimensional vector space over F_2 = {0,1}) such that for all nonidentity > sigma in G, sigma x is different from x (no fixed point) and sigma^2 x = x > (sigma is an involution). > Such a group is called a group of fixed-point free involutions. Also called a semiregular group of exponent 2. > We can check that for those kind of groups we have : > * G is Abelian In fact, elementary abelian (a direct product of cyclic groups of order 2). > * |G| <= 2^m Yes, since being semiregular, G acts regularly on each orbit. > Now we consider those groups of fixed-point free involutions of F_2^m such > that |G| = 2^m. These groups are called maximal group of fixed-point free > involutions of F_2^m and are ISOMORPHIC to T(F_2^m) the group of > translations of F_2^m and even they are ISOMORPHIC to the group F_2^m > itself. In particular they are 2-groups. > For instance all the conjugate groups of the group of translations of > F-2^m, T(F_2^m), are such maximal groups of fixed-point free involutions > (ex. pi T(F_2^m)pi^{-1} where pi is in S(F_2^m)). > The question is : > Are all the maximal groups of involutions without fixed-point conjugate to > the group of translations T(F_2^m) (i.e. is there only one orbit for the > action by conjugation of S(F_2^m) on the set of all maximal groups of > fixed-point free involutions ?) ?? Yes. In fact, all of the semiregular elementary abelian 2-groups of the same order in S(F_2^m) are conjugate there. It's not hard to see this if you think of them as permutation groups; by relabelling/renumbering the vectors in F_2^m, it's clear the groups are permutation isomorphic. -- Jim Heckman === Subject: re:Is this math test too easy? ok, I'm a ninth grader now, and last year the state math tests were mind bogglingly easy. I'm pretty sure the only reason I missed any was that I wasn't really paying attention it was so easy. *-----------------------* www.GroupSrv.com *-----------------------* === Subject: Re: Submitting a paper > My last post was probably lost in some server... > My simple question is: Is it possible to submit a paper to one journal > even if my e-mail address doesn't end with .edu? > Is there some of you who have post some any paper and is not a > professor or a teacher, but is only a simple math graduated ? > Piero Giacomelli Nope, sorry, you need an impressive email address, like hardy@oxford.edu. Otherwise your paper goes right in the bin. === Subject: Re: Submitting a paper >My last post was probably lost in some server... No, it wasn't. And there was a reply the same day. See Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada === Subject: Re: How big is the electron? vonroach; >In quantum informationdynamics says that energy is the same as information. >Because enegy is information then we see trivially, how >energy > kati - are you attempting to talk? ? No, i don't know how i can disscuss with scientific beings === Subject: deriving speed of light from purely the inside of Plutonium atom Re: >> What you say? > Already you are confused but that is partly my fault for not making mine clear. > You write long. You make connections between physical observations and instrinsic > properties of mathematical spaces. That is not silly, per se. But your geometrical > properties (and interpretations) aren't necessary. You want Lorentz invariance? > OK, in 3D + time, curve the space. The SPACE basically means your metric. > This is the intimate property mirrored in constancy of c. [c in both Maxwell and > SR]. In SR, the 3D space can be flat - but that is an eventless space, where talking > about change, information, observation, etc is meaningless. No problem. Remember how Maxwell derived the speed of light from purely electromagnetic numbers. If the Atom Totality theory is correct then the speed of light should be derived from purely numbers unique to the atom of 231Plutonium. Just as pi and e are unique to 231Plutonium in that it has 22 subshells in 7 shells and the number e has 19 occupied subshells in 7 shells. So pi and e are connected and begot from purely the physical condition of plutonium atom. So let me derive the speed of light from just the uniqueness of plutonium atom. But let me try to answer a few of your questions that you took the time and trouble to post. > But the 3D + time WITH Lorentz you have the metric and measure distances the > way physicists do (as you know). > Let me try to explain it with an example in mathematics and physics. We start from the beginning > of mathematics and create numbers. We create 0 and 1 and than mark off 2, 3 etc Then we create > Rational numbers of numbers between the Counting numbers. We create more numbers of Reals but > get bored and want to create Geometry. Now it gets exciting. We see create circles and then we > realize there is a special number of how many diameters fit a circumference of a circle. > We call this special number pi. We work out its value and find it is 3.14... and irrational. So > far in all of this creating we do not bring into the picture physics. But now we do so. > Sorry, you don't get circles until you invent dimensions and have 2D. 1D geometry is called Interval > algebra and is pretty dull. pi is a property of circles in flat spaces. Not so in broad sense. If you are on a sphere itself and draw a circle then pi varies as to the size of the circle you draw and depending on the size of the sphere. So in a sense pi is variable in Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometry. Only in Euclidean geometry is pi a constant. Which brings up a nasty question whether the speed of light is a constant in Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometry. > We say that we can not create any mathematics in a vacuum but that it is created with a > background of physics. We ask why should pi have a value of 3.14... and why not purely 3 or 4? > It's tied to distance, which is tied to how you measure (as I would tell a physicist). The sums which > yield pi can be reduced to geometric inprepretations of distance measurement. > If the Universe is created and destroyed periodically would pi in every one of those universes > be the same pi of 3.14... In other words is the value of pi independent of physics? > Naively I would say yes, but that depends on the notions of dimension and Euclidean distance > having a place. Maybe this would not apply in some topological universes which associate > points differently than the way we think (well, many of us). Eg, people who like strings, like > to have backdoor dimensions that on a very small scale change things, providing a kind of > local resilience of interations between points. Physics is supreme over mathematics. Mathematics is merely a subset of physics. Physics creates mathematics. Two examples is that counting and numbers are created because atoms are numerous. Geometry is created because atoms have a shape and size. So if the Universe did not have atoms it would not have mathematics. > If we realize that the Universe itself is an atom and since an atom has curvature of a sphere > that outlines the electron dot cloud and the number of subshells for plutonium is 22 inside of 7 > shells we see that this number of 22/7 is a Rational approximation of pi. > I am too naive to make this connection without more explanation. Mathematics has two types of numbers: it has Rational and Irrational. Physics has two types of quantization. It has the collapsed wavefunction and the uncollapsed wavefunction. So when we look at a plutonium atom of the 5f6 and the 22 subshells in 7 shells we are looking at the Collapsed Wavefunction which is an nice number of pi as 22/7 but if we look at the same atom in uncollapsed wavefunction it is transcendental and irrational number of something approx of 22/7 and is the actual pi number value. The reason mathematics even has transcendental numbers such as pi and e is because these numbers are never formed fully but growing or collapsing with time. That is the ultimate meaning of mathematical transcendental numbers. Rational numbers are fully grown and formed; transcendental numbers are only half cooked or baked or prepared. > So the value of pi is created because of the physical nature of the Cosmos itself. > Ditto. > If intelligent life were to appear in a Helium Atom Totality then the value of pi in that > universe would be different from the pi in a Plutonium Atom Totality because there are different > numbers of subshells and shells. > So, Tom, what I am saying about Maxwell Equations, about Special Relativity, and about Lorentz > transformations is that they have the mathematical form of a sphere/cylinder is because of the > Cosmos or Universe itself is spherical/cylindrical and not flat plane Euclidean geometry. > This notion of mathematical form causes me problems. If it characterising a surface, then that > must be IN a space. If it is defined by a metric/curvature/etc, then OK. GR provides a theory > to link that to energy content. You favor GR too much Tom. Trouble with GR is that in the 20th century only a tiny fraction of the force of gravity was known. Gravity as we know it is only a localized force in this region of the Cosmos whereas Antigravity is its dual force in other regions of the cosmos. So there was never to be a Unification of forces of physics in the 20th century because not all the forces were on the table. I Unified the forces of physics in the early years of the 21st century by including Antigravity along with Gravity. It is a Coulomb Unification of all the forces of physics. STrong Nuclear is the matching pair to Weak Nuclear. Coulomb has its matching pair of forces in the attract coulomb to the repel Coulomb. Gravity has its dual pair in Antigravity and the last years of the 20th century found astronomical evidence of an antigravity force. Which is natural if you understand the Cosmos to be an Atom Totality. Because inside an atom of plutonium of 231Pu some of the lobes direction is outward which would be seen by life as antigravity whereas the motion of other lobes of the 5f6 would be inwards towards the nucleus and life would see that as gravity. > If the Cosmos were flat plane Euclidean geometry, then intelligent life would spring forth and > discover physics and the laws of physics and the Maxwell Equations in that Universe would be > different from the Maxwell Equations we know. > I miss that necessity. If the Universe were Euclidean and if physics determines geometry then the speed of light would not be a finite constant. The speed of light would be infinite speed. > The Maxwell Equations are what they are because the Cosmos is spherical/cylindrical. > The Maxwell Equations are Lorentz transformation invariant because the Cosmos is > spherical/cylindrical. If the Cosmos were flat Euclidean then the Maxwell Equations would not be > invariant to Lorentz transformation. > And Special Relativity has the speed of light as invariant. Why invariant? Because the Cosmos is > spherical and when you shot a beam of light that has infinite speed in a spherical/cylindrical > Cosmos, it no longer is infinite but becomes finite and bounded because a sphere is finite and > bounded. So the reason light speed is a constant c is because the Cosmos is finite and > spherical. > Minkowski and Lorentz provided the geometry before SR. > Summary: pi has a value and that value is determined by the physical constraints of the Cosmos > with its 22 subshells inside of 7 shells and for e where 19 subshells are occupied inside of 7 > shells. The speed of light is constrainted to a finite constant because the Cosmos physically is > spherical. The laws of electricity and magnetism as codified by the Maxwell Equations will have > a mathematical form because the Cosmos is a sphere/cylinder of a big atom. > The 22 and 7 seems accidental (and approximate), to me. Yes, approximate in collapsed QM wavefunction, but exactly the value of pi in Uncollapsed Wavefunction. Same for the number e with its 19 occupied subshells inside of 7 shells. >> GRT links energy tensor to curvature (as an axiom). 4D. > Tom you are doing what 20th century physicists and mathematicians have been doing for a century > in that of pushing around math models to make sense of physics. > True. > Forget the model pushing. > Physical models are pushed (and tested) against observations, for consistency. Noticing that > some ratios of numbers approximate pi has less grounding. > Start at a different level and begin by asking How does physics create the math that is Maxwell > Equations, that is the Lorentz transformation invariance, that is Special Relativity. How does > physics determine or set the value of what pi and e are. > You see, I do not push around models to try to see how Maxwell Equations behave in a higher > dimension. > But your spheres and cylinders are similar kinds of constructs. > Tomasso. Okay, let me get at the heart of this post. I want to derive the value of the speed of light just from the unique physical constants of 231Plutonium. If the Universe is a Plutonium Atom Totality then the speed of light should correspond to the distance around the lobe of the 5f6 and should be unique to plutonium. If the Universe were a Uranium Atom Totality or a Lead Atom Totality the distance around its outer shell would cause for a different number constant for the speed of light. Just as only Plutonium has 22 subshells in 7 shells and 19 occupied subshells derives the value of pi and e. So also, the distance around the 5f6 should yield a number constant of the speed of light 3 X 10^8 m/s. If the Cosmos were Euclidean then the speed of light would be infinite. distance outward and back again to the nucleus because it is Riemannian geometry or spherical/cylindrical geometry and thus *bounded*. Because the inside of an atom whether it is a atom in a jar or an atom that is the entire Cosmos is bounded means that the speed of light is bounded and thus finite. If the Cosmos was a Uranium AtomTotality then its speed of light as measured by some intelligent life would be different from 3 X 10^8 m/s. IN a Plutonium Atom Totality the speed of light should be exactly the number that Maxwell derived in the 1850s or 1860s. So, what is the distance around a lobe of the 5f6 of plutonium? And what is the distance around the lobe of uranium of its 5f4? And what is the distance of Cm of its lobe of 5f8? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: Re: deriving speed of light from purely the inside of Plutonium atom Re: (most snipped) > bounded means that the speed of light is bounded and thus finite. > If the Cosmos was a Uranium AtomTotality then its speed of light as measured by some intelligent life > would be different from 3 X 10^8 m/s. > IN a Plutonium Atom Totality the speed of light should be exactly the number that Maxwell derived in the > 1850s or 1860s. > So, what is the distance around a lobe of the 5f6 of plutonium? And what is the distance around the lobe > of uranium of its 5f4? And what is the distance of Cm of its lobe of 5f8? Okay, what have I got for sure. I have got in pure numbers the distance of a diameter as 7 shells and a distance of circumference of 22 subshells. I have a time in pure numbers of pi to e in that e is 19 occupied subshells inside of 7 shells. So that there is a factor of time involved in that only 19 of the 22 subshells is occupied at any one moment of time. So what is this any one moment of time that 3 subshells are not used? Then I have in pure number the thermodynamic temperature inside of a plutonium atom which is the cosmic microwave background radiation which is 2.71 Kelvin and I cannot escape the fact that this temperature is exactly the value of 1e which is 2.71...... In physics the temperature is the inverse of Time. So again I have a link to pure numbers of 2.71 and Time. Now the distance in experimental physics of atoms is on the order of 10^-10 meters of roughly 1 to 5 x 10^-10 meters where cesium is one of the biggest diameters of 5x10^-10 meters and fluorine one of the smallest diameter atoms of about 1x10^-10 meters. And plutonium diameter is approx 3x10^-10 meters. Now, how do I get the speed of light of 3x10^8 m/s inside a plutonium atom when its radius is about 1.5x10^-10 meters would call for a Time factor on the order of 5 x 10^-19 seconds. I do not even think that this small of a time is physically noteworthy. So it is here that I begin to ask some hard questions as to the meaning of Coulomb force that holds atoms together of its protons in the nucleus and its orbiting electrons. The best that physics provides which is rather sparse and meager is the idea of two tennis players where a photon is the ball keeping the two players together as per the electron and proton catching and shooting the photon back and forth. So what I have to ask is since physics is too primitive about what keeps protons to electrons by shooting photons back and forth, is whether the photon traverses all of the geometry of the 94 electrons of plutonium. In other words, the photon shot from the protons in the nucleus makes the 3 dimensional space that the electrons reside in, being caught by all 94 electrons. Sidenote: think of DNA encapsulated in a cell if one were to pull the DNA out and stretched it flat and linear then the DNA stretches out kilometer/s in distance. So that when the Protons shot a photon for the Electrons, it is not like a tennis player hitting the ball and the other tennis player hitting it back. Rather instead, the photon etches out the entire geometry of the 94 electron space of the plutonium atom. So in that case I am not talking about a mere diameter or radius distance of the order of 10^-10 meters but instead if we consider the 3rd dimension of a sphere and had the smallest width of a string that etched out every spot of that sphere then would it be a string when pulled straight and flat would cover say 10^8 meters? By smallest width I mean the smallest physical width that still has Physics significance. DNA is 3 dimensional and if strung out flat can reach kilometers in distance. So how much distance would it take if the photon was a string of the smallest width to cover the inside of plutonium? Would it be on the order of 10^8 meters? Perhaps that is how I escape the diameter being only 10^-10 meters and require a time of 10^-19 second. You see, if the speed of light is obtained from purely the inside characteristics of plutonium atom and unique to plutonium where its neighboring atoms give a different number for the speed of light, then I must be clear about what light does inside an atom in order that it holds the protons to electrons. So here we see how primitive is our modern physics in that all we have going is the Tennis player analogy. I think that holding protons to electrons via the photon exchanges involves the photon etching out the entire space of the electrons, all 94 electrons. And that gives a larger distance, whether it is on the order of 10^8 meters is unknown. And it gives much larger Time factor than the 10^-19 second. Then again, with the pure numbers of 22/7 and 19/7 and 2.71 Kelvin with temperature the inverse of time. Suppose I were to use 10^-10 meters then can I say that since temperature is the inverse of time that the inverse of 10^-10 meters is 10^10 meters which is in the same range of exponents as the speed of light? So that all I need do is divide by a factor of 300 for time to get the speed of light? I do not like that avenue because I lose physical meaning and see it more as horseplaying around. I need to keep hold of what is physically going on inside a atom and its photon holding protons to electrons. Again, what the above should point out more than anything else is how primitive is our understanding of how the Coulomb force holds protons to electrons via photon exchange interactions. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: Re: deriving speed of light from purely the inside of Plutonium atom Re: (most all snipped) > (most snipped) > Again, what the above should point out more than anything else is how primitive is our understanding of how > the Coulomb force holds protons to electrons via photon exchange interactions. I should have referenced my talk of the current picture of how a photon holds together protons to electrons. But that entire picture is so lousy, so skimpy, so meager that it is almost not worth it. The picture is the analogy of tennis players held together in a tennis match because a ball bounces back and forth so the tennis ball holds together tennis players. In Physics, that is the best the physics community was able to manage in the 20th century was to say that a photon holds together the protons to the electrons because of the exchange of the photon. But the physics picture must be improved in this century as to what is truly Physically going on that the photon holds together the protons to the electrons. And what I propose because I need a distance for photons to derive the speed of light unique to the characteristics of the inside of a plutonium atom versus its neighboring atoms of the chemical chart of elements. What I propose is that the photon holds the protons to the electrons not by some linear shot as in tennis game but that the photon actually carves out the space that the electron occupies (perhaps not the space of the protons but at least the space of the electrons). In a game of tennis the ball is linear shots and the players hit the ball back and forth. In a atom of that creates the entire space that the electrons occupy. So the distance that the photon travels to the electrons is not something on the order of 10^-10 meters but in fact is something of the order of 10^6 meters or 10^8 meters or 10^10 meters because the distance traveled by a photon to Coulomb Force keep the photons bound to the electrons is a traversed distance that it creates a 3rd dimensional space where the electrons occupy that space carved out by the photon. I gave the analogy of DNA inside a cell. So if I wanted a distance for DNA I would not be satisfied with a distance of the diameter of the nucleus of a cell, would I. No. I would be wanting the distance that an uncurled DNA molecule has and that distance is something of the order of kilometer/s long. Any Supporting Evidence from Physics to allow me to say that the photon distance traveled inside an atom is 10^8 meters in distance? Yes. There are Faraday's Lines of Force of a magnet or current producing fields. Fields are 3 dimensional so that a photon inside a plutonium atom is not a single line distance but all of the lines combined to make a field. So, what is the smallest physical breadth or width for a line to have in physics yet still have physical meaning. Is it the breadth of a proton? Suppose it is then what is the distance if the entire space inside a plutonium atom of its 94 electrons were filled with that breadth unit? And then uncurl those tiniest of breadth-strings. Would it not, like the uncurled DNA molecule, stretch out to be 10^8 meters or thereabouts? Then there is the other evidence by Johns Hopkins University who in late 1990s to early 2000s reported that the inside color of plutonium is silvery white. Of course Johns Hopkins did not report about plutonium but about the Cosmos itself as silvery color because the Johns Hopkins researchers are not advanced as myself for they have yet to understand that the Cosmos is just one big atom and to accept that idea. So I have two supporting evidences that the distance traveled by a photon to hold together protons to electrons is of the order of 10^8 meters and those 2 evidences is (1) Faraday's Lines of Force (2) silvery color of Cosmos as reported by Johns Hopkins. You see, how can our Cosmos of the night sky be silvery color when it is mostly dark and black. The answer is that our night sky with its sparse population of galaxies is the 5f6 of plutonium where the galaxies are mass chunks of those last 6 electrons of 231Pu. But how can those galaxies make for a silvery white color that Johns Hopkins observed? Answer: because inside a plutonium atom the photon holds together electrons to the protons because the photon etches out or circumscribes the space that the electrons move in. The photon, each singular photon creates a space that the electrons thus travel in. Not just a line shot but the entire 3 dimensional space of lobes or spheres or cylinder shapes and because the photon etches out 3 dimensional space that a silvery white color is noticed by an outside observer. P.S. I have a question outside of the above discussion dealing with the act of discovery in physics. It bemuses me to wonder why I did not write the above some 10 years earlier when I was writing on this subject. Why did it take until this moment? The answer is that obvious truths are not forthcoming until later time when the shovel of discovery is digging elsewhere. I want a distance of 10^8 meters inside of plutonium and that is the shovel dig elsewhere. I want a distance of 10^8 meters now. Some 10 years earlier I had no call or need for that distance and thus I had no aid or guide that the Tennis ball analogy needs a fixing to encompass 3rd dimensions. So, psychologically, we often in science come a micrometer away from discovery of new ideas in physics but fail to discover it and only when a shovel is digging elsewhere do we open up the new idea. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: speed of light unique to the element plutonium Re: deriving speed of light > So I have two supporting evidences that the distance traveled by a photon to hold together protons to > electrons is of the order of 10^8 meters and those 2 evidences is (1) Faraday's Lines of Force (2) silvery > color of Cosmos as reported by Johns Hopkins. So let me outline what I expect or hope to derive the speed of light of 3x10^8 m/s unique to the inside characteristics of plutonium and where all other atoms give a different number. Outline: I presume that the photon to hold protons to electrons is not like a ball in tennis to hold together the 2 players, rather instead it is like DNA all curled up inside a cell nucleus and that a photon has a width or depth to it. Let us say the width of a photon is the smallest physical diameter which is perhaps that of the diameter of a proton. Or, think of the photon as a garden hose and the inside of a house as a atom, then how long of a garden hose will fill the entire house or tile the entire interior of the house? Or think of the photon as a string with a finite width to fill the inside of a atom. Now what is the volume of a plutonium atom inside of its 94 electrons where 90% of the electrons can be found? This is a finite volume and each element has a unique volume where 90% of the electrons reside. So how much of the photon does it take to fill up the inside of plutonium atom? I am guessing that the length of this photon is 1.11 x 10^8 meters in length. So I have a distance unique to plutonium. Now a need a time for the photon to tile or fill up the inside of that plutonium atom. I have several pure numbers in physics for a time inside plutonium. I have the pure distance that plutonium diameter is 7 shells wide and a circumference of 22 subshells creating the value of pi as 22/7 in Rational approximation. I have the pure time that 19 subshells are occupied at any instant of time giving the number e in mathematics of 19/7 in Rational approximation. I have the temperature inside plutonium as the microwave background temperature of 2.71 Kelvin which is 1 e itself. I know that in physics temperature is the inverse of time. So if I have a temperature of 2.71 and if time is the inverse then I have 1/2.71 = 0.37. I am not sure as to why that is in seconds. All the other elements in the Periodic chart have a different number of subshells occupied in shells and would have a different value for both e and pi. I am hopefull that the endresult for plutonium inside the atom has a unique distance of 1.11 x 10^8 meters for the volume etched out by the photon to hold together the 94 electrons to the nucleus and this volume covered in a time of 0.37 second. And so when I divide 1.11 x 10^8 meters by 0.37 second I end up with a unique speed of light for the inside of a plutonium atom of 3 x 10^8 m/s And doing the same calculations for all the other elements of the Periodic Table only plutonium gives the speed of light that we observe in the universe at large. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: as Maxwell derived the speed of light in 1860s from purely EM considerations, I too will derive speed of light from only pure numbers of 231Pu Re: (most snipped) > Just as only Plutonium has 22 subshells in 7 shells and 19 occupied subshells derives the value of pi > and e. So also, the distance around the 5f6 should yield a number constant of the speed of light 3 X > 10^8 m/s. > If the Cosmos were Euclidean then the speed of light would be infinite. > distance outward and back again to the nucleus because it is Riemannian geometry or > spherical/cylindrical geometry and thus *bounded*. > Because the inside of an atom whether it is a atom in a jar or an atom that is the entire Cosmos is > bounded means that the speed of light is bounded and thus finite. > If the Cosmos was a Uranium AtomTotality then its speed of light as measured by some intelligent life > would be different from 3 X 10^8 m/s. > IN a Plutonium Atom Totality the speed of light should be exactly the number that Maxwell derived in the > 1850s or 1860s. > So, what is the distance around a lobe of the 5f6 of plutonium? And what is the distance around the lobe > of uranium of its 5f4? And what is the distance of Cm of its lobe of 5f8? Okay, now, what do I need to derive c from pure numbers of the inside of a plutonium atom? Well, surprisingly I need two things. I need a pure distance and I need a pure time. Once I get a pure distance and a pure time I can compare plutonium to that of its neighbors of uranium and curium. Plutonium is 5f6 whilst uranium is 5f4 and curium is 5f8. So I need two pure numbers of meter distance and of second to get 3 X 10^8 m/s. I can get a meter distance by the comparison of diameters of atoms from helium to curium in the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements. Those distances are somewhat rough and crude but they serve this function well because those distances compare one element to another. Hydrogen has a different radius from helium which has a different radius from carbon and different from uranium and different from plutonium and curium. Then there is atomic nuclear distances that I may use. Here we are talking about angstrom distances or 10^-10 meters. And if I remember correctly of about 2 A to 7 A for typical hydrogen orbital. So what is the distance of a 5f6 compared to 5f4 compared to 5f8??? So there is distance measures at hand. But is there time measures at hand? This is a much tougher question and to pull pure numbers associated with time. Here I am especially lucky. In physics we can consider that *time* is the inverse of *temperature*. And we have a Cosmic temperature of the inside of Plutonium Atom as the microwave cosmic background radiation of 2.71 Kelvin. And in fact, I am the only human to realize that 2.71 Kelvin matches the pure number in mathematics that is e which is a transcendental number 2.71.... But also, pi and e would be formed out of the number of subshells inside of shells of 231Pu. And 231Pu has 22 subshells inside of 7 shells and has 19 occupied subshells at **any one specific time**. Thus 231Pu creates the pure numbers of pi as 22/7 in rational-number-form and creates the number e as 19/7 in rational-number-form. But the number e compared to pi has the factor of TIME within itself. So I can pull out a pure Time from consideration of only pi and e. Pi alone is without a time consideration because it is the girth or belly of the 5f6 as its circumference or belt divided by its diameter or 22 subshells divided by 7 shells. E, however, is loaded with a time factor for it is 19 of those 22 subshells occupied inside of 7 shells. So there is a time factor where 3 subshells are not occupied and only 19 of the 22 subshells are occupied. So, now, how does a Cosmic temperature of the inside of 231Pu with 2.71 Kelvin link up with 19 subshells occupied at any one instant of time??? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: Re: deriving speed of light from purely the inside of Plutonium atom Re: > Remember how Maxwell derived the speed of light from purely electromagnetic numbers. If the Atom > Totality theory is correct then the speed of light should be derived from purely numbers unique to the > atom of 231Plutonium. But 231Pu is not *circular*. There are lobes all over the place. The holy alter of Plutonium is no more valid than the Zoroastrian, or Hindu, or Islamo/Judo/Christian conception. They are ALL too *singular*, and too look at me. The Taoist and Buddhist conceptions say, well, there is a unity, but try to pin it down into one explanation, and you are just closing your eyes and hoping. Pi is not an accident. It is linked to flat geometry. LOCALLY, there is flatness. Microscopically there is how can I look that closely? So, play as you will. Tomasso. === Subject: VonNeumann Gametheory applied to StockMarket with Crossover technique; BMY, Q, SBC, SGP Well, hindsight can be 20/20. I saw Q rise from 3.45 to a recent 4.30. I had bought 100,000 shares some months back and sold and made a meagre profit of about $5,000 whereas if I held and sold at 4.30 would have made a $80,000 profit. Back in July I held 14,100 shares of BMY and seem interminable for BMY price to rise above the price of SBC and make a Crossover switch. But if I had held to those BMY shares then today BMY was briefly 25.70 and SBC was below 25.60 to allow for a Crossover switch. And recently I held 11,310 shares of SGP for less than $18 a share and today it was over $20.50 a share. But I am not sad because I am not greedy. I have the rest of my life to make gains and profits from the stock market. The above shows clearly that the strategy of Crossover is the best strategy possible and I need to fine tune adjust for the rest of my life. So what if I did not make $80,000 on Qwest, I did make a profit on Qwest and another profit on SGP which I bought on the Qwest funds. We should never become so greedy that we feel bad about lost profits. It does not pain me to see Sprint or Nextel or Guidant rise, or even to see Merck rise from its downfall plunge. We cannot own everything that rises. So we should be happy with whatever profits we are blessed with, for there are many people who do not even make profits. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? Hi all, I have a stationary process X_k as an input to a Linear and Time-Invariant system. Is the output process Y_k still a stationary process? SSS(Strict-Sense Stationary) or at least WSS(Wide Sense Stationary)? === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? Homework? -- Stephan M. Bernsee http://www.dspdimension.com === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? > Hi all, > I have a stationary process X_k as an input to a Linear and Time-Invariant > system. Is the output process Y_k still a stationary process? > SSS(Strict-Sense Stationary) or at least WSS(Wide Sense Stationary)? Well, think about it. A stationary process is one who's parameters are independent of time, although the value of the signal resulting from the process can be correlated to past or future values of itself. A time-invariant system is one that modifies a signal in a time-independent way, although the output signal at any given time may depend on past (or future, if you don't care about causality) values of the input signal. So you tell me -- is it still stationary, or has it acquired a time dependence? -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? <10s5shpq8j4h141@corp.supernews.com> Well, think about it. A stationary process is one who's parameters are independent of time, although the value of the signal resulting from the process can be correlated to past or future values of itself. A time-invariant system is one that modifies a signal in a time-independent way, although the output signal at any given time may depend on past (or future, if you don't care about causality) values of the input signal. So you tell me -- is it still stationary, or has it acquired a time dependence? Your explanation seems to make sense. However, if you have an LTI system with poles on the unit circle, one can still say that it modifies the signal in a time-independent way, but the output is not stationary. Can you refine your argument? Andor === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? windows-nt) Andor, What about startup transients? I agree in the steady-state. --RY > Well, think about it. A stationary process is one who's parameters are > independent of time, although the value of the signal resulting from > the > process can be correlated to past or future values of itself. > A time-invariant system is one that modifies a signal in a > time-independent way, although the output signal at any given time may > depend on past (or future, if you don't care about causality) values of > the input signal. > So you tell me -- is it still stationary, or has it acquired a time > dependence? > Your explanation seems to make sense. > However, if you have an LTI system with poles on the unit circle, one > can still say that it modifies the signal in a time-independent way, > but the output is not stationary. Can you refine your argument? > Andor -- % Randy Yates % She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven. %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and %%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room. %%%% % Rockaria, *A New World Record*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? > Andor, > What about startup transients? I agree in the steady-state. > --RY >>Well, think about it. A stationary process is one who's parameters are >>independent of time, although the value of the signal resulting from >>the >>process can be correlated to past or future values of itself. >>A time-invariant system is one that modifies a signal in a >>time-independent way, although the output signal at any given time may >>depend on past (or future, if you don't care about causality) values of >>the input signal. >>So you tell me -- is it still stationary, or has it acquired a time >>dependence? >>Your explanation seems to make sense. >>However, if you have an LTI system with poles on the unit circle, one >>can still say that it modifies the signal in a time-independent way, >>but the output is not stationary. Can you refine your argument? >>Andor I missed Andor's post, so I'm answering it here. You're probably thinking of the Wiener process, where you integrate white noise starting at time t = zero. You are correct that this is not stationary, but if you have a system that holds its output at zero until time t = zero then the system is not time invariant. If your system _is_ time invariant then you must have a signal that is zero for t < 0 and has energy for t > 0 -- and that's not a stationary signal. Actually any LTI that is held at zero and only released at time t=0 will have an output that's non-stationary because you must be violating one of the conditions above. To keep the overall system time invariant you have to start things up at -infinity. So I think I'm still right. Now, granted, if you have an unstable or metastable system your output signal in such a case will have infinite variance -- this is probably why you want to hold things to zero until t = 0. I suspect that trying to do the analysis with any sort of rigor while allowing unstable or metastable systems would require many extra reams of paper, but I think my assertions would hold true. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? <10s5shpq8j4h141@corp.supernews.com> <10s8r3mj2ibkq54@corp.supernews.com> If your system _is_ time invariant then you must have a signal that is zero for t < 0 and has energy for t > 0 -- and that's not a stationary signal. Point taken. Now, granted, if you have an unstable or metastable system your output signal in such a case will have infinite variance -- this is probably why you want to hold things to zero until t = 0. I guess that's what I had in mind. Best just forget about unstable systems. Andor === Subject: Re: stationary process pass through an LTI system still stationary? <10s5shpq8j4h141@corp.supernews.com> > What about startup transients? I agree in the steady-state. Well, then the system isn't, strictly speaking, LTI, is it? :-) Ciao, Peter K. === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory Discussion, linux) > When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize limits. -- Eventually the truth will come out, and you know what I'll do then? Probably go to the beach. I'll also hang out in some bars. Yup, I'll definitely hang out in some bars, preferably near a beach. -- JSH on the rewards of winning a mathematical revolution === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory >> When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. >complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is >relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize >limits. I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used into think about, and I'm distressed to see you return to visualize. Nothing I've read in this thread, from the beginning on, has seemed to *me* to have anything at all to do with visualization (except, maybe, the occasional post referring to pentagons). Probably the original poster didn't mean what I mean by visualization either, but if he did, he hasn't been replied to. Lee Rudolph === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory |>> When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. |>complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is |>relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize |>limits. | |I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used |into think about, and I'm distressed to see you return to |visualize. When I visualize products, I often visualize them as boxes. When I visualize subobjects, I often visualize them as amorphous shapes inside the boxes. :-) Actually, I tend to keep a picture in mind of the diagram used to define the limit object, picturing the object itself as the result of a compromise between two forces. The definition can be considered in two parts; on the one hand the object has to be large enough (it has supporting struts inside...) and on the other hand it can't be excessively big (it has a tight covering surrounding it). Keith Ramsay === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory Oh come on, just admit it! You're thinking in terms of venn diagrams like the rest of us ;) Rudolph) > |> > |>> When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. > |> > |>complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is > |>relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize > |>limits. > |I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used > |into think about, and I'm distressed to see you return to > |visualize. > When I visualize products, I often visualize them as boxes. When > I visualize subobjects, I often visualize them as amorphous shapes > inside the boxes. :-) > Actually, I tend to keep a picture in mind of the diagram used to > define the limit object, picturing the object itself as the result of > a compromise between two forces. The definition can be considered > in two parts; on the one hand the object has to be large enough > (it has supporting struts inside...) and on the other hand it can't > be excessively big (it has a tight covering surrounding it). > Keith Ramsay === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory > I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used > into think about, and I'm distressed to see you return to > visualize. Nothing I've read in this thread, from the > beginning on, has seemed to *me* to have anything at all to > do with visualization (except, maybe, the occasional post > referring to pentagons). Probably the original poster didn't > mean what I mean by visualization either, but if he did, he > hasn't been replied to. How about visualizing a rising line | split into two rays / | and then each ray split into two rays / / / | and so on, ad infinitum. And then think of this as a great candle holder (I am inspired here by Wolf's Menorah, although actually a different object, communicated to me by my friend Bob Wolf, the logician). Then one can visualize the inverse limit as the set of candles. -- Allan Adler * Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and * comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston. === Subject: Re: How to visualize limits in category theory Discussion, linux) > When I think about limits, I think about subobjects of products. >>complete just in case it has equalizers and products. My answer is >>relevant to completeness, but not a good answer to how to visualize >>limits. > I was pleased to see Michael Barr rework the verb being used > into think about, and I'm distressed to see you return to > visualize. Sorry. I got it from the subject header. No excuse, I know. You're right, though. Think about is better than visualize here (except maybe for the diagrammatic tips, which are reasonably visual). I hate to cause distress. Wish I could offer you a Pepto or something. -- Jesse F. Hughes Well, you know as soon as you have a new number I will be happy to add it to the list. Don't try those childish tit-for-tat games with me. -- Ross Finlayson on Cantor's theorem. === Subject: Re: The State-of-the-Art in Mathematics >The problem here is not the choice of values of sqrt(-1) but the concept i >itself. It is not well-defined because the mapping sqrt is well-defined only >on perfect square such as 1, 4, etc. >E. E Escultura Ok can it be represented like this? n=1 to oo with cartesian coordinates x,y,z Use only integer powers of n otherwise it's an indeterminate [(-1)^n/2] x [(-1)^n/2] y [(-1)^n/2] z For x coordinate, [(-1)^n/2] x at n=1 --> indeterminate at n=2 --> -1 at n=3 --> indeterminate at n=4 --> 1 at n=5 ---> indeterminate at n=6 ---> -1 at n=7 ---> indeterminate at n=8 ---> 1 etc... In cases where you have sqrt(-2), etc.., for n=1 --> oo Integer Powers of n Only sqrt (-2) = sqrt(2) [(-1)^n/2)] = (1.41421...) [(-1)^1/2)] = (1.4142...) ( indeterminate) And, (sqrt (-2))^2 = (1.41421...)^2 [(-1)^2/2)] = (2)(-1) = -2 And, (sqrt(-2))^3 = (1.41421...)^3 [(-1)^3/2)] = (2.8284...) (indeterminate) And, (sqrt(-2))^4 = 3.9998... And so on... Does this map sqrt correctly with negative sqrt's? Smart's Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: Re: The State-of-the-Art in Mathematics, but didn't I solve this? (Smart1234) >>The problem here is not the choice of values of sqrt(-1) but the concept i >>itself. It is not well-defined because the mapping sqrt is well-defined only >>on perfect square such as 1, 4, etc. >>E. E Escultura >Ok can it be represented like this? >n=1 to oo >with cartesian coordinates x,y,z >Use only integer powers of n >otherwise it's an indeterminate >[(-1)^n/2] x >[(-1)^n/2] y >[(-1)^n/2] z >For x coordinate, >[(-1)^n/2] x >at n=1 --> indeterminate >at n=2 --> -1 >at n=3 --> indeterminate >at n=4 --> 1 >at n=5 ---> indeterminate >at n=6 ---> -1 >at n=7 ---> indeterminate >at n=8 ---> 1 >etc... > In cases where you have sqrt(-2), etc.., >for n=1 --> oo >Integer Powers of n Only >sqrt (-2) = sqrt(2) [(-1)^n/2)] > = (1.41421...) [(-1)^1/2)] > = (1.4142...) ( indeterminate) >And, >(sqrt (-2))^2 = (1.41421...)^2 [(-1)^2/2)] > = (2)(-1) > = -2 >And, >(sqrt(-2))^3 = (1.41421...)^3 [(-1)^3/2)] > = (2.8284...) (indeterminate) >And, >(sqrt(-2))^4 = 3.9998... >And so on... > Does this map sqrt correctly with negative sqrt's? Why don't you reply? Why doesn't anyone reply? What's wrong you don't like to give me credit for anything? Smart's Alt. Physics News Group http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1 S. Enterprize (Science Journal) http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ === Subject: How to find the extremum of the Absolute value of a function=?big5?Q?=A1H?= Suppose I have a complex-valued function Z, and Z=Z(x1,x2,y) where x1,x2 and y are three real variables. I wanna |Z| has local minimums at two given points y=y1 and y=y2, where x1 and x2 should be adjusted to met this demand. i.e. QÁGHow to find x1 and x2 such that |Z| has local minimum at two given points y1 and y2 ? -- Á¡ Origin: ´.beÛjË.b3.bc®[UDo ubleDot].90[Degre e]Tøü  === Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re:_How_to_find_the_extremum_of_the_Absolute_value_of_a_function=E F =BC=9F?= > Suppose I have a complex-valued function Z, and Z=Z(x1,x2,y) > where x1,x2 and y are three real variables. I wanna |Z| has local > minimums at two given points y=y1 and y=y2, where x1 and x2 should be > adjusted to met this demand. > i.e. > Q.81FHow to find x1 and x2 such that |Z| has local minimum at two given points > y1 and y2 ? To find the minimimum for y=y1, define a new function: W1(x1,x2) = Z(x1, x2, y1) and use your favorite minimization technique. Similarly for y2. - Randy === Subject: Inconsistency of All Axiomatizations of Real Number Theory I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of the above, but the space alloted for this email is insufficient for me to reproduce it here... === Subject: Re: Inconsistency of All Axiomatizations of Real Number Theory > I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of the above, but the space > alloted for this email is insufficient for me to reproduce it here... Then, to continue the analogy, it will be at least 350 years before anybody sees any such proof, so it is of no importance to anyone now alive. === Subject: Re: Inconsistency of All Axiomatizations of Real Number Theory > I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of the above, but the space > alloted for this email is insufficient for me to reproduce it here... So shut up. === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem >[questions that have already been answered at great length, >misconceptions that have been abundantly clarified and >falsehoods that have been conclusively refuted snipped.] ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem <4ujtr05euj9l4q0fcpb8q2sbp141r399op@4ax.com> >[questions that have already been answered at great length, >misconceptions that have been abundantly clarified and >falsehoods that have been conclusively refuted snipped.] That's just more of the same: off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated, all-encompassing. That's what got you in trouble in the first place! There is no explanation for your statement other than what Smullyan and I are doing. Even if we assume that you were misinterpreted and meant something else, there is no something else. You are unable to provide a detailed alternate explanation of your statement about ignorance other than what Smullyan and I are doing. You are not substantiating your statements, preferring to bounce from claim to claim, leaving a trail of unattended debris like a bad dog. I quoted a reputable source that what you said was wrong. Now show a quote that proves me wrong. C-B > ************************ > David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >I quoted a reputable source that what you said was wrong. Now show a >quote that proves me wrong. That quote did not contradict what David Ullrich was saying. David is not disagreeing with Smullyan, he's disagreeing with *you*. You are misinterpreting what Smullyan said. Once again, truth and provability are different things *unless* you are dealing with a complete theory (which is the case for the theory of true arithmetic that Smullyan was talking about). -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem > Charlie-Boo says... >I quoted a reputable source that what you said was wrong. Now show a >quote that proves me wrong. > That quote did not contradict what David Ullrich was saying. > David is not disagreeing with Smullyan, he's disagreeing with > *you*. You are misinterpreting what Smullyan said. > Once again, truth and provability are different things *unless* > you are dealing with a complete theory (which is the case for > the theory of true arithmetic that Smullyan was talking about). In that theory, is Smullyan defining provability to be truth? C-B > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >> Once again, truth and provability are different things *unless* >> you are dealing with a complete theory (which is the case for >> the theory of true arithmetic that Smullyan was talking about). >In that theory, is Smullyan defining provability to be truth? No, he's not. Provability always means the same thing: derivability from the axioms by the rules of inference of first-order logic. What Smullyan is doing is choosing the *axioms* to be all true sentences of arithmetic. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem > Charlie-Boo says... >> Once again, truth and provability are different things *unless* >> you are dealing with a complete theory (which is the case for >> the theory of true arithmetic that Smullyan was talking about). >In that theory, is Smullyan defining provability to be truth? > No, he's not. Provability always means the same thing: derivability > from the axioms by the rules of inference of first-order logic. What > Smullyan is doing is choosing the *axioms* to be all true sentences > of arithmetic. Is Smullyan defing provability in that theory? If so, what is he defining it to be? > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >>In that theory, is Smullyan defining provability to be truth? >> No, he's not. Provability always means the same thing: derivability >> from the axioms by the rules of inference of first-order logic. What >> Smullyan is doing is choosing the *axioms* to be all true sentences >> of arithmetic. >Is Smullyan defing provability in that theory? No, he's not. Provability always means the same thing: derivability from the axioms by the rules of inference of first-order logic. What Smullyan is doing is choosing the *axioms* to be all true sentences of arithmetic. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem > Charlie-Boo says... >>In that theory, is Smullyan defining provability to be truth? >> >> No, he's not. Provability always means the same thing: derivability >> from the axioms by the rules of inference of first-order logic. What >> Smullyan is doing is choosing the *axioms* to be all true sentences >> of arithmetic. >Is Smullyan defing provability in that theory? > No, he's not. Provability always means the same thing: derivability > from the axioms by the rules of inference of first-order logic. > What Smullyan is doing is choosing the *axioms* to be all true > sentences of arithmetic. How would one define provability to be truth in a system like N if one wanted to do so? C-B > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >How would one define provability to be truth in a system like N if one >wanted to do so? I guess you could do so as follows: By the word provability I don't mean provability, I mean truth in a system like N. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem > Charlie-Boo says... >How would one define provability to be truth in a system like N if one >wanted to do so? > I guess you could do so as follows: > By the word provability I don't mean provability, I > mean truth in a system like N. And then the provable sentences would coincide with the true sentences? C-B > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >>How would one define provability to be truth in a system like N if >one >>wanted to do so? >> I guess you could do so as follows: >> By the word provability I don't mean provability, I >> mean truth in a system like N. >And then the provable sentences would coincide with the true sentences? If your axioms include all true sentences, then the provable sentences will coincide with the true sentences. That doesn't mean that you have redefined provability. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem > Charlie-Boo says... >>How would one define provability to be truth in a system like N if >one >>wanted to do so? >> >> I guess you could do so as follows: >> >> By the word provability I don't mean provability, I >> mean truth in a system like N. >And then the provable sentences would coincide with the true sentences? > If your axioms include all true sentences, then the provable sentences > will coincide with the true sentences. That doesn't mean that you have > redefined provability. 1. You say above that if we define provability to be truth in a system like N . . . then the provable sentences will coincide with the true sentences. 2. In Smullyan's system N, the provable sentences coincide with the true sentences. 3. Therefore Smullyan is defining provability to be truth. 4. Therefore DU's statement Truth and provability are _different_ things when you define one to be the other you exhibit amazing ignorance of the most basic issues. refers to Raymond Smullyan's work. C-B Nice chatting with you. Maybe we can do something more productive than playing cat and mouse? > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >1. You say above that if we define provability to be truth in a system >like N . . . then the provable sentences will coincide with the true >sentences. But Smullyan is *not* doing that. He is not defining provability to be truth. >2. In Smullyan's system N, the provable sentences coincide with the >true sentences. >3. Therefore Smullyan is defining provability to be truth. No, he's not. Look, suppose that all the coins in my pocket are pennies. Does that many that penny has been redefined to mean the same thing as coin? No, of course not, although in the restricted context of coins in my pocket, every coin is also a penny, and every penny is also a coin. In Smullyan's system, he is not defining provable to mean the same thing as true, but it happens to be the case that for his system, every true sentence is provable, and vice-versa. Here's the quote from Smullyan: We call a formula F(v1,. . .,vn) correct if for every n-tuple (a1,...,an), the sentence F(a1,. . .,an) is true. We let N be the first-order system whose axioms are all the correct formulas (this includes all logically valid formulas.) Thus, the provable formulas of N are nothing more than the axioms of N. He's saying that the *axioms* of N are all true sentences. It *follows* from this that a formula is true if and only if it is provable in N. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem > In Smullyan's system, he is not defining provable to mean the > same thing as true > but it happens to be the case that for his > system, every true sentence is provable, and vice-versa. That is simply false. You are not describing anything different - it is the exact same system with the same axioms, the same rules (none) and the same theorems. Where's the difference? It is mathematically identical. You are quibbling over descriptions which are mathematically equivalent. > He's saying that the *axioms* of N are all true sentences. It > *follows* from this that a formula is true if and only if it > is provable in N. Same axioms, same rules, same theorems. Same Theory. The only system that meets DU's condition for being ignorant is Smullyan's System N. C-B > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >> In Smullyan's system, he is not defining provable to mean the >> same thing as true >> but it happens to be the case that for his >> system, every true sentence is provable, and vice-versa. >That is simply false. No, it's not. Smullyan is saying that for his choice of axioms, the provable sentences are exactly the true sentences. That's a *conclusion*, not a *definition*. That's clear from the Smullyan quote. As David Ullrich says, Smullyan uses the word thus, which is a sign that he is drawing a conclusion. His choice of axioms, together with the *standard* definition of provability implies that the provable sentences for his system are exactly the true sentences. Smullyan is clearly taking provability to have been already understood by the reader. He's not defining it. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Why did you snip the following from the message you're replying to? >>3. Therefore Smullyan is defining provability to be truth. >No, he's not. Look, suppose that all the coins in my pocket are >pennies. Does that many that penny has been redefined to mean >the same thing as coin? Enquiring minds want to know whether or not this means that coin has been redefined to mean penny. (Yes, the rest of us all know the answer is no. But we're curious what _your_ answer is.) >> In Smullyan's system, he is not defining provable to mean the >> same thing as true >> but it happens to be the case that for his >> system, every true sentence is provable, and vice-versa. >That is simply false. You are not describing anything different - it >is the exact same system with the same axioms, the same rules (none) >and the same theorems. Where's the difference? It is mathematically >identical. You are quibbling over descriptions which are >mathematically equivalent. >> He's saying that the *axioms* of N are all true sentences. It >> *follows* from this that a formula is true if and only if it >> is provable in N. >Same axioms, same rules, same theorems. Same Theory. The only system >that meets DU's condition for being ignorant Gorbkle. Where did I say anything about formal systems being ignorant? >is Smullyan's System N. >C-B >> -- >> Daryl McCullough >> Ithaca, NY ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >1. You say above that if we define provability to be truth in a system >like N . . . then the provable sentences will coincide with the true >sentences. But Smullyan did *not* define provability to be truth. >2. In Smullyan's system N, the provable sentences coincide with the >true sentences. >3. Therefore Smullyan is defining provability to be truth. No, he isn't. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem > Charlie-Boo says... >1. You say above that if we define provability to be truth in a system >like N . . . then the provable sentences will coincide with the true >sentences. > But Smullyan did *not* define provability to be truth. >2. In Smullyan's system N, the provable sentences coincide with the >true sentences. >3. Therefore Smullyan is defining provability to be truth. > No, he isn't. CAT: Does Smullyan's system N meet the condition after the ellipsis in # 1? C-B > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >> Charlie-Boo says... >>1. You say above that if we define provability to be truth in a >system >>like N . . . then the provable sentences will coincide with the true >>sentences. >> But Smullyan did *not* define provability to be truth. >>2. In Smullyan's system N, the provable sentences coincide with the >>true sentences. >> >>3. Therefore Smullyan is defining provability to be truth. >> No, he isn't. >CAT: Does Smullyan's system N meet the condition after the ellipsis in ># 1? You seem to be under the impression that if A imples B, then it follows that B implies A. A = provability is defined to be the same as truth B = the provable statements are exactly the true statements It is certainly the case that A implies B. But it is not the case that B implies A. So the truth of B implies nothing about the truth of A. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem > Charlie-Boo says... >CAT: Does Smullyan's system N meet the condition after the ellipsis in ># 1? Well? > You seem to be under the impression that if A imples B, then > it follows that B implies A. > A = provability is defined to be the same as truth > B = the provable statements are exactly the true statements > It is certainly the case that A implies B. But it is not the case > that B implies A. So the truth of B implies nothing about the truth > of A. They are Mathematically identical. There is only one system that meets this condition: AXIOMS = THEOREMS = TRUE SENTENCES. Only this structure satisfies the DU/Raymond Smullyan description. It has to be the same system. C-B > Daryl McCullough > Ithica, NY === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem >> Charlie-Boo says... >In that theory, is Smullyan defining provability to be truth? > > No, he's not. Provability always means the same thing: >derivability > from the axioms by the rules of inference of first-order logic. >What > Smullyan is doing is choosing the *axioms* to be all true >sentences > of arithmetic. >> >>Is Smullyan defing provability in that theory? >> No, he's not. Provability always means the same thing: derivability >> from the axioms by the rules of inference of first-order logic. >> What Smullyan is doing is choosing the *axioms* to be all true >> sentences of arithmetic. >How would one define provability to be truth in a system like N if one >wanted to do so? It's really hard to understand what you're trying to prove by asking the same question over and over. Provability has already been defined in that system - it means derivability from the axioms, as always. Hint: although it's hard to see what you're _trying_ to prove, what you _are_ proving is clear to everyone but you. >C-B >> -- >> Daryl McCullough >> Ithaca, NY ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem <14ras09md0bvs1r3grod1q6d948ecjsjhu@4ax.com> > It's really hard to understand what you're trying to prove by > asking the same question over and over. It was the answer that was repeated, not the question. > Provability has already > been defined in that system - it means derivability from the > axioms, as always. Far from being always, that isn't even what Smullyan is doing. As you can see from my quote alone, he makes no reference to derivation rules in his definition of provability, nor does he use any - anywhere in system N. He defines provability solely in terms of truth. (He uses derivation rules in N as much as he uses a straight edge and compass.) Derivation rules (with reasonable assumptions) produce only recursively enumerable sets of provable sentences. Since the set of provable sentences in N is not r.e., then naturally he had to simply declare the provable sentences to be the true sentences instead of using derivation rules. But even if he were using derivation rules as you describe, that would not represent what Smullyan is talking about - the provable sentences coinciding with the true sentences. That is what he added (in place of derivation rules) and in fact is the very reason Smullyan created system N: to define provability to be truth. (Unmentioned to date is the fact that system N is the system in which the representable relations are precisely the Arithmetic relations.) It sounds like a number of proofs are hard for you to understand. > Hint: although it's hard to see what you're _trying_ to prove, > what you _are_ proving is clear to everyone but you. Off-the cuff (afterthought), unsubstantiated (only the claim is given), all-encompassing (everyone). Yes, some things do seem to be keep happening over and over around here. You know, if we all agreed that off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated, all-encompassing statements are the work of idiots, we could be a lot more efficient. I vote for that derivation rule. C-B Actually, a much more interesting question is to consider 3 problems concerning a wff: 1. How to prove it? 2. How to determine if it is true? 3. How to develop a computer program that determines if it is true? Here's a first step in developing a single system to define both truth (2) and provability (1) - as well as the constructive (combinator) proof - program creation (3): Apply 1-3 to P^Q: a. |- P^Q <= > |- P and |- Q b. |= P^Q <=> |= P and |= Q c. A program to evaluate P plus a program to evaluate Q can be combined to create a program that evaluates P^Q (but not vice-versa.) (Notice the lack of a standard syntax for (c) - that's another problem that my axiomatization fixes.) and PvQ: d. |- P or |- Q => |- PvQ e. |= P or |= Q => |= PvQ f. A P program plus a Q program can be combined to produce a PvQ program. and (eA)P(A) and (aA)P(A): g. |- (aA)P(A) => (aA)|-P(A) h. (eA)|-P(A) => |- (eA)P(A) i. (aA)|-P(A) => ~ |- ~(aA)P(A) j. P |- Q <=> |= P -> Q k. A P(x) enumeration program can be transformed into a (eA)P(A) partial solution program. I believe that examining the exact relationships between these problems and their solutions (e.g. how each handles each special case of a wff) is one of the most fundamental problems lying in the intersection of Mathematics, Logic and Computer Science. (Don't worry. Even after Toto exposed the Wizard of Oz as being a big fake, Dorothy still liked him.) > ************************ > David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem >> It's really hard to understand what you're trying to prove by >> asking the same question over and over. >It was the answer that was repeated, not the question. >> Provability has already >> been defined in that system - it means derivability from the >> axioms, as always. >Far from being always, that isn't even what Smullyan is doing. As >you can see from my quote alone, he makes no reference to derivation >rules in his definition of provability, nor does he use any - anywhere >in system N. He defines provability solely in terms of truth. (He >uses derivation rules in N as much as he uses a straight edge and >compass.) Maybe you didn't bother to read the quote that you posted: We call a formula F(v1,. . .,vn) correct if for every n-tuple (a1,...,an), the sentence F(a1,. . .,an) is true. We let N be the first-order system whose axioms are all the correct formulas (this includes all logically valid formulas.) Thus, the provable formulas of N are nothing more than the axioms of N. Note the phrase We let N be the first-order system whose axioms are.... That's quite explicit: he's defining a set of axioms. Also note the sentence Thus, the provable formulas of N are nothing more than the axioms of N. If this were a definition of provable then that Thus would make no sense - the word Thus means that what he's saying here _follows_ _from_ the definition he's just given. It can't follow from that if provable has not yet been defined - the only way it can follow from the previous part of the paragraph is if we already know what provable means. You know this really is hilarious: Before you posted that quote people were explaining to you that no, he's not defining provability to be the same as truth - people who'd never read the book were explaining that, basing their assertions solely on the fact that Smullyan knows what he's talking about! Now you post that quote, thinking it shows you're right. But if you read it you see it shows just the opposite. Yes, you have to read it carefully, paying attention to exactly what's written. Logic is like that. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem >>[...] >> Hint: although it's hard to see what you're _trying_ to prove, >> what you _are_ proving is clear to everyone but you. >Off-the cuff (afterthought), unsubstantiated (only the claim is given), >all-encompassing (everyone). Giggle. It's not the sort of assertion that's susceptible to mathematical proof. Thought you might be interested because it's true nonetheless (as we well know, truth and provability are different things...) ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem Charlie-Boo says... >> Provability has already >> been defined in that system - it means derivability from the >> axioms, as always. >Far from being always, that isn't even what Smullyan is doing. Yes, he is. >As you can see from my quote alone, he makes no reference to derivation >rules in his definition of provability, nor does he use any - anywhere >in system N. He assumes that the reader is already familiar with the notion of provability, at least to the extent that if you choose all true sentences as your axioms, then every true sentence will be provable. >He defines provability solely in terms of truth. No, he does not. He defines the *axioms* of his theory N in terms of truth. It *follows* from this that a formula of N is true if and only if it is provable. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY === Subject: Re: Proof of Sum_{i=1...n} i^k is a polynomial expression over n >> Xan escribi.97: > First of all, Ignacio, sorry for no answer to you in a supreme answer > to the my question of Touchard congruence. I wanted to answer but > then I have to occupy my time in other _obligatory_ things. It's not > excuse.... sorry. >> It isn't matter ... >> Xan escribi.97: > > Say S_k(n) = Sum_{i=1...n} i^k = 1^k + 2^k + .... + n^k. > I want to prove that S_k(n) is a polynomial expression over n, that > is, that there exists a polynomial p_k(x) in R[x] such that S_k(n) = > p_k(n) for all n (and p_k only depends of k). > > I prefer proofs by induction and elementals. I know that it could be > proved using the Bernoulli polynomials, but I want a proof without > that (I want more elemental proof). Could it be?. I tried but I did > not get it. > > Xan. >> >> Let >> >> S(n, k) = 1^k + 2^k + ... + n^k >> >> be the sum of the k-powers of the first n positive integers. >> >> Then >> >> (1+1)^(k+1) = 1^(k+1)+(k+1)*1^k + Comb(k+1, 2)*1^(k-1) + ... + 1 >> (2+1)^(k+1) = 2^(k+1)+(k+1)*2^k + Comb(k+1, 2)*2^(k-1) + ... + 1 >> ..... >> (n+1)^(k+1) = n^(k+1)+(k+1)*n^k + Comb(k+1, 2)*n^(k-2) + ... + 1 >> >> >> (n+1)^(k+1) = 1 + (k+1)Sum(n, k) + Comb(k+1, 2)Sum(n, k-1) + ... + n >> >> and >> >> >> S(n, k)=((n+1)^(k+1) - (n+1) - Sum(Comb(k+1, k+1 - i)S(n, i), i, 1, >> k-1))/(k+1) >> > This is a ingenious recursion. Until here, all good. >> Sou, you can determine S(n, k) from S(n, 1), S(n, 2), ..., S(n, k-1). >> >> As S(n, 0) = n is a poynomial, also S(n, k) is for k > 0. You can >> deduce also that degree of S(n, k), with repect to n, is k +1. > This is the dark part. How can I determine that S(n,k) is a polynomial > over n?. By induction of n?. Really, for proving that S(n,k) is a > polynomial over n, you need to prove here that: >> By induction on k, of course: S(n, 0) = n is a polynomial. Then suppose that >> all S(n, k), for k < m, is a polynomial. Then S(n, m) is sum/difference of > Yes. Of course. Sorry for my ofuscation. > I will write it formally (with sumatories) and surely no problem will > appear (even trivial problem). > It's a good demostration. > For another hand, can you help me?. During these days, I made a > demostration (a try of demostration) but I arrived to contradiction. So I > want to know where is my error in that demostration. I will give you the > main details of my demo. If you want more details, I can provide you these. > Before you see that, I have to say that it's a (very!!!) indirect > demostration of what I want. For arrive to my aim, I make rodeos (I know > Ignacio that you understand this bad-formed expression! ;-)) > Well, without no dilation: > We want to prove: > Th1: Let be k>=0 fixed. Define S_k(n)=Sum_{i=1,...,n} i^k. > There is a polynomial p(x) in R[x] such that: > 1) grad (p)=k+1 > 2) S_k(n)=p(n) > Trivially, we can prove the more relaxed theorem > Lemma1: Let be k>=0, S_k(n) defined above. > For all n>=1, there is a polynomial q_{k,n} (x) (that depends of n and of > k)in R[x] such that grad(q)=k+1 and q_{k,n}(n)=S_k(n) > Demo: trivial for induction by n. > Now I want to prove that I can choose q_{k,n} (x) that only depends of k. > So, that there is q_k(x) such that S_k(n)=q_k(n). > Suposing that there is this polynomial q_k. So, for every n>=1, we have > q_k(n+1)=S_k(n+1)= S_k(n)+(n+1)^k = q_k(n) + (n+1)^k. > So if q_k exists, q_k satisfy that > q_k(n+1) = q_k(n) + (n+1)^k, for all n>=1. > that is (m=n-1) > (1) q_k(m) = q_k(m-1) + m^k, for all m>=2 > We could prove that (1) is equivalent to q_k(x) = q_k(x-1)+x^k > [ <--) trivial > -->) Say p(x) = q_k(x-1)+x^k. p and q_k coincide in infinite values (by > (1)) , so > p and q are the same polynomial] > And we could prove the converse, easyly. Details ommited. > So we could prove: > Th2: There is q_k(x) in R[x] such that S_k(n) = q_k(n) iff there is q(x) > in R[x] such that > (2) q(x) = q(x-1) + x^k and q(0)=0. > And if q_k exists, q_k verifies (2) and if there is q such that verifies > (2), we could take q_k=q > And we could prove that q such that verifies (2) is unique. > Trivially, q satisfying (2) has defree > k, and we know that deg(q) has to > be k+1 although we don't prove. > But if you get q(x) = Sum_{i=0...s} a_i x^i, deg(q)=s and you develop (2) > with binomial coeficients, you get that in the coeficient k (this need > some listing of coeficients and counts as columns. if you need details, I > will give to you): > a_k = (Sum_{i=k...s} b_{i,k}) +1, > where > b_{i,k} = a_i Binom(i, j) (-1)^(i-j) > and if s were k+1, we have: > a_k = a_k + a_{k+1} (-k-1) > that is a contradiction. > But I don't know where I'm wrong. > If you could see that, I will thank you a lot. > Xan. >> With respect to the degree of S(n, k), the unique sumand of degree (k +1) is >> the first: (n+1)^(k+1) (newly it can be very easily show by induction in k). >> Also is easy to determine some coefficients of S(n, k), as the principal >> coefficient: 1/(k+1). But also some others. Hi Ignacio, I see you did not answer me. A much work....? Well, about my post, the contradiction I have is to prove the following theorem (I simplify the previous): If q(x) in R[x] is such that S_k(n) = q(n) for all n>=1, the q satisfies (2) q(x) = q(x-1)+x^k and If q(x) in R[x] satisfies (2) and q(x) has degree k+1 then we have a_k = a_k + a_{k+1} (-k-1), where q(x) = Sum_{i=0...k+1} a_ix^i (Put this sum to (2) and work with binomial coef and sums. And take the coef of x^(k+1)) And this result takes an aparent contradiction. I hope you could see that. I like that my doubts about this demo will desapear. Xan. === Subject: weighted arithmetic and geometric means Another proof, based on the properties of the exponential function, goes as follows: Let W = w_1 +...w_n. Since a>0, for each i=1,...n we can define r_i = (x_i -a)/a, the relative deviation of x_i with respect to a. Then, r_i = x_i/a -1. We readily see that w_1*r_1 +...w_n*r_n = 0. According to the properties of the exponential function, for each r_i we have e^r_i >= 1 + r_i, with equality iff r_i =0. So, e^r_i >= x_i/a, with equality iff x_i =a. It follows that e^(w_i*r_i) = (e^r_i)^w_i >= (x_i/a)^(w_i), with equalty iff x_i =a. If we multiply the n inequalities we get varying i from 1 to n, take into account the properties of the exponential function and observe that all the numbers involved are positive, we come to have seen, equality occurs iff x_1 = ...x_n =a. Since w_1*r_1 +...w_n*r_n = 0, the left hand side equals e^0 =1. For the right hand side, we have Product(i=1,n)((x_i/a)^w_i) = (Product(i=1,n)((x_i)^w_i))/(a^W) = (g^w)/(a^w) = (g/a)^W. It follows that 1 >=(g/a)^W, which says g <=a. As we have seen, equality happens iff x_1...= x_n. This proof was sugested as an exercise in Bartle's book to prove the arit./geometrc means inequalty. It was easy to extend it to the general case. It may be a bit artificial, but I find it smart. Artur === Subject: Re: Ring Isomorphism > Define M : Z/2 + Z/3 -> Z/6 by M(a+2Z,b+3Z) = 3a+4b+6Z > I am having trouble showing that M is one to one. > Also don't I have to show that M is well defined? M is well-defined via 3(a+2Z)+4(b+3Z)+6Z = 3a+4b+6Z M has inverse c+6Z -> (c+2Z,c+3Z) 3a+4b+6Z + 2Z = a+2Z since 3a+4b+6Z + 3Z = b+3Z Hence, being invertible, it is 1-1. QED --Bill Dubuque === Subject: Re: Ring Isomorphism days. My association with the Department is that of an alumnus. >I am having trouble with what I thought would be an easy exercise ( I am >preparing for my final) >Consider the map M : Z_2 + Z_3--> Z_6 given by M ( ( [a]_2 , [b]_3) ) = [3a >+ 4b] _6 >I am having trouble showing that M is one to one. > I started off with supposing that M ( ( [a]_2 , [b]_3) ) = M ( ( [a' ]_2 , >[b' ]_3) ). >Then [3a + 4b] _6 = [3a' + 4b'] _6 >Aparently I am not sure what to do from here. If this is true, then 6 divides 3(a-a') + 4(b-b'). In particular, 3 divides 3(a-a') + 4(b-b'), so it must divide 4(b-b'), so it must divide b-b', which shows that [b]_3 = [b']_3. Since 6 divides 3(a-a') + 4(b-b'), 2 must divide it as well, from which you get that 2 divides 3(a-a'), hence divides a-a', so [a]_2 = [a']_2. Therefore, ([a]_2,[b]_3) = ([a']_2,[b']_3), as desired. But much easier would be to use the useful fact that a group homomorphism is injective if and only if the kernel is trivial; if 3a+4b is divisible by 6, then 4b is divisible by 3, hence b is divisible by 3; and 3a is divisible by 2, so a is divisible by 2. >Also don't I have to show that M is well defined? M is the sum of two well-defined maps: Z_2 -> Z_6 sending [1]_2 to [3]_6; and Z_3 -> Z_6 sending [1]_3 to [4]_3. So it is itself well-defined. -- It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality. --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) Arturo Magidin magidin@math.berkeley.edu === Subject: Re: question for math teachers Mr. Rubin, Before generalize what teachers know and don't know step into my classroom. I am a highly qualified math teacher, in my state that means that in addition to taking all of my education classes that I also had to take enough math classes to be 3 credits away from a B.A. in math. You also make assumptions about the validity of multiple choice testing. Is it being used as the primary source of assessment in schools or is it used along with other methods as a tool to assess student performance. Please excuse my assumption if it is wrong, but from your address at Purdue University I am presuming that you teach statistics. If my college professors spent part of their time learning how to be educators instead of researchers, then they would have been much more effective at teaching. Please feel free to walk a mile in my shoes before you make generalizations about math teachers. === Subject: Re: question for math teachers > Mr. Rubin, > Before generalize what teachers know and don't know step into my > classroom. I am a highly qualified math teacher, in my state that means > that in addition to taking all of my education classes that I also had > to take enough math classes to be 3 credits away from a B.A. in math. Try again. Under No Child Left Behind, a highly qualified teacher has a graduate degree in their field or had taken a test showing subject knowledge such as the Praxis or SSAT. What state are you credentialed in where you get a full credential with that background? In California, that would get you a credential to teach introductory mathematics (only through middle school), a far cry from being highly qualified. > You also make assumptions about the validity of multiple choice > testing. Is it being used as the primary source of assessment in > schools or is it used along with other methods as a tool to assess > student performance. Ummm . . . at least in the State of California, the only math assessment that matters (the CAT/6) is multiple-choice exclusively. Not only that, it is a norn-referenced test (there is a small section [CST] that is criterion referenced) so the only information a student gets is how they compare to all of the other students, not how well they know the grade-level standards. > Please excuse my assumption if it is wrong, but from your address at > Purdue University I am presuming that you teach statistics. If my > college professors spent part of their time learning how to be > educators instead of researchers, then they would have been much more > effective at teaching. As a highly-qualified math teacher by the federal standards working on my national credential, I have to agree with Mr. Rubin. Obviously, not every math teacher is ignorant in the nuances of mathematics but a vast majority of teachers do not understand the concepts themselves. Not only that, many (but not all) elementary teachers have an aversion to mathematics and will avoid teaching the discipline to any great depth. The lack of qualified math teachers is well-known, but previous attempts to rectify this by lowering the standards to become a math teacher has resulted in a generation of students that may or may not know calculation skills but certainly have no understanding of how math works. === Subject: Re: question for math teachers > As a highly-qualified math teacher by the federal standards working on my > national credential, I have to agree with Mr. Rubin. Obviously, not every > math teacher is ignorant in the nuances of mathematics but a vast majority > of teachers do not understand the concepts themselves. I was surprised to find future high school teachers who could not read any mathematics, no matter how simple, only lesson plans. That's the educational equivalent of I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV and of talking heads reading teleprompters. Why not just hire out of work actors so that they will at least have a day gig? Wasn't it wonderful when, in the movie Pi, the actor recited: They must have tried all the 200 digit numbers by now.? -- Allan Adler * Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and * comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston. === Subject: Re: question for math teachers >Try again. Under No Child Left Behind, a highly qualified teacher has a >graduate degree in their field or had taken a test showing subject knowledge >such as the Praxis or SSAT. What state are you credentialed in where you >get a full credential with that background? In California, that would get >you a credential to teach introductory mathematics (only through middle >school), a far cry from being highly qualified. Actually, the wording is bachelor degree or bacalaureate degree ... not graduate degree. G C === Subject: Re: question for math teachers >>Try again. Under No Child Left Behind, a highly qualified teacher has a >>graduate degree in their field or had taken a test showing subject >>knowledge >>such as the Praxis or SSAT. What state are you credentialed in where you >>get a full credential with that background? In California, that would get >>you a credential to teach introductory mathematics (only through middle >>school), a far cry from being highly qualified. > Actually, the wording is bachelor degree or bacalaureate degree ... > not > graduate degree. > G C Yes and no. The federal requirements have 3 criteria for being highly qualified: 1) Bachelor's degree in the field (or reasonably close field) being taught 2) A state credential 3) Proof of subject knowledge Most states accept a graduate degree or a test to satisfy the third criteria. An undergrad degree only satisfies the first criterium. BTW: this info is from the US Dept of Ed site. === Subject: Re: question for math teachers >Before generalize what teachers know and don't know step into my >classroom. I am a highly qualified math teacher, FSVO. >in my state that means that in addition to taking all of my education >classes that I also had to take enough math classes to be 3 credits >away from a B.A. in math. That's hardly highly qualified. >You also make assumptions about the validity of multiple choice >testing. Is it being used as the primary source of assessment in >schools or is it used along with other methods as a tool to assess >student performance. It's being used in mandatory testing and teachers are teaching to the tests instead of to the curriculum. >Please feel free to walk a mile in my shoes before you make >generalizations about math teachers. >Please excuse my assumption if it is wrong, but from your address at >Purdue University I am presuming that you teach statistics. If my >college professors spent part of their time learning how to be >educators instead of researchers, then they would have been much >more effective at teaching. No doubt, but were you at Purdue and would taking classes from the schools of education have made them better educators? There's also a question[1] of student attitude; you can't teach people who don't wish to be taught. It would be of more value for both of you to walk a mile in the shoes of the students. You're supposed to be there for their benefit. [1] Rembering a friend in graduate school who had to teach Differential Equations for Engineers to a bunch of students who wanted him to skip[2] the material on Linear Algebra because it wasn't relevant. [2] He said that letting them flunk wasn't an option. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not === Subject: Re: question for math teachers >Mr. Rubin, >Before generalize what teachers know and don't know step into my >classroom. I am a highly qualified math teacher, in my state that means >that in addition to taking all of my education classes that I also had >to take enough math classes to be 3 credits away from a B.A. in math. I am familiar with the math programs for the bachelor's degree for those going into high school teaching; it is woefully inadequate in basic mathematics. The one real mathematics course required, abstract algebra, has declined greatly. I have not taught many prospective teachers; my late wife did, and her opinion agreed with mine. But to indicate what is happening, I was teaching a course in probability, not for strong mathematics majors, with the full calculus sequence as a prerequisite. Having found that the students could not handle calculus on an in-class exam, I made part of the final take-home, and made part of it use calculus in the same manner as numerous exercises gone over in substantial detail in the class. Of the 21 prospective teachers, only 5 could set up the problems. Those who regularly taught calculus were not surprised. Anyone who thinks that learning the formulas and being able to compute answers understands the subject is not likely to have an understanding himself. >You also make assumptions about the validity of multiple choice >testing. Is it being used as the primary source of assessment in >schools or is it used along with other methods as a tool to assess >student performance. It is a cheap easily administered tool. Its use is one of the reasons for poor understanding. Facts and routine can be looked up, or done by computers. Abstract concepts are not abstractions of special cases; there is evidence that the process of teaching by abstraction is a very poor educational process. >Please excuse my assumption if it is wrong, but from your address at >Purdue University I am presuming that you teach statistics. If my >college professors spent part of their time learning how to be >educators instead of researchers, then they would have been much more >effective at teaching. You mean educationists, not educators. The educationists seem to think that one needs to be proficient at computing examples before trying to understand concepts, when the exact opposite is the case. These educationists also seem to think that IQ must be normally distributed, whereas this cannot be the case. >Please feel free to walk a mile in my shoes before you make >generalizations about math teachers. It seems you are part of the problem. Can you think abstractly? Do you understand the integers? Can you prove theorems? It is not that important whether you can imitate a computer. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 === Subject: Re: question for math teachers I don't know of any official research, but the indication in my school district is that students that complete geometry before algebra 2 perfrom better in algebra 2. Math Curriculums are also splitting in another way. There is an integrated curriculum that teaches parts of each type of math each year, but does not seperate it into the standard math subjects. I know my students have to use a lot of algebra 1 concepts during my geometry class so they shouldn't lose skills between algebra 1 and algebra 2. === Subject: how to solve the problem? by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id iBHDJ7W24181; Given n unknown variables x_1, x_2, x_3, ..., x_n The value x_ij=(x_i + x_j)/2 is the average of x_i and x_j (i=1,..., n; j=1,...,n). x_ii=x_i. The corresponding matrix of average [x_ij] is x_1 x_12 x_13 ... x_1n x21 x_2 x_23 ... x_2n ... ... x_n1 x_n2 x_n3 ... x_n Now, if the values of x_ij (i not equal j) are given, how to obtain the values of {x_i}, i=1,..., n? === Subject: Re: how to solve the problem? ETAsAhRqTAvLZpnEyCfSWv3UrhTr2yd75gIUUr2YoD86alPuk34s9U/5QO6JuVk= For n = 2 there is no unique solution; you can't define two numbers from just their average. The problem is underdetermined. For n = 3 you can set up a linear solution that's easy to solve. To wit, x_1+x_2 = 2*x_12 and similarly for the pairs {1, 3} and {2, 3}. This easily gives x_1 = x_12 + x_13 - x_23 and cyclic permutations. For n >= 4 the problem as stated is overdetermined because the diagonal entries are unavoidably dependent on one another. There are only n inputs entering into n*(n-1)/2 outputs where, for n >= 4, (n-1)/2 > 1. One must select an appropriate subset of n out of the nondiagonal entries to specify. --OL === Subject: Re: how to solve the problem? <23829-41C2F55F-448@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net> > For n = 2 there is no unique solution; you can't define two numbers from > just their average. The problem is underdetermined. For n = 3 you can > set up a linear solution that's easy to solve. To wit, x_1+x_2 = 2*x_12 > and similarly for the pairs {1, 3} and {2, 3}. This easily gives x_1 = > x_12 + x_13 - x_23 and cyclic permutations. For n >= 4 the problem as > stated is overdetermined because the diagonal entries are unavoidably > dependent on one another. There are only n inputs entering into > n*(n-1)/2 outputs where, for n >= 4, (n-1)/2 > 1. One must select an > appropriate subset of n out of the nondiagonal entries to specify. > --OL I don't think that's quite right (or I'm misunderstanding something -- which happens a lot lately ... alas ... ): If you sum the nondiagonal entries of (say) the 1st row and multiply the result by 2, you generate the linear equation (n-1)x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_n = what you just calculated ; doing the same for all of the other rows, you end up with a system of n linear equations in n unknowns with the coefficient matrix A having (n-1)'s down the diagonal and 1's elsewhere. If n = 2, the matrix A is singular, but for n > 2 it is _not_ (so the problem has a unique solution for n > 2). To see that my claim is true, note that A = J_n + (n-2)I_n with J_n the nxn matrix with all entries 1 and I_n the nxn identity matrix. It follows that det(A) = det(-((2-n)I_n - J_n)) = (-1)^n det((2-n)I_n - J_n) = (-1)^n j_n(2-n) where j_n denotes the characteristic polynomial of J_n. But J_n has 0 as an eigenvalue of multiplicity (n-1) and n as an eigenvalue of multiplicity 1, so j_n(t) = t^{n-1}(t - n). Hence, det(A) = (-1)^n (2-n)^{n-1} (2-2n) = 2(n-1)(n-2)^{n-1} and the claim follows ... === Subject: Re: how to solve the problem? > Given n unknown variables > x_1, x_2, x_3, ..., x_n > The value x_ij=(x_i + x_j)/2 is the average of x_i and x_j (i=1,..., n; j=1,...,n). x_ii=x_i. The corresponding matrix of average [x_ij] is > x_1 x_12 x_13 ... x_1n > x21 x_2 x_23 ... x_2n > ... ... > x_n1 x_n2 x_n3 ... x_n > Now, if the values of x_ij (i not equal j) are given, how to obtain the values of {x_i}, i=1,..., n? The values x_1, x_2, x_3 can be obtained from the values x_12, x_13, x_23.