mm-3489 === Subject: Re: JSH: Counting primes, reality check deleted out the part where I shredded Tim Peters' > reply and noted the correct place at Wolfram's site to see where a form > of my prime counting function is viewable. It's a tactic. Stupid you think? No, it works. Human nature is predictable. Most of you do as these posters expect, > but now on to the issues he did raise! Readers who wonder how far off these people possibly can be need just > look at that Wolfram page, and better yet, do the search on Class > Viewer and see for yourself. > Interesting. I can find little evidence that anyone is actually using > Class Viewer, but when I use Google or Yahoo there it is right > at the top. So 1. Class Viewer is not used by a lot of people > and Google and Yahoo are incompetent. 2 Class Viewer is not used by a lot of people and > the Google and Yahoo rankings have little > or nothing to do with how often Class Viewer > is used. 3. Class Viever is used by a lot of people > and I am incompetent at net searching. 1 and 2 cannot be true as we know that Google and Yahoo are > competent, and it is obvious that if Class Viewer has a high ranking > it must be used a lot. So it must be true that Class Viewer is used > a lot and I am incompetent at searching the net. So, can you tell me how to find evidence (not including the > Google and Yahoo rankings) that people are > using Class Viewer (e.g. reviews, feedback, bug reports ...)? Do you know who created Pkunzip? Yes. Phil Katz. Now that I have answered your question, can you answer mine? Good for you. I didn't, not until I looked it up. And I wondered about that for a while as I've used it for years and just didn't care posted about it. I just used the damn thing. Get it? === Subject: Re: JSH: Counting primes, reality check > reply and noted the correct place at Wolfram's site to see where a form > of my prime counting function is viewable. It's a tactic. Stupid you think? No, it works. Human nature is predictable. Most of you do as these posters expect, > but now on to the issues he did raise! Readers who wonder how far off these people possibly can be need just > look at that Wolfram page, and better yet, do the search on Class > Viewer and see for yourself. > Interesting. I can find little evidence that anyone is actually using > Class Viewer, but when I use Google or Yahoo there it is right > at the top. So 1. Class Viewer is not used by a lot of people > and Google and Yahoo are incompetent. 2 Class Viewer is not used by a lot of people and > the Google and Yahoo rankings have little > or nothing to do with how often Class Viewer > is used. 3. Class Viever is used by a lot of people > and I am incompetent at net searching. 1 and 2 cannot be true as we know that Google and Yahoo are > competent, and it is obvious that if Class Viewer has a high ranking > it must be used a lot. So it must be true that Class Viewer is used > a lot and I am incompetent at searching the net. So, can you tell me how to find evidence (not including the > Google and Yahoo rankings) that people are > using Class Viewer (e.g. reviews, feedback, bug reports ...)? Do you know who created Pkunzip? Yes. Phil Katz. Now that I have answered your question, can you answer mine? Good for you. I didn't, not until I looked it up. And I wondered > about that for a while as I've used it for years and just didn't care > posted about it. I just used the damn thing. Get it? > When I do a Google search on Pkzip reviews I get lots of reviews. I see messages saying that Pkzip is one of the most widely used compression routines. I have no problem finding that Pkzip is widely used. However, when i do a Google serach on Class Viewer reviews I get nothing. How can I find evidence that Class Viewer is widely used? === Subject: Re: JSH: Counting primes, reality check <11f3l29pttc13denmuapmuq93hffsther8@4ax.com> reply and noted the correct place at Wolfram's site to see where a form > of my prime counting function is viewable. It's a tactic. Stupid you think? No, it works. Human nature is predictable. Most of you do as these posters expect, > but now on to the issues he did raise! Readers who wonder how far off these people possibly can be need just > look at that Wolfram page, and better yet, do the search on Class > Viewer and see for yourself. > Interesting. I can find little evidence that anyone is actually using > Class Viewer, but when I use Google or Yahoo there it is right > at the top. So 1. Class Viewer is not used by a lot of people > and Google and Yahoo are incompetent. 2 Class Viewer is not used by a lot of people and > the Google and Yahoo rankings have little > or nothing to do with how often Class Viewer > is used. 3. Class Viever is used by a lot of people > and I am incompetent at net searching. 1 and 2 cannot be true as we know that Google and Yahoo are > competent, and it is obvious that if Class Viewer has a high ranking > it must be used a lot. So it must be true that Class Viewer is used > a lot and I am incompetent at searching the net. So, can you tell me how to find evidence (not including the > Google and Yahoo rankings) that people are > using Class Viewer (e.g. reviews, feedback, bug reports ...)? Do you know who created Pkunzip? Yes. Phil Katz. Now that I have answered your question, can you answer mine? Good for you. I didn't, not until I looked it up. And I wondered > about that for a while as I've used it for years and just didn't care > posted about it. I just used the damn thing. Get it? > When I do a Google search on Pkzip reviews I get lots of reviews. > I see messages saying that Pkzip is one of the most widely used > compression routines. I have no problem finding that Pkzip is > widely used. However, when i do a Google serach on Class Viewer > reviews > I get nothing. How can I find evidence that Class Viewer is widely > used? But when were Pkunzip and Pkzip created? And when were the reviews done? Now, how old is Class Viewer? === I can find little evidence that anyone is actually using > Class Viewer, but when I use Google or Yahoo there it is right > at the top. So 1. Class Viewer is not used by a lot of people > and Google and Yahoo are incompetent. 2 Class Viewer is not used by a lot of people and > the Google and Yahoo rankings have little > or nothing to do with how often Class Viewer > is used. 3. Class Viever is used by a lot of people > and I am incompetent at net searching. 1 and 2 cannot be true as we know that Google and Yahoo are > competent, and it is obvious that if Class Viewer has a high ranking > it must be used a lot. So it must be true that Class Viewer is used > a lot and I am incompetent at searching the net. So, can you tell me how to find evidence (not including the > Google and Yahoo rankings) that people are > using Class Viewer (e.g. reviews, feedback, bug reports ...)? Do you know who created Pkunzip? Yes. Phil Katz. Now that I have answered your question, can you answer mine? Good for you. I didn't, not until I looked it up. And I wondered > about that for a while as I've used it for years and just didn't care > posted about it. I just used the damn thing. Get it? > When I do a Google search on Pkzip reviews I get lots of reviews. > I see messages saying that Pkzip is one of the most widely used > compression routines. I have no problem finding that Pkzip is > widely used. However, when i do a Google serach on Class Viewer > reviews > I get nothing. How can I find evidence that Class Viewer is widely > used? But when were Pkunzip and Pkzip created? And when were the reviews > done? Now, how old is Class Viewer? > Ok. So there are no reviews of Class Viewer. So looking for reviews won't work. Is there anything that will work? === Subject: Re: JSH: Counting primes, reality check [William Hughes] > I see messages saying that Pkzip is one of the most widely used > compression routines. I have no problem finding that Pkzip is > widely used. However, when i do a Google serach on Class Viewer > reviews I get nothing. How can I find evidence that Class Viewer > is widely used? Try asking its author. He can surely produce testimonials. For example, I know for a fact that Python is widely used: 2:50 PM 3/01/04 marviin miinsky (miinsky@media.mit.edu) Tim Peters (tim.one@comcast.net) === Subject: Re: Seeking testimonials >Now I have a problem as I've shown Python to many mathematicians who >tend to either vigorously attack its uniqueness (on Usenet), claim >it's nothing new, or say they're busy. > >My contact to you is to raise the issue of how can it be new? And >what does it say about how people think that it is new? How could >so many brilliant mathematicians miss such a thing? Only a specialist in 'programming languages' could say if Python is new. But that's not a subject that I know about. I have thousands of these on file ;-) === Subject: Re: JSH: Prime numbers, counting tells it all [added JSH: to subject] > Real mathematicians are actually interested in mathematics. While cranks are interested in self-promotion, regardless of facts. Good point. > A shorter form in an old and well-worked area should be of interest, as > hey, it's just so much more concise than what went before, Missing for the twentieth time that the sieve form of Legendre's recurrence is equally concise? And for the fiftieth that the sieve form of yours is a minor variation? > while it also reveals that the prime counting function is best described > by a multi-variable function and not as a single variable one. If only Legendre had thought of that ... http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LegendresFormula.html Oops. He did. > ... === Subject: Re: JSH: Prime numbers, counting tells it all ... > Easiest way to read about it now is to go to the Wikipedia and the talk > pages of the prime counting function, where you can also see at the > bottom the short sieve form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prime_counting_function My prime counting function is actually most closely related to > something discovered by Meissel [Tim Peters] >> Obviously false of the sieve form /you just pointed at/. This is an >> example of the endless confusion noted above: is that the form you had >> in mind /now/, or did you mentally switch to some other form, and expect >> the reader to read your mind? Regardless, the sieve form is a minor >> respelling of Legendre's formula. Meissel's formula is a substantial >> respelling of Legendre's formula. > In certain ranges you can actually SEE what I'm saying within Meissel's > Formula. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MeisselsFormula.html where it is P_2(x,a). You do see a syntactically similar expression, but don't understand it: > That is the form when x/p_i < i - 1 That's nonsense. > as then P(x/p_i, i-1) What is P() here? There is no function with that name on the page you referenced. > = pi(x/p_i). No. The expression for P_2(x, a) on MathWorld is flawed (trusting MathWorld blindly is never a good idea), because it's missing the crucial qualification that it only works when a >= pi(x^(1/3)). By the time they use [2] in [5], that crucial constraint is satisfied, but they neglected to mention that [2] is not true in general. BTW, they had no reason to give [3] and [4] on this page -- those /belong/ on the page about Lehmer's formula. P_2(x, a) intends to count the number of integers <= x with exactly two prime factors (not necessarily distinct) each > p_a, and [2] is a correct expression for that only when p_a is at least as large as x's cube root. Given that it is, it's trivial to derive [2], simply by considering how many numbers the Sieve of Eratosthenes crosses out when processing p_(a+1), p_(a+2), ..., through the square root of x. This /piece/ of Meissel's formula certainly is /related/ to the sieve form of your recurrence, since your recurrence is also counting the number of integers not crossed off by the Sieve of Eratosthenes. But, in context, the /point/ of this in Meissel's formula is entirely different: it's an /optimization/ of Legendre's formula, allowing to compute: phi(x, pi(x^(1/2))) via the much cheaper (as x increases): phi(x, pi(x^(1/3))) plus a large number of lookups of pi(y) for various y < x. Your sieve form has no such optimization (although such a thing could be added), instead using the Sieve-of-Eratosthenes reasoning for the whole ball of wax. That leaves it exactly as slow as the sieve form of Legendre's original formula -- the sieve form of your formula incorporates none of the algorithmic improvements Meissel worked out. > So the actual mathematical reality is that my prime counting function > in its sieve form in a specific range is equivalent to a key piece of > Meissel's Formula. There is syntactic overlap between a piece of your formula and a piece of Meissel's formula. But no, you're not going to get famous for that ;-) === Subject: Re: JSH: Prime numbers, counting tells it all Easiest way to read about it now is to go to the Wikipedia and the talk > pages of the prime counting function, where you can also see at the > bottom the short sieve form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prime_counting_function My prime counting function is actually most closely related to > something discovered by Meissel [Tim Peters] >> Obviously false of the sieve form /you just pointed at/. This is an >> example of the endless confusion noted above: is that the form you had >> in mind /now/, or did you mentally switch to some other form, and expect >> the reader to read your mind? Regardless, the sieve form is a minor >> respelling of Legendre's formula. Meissel's formula is a substantial >> respelling of Legendre's formula. > In certain ranges you can actually SEE what I'm saying within Meissel's > Formula. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MeisselsFormula.html where it is P_2(x,a). You do see a syntactically similar expression, but don't understand it: That is the form when x/p_i < i - 1 That's nonsense. as then P(x/p_i, i-1) What is P() here? There is no function with that name on the page you > referenced. = pi(x/p_i). No. The expression for P_2(x, a) on MathWorld is flawed (trusting MathWorld > blindly is never a good idea), because it's missing the crucial > qualification that it only works when a >= pi(x^(1/3)). By the time they I know that. That's when my prime counting function is equivalent to Meissel's--over that range. And it is equivalent at that point to what they call P_2(x,a) on the MathWorld page. Think about it some more, or ask some other Usenet poster for help, if you can't see it. . === Subject: Re: JSH: Prime numbers, counting tells it all >> ... >> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MeisselsFormula.html [Tim Peters] >> ... >> No. The expression for P_2(x, a) on MathWorld is flawed (trusting >> MathWorld blindly is never a good idea), because it's missing the crucial >> qualification that it only works when a >= pi(x^(1/3)). > I know that. Woo hoo! Something new in the universe every day ;-) > That's when my prime counting function is equivalent to Meissel's--over > that range. And it is equivalent at that point to what they call P_2(x,a) on the > MathWorld page. Think about it some more, or ask some other Usenet poster for help, if > you can't see it. claim in a coherent way, I'd take a stab at straightening it out, though. === Subject: transfusion (Law of attraction) Attraction comes from a transfused state which is H2O as an element breaks down existing solids to form the compound as necessitated by the advance into structure as long as it is in a transfusable state. The solidification of matter by exposure to freezing temperatures is in process to remove solluability. Transfusable matter already draws any mass. In which the integral factor comes from heat meaning heat is the central attracting force. In its escape, the mass turns to enclosure, where all solids are solids due to enclosure of geometric essence. f(-Zstate)=intgr-Mass where f is compression and -Z Cnvert Z thru f1 = excss mass and M becomes divisible.. tranfusion of t2 as H2O-?-? is where H2O must bond with H2O.. Transfusion Through Liquid State -by sEung kim === Subject: is O(1*log(1) + 2*log(2) + ... + n*log(n)) <= O(n^2) ? Hej :), is O(1*log(1) + 2*log(2) + ... + n*log(n)) <= O(n^2) ? Apparently it is <= O(n^2*log(n)) (a rough estimation) but I have an ------ For people interested in the background of my question: ( http://www.artima.com/cppsource/lazy_builder.html ) and I pinpointed the question above as my single misunderstanding in the loose complexity analysis of the described algorithm Brute Force. I think 1*log(1)+...+n*log(n) is the complexity caused by the repeated executions of used.find(t). and best wishes from G.9ateborg (my current home) Christopher === Subject: Re: is O(1*log(1) + 2*log(2) + ... + n*log(n)) <= O(n^2) ? I took several people's implicit advice to plot it instead of searching for a formal proof and tadaaa you can derive from it pretty clearly that it does not hold (for any base for the log). ---- Background again: Also the author confirmed me now via mail that he missed something here. However, this detail does not affect the point of the paper in any way. Problem solved, thank you your your input :). Christopher === Subject: Re: is O(1*log(1) + 2*log(2) + ... + n*log(n)) <= O(n^2) ? corresponding to Maple: for n=10: sum(i+ln(i),i=1..10) = 102.0828306 > 10^2=100 for n=10^4: sum(i+ln(i),i=1..10^4) = 4.355630723*10^8 > (10^4)^2=10^8 > Hej :), is O(1*log(1) + 2*log(2) + ... + n*log(n)) <= O(n^2) ? Apparently it is <= O(n^2*log(n)) (a rough estimation) but I have an > === Subject: Re: is O(1*log(1) + 2*log(2) + ... + n*log(n)) <= O(n^2) ? > is O(1*log(1) + 2*log(2) + ... + n*log(n)) <= O(n^2) ? Try to proof it by induction. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >[...] Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, babbling >nonsense to block out the facts? Read through those threads and see the same names over and over again, >and consider, how many of those people are actually acting alone? Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that maybe >some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >uncomfortable questions? So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to protect >them? I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not it, wait a second... right. I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet because they're not total friggin lunatics. Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. > === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > >[...] Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, >babbling >nonsense to block out the facts? Read through those threads and see the same names over and over >again, >and consider, how many of those people are actually acting alone? Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that >maybe >some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >uncomfortable questions? So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to >protect >them? [] >> I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not it, >> wait >> a second... right. >> I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet >> because they're not total friggin lunatics. >> Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive the > Nora Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even assign > it to Rupert (his reasonable script isn't generating much JSH > hatred -- time to ratchet him up a notch?). /Some/ smart kid is > going to dig back and notice that Ullrich is in fact one of the > over and over again names Harris is urging them to notice. Fedor > isn't worried yet, but better safe than in jail, eh? Love to Clarissa and the kids, > Greg Greg, you freakin' maniac!! You are supposed to sign them Tim. I'll send you an email about this. We may need to revive David Libert until this blows over. Gerald. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm <4rn7ttFsau0fU1@mid.individual.net > >[...] Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, >babbling >nonsense to block out the facts? Read through those threads and see the same names over and over >again, >and consider, how many of those people are actually acting alone? Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that >maybe >some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >uncomfortable questions? So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to >protect >them? [] >> I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not it, >> wait >> a second... right. >> I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet >> because they're not total friggin lunatics. >> Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive the > Nora Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even assign > it to Rupert (his reasonable script isn't generating much JSH > hatred -- time to ratchet him up a notch?). /Some/ smart kid is > going to dig back and notice that Ullrich is in fact one of the > over and over again names Harris is urging them to notice. Fedor > isn't worried yet, but better safe than in jail, eh? Love to Clarissa and the kids, > Greg Greg, you freakin' maniac!! > You are supposed to sign them Tim. > I'll send you an email about this. > We may need to revive David Libert until this blows over. Gerald. Nice try. You're Clive something or other who lives in New Zealand. Why try to block here? So Tim Peters is just another freaking pseudonym and people reading and trusting that they were getting a real name were just pulled in and fooled--yet again--by people who think they're immune to consequences. By the way, how's the weather in New Zealand? ___JSH === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >> >>[...] >>Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, >>babbling >>nonsense to block out the facts? >>Read through those threads and see the same names over and over >>again, >>and consider, how many of those people are actually acting >>alone? >>Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that >>maybe >>some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >>uncomfortable questions? >>So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to >>protect >>them? >> [] > I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not > it, > wait > a second... right. I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet > because they're not total friggin lunatics. Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. >> Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive the >> Nora Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even >> assign >> it to Rupert (his reasonable script isn't generating much JSH >> hatred -- time to ratchet him up a notch?). /Some/ smart kid >> is >> going to dig back and notice that Ullrich is in fact one of the >> over and over again names Harris is urging them to notice. >> Fedor >> isn't worried yet, but better safe than in jail, eh? >> Love to Clarissa and the kids, >> Greg >> Greg, you freakin' maniac!! >> You are supposed to sign them Tim. >> I'll send you an email about this. >> We may need to revive David Libert until this blows over. >> Gerald. Nice try. You're Clive something or other who lives in New Zealand. Why try to block here? So Tim Peters is just another freaking pseudonym and people > reading > and trusting that they were getting a real name were just pulled in > and > fooled--yet again--by people who think they're immune to > consequences. By the way, how's the weather in New Zealand? Sorry, James. I don't know what this is all about. I left my terminal logged in and some other student must have used it without me knowing. You know how it is. Sorry again. It is sunny at the moment here, looks like we are in for another hot summer. -- === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > >>[...] >>Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, >>babbling >>nonsense to block out the facts? >>Read through those threads and see the same names over and over >>again, >>and consider, how many of those people are actually acting alone? >>Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that >>maybe >>some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >>uncomfortable questions? >>So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to >>protect >>them? >> [] > I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not it, > wait > a second... right. I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet > because they're not total friggin lunatics. Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. >> Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive the >> Nora Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even assign >> it to Rupert (his reasonable script isn't generating much JSH >> hatred -- time to ratchet him up a notch?). /Some/ smart kid is >> going to dig back and notice that Ullrich is in fact one of the >> over and over again names Harris is urging them to notice. Fedor >> isn't worried yet, but better safe than in jail, eh? >> Love to Clarissa and the kids, >> Greg Greg, you freakin' maniac!! > You are supposed to sign them Tim. > I'll send you an email about this. > We may need to revive David Libert until this blows over. btw, James has me killfiled so he won't have seen that post :) :) Gerald. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >[...] >>Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, babbling >>nonsense to block out the facts? >>Read through those threads and see the same names over and over again, >>and consider, how many of those people are actually acting alone? >>Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that maybe >>some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >>uncomfortable questions? >>So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to protect >>them? [] > I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not it, wait > a second... right. I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet > because they're not total friggin lunatics. Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive the Nora > Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even assign it to Rupert > (his reasonable script isn't generating much JSH hatred -- time to ratchet > him up a notch?). /Some/ smart kid is going to dig back and notice that > Ullrich is in fact one of the over and over again names Harris is urging > them to notice. Fedor isn't worried yet, but better safe than in jail, eh? Love to Clarissa and the kids, > Greg Greg? So the Tim Peters is a pseudonym? And Nora Baron was that a previous one for you? Are you insinuating that Rupert is one as well? I had guessed that Nora Baron was David Ullrich, who has usually refrained from talking actual math in his posts, so a pseudonym would give him a chance to try to do so. Maybe now some mysteries will get cleared up. I assume Clarissa is Ullrich's wife and have no interest in that area or in the kids. It IS of interest that you reveal a personal relationship with Ullrich at this time. Kind of odd timing in fact... === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >>[...] >> Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, >> babbling nonsense to block out the facts? >> Read through those threads and see the same names over and over >> again, and consider, how many of those people are actually acting >> alone? >> Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that >> maybe some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >> uncomfortable questions? >> So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to >> protect them? [] > I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not it, > wait a second... right. I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet > because they're not total friggin lunatics. Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. [someone claiming to be Tim Peters ] >> Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive >> the Nora Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even >> assign it to Rupert (his reasonable script isn't generating >> much JSH hatred -- time to ratchet him up a notch?). /Some/ >> smart kid is going to dig back and notice that Ullrich is in >> fact one of the over and over again names Harris is urging >> them to notice. Fedor isn't worried yet, but better safe than in >> jail, eh? >> Love to Clarissa and the kids, >> Greg > Greg? So the Tim Peters is a pseudonym? Check the headers for a forgery. That happens to you a lot more than to me, but I'm certainly not immune. As I told Proginoskes recently, my real full name is Dick Wang Peters. I was putting /him/ on, though (he's a little gullible -- sometimes I just can't resist). In any case, no, my name isn't, wasn't, and probably never will be, Greg. > And Nora Baron was that a previous one for you? Are you insinuating > that Rupert is one as well? I'm not insinuating anything. I don't believe your conspiracy theories, so my best guess is that someone was trying to make it /look/ like I really was part of a conspiracy, and accidentally hit the reply to group instead of the reply to sender button when I was replying to the Ullrich poster. OTOH, you'll have a different take on it, and I really can't help you with that. Or it /could/ just be that someone is trying to create trouble between you and me. Who knows? > I had guessed that Nora Baron was David Ullrich, who has usually > refrained from talking actual math in his posts, so a pseudonym would > give him a chance to try to do so. Don't know; can't say. > Maybe now some mysteries will get cleared up. I assume Clarissa is > Ullrich's wife and have no interest in that area or in the kids. Ditto. > It IS of interest that you reveal a personal relationship with Ullrich > at this time. Kind of odd timing in fact... /Too/ odd, don't you think? I think it's a put-on -- but I suppose you'd expect me to say that regardless. So let's suppose you're really right about this conspiracy. Then why on Earth would they admit to it like this? Maybe you said something that spooked them, and they got a bit careless? Or it's deliberate misinformation, revealing just a bit of the truth hoping people will vaguely remember it, and knee-jerk dismiss stronger evidence later with oh, I already saw that? Or ...? No offense intended, but those all sound crazy to me, in the technical sense of paranoia. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >[...] >> Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, >> babbling nonsense to block out the facts? >> Read through those threads and see the same names over and over >> again, and consider, how many of those people are actually acting >> alone? >> Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that >> maybe some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >> uncomfortable questions? >> So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to >> protect them? [] > I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not it, > wait a second... right. I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet > because they're not total friggin lunatics. Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. [someone claiming to be Tim Peters ] >> Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive >> the Nora Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even >> assign it to Rupert (his reasonable script isn't generating >> much JSH hatred -- time to ratchet him up a notch?). /Some/ >> smart kid is going to dig back and notice that Ullrich is in >> fact one of the over and over again names Harris is urging >> them to notice. Fedor isn't worried yet, but better safe than in >> jail, eh? >> Love to Clarissa and the kids, >> Greg > > Greg? So the Tim Peters is a pseudonym? Check the headers for a forgery. That happens to you a lot more than to me, > but I'm certainly not immune. > Did that. If that is a forgery then you better contact Comcast and inform them, they'll yank the actual poster's membership. I know because I've had to do that sort of thing before. > As I told Proginoskes recently, my real full name is Dick Wang Peters. I > was putting /him/ on, though (he's a little gullible -- sometimes I just > can't resist). In any case, no, my name isn't, wasn't, and probably never > will be, Greg. > Your contempt for these newsgroups knows no bounds. > And Nora Baron was that a previous one for you? Are you insinuating > that Rupert is one as well? I'm not insinuating anything. I don't believe your conspiracy theories, so > my best guess is that someone was trying to make it /look/ like I really > was part of a conspiracy, and accidentally hit the reply to group > instead of the reply to sender button when I was replying to the Ullrich > poster. OTOH, you'll have a different take on it, and I really can't help you with > that. Or it /could/ just be that someone is trying to create trouble between you > and me. Who knows? I had guessed that Nora Baron was David Ullrich, who has usually > refrained from talking actual math in his posts, so a pseudonym would > give him a chance to try to do so. Don't know; can't say. Maybe now some mysteries will get cleared up. I assume Clarissa is > Ullrich's wife and have no interest in that area or in the kids. Ditto. It IS of interest that you reveal a personal relationship with Ullrich > at this time. Kind of odd timing in fact... /Too/ odd, don't you think? I think it's a put-on -- but I suppose you'd > expect me to say that regardless. So let's suppose you're really right about this conspiracy. Then why on > Earth would they admit to it like this? Maybe you said something that > spooked them, and they got a bit careless? Or it's deliberate > misinformation, revealing just a bit of the truth hoping people will vaguely > remember it, and knee-jerk dismiss stronger evidence later with oh, I > already saw that? Or ...? No offense intended, but those all sound crazy to me, in the technical sense > of paranoia. People screw-up. It's human nature. Same thing happened over a hundred years ago with some important mathematical ideas... Contact Comcast and tell them to yank the account of the person that made that post. Do us all a favor. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm ... [Tim Peters] >> Check the headers for a forgery. That happens to you a lot more than >> to me, but I'm certainly not immune. > Did that. > Appropriate! Alas, it only rules out the most amateur forms of newsgroup forgery (the Message-ID line can be entirely spoofed, by anyone who knows what they're doing). > If that is a forgery then you better contact Comcast and inform them, > they'll yank the actual poster's membership. I know because I've had to do that sort of thing before. That sucks. OTOH, do note that I didn't /deny/ I posted the original message. In fact, it might even be evidence that I /did/ post it when I told you to check the headers instead of doing it myself. After all, you're the one always giving me orders, not the other way around ;-) Alas, you're so far gone on this one you won't believe the truth even if it's spelled out one letter at a time. So I won't try. If anyone else is puzzled , ask and it shall be revealed. >> As I told Proginoskes recently, my real full name is Dick Wang >> Peters. I was putting /him/ on, though (he's a little gullible -- >> sometimes I just can't resist). In any case, no, my name isn't, >> wasn't, and probably never will be, Greg. > Your contempt for these newsgroups knows no bounds. That didn't appear to make any sense at all. I told Proginoskes my name was Dick Wang Peters in response to /his/ suggestion that I change my first name to Butthole. While adolescent on both sides, I don't see how you get contempt out of that. Maybe you just want to vent. Do you have any social outlets? Social contacts? While you won't believe this either, the name Fedor was in honor of Fedor Emelianenko, quite possibly the scariest dude on the planet: http://fedor.bel.ru/index_eng.shtml Besides his family's reputed connections to the Russian mob, watching a tape of one his brutal fights with a group of other testosterone-heavy males is a great way to blow out frustration. Hint: if you try this, identify with him from the start, never with his opponent ;-) > ... === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm <6pydnUySB6laHcvYnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com ... [Tim Peters] >> Check the headers for a forgery. That happens to you a lot more than >> to me, but I'm certainly not immune. > Did that. > Appropriate! Alas, it only rules out the most amateur forms of newsgroup > forgery (the Message-ID line can be entirely spoofed, by anyone who knows > what they're doing). If that is a forgery then you better contact Comcast and inform them, > they'll yank the actual poster's membership. I know because I've had to do that sort of thing before. That sucks. OTOH, do note that I didn't /deny/ I posted the original message. In fact, > it might even be evidence that I /did/ post it when I told you to check the > headers instead of doing it myself. After all, you're the one always giving > me orders, not the other way around ;-) Alas, you're so far gone on this one you won't believe the truth even if > it's spelled out one letter at a time. So I won't try. If anyone else is puzzled , ask and it shall be revealed. > As I told Proginoskes recently, my real full name is Dick Wang >> Peters. I was putting /him/ on, though (he's a little gullible -- >> sometimes I just can't resist). In any case, no, my name isn't, >> wasn't, and probably never will be, Greg. Your contempt for these newsgroups knows no bounds. That didn't appear to make any sense at all. I told Proginoskes my name was > Dick Wang Peters in response to /his/ suggestion that I change my first name > to Butthole. While adolescent on both sides, I don't see how you get > contempt out of that. Maybe you just want to vent. Do you have any social outlets? Social contacts? While you won't believe this either, the name Fedor was in honor of Fedor > Emelianenko, quite possibly the scariest dude on the planet: http://fedor.bel.ru/index_eng.shtml Besides his family's reputed connections to the Russian mob, watching a tape > of one his brutal fights with a group of other testosterone-heavy males is a > great way to blow out frustration. Hint: if you try this, identify with > him from the start, never with his opponent ;-) ... Fedor kicks ass. Pride FC. Nice . === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >> >[...] Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, > babbling nonsense to block out the facts? Read through those threads and see the same names over and > over > again, and consider, how many of those people are actually > acting > alone? Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure > that > maybe some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start > asking > uncomfortable questions? So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet > to > protect them? >> [] >> I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not >> it, >> wait a second... right. >> I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on >> Usenet >> because they're not total friggin lunatics. >> Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. >> [someone claiming to be Tim Peters ] > Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive > the Nora Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even > assign it to Rupert (his reasonable script isn't generating > much JSH hatred -- time to ratchet him up a notch?). /Some/ > smart kid is going to dig back and notice that Ullrich is in > fact one of the over and over again names Harris is urging > them to notice. Fedor isn't worried yet, but better safe than > in > jail, eh? Love to Clarissa and the kids, > Greg >> >> Greg? So the Tim Peters is a pseudonym? >> Check the headers for a forgery. That happens to you a lot more >> than to me, >> but I'm certainly not immune. > > Did that. > If that is a forgery then you better contact Comcast and inform > them, > they'll yank the actual poster's membership. I know because I've had to do that sort of thing before. > As I told Proginoskes recently, my real full name is Dick Wang >> Peters. I >> was putting /him/ on, though (he's a little gullible -- sometimes I >> just >> can't resist). In any case, no, my name isn't, wasn't, and >> probably never >> will be, Greg. > > Your contempt for these newsgroups knows no bounds. > And Nora Baron was that a previous one for you? Are you >> insinuating >> that Rupert is one as well? >> I'm not insinuating anything. I don't believe your conspiracy >> theories, so >> my best guess is that someone was trying to make it /look/ like I >> really >> was part of a conspiracy, and accidentally hit the reply to >> group >> instead of the reply to sender button when I was replying to >> the Ullrich >> poster. >> OTOH, you'll have a different take on it, and I really can't help >> you with >> that. >> Or it /could/ just be that someone is trying to create trouble >> between you >> and me. Who knows? >> I had guessed that Nora Baron was David Ullrich, who has >> usually >> refrained from talking actual math in his posts, so a pseudonym >> would >> give him a chance to try to do so. >> Don't know; can't say. >> Maybe now some mysteries will get cleared up. I assume Clarissa >> is >> Ullrich's wife and have no interest in that area or in the >> kids. >> Ditto. >> It IS of interest that you reveal a personal relationship with >> Ullrich >> at this time. Kind of odd timing in fact... >> /Too/ odd, don't you think? I think it's a put-on -- but I suppose >> you'd >> expect me to say that regardless. >> So let's suppose you're really right about this conspiracy. Then >> why on >> Earth would they admit to it like this? Maybe you said something >> that >> spooked them, and they got a bit careless? Or it's deliberate >> misinformation, revealing just a bit of the truth hoping people >> will vaguely >> remember it, and knee-jerk dismiss stronger evidence later with >> oh, I >> already saw that? Or ...? >> No offense intended, but those all sound crazy to me, in the >> technical sense >> of paranoia. People screw-up. It's human nature. Same thing happened over a hundred years ago with some important > mathematical ideas... Contact Comcast and tell them to yank the account of the person that > made that post. Do us all a favor. Greg, This is becoming more strange by the minute. But how do we know that this guy is the REAL ? -- === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > ... [The Last Danish Pastry] > Greg, This is becoming more strange by the minute. Ya think? > But how do we know that this guy is the REAL ? Because he's doing a credible job of appearing to believe it. Who else could credibly even pretend to <0.01 wink>? === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >[...] >>Notice how posters swarm over these threads as I create them, babbling >>nonsense to block out the facts? >>Read through those threads and see the same names over and over again, >>and consider, how many of those people are actually acting alone? >>Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that maybe >>some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking >>uncomfortable questions? >>So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to protect >>them? [] > I bet I can answer this one. Gimme a minute... no, that's not it, wait > a second... right. I think I got it. They don't have an attack squad here on Usenet > because they're not total friggin lunatics. Is that it? I can hardly wait to find out if I got it right. Terry, Fedor suggests that maybe it would be better to revive the Nora > Baron character for replies like this, or maybe even assign it to Rupert > (his reasonable script isn't generating much JSH hatred -- time to ratchet > him up a notch?). /Some/ smart kid is going to dig back and notice that > Ullrich is in fact one of the over and over again names Harris is urging > them to notice. Fedor isn't worried yet, but better safe than in jail, eh? Love to Clarissa and the kids, > Greg Greg? So the Tim Peters is a pseudonym? And Nora Baron was that a previous one for you? Are you insinuating > that Rupert is one as well? I had guessed that Nora Baron was David Ullrich, who has usually > refrained from talking actual math in his posts, so a pseudonym would > give him a chance to try to do so. Maybe now some mysteries will get cleared up. I assume Clarissa is > Ullrich's wife and have no interest in that area or in the kids. It IS of interest that you reveal a personal relationship with Ullrich > at this time. Kind of odd timing in fact... > Wow James, that post went right over your head. I guess it isn't just mathematics that you are deficient at. It seems that you really are special. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm ... > Now I figured out my prime counting function as a thinking exercise a > few years back, and have had to argue, and argue, and argue with > mathematicians about it ever since as the real world is not that people > celebrate your discoveries in the math world, they try to ignore them > because they didn't make them. You feel ignored here? Wow. I'll have to make an effort to reply to you more often ;-) You're not ignored, and you know it. What you meant to say, if you were honest, is that people do give it a great deal of attention, and that all of those who have keep telling you that most of your /claims/ about it are wrong. Yes, it's correct. No, it's of neither theoretical nor practical importance (although at least I think it's clever), as it's a minor variation on Legendre's old and very well known work. > ... > Read through those threads and see the same names over and over again, If you ignore that the cast of characters changes over the years. Arguing with someone who behaves as irrationally as you does get tiring, and I expect everyone eventually decides they have better things to do with their time. I've been fighting a bout of pneumonia for weeks, which is why I don't <0.5 wink>. > and consider, how many of those people are actually acting alone? My best guess is all of them. I'm certainly alone (unless you count the mind control lasers beamed at my head from top mathematicians hiding on the far side of the moon ...). > Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that maybe > some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking > uncomfortable questions? Please, anyone, ask away! Or, for a change, ask James an uncomfortable question, and watch him try to evade it. > So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to protect > them? Because this is the real world, not actually a comic book featuring James Harris in every frame? Sorry, that's a sane reason. You're right, how could top mathematicians /not/ have an attack squad dedicated to suppressing your genius? Silly me. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > I've given the conciser sieve form of my prime counting function to > dramatically show how clear it is that certain people are ignoring > important mathematical research. > In what sense is it being ignored? You published it on the Internet and > it was acknowledged as correct. What more do you want? It is one of the shortest prime counting functions known: With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime: :P(x,n) = x - 1 -sum_{i=1}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))} where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt{x} then n is reset to that count. And in that form, also one of the fastest. Because of that unique form it can be fully mathematicized into a summation of a partial difference equation: If ylesqrt{x} then :P(x,y) = mathrm{floor}(x) - 1 -sum_{k=2}^y {((P(x/k,k-1) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))( P(k,sqrt{k}) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1})))} else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}). In that form, it doesn't need to be given a list of primes because it uses a partial difference equation, and yes, there is a partial differential equation that follows from it. All of that sounds like exciting mathematics to me. Lots of places where there is uniqueness and a clear route to a partial differential equation connecting the discrete to the continuous. Mathematicians ignoring it is like if physicists ignored...um, I don't know. But mathematicians don't just ignore my research, some of you come on Usenet and lie about it, manipulating newsgroups and telling them bogus math. There has to be a reason for that behavior. Simplest reason is that you're con artists who are protecting your con. You know if you properly acknowledge my research your fraud will be outed and you'll lose a money source, so you fight it. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > I've given the conciser sieve form of my prime counting function to > dramatically show how clear it is that certain people are ignoring > important mathematical research. > In what sense is it being ignored? You published it on the Internet and > it was acknowledged as correct. What more do you want? It is one of the shortest prime counting functions known: > The code is short, but it's not essentially different from an algorithm Legendre came up with centuries ago. > With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime: :P(x,n) = x - 1 -sum_{i=1}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))} where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including > sqrt{x} then n is reset to that count. And in that form, also one of the fastest. > Nonsense. > Because of that unique form it can be fully mathematicized into a > summation of a partial difference equation: If ylesqrt{x} then :P(x,y) = mathrm{floor}(x) - 1 -sum_{k=2}^y {((P(x/k,k-1) - > P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))( P(k,sqrt{k}) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1})))} else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}). In that form, it doesn't need to be given a list of primes because it > uses a partial difference equation, and yes, there is a partial > differential equation that follows from it. > Elaborate. > All of that sounds like exciting mathematics to me. There's nothing particularly exciting about the algorithm you've come up with. If you've got some more stuff, tell us about it. > Lots of places > where there is uniqueness and a clear route to a partial differential > equation connecting the discrete to the continuous. Mathematicians ignoring it is like if physicists ignored...um, I don't > know. > What exactly do you want to happen? This was my point. You've published it on the Internet. There's been a lot of discussion about it. Someone seems to me you've had a reasonable amount of attention paid to it. What more do you want? > But mathematicians don't just ignore my research, some of you come on > Usenet and lie about it, manipulating newsgroups and telling them bogus > math. > No. > There has to be a reason for that behavior. > The reason for the behaviour is we are trying to educate you and get you to see reason. > Simplest reason is that you're con artists who are protecting your con. > You know if you properly acknowledge my research your fraud will be > outed and you'll lose a money source, so you fight it. > === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > I've given the conciser sieve form of my prime counting function to > dramatically show how clear it is that certain people are ignoring > important mathematical research. > In what sense is it being ignored? You published it on the Internet and > it was acknowledged as correct. What more do you want? It is one of the shortest prime counting functions known: > The code is short, but it's not essentially different from an algorithm > Legendre came up with centuries ago. With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime: :P(x,n) = x - 1 -sum_{i=1}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))} where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including > sqrt{x} then n is reset to that count. And in that form, also one of the fastest. > Nonsense. Because of that unique form it can be fully mathematicized into a > summation of a partial difference equation: If ylesqrt{x} then :P(x,y) = mathrm{floor}(x) - 1 -sum_{k=2}^y {((P(x/k,k-1) - > P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))( P(k,sqrt{k}) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1})))} else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}). In that form, it doesn't need to be given a list of primes because it > uses a partial difference equation, and yes, there is a partial > differential equation that follows from it. > Elaborate. All of that sounds like exciting mathematics to me. There's nothing particularly exciting about the algorithm you've come > up with. If you've got some more stuff, tell us about it. Lots of places > where there is uniqueness and a clear route to a partial differential > equation connecting the discrete to the continuous. Mathematicians ignoring it is like if physicists ignored...um, I don't > know. > What exactly do you want to happen? This was my point. You've published > it on the Internet. There's been a lot of discussion about it. Someone > seems to me you've had a reasonable amount of attention paid to it. > What more do you want? What he wants is _his_ algorithm listed on Mathworld and Wikipedia with _his_ name attached to it so he can show his mommy and daddy that he's actually accomplshed something so he can move back to Atlanta and not live in shame. But mathematicians don't just ignore my research, some of you come on > Usenet and lie about it, manipulating newsgroups and telling them bogus > math. > No. There has to be a reason for that behavior. > The reason for the behaviour is we are trying to educate you and get > you to see reason. Simplest reason is that you're con artists who are protecting your con. > You know if you properly acknowledge my research your fraud will be > outed and you'll lose a money source, so you fight it. > === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >> ... >> It is one of the shortest prime counting functions known: [Rupert] > The code is short, but it's not essentially different from an > algorithm Legendre came up with centuries ago. Indeed, the obvious similarly naive program based on Legendre's phi recurrence is just as short. Note that where P() is James's function in its first spelling below, P(x, n) = phi(x, n) + n - 1 [1] While James never explains this (it's possible he doesn't know it), P(x, n) is the number of integers remaining after the sieve of Eratosthenses applied understanding, [1] is immediate (the SoE doesn't count 1 but does count the first n primes; Legendre's phi does count 1 but doesn't count any of the first n primes; and they're identical apart from those endcase details). Note that [1] can be used to mechanically derive James's formula from Legendre's, and vice versa. In the past he often insisted that the phi -> P direction is impossible, although I haven't seen that howler recently. >> With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime: >> :P(x,n) = x - 1 -sum_{i=1}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))} where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including >> sqrt{x} then n is reset to that count. >> And in that form, also one of the fastest. > Nonsense. Who knows? Compared to what? is something he won't address coherently. In this naive form it's certainly not even in the running for one of the fastest pi() algorithms known (it's essentially identical in speed to the similarly naive and equally short form of Legendre's formula). But it is very much faster than some of /James's/ other ideas. For example, it's very much faster than the spelling he gives next: >> Because of that unique form it can be fully mathematicized into a >> summation of a partial difference equation: >> If ylesqrt{x} then >> :P(x,y) = mathrm{floor}(x) - 1 -sum_{k=2}^y {((P(x/k,k-1) - >> P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))( P(k,sqrt{k}) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1})))} else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}). If you haven't been tortured with this before, note that the: P(k, sqrt(k)) - P(k-1, sqrt(k-1)) part is an obfuscated way of spelling: pi(k) - pi(k-1) or, IOW, the whole mess is 1 when k is a prime, and 0 when k is composite. In turn, the only point to that is to throw away (via multiplying by 0) the: P(x/k,k-1) - P(k-1, sqrt(k-1)) part entirely when k is composite, but to retain it (via multipying by 1) when k is prime. Of course, if you're the first person in history other than JSH to see a real point to this obfuscated symbol-pushing, Legendre's recurrence can be obscured in similar ways. > ... > What exactly do you want to happen? This was my point. You've published > it on the Internet. There's been a lot of discussion about it. Someone > seems to me you've had a reasonable amount of attention paid to it. > What more do you want? You could start by simply agreeing with all of his claims, even if it hurts at first to shut down your brain ;-) === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > I've given the conciser sieve form of my prime counting function to > dramatically show how clear it is that certain people are ignoring > important mathematical research. > In what sense is it being ignored? You published it on the Internet and > it was acknowledged as correct. What more do you want? It is one of the shortest prime counting functions known: With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime: :P(x,n) = x - 1 -sum_{i=1}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))} where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including > sqrt{x} then n is reset to that count. And in that form, also one of the fastest. Because of that unique form it can be fully mathematicized into a > summation of a partial difference equation: If ylesqrt{x} then :P(x,y) = mathrm{floor}(x) - 1 -sum_{k=2}^y {((P(x/k,k-1) - > P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))( P(k,sqrt{k}) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1})))} else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}). In that form, it doesn't need to be given a list of primes because it > uses a partial difference equation, and yes, there is a partial > differential equation that follows from it. > Yes. I remember how you crowed about how this partial difference equation would lead to a solution of a partial differential equation. However, when it was pointed out that the solutions to a partial difference equation might have nothing to do with the solutions to a similar looking partial differential equation you dropped this claim. However, despite the fact that you no longer have any support for saying the the partial difference equation leads to a partial differential equation, you continue to make the claim. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > I've given the conciser sieve form of my prime counting function to > dramatically show how clear it is that certain people are ignoring > important mathematical research. > In what sense is it being ignored? You published it on the Internet and > it was acknowledged as correct. What more do you want? It is one of the shortest prime counting functions known: With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime: :P(x,n) = x - 1 -sum_{i=1}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))} where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including > sqrt{x} then n is reset to that count. And in that form, also one of the fastest. Because of that unique form it can be fully mathematicized into a > summation of a partial difference equation: If ylesqrt{x} then :P(x,y) = mathrm{floor}(x) - 1 -sum_{k=2}^y {((P(x/k,k-1) - > P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))( P(k,sqrt{k}) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1})))} else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}). In that form, it doesn't need to be given a list of primes because it > uses a partial difference equation, and yes, there is a partial > differential equation that follows from it. > Yes. I remember how you crowed about how this > partial difference equation would lead to a solution > of a partial differential equation. However, when it > was pointed out that the solutions to a partial difference > equation might have nothing to do with the solutions > to a similar looking partial differential equation you > dropped this claim. > Over the years since I discovered it, I've kept talking about the partial difference equation and often mentioned that it leads to a partial differential equation. And it's all on my math blog as well. Been there for some time now, and was on my previous blog, which one day in a fit I deleted. Lol. Um, that's why I needed a new one. In any event, that's the BIG DEAL: of my prime counting function anyway, so why would I stop talking about it? Now I'm focusing on the shortness of the sieve form to show people how easily they can tell that people like YOU lie to them and manipulate the discussion ignoring basic mathematical facts. The entire point in moving as I have is to show the political maneuvering of people like YOU. > However, despite the fact that you no longer have > any support for saying the the partial difference equation > leads to a partial differential equation, > you continue to make the claim. > The real story is that some time ago--YEARS ago--when I was arguing about the importance of my prime counting function, some posters started claiming that the integration of the partial differential equation could just be completely unrelated to the summation of the partial difference equation, and they made up some examples with unrelated equations, and I explained like usual why they were wrong and it didn't matter. That's it. Some Usenet posters claiming something like usual. Big deal. You people are just here to manipulate the group and protect who I fear are your real bosses--top mathematicians who need your protection so that they can avoid my math discoveries. You are their bullies on the newsgroups. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > I've given the conciser sieve form of my prime counting function to > dramatically show how clear it is that certain people are ignoring > important mathematical research. > In what sense is it being ignored? You published it on the Internet and > it was acknowledged as correct. What more do you want? It is one of the shortest prime counting functions known: With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime: :P(x,n) = x - 1 -sum_{i=1}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))} where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including > sqrt{x} then n is reset to that count. And in that form, also one of the fastest. Because of that unique form it can be fully mathematicized into a > summation of a partial difference equation: If ylesqrt{x} then :P(x,y) = mathrm{floor}(x) - 1 -sum_{k=2}^y {((P(x/k,k-1) - > P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))( P(k,sqrt{k}) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1})))} else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}). In that form, it doesn't need to be given a list of primes because it > uses a partial difference equation, and yes, there is a partial > differential equation that follows from it. > Yes. I remember how you crowed about how this > partial difference equation would lead to a solution > of a partial differential equation. However, when it > was pointed out that the solutions to a partial difference > equation might have nothing to do with the solutions > to a similar looking partial differential equation you > dropped this claim. > Over the years since I discovered it, I've kept talking about the > partial difference equation and often mentioned that it leads to a > partial differential equation. And it's all on my math blog as well. Been there for some time now, and was on my previous blog, which one > day in a fit I deleted. Lol. Um, that's why I needed a new one. In any event, that's the BIG DEAL: of my prime counting function > anyway, so why would I stop talking about it? Now I'm focusing on the shortness of the sieve form to show people how > easily they can tell that people like YOU lie to them and manipulate > the discussion ignoring basic mathematical facts. The entire point in moving as I have is to show the political > maneuvering of people like YOU. However, despite the fact that you no longer have > any support for saying the the partial difference equation > leads to a partial differential equation, > you continue to make the claim. > > The real story is that some time ago--YEARS ago--when I was arguing > about the importance of my prime counting function, some posters > started claiming that the integration of the partial differential > equation could just be completely unrelated to the summation of the > partial difference equation, and they made up some examples with > unrelated equations, and I explained like usual why they were wrong and > it didn't matter. > No. You gave your usual reaction to a counterexample. A claim that the counterexample did not apply without any justification for this claim. You did not explain why they were wrong, you did not explain anything. You did stop claiming that a solution to the partial difference equation would be a solution to the similar looking psuedo-partial differential equation you found by blind substitution. However, you did not stop claiming that the partial difference equation led to a partial differential equation. === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > I've given the conciser sieve form of my prime counting function to >> dramatically show how clear it is that certain people are ignoring >> important mathematical research. >> In what sense is it being ignored? You published it on the Internet and >> it was acknowledged as correct. What more do you want? It is one of the shortest prime counting functions known: With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime: :P(x,n) = x - 1 -sum_{i=1}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))} where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including > sqrt{x} then n is reset to that count. And in that form, also one of the fastest. Because of that unique form it can be fully mathematicized into a > summation of a partial difference equation: If ylesqrt{x} then :P(x,y) = mathrm{floor}(x) - 1 -sum_{k=2}^y {((P(x/k,k-1) - > P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))( P(k,sqrt{k}) - P(k-1,sqrt{k-1})))} else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}). In that form, it doesn't need to be given a list of primes because it > uses a partial difference equation, and yes, there is a partial > differential equation that follows from it. All of that sounds like exciting mathematics to me. Lots of places > where there is uniqueness and a clear route to a partial differential > equation connecting the discrete to the continuous. Mathematicians ignoring it is like if physicists ignored...um, I don't > know. This has to be one of the stupidest things you've ever said. But mathematicians don't just ignore my research, some of you come on > Usenet and lie about it, manipulating newsgroups and telling them bogus > math. PROVE IT. I don't expect you to because you don't understand the math yourself, and it shows. There has to be a reason for that behavior. Simplest reason is that you're con artists who are protecting your con. > You know if you properly acknowledge my research your fraud will be > outed and you'll lose a money source, so you fight it. > > === Subject: Transformation of formalue L = p + 8d^2 / 3p. How do I transform this equation. The first step involves clearing the fractions, though I would like an explaination as to how that is done. What do I look for, what approach should I use. p.s. where can I find mathematical symbols to append to future post. === Subject: Re: Transformation of formalue > L = p + 8d^2 / 3p. How do I transform this equation. The first step involves clearing the > fractions, though I would like an explanation as to how that is done. > What do I look for, what approach should I use. > Multiply both sides of the equation by the denominators. In this case, multiply both sides of the equation by 3p. > p.s. where can I find mathematical symbols to append to future post. > Don't use anything but ascii text letters and punctuation marks that appear on the keyboard because other than that can have unreadable appearances upon the numerous different browsers in use. === Subject: Re: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > Top mathematicians can ignore me, but how can they be sure that > maybe > some of you might not pick up on these ideas and start asking > uncomfortable questions? So why wouldn't they have an attack squad out here on Usenet to > protect > them? Yes, of course they have: The Teenage Mutant Ninja Algebraists. If anybody thinks that one of your ideas is significant one of the TMNAs would take them out, pronto. So far, the total number of times that they have had to do this is... just let me check the stats... ah yes... here it is... Total take-outs: ZERO. But they are READY, 24x7. Definitely. -- === Subject: Re: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm <4rmm07Fs65bcU1@mid.individual.net Clive Tooth > http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=61771 Gerald, your pictures are awesome. Would you mind if I posted the above link to a forum I frequent? It's a psychedelic music forum and I think the guys there will like it. -Sarah Sharas === Subject: Re: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm > Clive Tooth >> http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=61771 Gerald, your pictures are awesome. Would you mind if I posted the > above > link to a forum I frequent? It's a psychedelic music forum and I > think > the guys there will like it. Hi Sarah, post the link to the psychedelic music forum. -- === Subject: Re: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm <4rmm07Fs65bcU1@mid.individual.net > Clive Tooth > http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=61771 Gerald, your pictures are awesome. Would you mind if I posted the above > link to a forum I frequent? It's a psychedelic music forum and I think > the guys there will like it. -Sarah Sharas Damage control continues. These posters have no shame, and clearly believe Usenet is just completely stupid. Nope. Posting different names to try and cover for Tim Peters aka Greg won't work, I hope. The reality of the conspiracy is too much to hide now. How many of you are there? Four? Or three? I know there is Clive, and Ullrich is a real person at Oklahoma State University, as I talked to his freaking boss on the phone a few years back, so no one is acting like him without his knowledge. That's kind of sad, but also kind of amazing---maybe three or four individuals with very low morals who manipulated and used an entire math newsgroup, convincing otherwise intelligent people that some incredible mathematics was wrong. That is an accomplishment. And I am the real . === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm [added JSH: to subject] [The Last Danish Pastry] > Clive Tooth > http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=61771 [s...@hotmail.co.uk] >> Gerald, your pictures are awesome. Indeed they are! Very nice. I especially like the sequence carving a circle into about 10^50 pieces then sliding them into a square :-) >> Would you mind if I posted the above link to a forum I frequent? >> It's a psychedelic music forum and I think the guys there will >> like it. >> -Sarah Sharas Are you related to Nora Baron? Or are you just pretending to be a palindromic girl too? I ask because palindromes get me hot. > Damage control continues. Looks that way to you? Wow. > These posters have no shame, and clearly believe Usenet is just > completely stupid. Not Usenet, no. Something else, ya, could be. > Nope. Posting different names to try and cover for Tim Peters aka > Greg won't work, I hope. I think I'll have that carved on my headstone now: Tim Peters aka Greg Yup, I like it! > The reality of the conspiracy is too much to hide now. How many of you are there? Four? Or three? I know there is Clive, and Ullrich is a real person at Oklahoma State > University, as I talked to his freaking boss on the phone a few years > back, so no one is acting like him without his knowledge. Only fair to point out that nothing stops him from pretending to be others. > That's kind of sad, but also kind of amazing---maybe three or four > individuals with very low morals who manipulated and used an entire > math newsgroup, convincing otherwise intelligent people that some > incredible mathematics was wrong. That is an accomplishment. Not really. > And I am the real . And I'm the real Tim Peters. Do we win something now, just for being who we are? What a great world! === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm <4rmm07Fs65bcU1@mid.individual.net> -Sarah Sharas > Are you related to Nora Baron? Or are you just pretending to be a > palindromic girl too? I ask because palindromes get me hot. Sorry to disappoint you, but neither Sarah Sharas nor Sally Tyllas* are my real name, and I am unrelated to Nora. FWIW my real name is Phil Wild, and I am a nobody. *Sorry if I offended anyone with the language in my earlier post. I've had a few drinks tonight. -Rotwang === Subject: Re: JSH: Some prime counting facts, facing the swarm >> -Sarah Sharas [Tim Peters] >> Are you related to Nora Baron? Or are you just pretending to be a >> palindromic girl too? I ask because palindromes get me hot. [sg552@hotmail.co.uk] > Sorry to disappoint you, but neither Sarah Sharas nor Sally Tyllas* are > my real name, and I am unrelated to Nora. FWIW my real name is Phil > Wild, and I am a nobody. Ewww -- nobodies get me hot. But pleased to meet you, Phil! Just call me Greg (I suspect James will for years to come ...). > *Sorry if I offended anyone with the language in my earlier post. I've > had a few drinks tonight. You mean the four-letter c-word? Not offended here. And a few drinks sounds like a fine idea here too! === Subject: JSH: Connecting the dots So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing through his paper trying to find a contradiction. So how does he or anyone else think the argument proves Taniyama-Shimura? That goes back to the problem with the ring of algebraic integers!!! That ring is quirky and has a coverage problem so you can come up with arguments that just don't work, and can do weird things like appear to prove something when you look at them one way, and then logically fail in various ways, like failing a null test. So I have two ways of knowing that Wiles failed: 1. The logical error Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. coverage problem with the ring of algebraic integers. What is remarkable about how mathematics works is that you get one thing wrong and all kinds of things fall apart in other places. So yes, the coverage problem of the ring of algebraic integers is a big deal, and you can connect my research back to issues with major papers in current number theory. And that's just one piece of my research. If you go to prime counting and start working through implications there you end up questioning the Riemann hypothesis, which is why the partial difference equation and partial differential equation that follow from it are such a big deal. And if you look over some of my recent musings on considering p_1 mod p_2, that is, taking the residues of one prime modulo another, and considering that the result is random, you can answer the Twin Primes Conjecture, and refute Goldbach's Conjecture. Taken all together my research has a huge impact over number theory. In considering resistance to my research you can keep running into the same reality of demonstrated results with my research, like the sieve form of my prime counting function being VERY short and VERY fast, versus the political behavior of opponents to that research. They lie, mislead and ignore direct evidence, while engaging in smear tactics and coordinated group behavior meant to convince people by making it appear that a large crowd--it's about a dozen of them--have substantive disagreements with my research. And then somehow an entire math journal keeling over and dying after publishing a paper of mine, only to pull it when sci.math'ers do an email assault is evidence against me, according to these people. Political parties here in America could learn a thing or two from them!!! Math journals do not just die. And a crappy math journal would be LESS likely to take a risk with an admitted amateur mathematician. And a vanity journal wouldn't open the doors to some unknown. Reality is that only a top-notch journal with a brave (briefly though) editorial board would publish a HUGE paper that lead down the line to unseating major players in the field like Andrew Wiles. The revolution in mathematics on the verge of taking place is possibly the hugest in its history as there is a shift in the understanding of numbers themselves with one of the greatest events in the intellectual history of our world being the gaining of the knowledge of what I call the object ring. Here and now it's difficult to grasp how huge it all is, or how important it all is to the intellectual future of our world, but I can assure you that no matter how effective some of you think you are in blocking this mathematical revolution, you have not the power to halt something on this big of a scale. Without mathematics making this revolution, the scientific and technological progress of humanity itself has nearly reached a ceiling. Mathematics is that important. Without this revolution there is no future. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots : So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming : the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing : through his paper trying to find a contradiction. Cool! I haven't heard the null test mentioned in a long time! Did it bring The Hammer with it? The contradiction comes at the end, when you realize that he just proved what you assumed to be false. Of course my guess is you couldn't handle page 1, let alone the whole thing, and therefore never actually got to the end. Justin === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots > So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming > the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing > through his paper trying to find a contradiction. > It must be frustrating not to get that Fields Medal you deserve. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots > And if you look over some of my recent musings on considering p_1 mod > p_2, that is, taking the residues of one prime modulo another, and > considering that the result is random, you can answer the Twin Primes > Conjecture, and refute Goldbach's Conjecture. That's my favorite one James. Bravo for bringing it up again. I love the p mod 3 thing is random stuff. It's so transparently and testably stupid. Your other stuff is mostly incoherent babble, but this is right on the nail. Great work, keep it up. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots > So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming > the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing > through his paper trying to find a contradiction. > You're claiming to have read and understood his paper, are you? > So how does he or anyone else think the argument proves > Taniyama-Shimura? That goes back to the problem with the ring of algebraic integers!!! > What problem? > That ring is quirky and has a coverage problem so you can come up with > arguments that just don't work, and can do weird things like appear to > prove something when you look at them one way, and then logically fail > in various ways, like failing a null test. > The only way something like that can happen is if there's an error in your assumptions about the ring. You've got to name the widely accepted assumptions about the ring of algebraic integers which you claim to be false. You've never actually succeeded in obtaining a contradiction about the ring of algebraic integers. Your last attempt was based on the premise that 49-5=42. > So I have two ways of knowing that Wiles failed: > You have no way of assessing Wiles' work. You're not capable of understanding it. > 1. The logical error Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. coverage problem with the ring of algebraic integers. > You can't even give a coherent statement of this coverage problem. > What is remarkable about how mathematics works is that you get one > thing wrong and all kinds of things fall apart in other places. So yes, the coverage problem of the ring of algebraic integers is a big > deal, and you can connect my research back to issues with major papers > in current number theory. And that's just one piece of my research. If you go to prime counting and start working through implications > there you end up questioning the Riemann hypothesis, which is why the > partial difference equation and partial differential equation that > follow from it are such a big deal. And if you look over some of my recent musings on considering p_1 mod > p_2, that is, taking the residues of one prime modulo another, and > considering that the result is random, you can answer the Twin Primes > Conjecture, and refute Goldbach's Conjecture. > What's the counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture? > Taken all together my research has a huge impact over number theory. In considering resistance to my research you can keep running into the > same reality of demonstrated results with my research, like the sieve > form of my prime counting function being VERY short and VERY fast, It's very slow. > versus the political behavior of opponents to that research. They lie, mislead and ignore direct evidence, while engaging in smear > tactics False. > and coordinated group behavior meant to convince people by > making it appear that a large crowd--it's about a dozen of them--have > substantive disagreements with my research. > No serious student of your work accepts it. Every competent mathematician who has taken a look at it has come to the conclusion that it has serious problems. That's because it does. > And then somehow an entire math journal keeling over and dying after > publishing a paper of mine, only to pull it when sci.math'ers do an > email assault is evidence against me, according to these people. > Who said that? The evidence against you is the demonstration that the paper is wrong. > Political parties here in America could learn a thing or two from > them!!! Math journals do not just die. And a crappy math journal would be LESS > likely to take a risk with an admitted amateur mathematician. Any decent maths journal wouldn't take risks, it would have an adequate system of peer review so that it could determine whether the work it was publishing had any value. > And a > vanity journal wouldn't open the doors to some unknown. Reality is that only a top-notch journal with a brave (briefly though) > editorial board would publish a HUGE paper that lead down the line to > unseating major players in the field like Andrew Wiles. > Where's the error in Wiles' argument? Quote a sentence in his paper and explain why it's wrong. > The revolution in mathematics on the verge of taking place is possibly > the hugest in its history as there is a shift in the understanding of > numbers themselves with one of the greatest events in the intellectual > history of our world being the gaining of the knowledge of what I call > the object ring. Here and now it's difficult to grasp how huge it all is, or how > important it all is to the intellectual future of our world, but I can > assure you that no matter how effective some of you think you are in > blocking this mathematical revolution, you have not the power to halt > something on this big of a scale. Without mathematics making this revolution, the scientific and > technological progress of humanity itself has nearly reached a ceiling. Mathematics is that important. Without this revolution there is no > future. > I preferred it when you were actually attempting mathematical argument instead of spouting all this silly nonsense. === Subject: Re: Connecting the dots > So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming > the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing > through his paper trying to find a contradiction. So how does he or anyone else think the argument proves > Taniyama-Shimura? That goes back to the problem with the ring of algebraic integers!!! What exactly is the problem? That ring is quirky and has a coverage problem so you can come up with > arguments that just don't work, and can do weird things like appear to > prove something when you look at them one way, and then logically fail > in various ways, like failing a null test. So I have two ways of knowing that Wiles failed: 1. The logical error Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. coverage problem with the ring of algebraic integers. What is remarkable about how mathematics works is that you get one > thing wrong and all kinds of things fall apart in other places. So yes, the coverage problem of the ring of algebraic integers is a big > deal, and you can connect my research back to issues with major papers > in current number theory. And that's just one piece of my research. If you go to prime counting and start working through implications > there you end up questioning the Riemann hypothesis, which is why the > partial difference equation and partial differential equation that > follow from it are such a big deal. And if you look over some of my recent musings on considering p_1 mod > p_2, that is, taking the residues of one prime modulo another, and > considering that the result is random, you can answer the Twin Primes > Conjecture, and refute Goldbach's Conjecture. Taken all together my research has a huge impact over number theory. In considering resistance to my research you can keep running into the > same reality of demonstrated results with my research, like the sieve > form of my prime counting function being VERY short and VERY fast, > versus the political behavior of opponents to that research. They lie, mislead and ignore direct evidence, while engaging in smear > tactics and coordinated group behavior meant to convince people by > making it appear that a large crowd--it's about a dozen of them--have > substantive disagreements with my research. Prove it. And then somehow an entire math journal keeling over and dying after > publishing a paper of mine, only to pull it when sci.math'ers do an > email assault is evidence against me, according to these people. Political parties here in America could learn a thing or two from > them!!! Math journals do not just die. And a crappy math journal would be LESS > likely to take a risk with an admitted amateur mathematician. And a > vanity journal wouldn't open the doors to some unknown. Reality is that only a top-notch journal with a brave (briefly though) > editorial board would publish a HUGE paper that lead down the line to > unseating major players in the field like Andrew Wiles. The revolution in mathematics on the verge of taking place is possibly > the hugest in its history as there is a shift in the understanding of > numbers themselves with one of the greatest events in the intellectual > history of our world being the gaining of the knowledge of what I call > the object ring. Here and now it's difficult to grasp how huge it all is, or how > important it all is to the intellectual future of our world, but I can > assure you that no matter how effective some of you think you are in > blocking this mathematical revolution, you have not the power to halt > something on this big of a scale. Without mathematics making this revolution, the scientific and > technological progress of humanity itself has nearly reached a ceiling. Mathematics is that important. Without this revolution there is no > future. > > Your paper was a worthless piece of crap. It is nothing like any other math paper I've seen. There were no theorems, lemmas, etc at all. Get over yourself. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots Since Google Groups has chronic problems with retaining Harris's posts (perhaps top mathematicians or their agents hack in and delete them? sounds likely), I want to help ensure that future historians have a better chance of seeing this particular tour de force (since I'm nobody, top mathematicians ignore my posts -- mine seem to stick around forever). If you think you've seen it all before, you haven't. For example, this bit surely deserves to be in any collection of all-time greatest quotes: And a vanity journal wouldn't open the doors to some unknown. We are so truly not worthy. Any attempt at response would be like gilding the lily (or flushing the toilet, if you /still/ want to cling to the disgraced party line). === Subject: JSH: Connecting the dots Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) sci.math:921362 So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing through his paper trying to find a contradiction. So how does he or anyone else think the argument proves Taniyama-Shimura? That goes back to the problem with the ring of algebraic integers!!! That ring is quirky and has a coverage problem so you can come up with arguments that just don't work, and can do weird things like appear to prove something when you look at them one way, and then logically fail in various ways, like failing a null test. So I have two ways of knowing that Wiles failed: 1. The logical error Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. coverage problem with the ring of algebraic integers. What is remarkable about how mathematics works is that you get one thing wrong and all kinds of things fall apart in other places. So yes, the coverage problem of the ring of algebraic integers is a big deal, and you can connect my research back to issues with major papers in current number theory. And that's just one piece of my research. If you go to prime counting and start working through implications there you end up questioning the Riemann hypothesis, which is why the partial difference equation and partial differential equation that follow from it are such a big deal. And if you look over some of my recent musings on considering p_1 mod p_2, that is, taking the residues of one prime modulo another, and considering that the result is random, you can answer the Twin Primes Conjecture, and refute Goldbach's Conjecture. Taken all together my research has a huge impact over number theory. In considering resistance to my research you can keep running into the same reality of demonstrated results with my research, like the sieve form of my prime counting function being VERY short and VERY fast, versus the political behavior of opponents to that research. They lie, mislead and ignore direct evidence, while engaging in smear tactics and coordinated group behavior meant to convince people by making it appear that a large crowd--it's about a dozen of them--have substantive disagreements with my research. And then somehow an entire math journal keeling over and dying after publishing a paper of mine, only to pull it when sci.math'ers do an email assault is evidence against me, according to these people. Political parties here in America could learn a thing or two from them!!! Math journals do not just die. And a crappy math journal would be LESS likely to take a risk with an admitted amateur mathematician. And a vanity journal wouldn't open the doors to some unknown. Reality is that only a top-notch journal with a brave (briefly though) editorial board would publish a HUGE paper that lead down the line to unseating major players in the field like Andrew Wiles. The revolution in mathematics on the verge of taking place is possibly the hugest in its history as there is a shift in the understanding of numbers themselves with one of the greatest events in the intellectual history of our world being the gaining of the knowledge of what I call the object ring. Here and now it's difficult to grasp how huge it all is, or how important it all is to the intellectual future of our world, but I can assure you that no matter how effective some of you think you are in blocking this mathematical revolution, you have not the power to halt something on this big of a scale. Without mathematics making this revolution, the scientific and technological progress of humanity itself has nearly reached a ceiling. Mathematics is that important. Without this revolution there is no future. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots > So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming > the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing > through his paper trying to find a contradiction. So how does he or anyone else think the argument proves > Taniyama-Shimura? That goes back to the problem with the ring of algebraic integers!!! That ring is quirky and has a coverage problem so you can come up with > arguments that just don't work, and can do weird things like appear to > prove something when you look at them one way, and then logically fail > in various ways, like failing a null test. So I have two ways of knowing that Wiles failed: 1. The logical error Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. coverage problem with the ring of algebraic integers. What is remarkable about how mathematics works is that you get one > thing wrong and all kinds of things fall apart in other places. So yes, the coverage problem of the ring of algebraic integers is a big > deal, and you can connect my research back to issues with major papers > in current number theory. And that's just one piece of my research. If you go to prime counting and start working through implications > there you end up questioning the Riemann hypothesis, which is why the > partial difference equation and partial differential equation that > follow from it are such a big deal. And if you look over some of my recent musings on considering p_1 mod > p_2, that is, taking the residues of one prime modulo another, and > considering that the result is random, you can answer the Twin Primes > Conjecture, and refute Goldbach's Conjecture. Taken all together my research has a huge impact over number theory. In considering resistance to my research you can keep running into the > same reality of demonstrated results with my research, like the sieve > form of my prime counting function being VERY short and VERY fast, > versus the political behavior of opponents to that research. They lie, mislead and ignore direct evidence, while engaging in smear > tactics and coordinated group behavior meant to convince people by > making it appear that a large crowd--it's about a dozen of them--have > substantive disagreements with my research. And then somehow an entire math journal keeling over and dying after > publishing a paper of mine, only to pull it when sci.math'ers do an > email assault is evidence against me, according to these people. Political parties here in America could learn a thing or two from > them!!! Math journals do not just die. And a crappy math journal would be LESS > likely to take a risk with an admitted amateur mathematician. And a > vanity journal wouldn't open the doors to some unknown. Reality is that only a top-notch journal with a brave (briefly though) > editorial board would publish a HUGE paper that lead down the line to > unseating major players in the field like Andrew Wiles. The revolution in mathematics on the verge of taking place is possibly > the hugest in its history as there is a shift in the understanding of > numbers themselves with one of the greatest events in the intellectual > history of our world being the gaining of the knowledge of what I call > the object ring. Here and now it's difficult to grasp how huge it all is, or how > important it all is to the intellectual future of our world, but I can > assure you that no matter how effective some of you think you are in > blocking this mathematical revolution, you have not the power to halt > something on this big of a scale. Without mathematics making this revolution, the scientific and > technological progress of humanity itself has nearly reached a ceiling. Mathematics is that important. Without this revolution there is no > future. > Jeeves. Sell the long term bonds. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots On 11 Nov 2006 13:04:37 -0800, William Hughes Jeeves. Sell the long term bonds. > I have a question. It has little to do with math, but a lot with the way James is ridiculed on a regular basis. I think most of us would agree that making fun of somebody who is retarded is not right. In fact, I think most of us would simply not make fun of someone who is retarded at all. I think the reason for this is that the retarded person cannot help the way they are. Now James is obviously (in a medical sense) not retarded, but from the vast amount of posts (even if you only see the ones he hasn't deleted yet) it is clear that he is unable to grasp that he runs into so much trouble simply because he is wrong (most of the time anyway). As James doesn't seem to be able to get this himself, why is it okay to make fun of him? (Don't get me wrong, I think making fun of him is amusing most of the time (although a bit easy). I'm just wondering why it is different from making fun of a retard.) === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots I have a question. It has little to do with math, but a lot with the > way James is ridiculed on a regular basis. I think most of us would > agree that making fun of somebody who is retarded is not right. In > fact, I think most of us would simply not make fun of someone who is > retarded at all. I think the reason for this is that the retarded > person cannot help the way they are. Now James is obviously (in a medical sense) not retarded, but from the > vast amount of posts (even if you only see the ones he hasn't deleted > yet) it is clear that he is unable to grasp that he runs into so much > trouble simply because he is wrong (most of the time anyway). As James > doesn't seem to be able to get this himself, why is it okay to make > fun of him? (Don't get me wrong, I think making fun of him is amusing > most of the time (although a bit easy). I'm just wondering why it is > different from making fun of a retard.) It is different if and only if James is responsible for what he posts. ( A retard is clearly not reponsible for being a retard) I agree that making fun of James seems a little sleazy at times. However, It is clear that James is not retarded, and the extent to which he is mentally ill is questionable. If James is even partly responsible for his posts, then he deserves everything he gets. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots I have a question. It has little to do with math, but a lot with the > way James is ridiculed on a regular basis. I think most of us would > agree that making fun of somebody who is retarded is not right. In > fact, I think most of us would simply not make fun of someone who is > retarded at all. I think the reason for this is that the retarded > person cannot help the way they are. > Agreed. However Harris is not retarded at all. He is quite adept verbally, and I would guess that at one time his vocabulary was large for his age. His verbal abilities ensure a high score on IQ tests. In his case being classified as a 'gifted' child (and placed in a Duke University gifted kids program) apparently had a negative effect. He got the idea that almost everything he thought up was correct, and that he could accomplish more than other people without making an effort. I would bet that his performance in high school after the Duke camp was mediocre and that his GPA at Vandy was well below 3.0. He got into extremely lazy mental habits. Then he got nasty. Harris is a huge (HUGE) bundle of character flaws - dishonest, mean-spirited, arrogant, sneaky, vengeful, self-pitying, etc.. It is fortunate in some ways that he is lazy - otherwise he would be genuinely dangerous. So people here pick on him, where most would not pick on someone who is retarded. But he also seems deluded - he either lies to himself very convincingly, or he is borderline mentally ill. If the latter, we should again feel guilty about picking on him. Of course people routinely dislike and shun mentally ill people - they are often quite unpleasant - it's just not possible to interact as if they did not have free will or to assume they can restrain themselves from what they do. Still, if Harris is sincerely deluded - crazy - we should stop baiting him. It's still not clear that he is. > Now James is obviously (in a medical sense) not retarded, but from the > vast amount of posts (even if you only see the ones he hasn't deleted > yet) it is clear that he is unable to grasp that he runs into so much > trouble simply because he is wrong (most of the time anyway). Verbal abilities and mathematical abilities are correlated, but far from identical. Verbal is the most important for scoring high on IQ tests. Harris has been told he is gifted and he believes it, though it is clear he has very weak and unreliable insight into mathematics. Really the only thing he has done right here is his prime counting function, and even that is not all that impressive. > As James > doesn't seem to be able to get this himself, why is it okay to make > fun of him? Because it's willful on his part - he deliberately keeps himself ignorant, he deliberately refuses to read logical arguments that prove he is wrong, he abandons threads and runs away whenever he has painted himself into a corner. (Don't get me wrong, I think making fun of him is amusing > most of the time (although a bit easy). I'm just wondering why it is > different from making fun of a retard.) The bottom line is, he's not retarded. But it is stooping in some sense to make fun of him, even to rigrously prove him wrong - it's shooting fish in a barrel - if we have better things to do, we should be doing them - Marcus. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots [William Hughes, panics after one of JSH's apocalyptic rants] >> Jeeves. Sell the long term bonds. [No Way] > I have a question. It has little to do with math, but a lot with the > way James is ridiculed on a regular basis. I think most of us would > agree that making fun of somebody who is retarded is not right. In > fact, I think most of us would simply not make fun of someone who is > retarded at all. I think the reason for this is that the retarded > person cannot help the way they are. IMO, it's far more that the retarded person has done you, and seeks to do you, no harm. Making fun of them just because they're /different/ in a visible way would be ... retarded ;-) > Now James is obviously (in a medical sense) not retarded, but from the > vast amount of posts (even if you only see the ones he hasn't deleted > yet) it is clear that he is unable to grasp that he runs into so much > trouble simply because he is wrong (most of the time anyway). His math is usually wrong, but that's distinct from his repulsive online personality. Whatever trouble he gets is more due to the latter -- and usually in response to the trouble he /gives/. > As James doesn't seem to be able to get this himself, why is it okay > to make fun of him? (Don't get me wrong, I think making fun of him is > amusing most of the time (although a bit easy). That depends entirely on how much work you put into it :-) > I'm just wondering why it is different from making fun of a retard.) For a start, he's not retarded. If people were attacking him with racial slurs, or making fun of him because one ear is larger than the other (beats me -- no idea), ..., it would be a much better analogy. Telling Jeeves to sell the long term bonds in response to James solemnly lecturing the ignorant that the future of humanity depends on accepting his deluded mathematics is very mild, and richly deserved, chiding. Does doing so hurt his feelings? Possibly so, but I don't buy his helpless victim acts either. He usually dishes it out far worse than he gets back. There's a decade of this in the archives: time after time, people engage him sincerely and politely, until he eventually goes postal on them, spewing venom and slander, even contacting their employers. In short, he's a nasty piece of work, not a cuddly retard ;-) Not to say that this is wholly rational on any side. For example, trying to explain the same elementary point to him for the hundredth time is nuts in its own way. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots > Not to say that this is wholly rational on any side. For example, trying to > explain the same elementary point to him for the hundredth time is nuts in > its own way. I think I'll start making fun of you. ;-> === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots [Tim Peters] >> Not to say that this is wholly rational on any side. For example, >> trying to explain the same elementary point to him for the hundredth >> time is nuts in its own way. [Gib Bogle] > I think I'll start making fun of you. ;-> If so, I wouldn't blame you a bit :-) In fact, I may join you! Perhaps we could collaborate in shaming me into rational silence. You'd have a hard time with that unless I tell you which buttons to push ;-) === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots > On 11 Nov 2006 13:04:37 -0800, William Hughes >>Jeeves. Sell the long term bonds. > > I have a question. It has little to do with math, but a lot with the > way James is ridiculed on a regular basis. I think most of us would > agree that making fun of somebody who is retarded is not right. In > fact, I think most of us would simply not make fun of someone who is > retarded at all. I think the reason for this is that the retarded > person cannot help the way they are. Now James is obviously (in a medical sense) not retarded, but from the > vast amount of posts (even if you only see the ones he hasn't deleted > yet) it is clear that he is unable to grasp that he runs into so much > trouble simply because he is wrong (most of the time anyway). As James > doesn't seem to be able to get this himself, why is it okay to make > fun of him? (Don't get me wrong, I think making fun of him is amusing > most of the time (although a bit easy). I'm just wondering why it is > different from making fun of a retard.) He is just a troll with lots of time. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots <4556558b$0$97246$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net On 11 Nov 2006 13:04:37 -0800, William Hughes >>Jeeves. Sell the long term bonds. > > I have a question. It has little to do with math, but a lot with the > way James is ridiculed on a regular basis. I think most of us would > agree that making fun of somebody who is retarded is not right. In > fact, I think most of us would simply not make fun of someone who is > retarded at all. I think the reason for this is that the retarded > person cannot help the way they are. Now James is obviously (in a medical sense) not retarded, but from the > vast amount of posts (even if you only see the ones he hasn't deleted > yet) it is clear that he is unable to grasp that he runs into so much > trouble simply because he is wrong (most of the time anyway). As James > doesn't seem to be able to get this himself, why is it okay to make > fun of him? (Don't get me wrong, I think making fun of him is amusing > most of the time (although a bit easy). I'm just wondering why it is > different from making fun of a retard.) > He is just a troll with lots of time. Trolls do not stay at the same game for 11 years. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots I have a question. It has little to do with math, but a lot with the > way James is ridiculed on a regular basis. I think most of us would > agree that making fun of somebody who is retarded is not right. In > fact, I think most of us would simply not make fun of someone who is > retarded at all. I think the reason for this is that the retarded > person cannot help the way they are. Now James is obviously (in a medical sense) not retarded, but from the > vast amount of posts (even if you only see the ones he hasn't deleted > yet) it is clear that he is unable to grasp that he runs into so much > trouble simply because he is wrong (most of the time anyway). As James > doesn't seem to be able to get this himself, why is it okay to make > fun of him? (Don't get me wrong, I think making fun of him is amusing > most of the time (although a bit easy). I'm just wondering why it is > different from making fun of a retard.) A retarded person is not responsible for their condition. In any case there's nothing wrong with being retarded. Retarded people are just different. There is something wrong with constantly defending absurd arguments and refusing to listen to the clearest demonstrations that they are wrong, calling everyone who opposes them liars and ememies of humanity, and claiming to have revolutionary impact on number theory and to have refuted giants like Wiles. James is fully responsible for the fact that he is engaging in this behaviour. He does it of his own accord, and he knows in advance the response he will get. There's nothing wrong with making fun of him. I might add that I myself don't particularly make fun of him, but it's hard to respond rationally to what he says without pointing out how ridiculous it is. === Subject: Re: JSH: Connecting the dots For such a genius you certainly are a ranting tit. Yup the name calling has begun, for a laugh mind you not because you have anything worthwhile to say. You have still not considered the possibility that you are nothing more than a retard then?? > So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming > the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing > through his paper trying to find a contradiction. So how does he or anyone else think the argument proves > Taniyama-Shimura? That goes back to the problem with the ring of algebraic integers!!! That ring is quirky and has a coverage problem so you can come up with > arguments that just don't work, and can do weird things like appear to > prove something when you look at them one way, and then logically fail > in various ways, like failing a null test. So I have two ways of knowing that Wiles failed: 1. The logical error Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. coverage problem with the ring of algebraic integers. What is remarkable about how mathematics works is that you get one > thing wrong and all kinds of things fall apart in other places. So yes, the coverage problem of the ring of algebraic integers is a big > deal, and you can connect my research back to issues with major papers > in current number theory. And that's just one piece of my research. If you go to prime counting and start working through implications > there you end up questioning the Riemann hypothesis, which is why the > partial difference equation and partial differential equation that > follow from it are such a big deal. And if you look over some of my recent musings on considering p_1 mod > p_2, that is, taking the residues of one prime modulo another, and > considering that the result is random, you can answer the Twin Primes > Conjecture, and refute Goldbach's Conjecture. Taken all together my research has a huge impact over number theory. In considering resistance to my research you can keep running into the > same reality of demonstrated results with my research, like the sieve > form of my prime counting function being VERY short and VERY fast, > versus the political behavior of opponents to that research. They lie, mislead and ignore direct evidence, while engaging in smear > tactics and coordinated group behavior meant to convince people by > making it appear that a large crowd--it's about a dozen of them--have > substantive disagreements with my research. And then somehow an entire math journal keeling over and dying after > publishing a paper of mine, only to pull it when sci.math'ers do an > email assault is evidence against me, according to these people. Political parties here in America could learn a thing or two from > them!!! Math journals do not just die. And a crappy math journal would be LESS > likely to take a risk with an admitted amateur mathematician. And a > vanity journal wouldn't open the doors to some unknown. Reality is that only a top-notch journal with a brave (briefly though) > editorial board would publish a HUGE paper that lead down the line to > unseating major players in the field like Andrew Wiles. The revolution in mathematics on the verge of taking place is possibly > the hugest in its history as there is a shift in the understanding of > numbers themselves with one of the greatest events in the intellectual > history of our world being the gaining of the knowledge of what I call > the object ring. Here and now it's difficult to grasp how huge it all is, or how > important it all is to the intellectual future of our world, but I can > assure you that no matter how effective some of you think you are in > blocking this mathematical revolution, you have not the power to halt > something on this big of a scale. Without mathematics making this revolution, the scientific and > technological progress of humanity itself has nearly reached a ceiling. Mathematics is that important. Without this revolution there is no > future. > === Subject: Re: Prime numbers, counting tells it all 1. I've marked this thread to ignore so it won't show up in Outlook Express when I so set its filter. 2. A couple of comments in passing before I go on my way. 3. What's magical about the sieve, all multiples of a prime are automatically eliminated. 4. You suggest there is a conspiracy afoot with the implication that there just isn't even one mathematician that with integrity. Most of the world can accept many thing on empirical bases, but any theorem or work that a mathematician (or kook) presents is scrutinized down to the last iota. Then it is: a. Valid; b. Invalid because of an error; c. Fallacy, ramblings or unalloyed bovine fertilizer. 5. I read some of the comments (entertainment purposes only) 6. Tat.87 or Au Revoir. > So notice there is no debate about correctness. I found that you can count prime numbers using a short and simple > method, which I call my prime counting function. Easiest way to read about it now is to go to the Wikipedia and the talk > pages of the prime counting function, where you can also see at the > bottom the short sieve form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prime_counting_function My prime counting function is actually most closely related to > something discovered by Meissel and at its top iterations is equivalent > to that, and sieve forms--in the top iterations--are equivalent to the > fastest known in the world as all the top algorithms do that part the > same way. If you do not know those things then consider how little you actually > know despite how much you may think you know on the subject. Regardless, even if it were just a re-hash mostly, the shortness and > simplicity of my prime counting function in its sieve form would make > it worth noting and teaching with, as it's just easier to learn about > prime counting using it and a lot easier to program it than other > methods. So why do these people not only keep fighting me about my research in > this area but manage to keep getting important details wrong? Simple answer is that the math field is now corrupted. Some people > learned that they could do a lot by acting at being mathematicians > because they could just support each other--claiming that they > succeeded--when they actually failed to find proofs. Such a system has one fatal flaw--real discoverers mess things up. So these people use various ways to attack real discoverers. And you can consider that prime counting function in its shortness and > simplicity having to be shown on the Wikipedia in talk page as proof of > how powerful they are and how ruthless. Of course my research covers a lot more than just counting primes, and > that's where these people really have a lot to fear. Reality is that pure math as it is now implemented is a communal > system relying on the opinion of one group to claim that some person or > person's have perfect mathematical arguments, otherwise known as > mathematical proofs. It is a great system for fraud, as long as you have a critical mass of > people willing to just agree with what they are supposed to, which is > why it's so hard for a discoverer like me to break it because they > TRAIN you all to agree, and think consensus is a great thing, which > allows them to lie about mathematics and hide research from > discoverers. So no Andrew Wiles did not prove Fermat's Last Theorem. But he can > rely on supporters around the world claiming he did no matter how many > ways you prove he failed. Their word against the mathematics. How could people do such a thing? Easy. People around the world routinely do much worse if you hadn't > noticed. But how do you know they are doing such a thing? You go to the Wikipedia talk page on the prime counting function and > look at that short, simple little prime counting function, my prime > counting function in its short form and realize just how far they will > go, and how dangerous they really are. These people do fake math, for their own gain. They make money. Gain > prestige, and they are ruthless. Count the primes. Step back to think objectively about the smear > campaign that is used against my research. Ask yourself how a highly > creative individual who could make major discoveries would actually > react to coming upon stinking corruption. And start ending the con. These people depend on your trust, following a system they have > managed, and on you just being dumb about basics, like how I point out > that computers aren't used to check mathematical arguments. They will block anything they can. Including progress at using > computers to check claims of mathematical proof. They have to to survive. For our species to survive you have to look > at the truth. === Subject: Re: Prime numbers, counting tells it all >> So you've read and understood Andrew Wiles' proof of FLT? If so, and you >> can >> prove that Wiles' proof is in error, you could legitimately earn a place >> in >> Math history. So please, please, *PLEASE* tell us which step in the FLT >> proof did Andrew Wiles trip up! > > His approach fails by the logical fallacy Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. *Where* in his proof does this fallacy occur? >> Of course, if you are capable of doing this, you should have no >> difficulty >> defining an elliptic curve, and explaining why they are so important to >> the >> study of number theory. > > Non sequitur. Non sequitur??? The theory of elliptic curves is a vital part of modern algebraic number theory. In particular, they are the backbone of the Wiles proof of FLT. So my questions about elliptic curves is quite relevant here: how can one seriously critique Andrew Wiles work in this area *without* an understanding of the background material on which this work is based? I strongly suspect that you could not produce a coherent, complete definition of elliptic curves even if forced at gunpoint. Nothing in the posts of yours that I have read indicates otherwise. > It turns out he just made a dumb mistake in terms of the entire > approach. Really? Again, *where* in the proof is this dumb mistake? And were you able to discover this flaw without understanding the Shimura-Taniyama theorem? > I've talked about it in detail in prior postings. > We await your reply, but frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Well I've talked in detail about the logical problem before. You people just ignore facts and come back later and claim they were > never presented though yes you may just not have read those posts. Yes I have, and none of your posts indicated to me that you had any real understanding of either modern number theory or of Wiles. I would also point out that your forecast of Wiles being sent to prison for math fraud has not come to fruition. > He makes a trivial mistake in terms of the logical approach. *WHERE?!?* > -- All things extant in this world, Gods of Heaven, gods of Earth, Let everything be as it should be; Thus shall it be! - Magical chant from Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi Drizzle, Drazzle, Drozzle, Drome, Time for this one to come home! - Mr. Wizard from Tooter Turtle === Subject: Re: Prime numbers, counting tells it all So you've read and understood Andrew Wiles' proof of FLT? If so, and you can >> prove that Wiles' proof is in error, you could legitimately earn a place in >> Math history. So please, please, *PLEASE* tell us which step in the FLT >> proof did Andrew Wiles trip up! His approach fails by the logical fallacy Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. *Where* in his proof does this fallacy occur? Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc must be JSH's phrase-of-the-week. >> Of course, if you are capable of doing this, you should have no difficulty >> defining an elliptic curve, and explaining why they are so important to the >> study of number theory. Non sequitur. Non sequitur??? Evidently JSH has been replaced by someone who only speaks Latin. This is actually a n improvement. > The theory of elliptic curves is a vital part of modern > algebraic number theory. In particular, they are the backbone of the Wiles > proof of FLT. So my questions about elliptic curves is quite relevant here: > how can one seriously critique Andrew Wiles work in this area *without* an > understanding of the background material on which this work is based? I strongly suspect that you could not produce a coherent, complete > definition of elliptic curves even if forced at gunpoint. Nothing in the > posts of yours that I have read indicates otherwise. It turns out he just made a dumb mistake in terms of the entire > approach. Really? Again, *where* in the proof is this dumb mistake? And were you able > to discover this flaw without understanding the Shimura-Taniyama theorem? I've talked about it in detail in prior postings. > We await your reply, but frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Well I've talked in detail about the logical problem before. You people just ignore facts and come back later and claim they were > never presented though yes you may just not have read those posts. Yes I have, and none of your posts indicated to me that you had any real > understanding of either modern number theory or of Wiles. I would also point > out that your forecast of Wiles being sent to prison for math fraud has not > come to fruition. He makes a trivial mistake in terms of the logical approach. *WHERE?!?* -- > All things extant in this world, > Gods of Heaven, gods of Earth, > Let everything be as it should be; > Thus shall it be! > - Magical chant from Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi Drizzle, Drazzle, Drozzle, Drome, > Time for this one to come home! > - Mr. Wizard from Tooter Turtle === Subject: JSH: Lying is how they live We're talking about the fate of the world here. So yes, there are bad guys in this story. The great stories always have bad guys. And some of you may feel like now is the time to just cut off from the entire mess, and try to find something to believe in, when you already have something--mathematical proof. Go with the math. Usenet is a lot about people pretending to be something they are not. But I'm here because mainstream math society has pushed me to the fringe. But one thing you can be certain of, I am . And you can check my math. === Subject: Re: JSH: Lying is how they live > We're talking about the fate of the world here. So yes, there are bad guys in this story. The great stories always have bad guys. That right, Kemosabe. And some of you may feel like now is the time to just cut off from the > entire mess, Everybody knows you cut them off at the pass. > and try to find something to believe in, when you already > have something--mathematical proof. We go it. Too bad you don't. Go with the math. Does the math wear a white hat? Usenet is a lot about people pretending to be something they are not. Got anyone particular in mind? But I'm here because mainstream math society has pushed me to the > fringe. What a shame. Fringe is just SO 60's. But one thing you can be certain of, I am . A man has to be what he is. - Shane And you can check my math. Actually, I find your math tiresome. I'm here because the other thing one can be certain of is that you're an asshole. > === Subject: Re: JSH: Lying is how they live > We're talking about the fate of the world here. So yes, there are bad guys in this story. The great stories always have bad guys. And some of you may feel like now is the time to just cut off from the > entire mess, and try to find something to believe in, when you already > have something--mathematical proof. Go with the math. Usenet is a lot about people pretending to be something they are not. But I'm here because mainstream math society has pushed me to the > fringe. But one thing you can be certain of, I am . And you can check my math. > And people have for every post you have made. Everything you have done, minus a trivial rehash of an already existing prime counting function, has been incorrect. You are definitely . I don't think many would want to pretend they were you.