mm-442
===
Subject:
: Re: JSH: Chaotic math?> Indeed. Do you want to know
what has been found upto now: > (corrected spelling error).> x
degree w_1(x)> -3 6 (1 + sqrt(-38))^(1/3)> -2 10 (-128 +
3.sqrt(-47))^(1/5)> -1 1 7> 0 1 7> 1 2 sqrt(7)> 2 22 (44444 -
111.sqrt(-167))^(1/11)> 3 6 [(-25 + 3.sqrt(-83))/2]^(1/3) >
...> Have a look about how Keith Ramsay found his result. But
let us give> an example. Set x = -4, we have: a_1(-4) = (-5 +
sqrt(-311))/2. The> class number here is 19, so a_1(-4)^19 and
7^19 have a common factor> in Z(sqrt(-311)). So we find:>
a_1(-4)^19 = (- 3279828388182942545 -
110677566089868539.sqrt(-311))/2> and> 7^19 =
11398895185373143.> The next step is to find integer or
half-integer values p and q such> that p^2 + 311.q^2 =
11398895185373143. You can automate that.> But this takes
quite some effort... > p = 99831352 > and > q = 2146257 >
will do just that. So are there r and s such that > (+-p +-
q.sqrt(-311))(r + s.sqrt-311)) = a_1(-4)^19? > To be
continued.Oh well, too simple: (99831352 +
2146257.sqrt(-311))(319680303 - 20229379.sqrt(-311)) = =
a_1(-4)^19.Meanwhile I expanded to -5 and +5. 6 could be a
showstopper as theclass number is 41.dik t. winter, cwi,
kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131home:
bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland;
http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/===
===
Subject:
: Re: My fear, consider this>
It's so evil, so frustrating. Nothing matters in mathematics,>
mathematicians don't give a damn about the truth.This fellow,
and the hundreds of patiently repudiating replies hehas
received in response to his mathematical incoherence,
demonstratethe limitations of cognitive therapy.James, have
you tried antipsychotic medications?Seriously.===
===
Subject:
:
little prime problem by support1.mathforum.org
(8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id
i1M37h417388;how can you show that every prime p > 3 can be
written as 6*n-1 or6*n+1 ??I would apreciate any
help.===
===
Subject:
: Re: little prime problem>how can you show
that every prime p > 3 can be written as 6*n-1 or>6*n+1 ??>I
would apreciate any help.Try a proof by contradiction.Hint:
when 6n is involved, every _integer_ can be written as one of
only six possibilities, right? List them, the see if you can
show that the other possibilities cannot be prime.Stan Brown,
Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.comAn expense does not have to be
required to be considered necessary. -- IRS Form 1040 line 23
instructions===
===
Subject:
: Re: little prime problem> how can you
show that every prime p > 3 can be written as 6*n-1 or> 6*n+1
??> I would apreciate any help.Every odd number can be written
in exactly one of the forms 6*n+1 or 6*n+3 or 6*n+5, the last
being equivalent to 6*n-1,where n is some integer, and 6*n+3
is always divisible by 3.===
===
Subject:
: Re: little prime problem>
how can you show that every prime p > 3 can be written as 6*n-1
or> 6*n+1 ??Every thing else is divisible by 2 or by
3.===
===
Subject:
: Re: JSH: Apology to Ramsay, why I post> So I
apologize to Keith Ramsay for questioning his honesty
here.Thank you. I can't remember any time I've lied about
mathematics, and Isuspect it's because I just haven't
ever.Excuse me if I say a little about this before letting it
go, though.I've read that a compete canonical apology contains
five parts. One, astatement of what was done wrong. Two,
agreement that it was wrong. Three,a statement of the
principle violated by it, i.e. why it was wrong. Four,an
explanation of why it happened. Five, reason to believe it
won'thappen in the future. (Probably the main reason to say
why one did it isto support one's explanation for why the
other person doesn't need toworry about one's doing it
again.)You say you questioned my honesty, and you agree it was
wrong. But whyspecifically was it wrong? Was it wrong only
because what you claimedturned out not to be true after all?
No, it's wrong to make this kind ofaccusation shooting from
the hip, just because you don't actually know.I think you
should think a bit about why you make accusations like
this.Don't just come up with a story. Actually look inside
yourself at whatmakes finding someone to be a liar seem
attractive to you. You give theimpression of leaping eagerly
at every opportunity to find mathematicians(and former
mathematicians) to be wrong and lying, even false alarms.
Allthe way back when you started posting, you already
expressed an interestin showing that we were all wrong about
Fermat by finding an elementaryproof (even though I hardly
ever hear any mathematician claim for surethat one doesn't
exist). You've tried to claim failure to reply to you asan
example of how some of us want to hide the truth.Try to
imagine what life would be like if you just refrained from
callingpeople liars. Me, I hardly ever call anybody a liar. I
have told peoplethat I suspect President Bush's campaign
promise not to engage in nation-building was insincere.
Overall, though, I could refrain from any suchaccusation and
not miss out on much. Once in awhile, it seems good to
showpeople that a certain person is untrustworthy, but not
very often. Almostalways when someone says something false,
just indicating how it is false(without trying to show that
the person who said it knew it was false) isgood enough.
Others can draw their own conclusions.Until you show some sign
of confronting your own delight in leaping tonegative, personal
conclusions about mathematicians, it will be hardindeed to
believe that you are at all serious about refraining from
doingthe same kind of thing again in the future. I don't think
you yourself arevery well aware of how you get a kick out of
this kind of shooting fromthe hip.| As for the rest of the
obsessive repliers, no apologies to that| dogmatic crew!See,
there you go again. As I see it, you don't really know that
they'reas bad as you suspect, but you are accusing anyway.|
They're still at it, replying, and replying and replying.I
agree that it's a little strange how much attention we've been
givingyou, but I think if you are honest you have to admit that
all your postingon the same topics is a little on the
compulsive side too.It seems Arturo Magidin is actually
sticking to his offer.| Still now you can see why Usenet IS
useful to me, as I can have people| check things for me, like
Keith Ramsay did.I'm happy to help people on usenet, but I'm
only actually happy about itwhen the person doesn't bite the
hand that feeds him.So, thank you again for admitting your
mistake, but please try not todo it again.Keith
Ramsay===
===
Subject:
: Re: JSH: Apology to Ramsay, why I post>So I
apologize to Keith Ramsay for questioning his honesty here.>
Thank you. I can't remember any time I've lied about
mathematics, and I> suspect it's because I just haven't ever.>
Excuse me if I say a little about this before letting it go,
though.> I've read that a compete canonical apology contains
five parts. One, a> statement of what was done wrong. Two,
agreement that it was wrong. Three,> a statement of the
principle violated by it, i.e. why it was wrong. Four,> an
explanation of why it happened. Five, reason to believe it
won't> happen in the future. (Probably the main reason to say
why one did it is> to support one's explanation for why the
other person doesn't need to> worry about one's doing it
again.)Are you sane?James Harris===
===
Subject:
: Re: JSH: Apology
to Ramsay, why I post>So I apologize to Keith Ramsay for
questioning his honesty here.>Thank you. I can't remember any
time I've lied about mathematics, and I>suspect it's because I
just haven't ever.>Excuse me if I say a little about this
before letting it go, though.>I've read that a compete
canonical apology contains five parts. One, a>statement of
what was done wrong. Two, agreement that it was wrong.
Three,>a statement of the principle violated by it, i.e. why
it was wrong. Four,>an explanation of why it happened. Five,
reason to believe it won't>happen in the future. (Probably the
main reason to say why one did it is>to support one's
explanation for why the other person doesn't need to>worry
about one's doing it again.)> Are you sane?> James HarrisKeith
Ramsay's posts evince a degree of rationality at least as great
as the most rational posts by James Harris.That James Harris'
apology does not meet the standards Keith Ramsay sets is more
of a reflection on James Harris' sannity than on Keith
Ramsay's.===
===
Subject:
: Re: Core error proof, simpler, shorter>
So what's the core error?Yes, what is it?Could you please
formulate it in a pure math language, leaving all the
emotional stuff out?You know, without the words like odd,
funny, silly, etc.=== 
===
Subject:
: Re: JSH: My fear, consider
this> It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple
examples for so> long, and posters like Nora Baron, Dik Winter
and Arturo Magidin> have *successfully* come back with their
own posts and kept winning at> convincing you all that I was
wrong!Why is it sad? If you truly cared about the math, you'd
be glad they corrected any mistakes you may have made. It is
not a competition to be won or lost so don't pretend that
they've done something underhanded by showing how you are
incorrect.> It's been so frustrating that I'm terrified that
they will just get> away with it again, so here's another
angle as I desperately try yet> again to get someone to care
about what's mathematically correct> knowing the kind of
people who are out there to come right back and> push
incorrect math.throughout the world and apparently no one who
has read your posts has agreed with you. Perhaps you should
consider the fact that you may be completely wrong here. ===