mm-452 Subject: Re: Thank you, James!from one of your posts. Unfrtunately, it's not mathematics, but> grammar usage. The lively discussion between another thing and> another think has taught me the actual use of the term (I always> heard it as thing, cpompletely unaware of the think version).Oh yeah, the word also seems to be used quite a bit in your> post too. Not really sure I have learned much from that.> Remember, the FCC recently said it's ok to drop F-bombs on network > television, as long as it's not used to refer to anything sexual. So > JSH's usage does in fact conform to current FCC policy.Are you serious? Link?? === Subject: Re: Thank you, James!> from one of your posts. Unfrtunately, it's not mathematics, but> grammar usage. The lively discussion between another thing and> another think has taught me the actual use of the term (I always> heard it as thing, cpompletely unaware of the think version).> Oh yeah, the word also seems to be used quite a bit in your> post too. Not really sure I have learned much from that.Remember, the FCC recently said it's ok to drop F-bombs on network > television, as long as it's not used to refer to anything sexual. So > JSH's usage does in fact conform to current FCC policy.Are you serious? Link??Yes indeed. This came about when the singer Bono said this is really, really, ing brilliant, on TV at the Golden Globe Awards. The FCC, responding to a complaint, said, offensive speech was language that depicted or described acts or body parts used in sexual or excretory acts. It also had to be measured against contemporary community standards.Bono's language, it said, may have been crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities.A PDF of the FCC's actual decision is here . . .http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03- 3045A1.pdfand an html link is here . . .http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3170202 .stm === Subject: Re: Thank you, James!> from one of your posts. Unfrtunately, it's not mathematics, but> grammar usage. The lively discussion between another thing and> another think has taught me the actual use of the term (I always> heard it as thing, cpompletely unaware of the think version).> Oh yeah, the word also seems to be used quite a bit in your> post too. Not really sure I have learned much from that.Remember, the FCC recently said it's ok to drop F-bombs on network > television, as long as it's not used to refer to anything sexual. So > JSH's usage does in fact conform to current FCC policy.Are you serious? Link??I think this is a reference to Bono's spontaneous useof the F-word on network broadcast, which for somereason didn't get bleeped. Sounds like the FCC issueda retroactive ruling that it was OK.Ah yes, here we go.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/entertainment/100703ap_ent_ bono_fbomb.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and _radio/3170202.stm - Randy === Subject: Re: Thank you, James!>> from one of your posts. Unfrtunately, it's not mathematics, but>> grammar usage. The lively discussion between another thing and>> another think has taught me the actual use of the term (I always>> heard it as thing, cpompletely unaware of the think version).>> >> Oh yeah, the word also seems to be used quite a bit in your>> post too. Not really sure I have learned much from that.>> >> >> Remember, the FCC recently said it's ok to drop F-bombs on network >> television, as long as it's not used to refer to anything sexual. So >> JSH's usage does in fact conform to current FCC policy.>Are you serious? Link??I recently read something about this, I have no idea where.Someone said that something was ing incredible, oring something, on a live broadcast - what I read wasthat a judge somewhere decided that was ok because he justmeant ing as an intensifier, with no sexual connotation.Don't have a reference, sorry. === Subject: I WILL GET HIS MONEY FIRSTI think that I found a clever way to conceal the errors of James Harris'sproof. If I am very clever, I can submit this as a simple proof of FLT andget the money before he does.Unfortunately, the cash reward for FLT is only about 10 bucks by todaysvaluation -but what the hell -TEN BUCKS IS TEN BUCKS !!! === Subject: Re: Thank you, James!> >from one of your posts. Unfrtunately, it's not mathematics, but>grammar usage. The lively discussion between another thing and>another think has taught me the actual use of the term (I always>heard it as thing, cpompletely unaware of the think version).>Oh yeah, the word also seems to be used quite a bit in your>post too. Not really sure I have learned much from that.>>Remember, the FCC recently said it's ok to drop F-bombs on network >>television, as long as it's not used to refer to anything sexual. So >>JSH's usage does in fact conform to current FCC policy.> Are you serious? Link??If true, a very amusing example of the wierdness of conventional attitudes to sex. Its OK to show a woman being tortured and murdered on prime time TV, but not to talk about her being ed consensually. I saw something funny on TV the other day, drunken partiers at some club, one guy's pants were a bit low so you might have seen the merest hint of his bum cleft - if they hadn't blurred it out. What does it all mean??Gib === Subject: Re: Thank you, James!> >> from one of your posts. Unfrtunately, it's not mathematics, but>> grammar usage. The lively discussion between another thing and>> another think has taught me the actual use of the term (I always>> heard it as thing, cpompletely unaware of the think version).>> Oh yeah, the word also seems to be used quite a bit in your>> post too. Not really sure I have learned much from that.> Remember, the FCC recently said it's ok to drop F-bombs on network > television, as long as it's not used to refer to anything sexual. So > JSH's usage does in fact conform to current FCC policy.>> Are you serious? Link??> If true, a very amusing example of the wierdness of conventional > attitudes to sex. Its OK to show a woman being tortured and murdered on > prime time TV, but not to talk about her being ed consensually. I > saw something funny on TV the other day, drunken partiers at some club, > one guy's pants were a bit low so you might have seen the merest hint of > his bum cleft - if they hadn't blurred it out. What does it all mean??Gib> Reminds me of Lenny Bruce's bit about if, in a movie, a man approaches a woman with a pillow, he would rather see him put it under her rear than over her face. === Subject: Re: JSH: I WILL GET MY MONEYcounting primes is purely academic;you could only get tenure, not cold cash, for that. as anyone can see,with a random access to any of your outputin the Ten-year Programme to Prove FLT, Simply,you never give any working hypothesis for your stuff,other than mathemticians are dorks. so, does this mean, they're *not* paying youthrough your blog? if folks on sci.math were really smart,we'd just say the same thing, you say. > What the ??!!! > http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/--ils duces d'Enron! === Subject: New idea in my prime countingIt occurs to me that despite my putting it up a lot, few of youunderstand how that partial difference equation I keep talking aboutworks.Basically, for dS(x,y), where x and y are positive integers, if y is aprime number p, dS(x,p) is the count of composites up to and includingx that have p as a factor but do NOT have primes less than p as afactor. For instance, dS(10,3) = 1 because 9 is the only composite upto 10 with 3 as a factor that doesn't have 2 as a factor.While if y is not prime, dS(x,y) = 0.That's it.What happened is that when I looked for a way to count prime numbers,I did it from scratch, having not checked any textbooks on thesubject. Going from scratch, I intuitively went for a way that worksdifferently from what mathematicians have been doing for over ahundred years. So it was serendipity.What mathematicians do is get a count of composites for a prime p, byusing floor(x/p) - 1. That is, they know that the count of numbers upto and including x that have p as a factor is floor(x/p), and notwanting to include p itself as it's not a composite, they subtract 1for it. Trouble is, that you get a count that includes other primesas well, so you correct. Like with 10, floor(10/3) = 3, and minus 1is 2, which is the count for 6 and 9. But, when you get the count for2, you have floor(10/2) - 1 = 5, which is 4, 6, 8, 10, so you haveoverlap. So they subtract off floor(x/6)=1 to correct. Notice youalso need to already have a list of prime numbers.That's Legendre's Method. It's been around for over a hundred years. It's clunky and inelegant.I didn't know Legendre's Method, as I didn't bother to read up on thesubject before thinking about it, so I came up with something morecomplicated, but ultimately far more elegant, which is to use the dSpartial difference equation:dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,sqrt(y-1))],S(x,1) = 0.And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, and you get S as the sum of dSfrom dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).So what did I do when I made my discovery? I went to people in thefield, like Lagarias and Odlyzko, and basically got blown off.So now I'm pissed. I can see how mathematicians really behave. Theydo a quick calculation trying to see how a discovery might promote*their* personal careers. After doing the selfish calculation theysee my work as not helping them and couldn't care less about elegance,or beauty or anything of value.It's all about them. For people like Odlyzko, only they matter, notthe math.I hate mathematicians.James HarrisMy math discoveries, found for profithttp://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime counting> I hate mathematicians.Boo hoo, little James cried. I wanna back to mommy. === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime counting> It occurs to me that despite my putting it up a lot, few of you> understand how that partial difference equation I keep talking about> works. It occurs to me that despite my putting it up a lot, few of you> understand how that partial difference equation I keep talking about > Do you know anything about proof by induction?--ils duces d'Enron! === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime counting> I hate mathematicians.> James HarrisOf course you do. They do math. And thatreally pisses you off. === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime counting> It occurs to me that despite my putting it up a lot, few of you> understand how that partial difference equation I keep talking about> works.Try pressing the CAPS LOCK key before posting. Surely you know that thelouder the message is shouted, the truer it is.James, if you are posting in this newsgroup in order to tell everyone howsmart you are, go ahead. This is an unmoderated group and no one will stopyou.If you are posting in this newsgroup in order to *convince* everyone howsmart you are, you must post material which is: 1) original, 2)non-trivial, 3) useful, and 4) correct. Furthermore, the correctness mustbe demonstrable by cogent arguments which are free of errors, gaps,omissions, and ambiguities.If you are posting in this newsgroup to further your aim of making lotsof money, maybe you should check your wiring. Something is loosesomewhere. When you find the problem and correct it, confirm to your ownsatisfaction that this newsgroup is sci.math -- it is not PayPal or eBay.There's no money here.--There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --and the obvious.--Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.--http://www.crbond.com === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime counting>If you are posting in this newsgroup in order to *convince* everyone how>smart you are, you must post material which is: 1) original, 2)>non-trivial, 3) useful, and 4) correct. Not necessarily. He's already convinced me of how smart he is, and he'sdone none of those things.Doug === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime counting>>If you are posting in this newsgroup in order to *convince* everyone how>>smart you are, you must post material which is: 1) original, 2)>>non-trivial, 3) useful, and 4) correct. > Not necessarily. He's already convinced me of how smart he is, and he's> done none of those things.A smartass after my own heart!Gib === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime counting>>If you are posting in this newsgroup in order to *convince* everyone how>>smart you are, you must post material which is: 1) original, 2)>>non-trivial, 3) useful, and 4) correct. >Not necessarily. He's already convinced me of how smart he is, and he's>done none of those things.>DougZing!-- Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON CanadaNature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences.(Robert Ingersoll) === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime countingIt occurs to me that despite my putting it up a lot, few of you> understand how that partial difference equation I keep talking about> works.> Prime Counting Function http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeCountingFunction.htmlPrime Difference Function http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeDifferenceFunction.html Crank Information http://www.crank.net/harris.html http://www.crank.net/usenet.html http://www.google.com/search?q=harris+site%3Awww.crank.net http://www.google.com/search?q=%22james+harris%22+site% 3Ausers.pandora.be === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime countingIt occurs to me that despite my putting it up a lot, few of you> understand how that partial difference equation I keep talking about> works.http://www.crank.net/harris.html It's not every braying jackass that gets a whole page at crank.netIt has been more than amply posted that you have no idea what you aredoing. You define things to suit your psychosis and, when yourbull fails in practice, you ignore empirical fact and rave somemore - louder, more stupidly, and trolling more newsgroups with yourcrap.alt.math.undergrad Harris? If they can do algebra, they also knowyou are an idiot. Try something in kindergarten to 12.http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpghttp:// w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf--Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdfhttp:// www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm (Do something naughty to physics) === Subject: Re: New idea in my prime counting field, like Lagarias and Odlyzko, and basically got blown off.> So now I'm pissed. I can see how mathematicians really behave. They> do a quick calculation trying to see how a discovery might promote> *their* personal careers. After doing the selfish calculation they> see my work as not helping them and couldn't care less about elegance,> or beauty or anything of value.> It's all about them. For people like Odlyzko, only they matter, not> the math.> I hate mathematicians.> James HarrisLet me show you an analogy and see if this helps your understanding ofreality.There's a farmer who raises corn for a living. He has a huge, fast combinefor harverting his corn. James Harris comes along, and knowing nothingabout corn, figures out a cool way to harvert corn by hand. It's simple,cool, better than the old manual corn picking method, and has never beenthought of before in human history. However, it's thousands of times slowerthan using the existing combine. The farmer blows James off because theresult, while unique, has no real value to him.So what should James do? Something useful like going to aggie school tolearn modern corn farming methods? Find another hobby? Or whine endlesslyabout how he's being ignored by corn farming society?--Stan Gula === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problemwhew; I thought, you were going to convert them into energy,and not under controlled circumstances! not taht we couldn't use them for the Space Program,of course. > Every single math student on the planet could be vaporized today,> along with every mathematician of any stripe, and it wouldn't change> anything mathematically.--ils duces d'Enron! === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> James,Since you are busy revolutionalizing mathematics, I understand if you don't> have time to tackle these. But, if you would like to demonstrate that you> have any real experience with rings, then these should be fairly easy, and> might buy you some credibility with the newsgroup. They vary in difficulty,> but are all elementary abstract algebra. Feel free to use any theorems that> you know or would like to look up, and do only those that you care to.Rings and Fields> 1. Prove that x^2 + x + 1 is irreducible over Z/2 (Integers mod 2)2. If U is an ideal of R let [R:U] = {x is an element of R | rx is an> element of U for every r in R} Prove that [R:U] is an ideal of R and that> it contains U.3. Prove that any homomorphism of a field is either an isomorphism or takes> each element into 0.Groups> Def. of group: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Group.html1. If G is a finite group of even order, prove it has an element a =/=> identity (not equal) such that a^2 = identity.2. Prove that a group of order 7 is abelian.3. Give an example of a group of order 2.4. Give an example of a countably infinite group.5. Give an example of a group G (or a proof that such a group does not> exist) such that if g is an element of G, then there exists g_2 in G such> that g = g_2^2, g_3 in G such that g = g_3^3, and furthermore, for every r> in R (real numbers) there exists g_r such that g = g_r^r.Well, those are just a few, they should take about an hour if you take your> time. Most are from Topics in Algebra (a well known undergraduate algebra> text). Have fun.Justin Van WinkleMock JSH as you will for not having the sort of knowledge that formaltraining in mathematics imparts: it is nevertheless true that withoutsuch training, 1) He gave a proof for case I of FLT for p = 5.2) He developed a formula for pi(x) and implemented it in Java.What about you, Twinkie? Have you anything to your credit that youwere not primed to do?--John === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problemThese questions are relevant to JSH, as he claims that there is a coreerror in this very field of math. However, he doesn't have any knowledgeof this field.He consistently claims that this core error will seriously effect thisarea of mathematics, causing a general upheaval in math departmentseverywhere. However, he doesn't have any knowledge of this field.He consistently calls anyone who disagrees with him a ing sHowever, he doesn't have any knowledge of this field.JSH offers seriously flawed arguments, and doesn't understand why they areflawed. When presented with this fact, he becomes belligerent. However, hedoesn't have any knowledge of this field. **See BelowThe more I read James' posts, the more respect I have for him. He is attimes eloquent, at other times very immature and belligerent. I can relateto this. I don't believe he is revolutionizing mathematics, but he ismaking an attempt, which is laudible. Where he goes wrong is to expectothers to give him credit where none is due, and to except his assertionswithout being convinced that they are true by a reasonable argument/proof.Hugs and Kisses,Twinkieyou can find all this on Google if you like)1. Remember, what's commonly called mathematics is a body of discoveriesby people like me--discoverers--who faced the truth, for the benefitof humanity. Now that a small error has crept into that body of work,we need to get it out.2. Remember, a problem with an over hundred year old definition isn'tsomething that will turn your world upside down, while it does formathematicians, so maybe some of you can be more objective than they.And maybe that's why it took a physics major to find this thing, as Ilike emphasizing that I'm not a mathematician, not to knock them, butto inoculate myself from social forces--social forces are powerful,after all.If I saw myself as a mathematician, then I might be running now infear from the result as well.3. Where's loving math for the ing beauty of it now you ings??!!!**4. I can't find a single example of James claiming that there is aconspiracy. In fact, he explains that he does not believe that there is aconspiracy. He does say alot that mathematicians are acting uniformly outof fear to run away from his proofs.> James, Since you are busy revolutionalizing mathematics, I understand if youdon't> have time to tackle these. But, if you would like to demonstrate thatyou> have any real experience with rings, then these should be fairly easy,and> might buy you some credibility with the newsgroup. They vary indifficulty,> but are all elementary abstract algebra. Feel free to use any theoremsthat> you know or would like to look up, and do only those that you care to. Rings and Fields> 1. Prove that x^2 + x + 1 is irreducible over Z/2 (Integers mod 2) 2. If U is an ideal of R let [R:U] = {x is an element of R | rx is an> element of U for every r in R} Prove that [R:U] is an ideal of R andthat> it contains U. 3. Prove that any homomorphism of a field is either an isomorphism ortakes> each element into 0. Groups> Def. of group: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Group.html 1. If G is a finite group of even order, prove it has an element a =/=> identity (not equal) such that a^2 = identity. 2. Prove that a group of order 7 is abelian. 3. Give an example of a group of order 2. 4. Give an example of a countably infinite group. 5. Give an example of a group G (or a proof that such a group does not> exist) such that if g is an element of G, then there exists g_2 in Gsuch> that g = g_2^2, g_3 in G such that g = g_3^3, and furthermore, for everyr> in R (real numbers) there exists g_r such that g = g_r^r. Well, those are just a few, they should take about an hour if you takeyour> time. Most are from Topics in Algebra (a well known undergraduatealgebra> text). Have fun. Justin Van Winkle> Mock JSH as you will for not having the sort of knowledge that formal> training in mathematics imparts: it is nevertheless true that without> such training,> 1) He gave a proof for case I of FLT for p = 5.> 2) He developed a formula for pi(x) and implemented it in Java.> What about you, Twinkie? Have you anything to your credit that you> were not primed to do?> --John === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> And maybe that's why it took a physics major to find this thing, as I> like emphasizing that I'm not a mathematician, not to knock them, but> to inoculate myself from social forces--social forces are powerful,> after all.The primary effect of JSH's self-inoculation agains social forces is that he has become anti-social to the point of self-destruction. === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> Somehow I doubt it. Even if your proof were to be found to be entirely> correct, nobody would care. Why? Because the thing you assert is> completely irrelevent. Why don't you know this? Because you don't know any> mathematics. You don't know any mathematics. What you say is true, for a reason that reveals the *ugliness*of mathematics--and the *ugliness* of mathies. Mathies would turn up their nose at an elementary proof of FLTby JSH but not (say) an elementary proof of FLT by HarveyFriedman, because JSH is an Afro-American without formaltraining in mathematics--unlike Harvey Friedman, who is white,has a Ph.D, and plays the game as mathies require it to beplayed. THAT is why a proof of FLT by JSH would be irrelevant.And THAT is why everything JSH says about professionalmathematicians is true.> Seriously, think about this.--John === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problemLet's be careful with our selection of terms. JSH didn't offer a proof ofFLT, he offered an incorrect argument in an attempt to prove FLT.Justin Van Winkle> Somehow I doubt it. Even if your proof were to be found to be entirely> correct, nobody would care. Why? Because the thing you assert is> completely irrelevent. Why don't you know this? Because you don't knowany> mathematics. You don't know any mathematics.> What you say is true, for a reason that reveals the *ugliness*> of mathematics--and the *ugliness* of mathies. Mathies> would turn up their nose at an elementary proof of FLT> by JSH but not (say) an elementary proof of FLT by Harvey> Friedman, because JSH is an Afro-American without formal> training in mathematics--unlike Harvey Friedman, who is white,> has a Ph.D, and plays the game as mathies require it to be> played. THAT is why a proof of FLT by JSH would be irrelevant.> And THAT is why everything JSH says about professional> mathematicians is true.> Seriously, think about this.> --John === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> Let's be careful with our selection of terms. JSH didn't offer a proof of> FLT, he offered an incorrect argument in an attempt to prove FLT.Justin Van Winkle> Somehow I doubt it. Even if your proof were to be found to be entirely> correct, nobody would care. Why? Because the thing you assert is> completely irrelevent. Why don't you know this? Because you don't know> any> mathematics. You don't know any mathematics. What you say is true, for a reason that reveals the *ugliness*> of mathematics--and the *ugliness* of mathies. Mathies> would turn up their nose at an elementary proof of FLT> by JSH but not (say) an elementary proof of FLT by Harvey> Friedman, because JSH is an Afro-American without formal> training in mathematics--unlike Harvey Friedman, who is white,> has a Ph.D, and plays the game as mathies require it to be> played. THAT is why a proof of FLT by JSH would be irrelevant.> And THAT is why everything JSH says about professional> mathematicians is true. > Seriously, think about this. --JohnMathies WOULD turn up their nose at an elementary proof of FLTby JSH but not (say) an elementary proof of FLT by HarveyFriedmanand,THAT is why a proof of FLT by JSH WOULD be irrelevant.in response to:Even if your proof WERE to be found to be entirelycorrect, nobody WOULD careRefrain from attributing to me words not mine, or reading what is not thereinto things that I say. === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problemThis confuses the issue. I said no one would care about his core errorproof. The reason for this is that mathematicians use facts about algebraicintegers that are proven from the definition, not traits that should bethere but aren't. Of course, any elementary proof of FLT would be laudedimmediately and published with much interest all around, regardless of whocame up with it. If it were JSH that came up with it it would cause alot ofinterest all around, by mathematicians and non-mathematicians. In fact, hecould probably then actually make some money off of his story.The problem isn't that no one would care about JSH's proof, it's that JSHoffers NO proof. Whenever James offers a proof of FLT, I'll be the first tochampion it. I find this unlikely, but there is no harm in trying thingsthat are hard or unlikely. The problem is making false claims, and thenbecoming belligerent and blaming mathematicians for ignoring you. JSH hasgotten more attention from mathematicians than he probably deserves withwhat he has accomplished so far.Justin Van Winkle> Let's be careful with our selection of terms. JSH didn't offer a proofof> FLT, he offered an incorrect argument in an attempt to prove FLT. Justin Van Winkle > Somehow I doubt it. Even if your proof were to be found to beentirely> correct, nobody would care. Why? Because the thing you assert is> completely irrelevent. Why don't you know this? Because you don'tknow> any> mathematics. You don't know any mathematics.> > What you say is true, for a reason that reveals the *ugliness*> of mathematics--and the *ugliness* of mathies. Mathies> would turn up their nose at an elementary proof of FLT> by JSH but not (say) an elementary proof of FLT by Harvey> Friedman, because JSH is an Afro-American without formal> training in mathematics--unlike Harvey Friedman, who is white,> has a Ph.D, and plays the game as mathies require it to be> played. THAT is why a proof of FLT by JSH would be irrelevant.> And THAT is why everything JSH says about professional> mathematicians is true.> > Seriously, think about this.> > --John> Mathies WOULD turn up their nose at an elementary proof of FLT> by JSH but not (say) an elementary proof of FLT by Harvey> Friedman> and,> THAT is why a proof of FLT by JSH WOULD be irrelevant.> in response to:> Even if your proof WERE to be found to be entirely> correct, nobody WOULD care> Refrain from attributing to me words not mine, or reading what is notthere> into things that I say. === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem exist) such that if g is an element of G, then there exists g_2 in G such> that g = g_2^2, g_3 in G such that g = g_3^3, and furthermore, for every r> in R (real numbers) there exists g_r such that g = g_r^r.For an arbitrary group G, how do you define g^r, where r is any real number? === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problemthat, and in that context it would be defined in a natural way. So instead,let's just modify it to be natural numbers.Sorry for the mix up,Justin Van Winkle> exist) such that if g is an element of G, then there exists g_2 in Gsuch> that g = g_2^2, g_3 in G such that g = g_3^3, and furthermore, for everyr> in R (real numbers) there exists g_r such that g = g_r^r.> For an arbitrary group G, how do you define g^r, where r is any realnumber? === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> Somehow I doubt it. Even if your proof were to be found to be entirely> correct, nobody would care. Why? Because the thing you assert is> completely irrelevent. Why don't you know this? Because you don't know any> mathematics. You don't know any mathematics. Seriously, think about this.> You don't know any of the mathematics you are trying to do. Generally,> proofs, at first glance, either seem right or not. You lack this intuition.> Mathies are creatures of habit, who--because they combine hermetically> sealed minds with Bush-esque egos--are frightfully resentful of anything> that is not hand-me-down, cookie-cutter mathematics.> You don't know any of the mathematics you are trying nto do. You could> study, but you seem to think that that is a rediculous idea. So, you will> continue to be an internet crank. By the time we are in a position to be> anywhere in mathematics you will still not know any mathematics, and you'll> spend your time posting to newsgroups as a crank. Have a nice life.> Go back to your hand-me-down, cookie-cutter mathematics and leave JSH alone.If you're as interested in defending JSH as you are in attacking his critics, you might do well to send him acheck. After all, he's made it clear that he's primarily interested in money. Certainly his critics are notsuitable donors, but you can pull the slack by putting your money where your mouth is.--There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious.--Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.--http://www.crbond.com === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> Go back to your hand-me-down, cookie-cutter mathematics and leave JSH alone.If you're as interested in defending JSH as you are in> attacking his critics, you might do well to send him a> check. After all, he's made it clear that he's primarily> interested in money. Certainly his critics are not> suitable donors, but you can pull the slack by putting> your money where your mouth is.--> There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the> unprovable -- and the obvious.> --> Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.So one defends JSH not by exposing Twinkie and McCallum O'Thuggee asmalevolent (and in O'Thuggee's case, underhanded) creeps (seeby sending JSH a check.Nice reasoning. Are you a Mathie?--John === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problemI'd start a nonprofit foundation ... if I were you. I mean,you don't want the funds to be diverted from The Proving Grounds. > So one defends JSH not by exposing Twinkie and McCallum O'Thuggee as > by sending JSH a check. === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> Go back to your hand-me-down, cookie-cutter mathematics and leave JSH alone.If you're as interested in defending JSH as you are in> attacking his critics, you might do well to send him a> check. After all, he's made it clear that he's primarily> interested in money. Certainly his critics are not> suitable donors, but you can pull the slack by putting> your money where your mouth is.--> There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the> unprovable -- and the obvious.> --> Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.So one defends JSH not by exposing Twinkie and McCallum O'Thuggee as> malevolent (and in O'Thuggee's case, underhanded) creeps (see> by sending JSH a check.Nice reasoning. Are you a Mathie?--Johnfuffy === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> So one defends JSH not by exposing Twinkie and McCallum O'Thuggee as> malevolent (and in O'Thuggee's case, underhanded) creeps (see> by sending JSH a check.The (alleged) malevolence of JSH's detractors is, at most, an indictment of them. It is not adefense of JSH, who may well be more malevolent than any combination of his critics.> Nice reasoning. Are you a Mathie?> --JohnNope. I'm a fry cook with a national burger chain.If you truly want to defend James, who expects to make millions when his discoveries areacknowledged, you might offer him a few thousand to support his research. In any case, it isstill a fallacy to hold that ad hominem attacks on the character of the opposition is a validdefense of JSH.--There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious.--Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.--http://www.crbond.com === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem--www.StealthHostiing.com Webmasters for the TRUman JOIN www.theBanner.netYou rule Truman. http://tinyurl.com/iky4 Current:0 Goal:1000----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------> So one defends JSH not by exposing Twinkie and McCallum O'Thuggee as> malevolent (and in O'Thuggee's case, underhanded) creeps (see> by sending JSH a check.> The (alleged) malevolence of JSH's detractors is, at most, an indictment of them. It is not a> defense of JSH, who may well be more malevolent than any combination of his critics.> Nice reasoning. Are you a Mathie? --John> Nope. I'm a fry cook with a national burger chain.> If you truly want to defend James, who expects to make millions when his discoveries are> acknowledged, you might offer him a few thousand to support his research.why?usenet ~ biggest research facility on EarthIn any case, it is> still a fallacy to hold that ad hominem attacks on the character of the opposition is a valid> defense of JSH.why?I take flamers out all the time, there's no rule book to itJames is just worked up over a dozen strong gang, I get worse in alt.coffee.i think his hammer's got you a bit punch drunk.Herc> --> There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious.> --> Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.> --> http://www.crbond.com === Subject: Re: James Harris - Challenge problem> Go back to your hand-me-down, cookie-cutter mathematics and leave JSH alone.