Well, the hard work's done
Sta
news:3c65f87.03011...@posting.google.com...
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>
> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who
> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at
> spectacular finds from outsiders.
>
> Which is why I've used the newsgroups to find objections.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Now that all the heavy lifting is done, I can focus on acceptance of
> my mathematical work.
>
> One of the benefits of such a long period taking place between when I
> discovered the proof and when it finally gets accepted is that I have
> few acknowledgments necessary.
>
> After all, those of you who had no faith in my work, who spent so much
> time attacking it, shouldn't expect to gain anything by its
> recognition.
>
> Neither should those of you who didn't dig deep enough to find out the
> truth for yourselves and depended on trusting people who told you
> things that were false, but you believed them anyway.
>
> Obviously, you should not gain for your failures, though I hope you
> learn from them.
>
> Mathematics isn't about trust. It's about truth.
>
> It does make things much simpler this way.
>
>
> James Harris
I am new here, what is your proof about?
flip
news:3c65f87.03011...@posting.google.com...
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>
Mr. Harris,
wow, what an amazing accomplishment, I am sure your parents are proud.
When will the world tour start, will you be looking to get some of the
monetary rewards that Dr. Wiles collected?
What journal article will publish this most outstanding paper?
What major universtities worldwide do you have lined up to give talks at?
You are simply one of the greatest number theorists of "all" time!
Congratulations!
P.S. can you go away now? Happy? It is so sad to read your posts
sometimes, such delusional fits of granduer. How can you live with
yourself? Get real, look in the mirror, you are a failure!
James Sibley
news:3c65f87.03011...@posting.google.com...
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>
> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at
> spectacular finds from outsiders.
Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by
amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
> Which is why I've used the newsgroups to find objections.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Now that all the heavy lifting is done, I can focus on acceptance of
> my mathematical work.
>
> One of the benefits of such a long period taking place between when I
> discovered the proof and when it finally gets accepted is that I have
> few acknowledgments necessary.
>
> After all, those of you who had no faith in my work, who spent so much
> time attacking it, shouldn't expect to gain anything by its
> recognition.
Maybe they are attacting it because there are flaws. Working on a 30 foot by
10 foot chalk board will help :-)
> Neither should those of you who didn't dig deep enough to find out the
> truth for yourselves and depended on trusting people who told you
> things that were false, but you believed them anyway.
>
> Obviously, you should not gain for your failures, though I hope you
> learn from them.
Obviously one should gain from failures... what is gained is experience and
a slightly higher IQ than before.
> Mathematics isn't about trust. It's about truth.
>
> It does make things much simpler this way.
>
>
> James Harris
James Sibley
David Kastrup
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a
> spectacular proof--you must also be able to defend it.
Well, you certainly practiced defending a lot lately. Maybe it would
be time again to try finding a proof. You'll never know how hard or
easy it is to defend a proof if you never do it on the real thing.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
David Kastrup
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a
> spectacular proof--you must also be able to defend it.
Well, you certainly practiced defending a lot lately. Maybe it would
be time again to try finding a proof. You'll never know how hard or
easy it is to defend a proof if you never done it on the real thing.
Steve Gomori
"Sta" <stathi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1042418517.278117@athprx02...<snip>
> I am new here, what is your proof about?
>
Try Google. It is a long and painful stoy, and I have only been here for a
small fraction of its lifetime ...
>
David C Ullrich
<rocke...@juno.com> wrote:
>"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:3c65f87.03011...@posting.google.com...
>> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
>> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>>
>> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
>> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>>
>> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who
>> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at
>> spectacular finds from outsiders.
>
>Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by
>amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
You're certainly right about the establishment not getting pissed off
at mathematical discoveries made by amateurs. But where in the
world did you read that most mathematical discoveries are made
by amateurs? That's simply ridiculous.
David C. Ullrich
David C Ullrich
>I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
>completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>
>Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
>proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>
>Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who
>are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at
>spectacular finds from outsiders.
>
>Which is why I've used the newsgroups to find objections.
>
>Thanks for the help.
>
>Now that all the heavy lifting is done, I can focus on acceptance of
>my mathematical work.
>
>One of the benefits of such a long period taking place between when I
>discovered the proof and when it finally gets accepted is that I have
>few acknowledgments necessary.
This is stranger than usual. You _seem_ to be suggesting that the
Proof _has_ been "accepted". By whom?
>After all, those of you who had no faith in my work, who spent so much
>time attacking it, shouldn't expect to gain anything by its
>recognition.
>
>Neither should those of you who didn't dig deep enough to find out the
>truth for yourselves and depended on trusting people who told you
>things that were false, but you believed them anyway.
>
>Obviously, you should not gain for your failures, though I hope you
>learn from them.
>
>Mathematics isn't about trust. It's about truth.
>
>It does make things much simpler this way.
>
>
>James Harris
David C. Ullrich
Sta
it? I have read the original solution and i think it is more than
complicated.
"Steve Gomori" <sgo...@no.spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:avu8r2$c52$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu...
Steve Gomori
> Is it about Fermat's last Theorem? Does Mr Harris support that he
solved
> it? I have read the original solution and i think it is more than
> complicated.
Yes, or FLT as the cool kids call it. Mr. Harris is convinved he's found a
simple proof of FLT. By "simple" he means, if I remember correctly, using
high school-level math. The evil bastards of mathematics have conspired to
rob him of fame, wealth and women. I think Fox will be airing a series based
on this titled "Joe Mathmetician".
I find the threads entertaining, even when they degenerate into playground
name-calling. As I said, I am a relative new-comer to the FLT saga (and The
Prime Number Counting Algorithm spin-off. "The" was not accidentally
capitalized for it is "THE" one) but have seen some interesting results come
from the countless iterations of the proof. A couple good ones are that
integers are not rational and algebraic fractions are actually not algebraic
fractions.
Christian Bau
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
We all realise that. What you don't realise is that first you have to
find a proof. Any proof. Please, James, just post _one_ correct proof of
_anything_!
James Sibley
news:2lg52vkt35olfn48f...@4ax.com...
What I meant to say that was that most mathematical discoveries _were_ by
amateurs. I read that in some book... if I can find it (it's in my
collection), I will quote it and cite it for you (and everyone else).
James Sibley
Gib Bogle
I think that by now we have to doubt seriously whether JSH understands
what constitutes a mathematical proof (or disproof).
Gib
David C Ullrich
<rocke...@juno.com> wrote:
>"David C Ullrich" <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
>news:2lg52vkt35olfn48f...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:23:02 -0500, "James Sibley"
>> <rocke...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3c65f87.03011...@posting.google.com...
>> >> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
>> >> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>> >>
>> >> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
>> >> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who
>> >> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at
>> >> spectacular finds from outsiders.
>> >
>> >Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by
>> >amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
>>
>> You're certainly right about the establishment not getting pissed off
>> at mathematical discoveries made by amateurs. But where in the
>> world did you read that most mathematical discoveries are made
>> by amateurs? That's simply ridiculous.
>>
>>
>>
>> David C. Ullrich
>
>What I meant to say that was that most mathematical discoveries _were_ by
>amateurs.
Meaning like long ago? _Could_ be, depending on how long ago we're
talking about, maybe.
Perhaps.
>I read that in some book... if I can find it (it's in my
>collection), I will quote it and cite it for you (and everyone else).
>
>James Sibley
>
David C. Ullrich
Dik T. Winter
> What I meant to say that was that most mathematical discoveries _were_ by
> amateurs. I read that in some book... if I can find it (it's in my
> collection), I will quote it and cite it for you (and everyone else).
If you are talking about the past, you are certainly right. Back in the
18th century almost *all* people that did something with mathematics
were amateurs in the field. There have been quite a few that did law
(Fermat is one of them). And other main fields are also quite
prominent.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
James Sibley
news:christian.bau-28B...@slb-newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Conjecture: A short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not exist.
Proof, anyone?
J/K :-)
James Sibley
Len Smiley
> I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
> completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
>
> Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
> proof--you must also be able to defend it.
>
> are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at
> spectacular finds from outsiders.
>
Hmm.. the only recent example that I know of is the "find" by the
I.I.T. guys, and ALL the "established" experts (Pomerance, etc.)
seemed to be completely tickled by it!
Do you know of an example of an outsider presenting a complete proof
("spectacular" or otherwise) which has been resisted by experts?
(Hint: think power series)
Len
David Klein
<snip>
> Conjecture: A short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not exist.
>
> Proof, anyone?
Actually, under reasonable definitions of "short" and "proof" it
shouldn't be too hard.
"short" - Less than 1 terra-byte of characters.
"proof" - An explicit theorem in ZF without using shorthand notation.
I am pretty sure that just writing out X^n + Y^n = Z^n explicitly in
ZF would be way beyond a terra-byte of characters.
:-)
--
Use of tools distinguishes Man from Beast. And UNIX users from WINDOZE lusers.
David Klein
<snip>
> Conjecture: A short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not exist.
>
> Proof, anyone?
Sorry, in my previous post I meant "Godel's encoding of ZF", not "ZF".
Andy Spragg
front of the queue on 14 Jan 2003 08:57:37 +0200, and nailed this to
the shed door:
^ "James Sibley" <rocke...@juno.com> writes:
^
^ <snip>
^ > Conjecture: A short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not exist.
^ >
^ > Proof, anyone?
^
^ Sorry, in my previous post I meant "Godel's encoding of ZF", not "ZF".
<pedant> And tera-, not terra- </pedant>
Andy
--
sparge at globalnet point co point uk
"I've got kleptomania - but I'm taking something for it"
Mvh. Nikitta, AFDA exile
Michel OLAGNON
In article <v27428n...@corp.supernews.com>, "James Sibley" <rocke...@juno.com> writes:
>
>Conjecture: A short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not exist.
>
>Proof, anyone?
>
I can disprove your conjecture with a counter-example of 19 characters:
FLT is self-evident
;-)
John Harper
Len Smiley <lsm...@acsalaska.net> wrote:
>
>Do you know of an example of an outsider presenting a complete proof
>("spectacular" or otherwise) which has been resisted by experts?
Chandrasekhar's limit on the mass of a white dwarf star. He discovered
it when on the ship from India to England to start his PhD. He modified
a previous theory of Fowler and Eddington to include relativity.
Eddington resisted vigorously. The Nobel Prize committee eventually
thought that Chandra's work was "spectacular": he got his prize, but
over 50 years later. (He had of course not been idle in the meantime!)
John Harper, School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences,
Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
e-mail john....@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
John
Concerning another, more recent amateur's new set-theoretic axiom
you had this to say:
>...(2) is just something you made up (or something you
> misunderstood based on something you read).
2) AxAy[Az(z in x <-> z in y) -> ((set x & set y) <-> x=y)]
Your memory is as short as your nose is long!
--John
(see news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>,
news:<70f94e16.0209...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02091...@posting.google.com>)
John
> On 12 Jan 2003 16:29:34 -0800, jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
>
> >I must admit to a certain feeling of immense satisfaction at the
> >completion of the most important stage of a formidable task.
> >
> >Some of you may realize now that it's not enough to find a spectacular
> >proof--you must also be able to defend it.
> >
> >Of course, that's not odd as the people who didn't find the proof, who
> >are already established in the field, tend to get pissed off at
> >spectacular finds from outsiders.
> >
> >Which is why I've used the newsgroups to find objections.
> >
> >Thanks for the help.
> >
> >Now that all the heavy lifting is done, I can focus on acceptance of
> >my mathematical work.
> >
> >One of the benefits of such a long period taking place between when I
> >discovered the proof and when it finally gets accepted is that I have
> >few acknowledgments necessary.
>
> This is stranger than usual. You _seem_ to be suggesting that the
> Proof _has_ been "accepted". By whom?
Are you suggesting that a proof is not a proof unless it has been
"accepted"?
--John
John
You were pissed off enough at an amateur (meaning myself) proposing a
theory of identity that rivals the standard one, that you did everything
you could to mislead others concerning the theory and its applicability.
And you were pissed off enough at JSH for undertaking an elementary
proof of FLT, that you have done your best to humiliate him and
have incited others to do the same, your goal being to stop him from
posting on sci.math.
So at least one member of the mathematical establishment--albeit
an extremely minor one--is an amateur-hating puke.
--John
Richard Fateman
Probably nothing to do with sci.math.num-analysis.
And arguably little to do do with sci.math.
So please do us a favor and stop the crossposting!
I have set followup-to to sci.math
RJF
Matthew Johnson
wrote:
>In article <ba841b10.0301...@posting.google.com>,
>Len Smiley <lsm...@acsalaska.net> wrote:
>>
>>Do you know of an example of an outsider presenting a complete proof
>>("spectacular" or otherwise) which has been resisted by experts?
>
>Chandrasekhar's limit on the mass of a white dwarf star. He discovered
>it when on the ship from India to England to start his PhD. He modified
>a previous theory of Fowler and Eddington to include relativity.
>Eddington resisted vigorously. The Nobel Prize committee eventually
>thought that Chandra's work was "spectacular": he got his prize, but
>over 50 years later. (He had of course not been idle in the meantime!)
But this is not an example of what the previous poster requested.
After all, even then, Chandrasekhar was no 'outsider'. As you said, he
was a student advanced enough to be starting his PhD. That hardly
qualifies as an 'outsider'.
What is more, he was advanced enough to _know_ Fowler and Eddington's
theory well enough to do this. But by 'outsider', the previous poster
must have meant people who do _not_ know their predecessor's theory so
well. After all, he obviously has Harris in mind, who can't even
demonstrate that he knows that a mathematical proof is.
Virgil
<c37480a7.03011...@posting.google.com>,
john_...@yahoo.com (John) wrote:
Are you suggesting that what James presents as a proof is
actually a proof?
Andy Spragg
on 14 Jan 2003 15:40:56 -0800, and nailed this to the shed door:
^ David C Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<2lg52vkt35olfn48f...@4ax.com>...
^ > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:23:02 -0500, "James Sibley"
^ > <rocke...@juno.com> wrote:
^ > >Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by
^ > >amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
^ >
^ > You're certainly right about the establishment not getting pissed off
^ > at mathematical discoveries made by amateurs. But where in the
^ > world did you read that most mathematical discoveries are made
^ > by amateurs? That's simply ridiculous.
^
^ You were pissed off enough at an amateur (meaning myself) proposing a
^ theory of identity that rivals the standard one, that you did everything
^ you could to mislead others concerning the theory and its applicability.
Aha! Finally the origin of the animosity between Dave the Rave and
John the Succubus becomes clear. You shamelessly piggybacked upon
David U's relentless JSHing for your own egotistical ends.
^ And you were pissed off enough at JSH for undertaking an elementary
^ proof of FLT, that you have done your best to humiliate him and
^ have incited others to do the same, your goal being to stop him from
^ posting on sci.math.
Oh, and by-the-by - you had better mention this so most people don't
realise that JSH is only a means to an end for you. No wonder the word
"succubus" got so far under your skin - it's more accurate than even I
realised at the time.
Andy
--
sparge at globalnet point co point uk
All men are arseholes
but some are more arseholes than others
Brian Quincy Hutchings
I am again going to ask,
how could any one pretend to absolve some thing,
that would seem to relate to the solving (or not)
of "algebraical integers,"
without somehow using the complex field
(which is "completed with the ideal of 'i',"
as I think it is known), or at least a method
which anyway embodies the complex domain, but
which might remain to be shown?
certainly, anyone working with trigonometrical functions since,
say, de Moivre, would be able to see this.
john_...@yahoo.com (John) wrote in message news:<c37480a7.03011...@posting.google.com>...
> So at least one member of the mathematical establishment--albeit
> an extremely minor one--is an amateur-hating puke.
--les ducs d'Enron!
http://www.tarpley.net
Keith Kingsbury
"John" <john_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c37480a7.03011...@posting.google.com...
No, I think he's saying a proof is not a proof until it has been "proven".
>
> --John
Keith K
John
JSH and I have both been dogged by Kumrad Ullreich. I (for one) will
not rest until I have exposed every single one of Kumrad Ullreich's
lies and distortions, no matter who their target--including myself.
Have you any quarrel with that?
--John
David Kastrup
> JSH and I have both been dogged by Kumrad Ullreich. I (for one)
> will not rest until I have exposed every single one of Kumrad
> Ullreich's lies and distortions, no matter who their
> target--including myself.
Fine. We would appreciate it if you made progress with this task, so
start right now. Document a single lie and distortion. Up to now
your documentation consisted of limericks, of quotes from other
people for which you tried to make Ullrich responsible, of
name-calling and of unsubstantiated claims.
It is laudable that you do not want to rest until you have finished
your task, but you should start it at some time, or you will never
get it over with.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
David C Ullrich
wrote:
>john_...@yahoo.com (John) pushed briefly to the front of the queue
>on 14 Jan 2003 15:40:56 -0800, and nailed this to the shed door:
>
>^ David C Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<2lg52vkt35olfn48f...@4ax.com>...
>
>^ > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:23:02 -0500, "James Sibley"
>^ > <rocke...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>^ > >Actually, I have read that most mathematical discoveries are made by
>^ > >amateurs... so I do not think the "established" get all that pissed off.
>^ >
>^ > You're certainly right about the establishment not getting pissed off
>^ > at mathematical discoveries made by amateurs. But where in the
>^ > world did you read that most mathematical discoveries are made
>^ > by amateurs? That's simply ridiculous.
>^
>^ You were pissed off enough at an amateur (meaning myself) proposing a
>^ theory of identity that rivals the standard one, that you did everything
>^ you could to mislead others concerning the theory and its applicability.
>
>Aha! Finally the origin of the animosity between Dave the Rave and
>John the Succubus becomes clear.
I've explained this once or twice, although of course it's easy to
miss one or two posts in the torrent that Correy generates.
His statements about who said what that was "misleading" are
misleading, by the way. It started roughly like this:
Correy: Something or other about identity.
Ullrich: Well, in _standard_ set theory, actually...
Correy: Dr Ullrich says that non-self-identicals are the work of the
Devil.
Ullrich: No, I just pointed out that this or that is inconsistent with
standard set theory.
[a large number of repetitions...]
Then similar exchanges regarding the question of whether he
should use a different notation for his relation, since it's not
what is commonly called identity - each time I point this out
I get a reply explaining that I'm trying to suppress blah blah blah.
And similarly regarding my statements, which were simply _true_,
that there's no _need_ for a theory of non-self-identicals in
mathematics...
>You shamelessly piggybacked upon
>David U's relentless JSHing for your own egotistical ends.
>
>^ And you were pissed off enough at JSH for undertaking an elementary
>^ proof of FLT, that you have done your best to humiliate him and
>^ have incited others to do the same, your goal being to stop him from
>^ posting on sci.math.
>
>Oh, and by-the-by - you had better mention this so most people don't
>realise that JSH is only a means to an end for you. No wonder the word
>"succubus" got so far under your skin - it's more accurate than even I
>realised at the time.
>
>Andy
David C. Ullrich
David C Ullrich
No. Suggesting that I'm suggesting that is one of your typical
distortions. It's clear to anyone who can read that all I'm suggesting
above is that his "proof" has _not_ been accepted - he seems to
be implying that it has been.
>--John
David C. Ullrich
John
> john_...@yahoo.com (John) writes:
>
> > JSH and I have both been dogged by Kumrad Ullreich. I (for one)
> > will not rest until I have exposed every single one of Kumrad
> > Ullreich's lies and distortions, no matter who their
> > target--including myself.
>
> Fine. We would appreciate it if you made progress with this task, so
> start right now. Document a single lie and distortion. Up to now
> your documentation consisted of limericks, of quotes from other
> people for which you tried to make Ullrich responsible, of
> name-calling and of unsubstantiated claims.
You wield the Big Lie with an abandon that smacks of Joseph Goebbels.
The virtues of your parents you trample underfoot.
--John
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet,
and turn again and rend you."
--Matthew 7:6
Virgil
<c37480a7.0301...@posting.google.com>,
john_...@yahoo.com (John) wrote:
> You wield the Big Lie with an abandon that smacks of Joseph Goebbels.
> The virtues of your parents you trample underfoot.
>
> --John
It is a notorious truism, at least in newsgroups, that the
first person in any dispute who descends to likening his
opponent to the Nazis is in the wrong.
John, you just lost the last of whatever cool you may ever
have had.
Perhaps you should rename yourself John UnCooley to
celebrate your new depravity?
John
> what if one was a self-hating amateur puke?
> I am again going to ask,
> how could any one pretend to absolve some thing,
> that would seem to relate to the solving (or not)
> of "algebraical integers,"
> without somehow using the complex field
> (which is "completed with the ideal of 'i',"
> as I think it is known), or at least a method
> which anyway embodies the complex domain, but
> which might remain to be shown?
> certainly, anyone working with trigonometrical functions since,
> say, de Moivre, would be able to see this.
Pourquoi ne faut-il jamais donner ą manger ą un nain?
Pour ne pas en faire un ingrat!
John
What a pathological liar you are!
> Then similar exchanges regarding the question of whether he
> should use a different notation for his relation, since it's not
> what is commonly called identity - each time I point this out
> I get a reply explaining that I'm trying to suppress blah blah blah.
> And similarly regarding my statements, which were simply _true_,
> that there's no _need_ for a theory of non-self-identicals in
> mathematics...
You omit to mention your DELIBERATE LYING about my axioms
for set theory, whose background logic (you knew from the git-go)
was a logic in which identity was NOT reflexive. Notwithstanding this,
WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT you made my logic out as the standard
one, the better to mislead those on this NG who take your postings
seriously.
You also omit to mention the *motivation* for FOL+ (in which
neither AxEy(x=y) nor its negation are provable), which includes
(but is not limited to) (1-4) below.
(1) Any consistent extension of FOL= is also a consistent
extension of FOL+ (in FOL+ identity is a partial equivalence relation
rather than an equivalence relation), but not conversely. (2) FOL+
underpins a set theory which is (i) inconsistent with FOL=, but
(ii) formally equivalent to a fragment of NBG in which first-order
Peano arithmetic can be modeled (see
(see news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>,
news:<70f94e16.0209...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02090...@posting.google.com>
news:<70f94e16.02091...@posting.google.com>)
(3) FOL+ underpins axioms for Peano Arithmetic from
which it follows that Ax~Ey(x/0 = y). (4) FOL+ underpins
a logic in which definite descriptions are primitive
singular terms, but Universal Instantiation and
Existential Generalization preserve truth.
Why did you omit to mention any of the preceding? Because
you can find no fault with any one of them; and because
you have not provided, nor can you provide, a single
reason for choosing FOL= over FOL+, other than that
FOL= and its extensions are familiar, while FOL+
and its (nonclassical) extensions are not.
Nor is it a coincidence that you are also the one
who is mainly responsible for the vindictive hectoring
of JSH, the intent of which has been to still his voice
on sci.math.
David Ullrich, in the raw!
--John
"Welcome to sci.logic, where the whuppin' is good."
--John Correy
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message news:<x5u1gad...@lola.goethe.zz>...
> > john_...@yahoo.com (John) writes:
> >
> > > JSH and I have both been dogged by Kumrad Ullreich. I (for one)
> > > will not rest until I have exposed every single one of Kumrad
> > > Ullreich's lies and distortions, no matter who their
> > > target--including myself.
> >
> > Fine. We would appreciate it if you made progress with this task, so
> > start right now. Document a single lie and distortion. Up to now
> > your documentation consisted of limericks, of quotes from other
> > people for which you tried to make Ullrich responsible, of
> > name-calling and of unsubstantiated claims.
>
> You wield the Big Lie with an abandon that smacks of Joseph Goebbels.
> The virtues of your parents you trample underfoot.
Well, yes, thanks for illustrating your manner of "documentation", but
you wanted to document Ullrich first. And we still may have some
problem agreeing on the word "documentation". If you have a
dictionary handy, you might want to look it up. It's under a
different letter than "ravings", "slander" and "propaganda".
John
You pitiful old man, drowned in your cups.
John
I'm suggesting that the proof with which you are expert is 120 or
stronger.
--John
Brian Quincy Hutchings
to be the same as the numbers
for FFT [*], x^n + y^n = z^n (or
a^n + b^n = c^n for a trigon), and
this is supposed to be one of the ways
in which Fermat went further than Descartes, although
his stuff was only (as far as I know) in the plane
(using co-ordinates, though not Viete's notation).
Qnc...@netscape.net (Brian Quincy Hutchings) wrote in message news:<bde404c9.03011...@posting.google.com>...
> how could any one pretend to absolve some thing,
> that would seem to relate to the solving (or not)
> of "algebraical integers,"
> without somehow using the complex field
> (which is "completed with the ideal of 'i',"
> as I think it is known), or at least a method
> which anyway embodies the complex domain, but
--A church-school McCrusade (Blair's ideals):
Harry-the-Mad-Potter want's US to kill Iraqis.
"HEY, GEORGE; LET'S YOU & SADDAM FIGHT" -Dame Maggie ('92)
http://www.tarpley.net/bush25.htm ("Thyroid Storm" ch.)
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo.PCX
Virgil
If that is as hard as you can bite, your false teeth need
sharpening.
Virgil
> > Are you suggesting that what James presents as a proof is
> > actually a proof?
>
> I'm suggesting that the proof with which you are expert is 120 or
> stronger.
>
> --John
I am much more familiar with mathematical proofs that the
sort you seem to be familiar with.
You, on the other hand, in supporting James Harris'
pretentions of a proof of FLT, show yourself incapable of
determining what is an acceptable mathematical proof.
John
I can picture the sneer on your oh-so Aryan lips.
--John
John
> >^ You were pissed off enough at an amateur (meaning myself) proposing a
> >^ theory of identity that rivals the standard one, that you did everything
> >^ you could to mislead others concerning the theory and its applicability.
> >
> >Aha! Finally the origin of the animosity between Dave the Rave and
> >John the Succubus becomes clear.
>
> I've explained this once or twice, although of course it's easy to
> miss one or two posts in the torrent that Correy generates.
>
Searched Groups for author:ull...@math.okstate.edu from Jan. 1, 2001
to today. Results 1 - 10 of about 7,030. Search took 0.10 seconds
Indeed, as William Coleridge wrote:
"I counted two and seventy stenches,
All well defined, and several stinks."
--John
Searched Groups for author:john_...@excite.ca from Jan. 1, 2001 to
today. Results 1 - 10 of about 638. Search took 0.06 seconds.
Searched Groups for author:john_...@yahoo.com from Jan. 1, 2001 to
today. Results 1 - 10 of about 315. Search took 0.08 seconds.
D. Baruth
You deal with them in two ways; you ignore their posts or use a filter
that keeps them off your screen.
--
Dan Baruth
x86/7 Software Development
--
John <john_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c37480a7.03011...@posting.google.com...
: Virgil <vmh...@attbi.com> wrote in message