JSH: Biggest mystery, pondering again hostility
JSH
and for lots of reasons, including in the past worrying that posters
were working to block widespread acceptance of my research, which is a
concern which has faded. It's not that I don't think negative claims
against my work have an impact. I think they do. It's just that I
now see an advantage in the "blocking" as I see it, as it allows me to
work on problems without being bothered with concerns of anyone
stealing my ideas, often for years at a time. Reality is that
mathematicians probably feel terror at the idea of continuing any of
my research, knowing they will face outright hostility and rage in
response. That protects my research directions.
However it does remain puzzling, as one benefit I've gained over the
years has been the gift of just being occupied with my various
mathematical musings, which I've noted are of great interest to me.
To be upfront, I even call it, my math. I even named my math blog, my
math. It IS my math.
Now some will berate me for posting about my math musings as if it's
this terrible thing for me to put it forward as important when I think
it's important. Which doesn't seem to work I've noticed. Somehow
posts still seem to keep coming out about my math despite their
efforts, despite years of trying by them, and many more besides them,
most of whom years ago gave up.
So what gives? Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure,
and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort. Um, but I
have an entire blog of my math. I like it. They may claim that no
one else does. And that my efforts are pointless and futile, and I
wonder, why?
If I say I like keeping myself occupied and have done so with my math,
how can they claim that my efforts are pointless and futile as they
continue to work at convincing me to stop posting, when after over a
decade such efforts have failed?
Why do they keep doing the same thing over and over again without any
change in the result?
Even more intriguingly, they claim I am the one who does that, but
today I have my prime counting function. It counts primes. It
works. They say, it's not new or interesting, but to me, it is my
math. If you had your own three-dimensional prime counting function,
a P(x,y) function while the math world still has a pi(x), two-
dimensional function, would you not at least consider that kind of
cool as YOUR math?
I discovered tautological spaces. They say that's not new or
interesting. But it's my math. I came up with my own definition of
mathematical proof. They say there are plenty of such definitions.
But I say, it's my math.
My math is the object ring. I find it interesting. I find my prime
residue axiom (even if you don't think it's an axiom, I do),
fascinating. With it I have a prime gap equation, which can predict
counts if twin primes, or other gaps. It's my math. I like it.
Result after result has intrigued me for years. Yes, some of those
results I feel *should* be important to others and I've said as much,
as, for instance, part of my math is showing the ring of algebraic
integers contradicting the field of complex numbers which I think
should interest SOMEONE, but they say, it's wrong. They say it's not
interesting. I say, it's my math.
So what is the mystery?
How can seemingly intelligent people keep doing the same thing over
and over again, year after year, without any change in the result?
I have lots of results that I call my math, which THEY say are all
worthless, useless or previously known. But I like them, because
they're my math.
Does anyone know why people would do the SAME THING year after year
after year after year without any change in the result?
If I'd stopped years ago when the first posters started on the endless
treadmill of trying to block free speech on Usenet by insulting me,
then I don't think I'd have my own prime counting function, nor my
object ring. I find it hard to believe I'd have my prime residue
axiom, or my tautological spaces.
But why would I listen to people who DO THE SAME THING YEAR AFTER YEAR
WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN THE RESULT?
How do some define insanity?
Would you have listened to them? Did you? Do you now?
They protected my research for years because they could block so many
of you worldwide off from fascinating mathematical concepts. Isn't
THAT intriguing?
I find it fascinating. How much of my math would have been your math
if that had not occurred? Thankfully that is a question that will
never be answered. History would have changed. But maybe it was all
fate. So many different things had to occur at just the right time,
including the rise of the Internet, the arrival of Google, and now the
dominance of Twitter.
Given what they knew at the time those posters had no way of knowing
that years later, some company called Google would arrive, and a
search on its search engine on the definition of mathematical proof
would bring up a page on my math blog as #1 for people all over the
world. Who knew? Who could have guessed?
Now I've been amused by those posters who do THE SAME THING YEAR AFTER
YEAR WITH THE SAME RESULT declaring boldly that Google search results
do not matter? Was I surprised by their assertions?
Nope.
Oh, so why are they still so confident? Seems they have a rather
naive definition of fame. Like most people they seem to think they
know it when they see it. They say my aim is fame (and maybe
fortune?) and that as long as I'm not famous by their standards then I
have nothing.
What small minds. As if fame is a motivator for someone like me.
James Harris
junoexpress
>
>
> So what gives? Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure,
> and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort. Um, but I
> have an entire blog of my math. I like it. They may claim that no
> one else does. And that my efforts are pointless and futile, and I
> wonder, why?
>
Because everybody loves a good laugh, and your one claim to fame is
that you are the longest running clown on the internet.
But you are OUR clown.
>
>
> My math is the object ring. I find it interesting. I find my prime
> residue axiom (even if you don't think it's an axiom, I do),
> fascinating. With it I have a prime gap equation, which can predict
> counts if twin primes, or other gaps. It's my math. I like it.
>
they're just smelly farts.
Then again though, I suppose small minds are awed by small little
discoveries.
Hope that clears things up for you,
M
MichaelW
James,
This post is about you. Therefore the responses you get are going to
be about you; not about your maths, but about you. If you want that
kind of response then keep making these kind of postings.
There are however some of us who wish to discuss maths for its own
sake. If you would like that kind of discussion (and after all that's
what sci.math is actually for) then post something that is primarily
mathematical in content. Just so long as your understand that once you
post here it is no longer your math but everyone's math.
To everyone else: yes, we all see the excessive personal pronoun
count, the irony of the insanity definition (IN UPPER CASE!) and the
silly Google search result statements. Let it go, people.
Michael W.
Jesse F. Hughes
> What small minds. As if fame is a motivator for someone like me.
Right. It's not about fame. It's about Oprah.
"Well, if I can get [my proof of FLT accepted], then I hopefully get a
book deal down the road, and maybe I get to go on 'Oprah'."
And who can blame you for that?
--
"So now, The Hammer is here, and with it, the end of days. The world will be
destroyed, and then remade, as foretold. You will be lost, with your
children, and then there will be others, and one day they will be tested, and
will pass, but that is another story." --James S Harris gets a bit excited.
Psychotic Embolism
news:90b2001d-71be-464d...@p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> I've been curious for years about hostile reactions to my postings,
you a idiotz
> and for lots of reasons, including in the past worrying that posters
> were working to block widespread acceptance of my research, which is a
there aint no research
> concern which has faded. It's not that I don't think negative claims
> against my work have an impact.
no work either
I think they do. It's just that I
> now see an advantage in the "blocking" as I see it, as it allows me to
> work on problems without being bothered with concerns of anyone
> stealing my ideas,
What do you call a deer with no eyes? No eye deer!!!!
>often for years at a time. Reality is that
Reality is a closed book, on an inaccessable shelf, in a locked room.
> mathematicians probably feel terror at the idea of continuing any of
> my research, knowing they will face outright hostility and rage in
> response. That protects my research directions.
You're a fat gay Nazi.
Kalkidas
I would say it's due to the overwhelming numbers of the words "I", "me" and
"my" in your posts.
OP
> I've been curious for years about hostile reactions to my postings,
> and for lots of reasons, including in the past worrying that posters
> were working to block widespread acceptance of my research, which is a
> concern which has faded. It's not that I don't think negative claims
> against my work have an impact. I think they do. It's just that I
> now see an advantage in the "blocking" as I see it, as it allows me to
> work on problems without being bothered with concerns of anyone
> stealing my ideas, often for years at a time. Reality is that
> mathematicians probably feel terror at the idea of continuing any of
> my research, knowing they will face outright hostility and rage in
> response. That protects my research directions.
[snip]
This entire post is complete bullshit. If you cared about your math
you'd be home doing math, not starting fights on Usenet and playing
games with other peoples' minds.
Jens Stuckelberger
> Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure,
> and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort.
Correct.
> Why do they keep doing the same thing over and over again without any
> change in the result?
Because you are too thick to understand it. Maybe if you are told
millions of times the idea will penetrate your little brain.
> My math is the object ring. I find it interesting. I find my prime
> residue axiom (even if you don't think it's an axiom, I do),
> fascinating. With it I have a prime gap equation, which can predict
> counts if twin primes, or other gaps. It's my math. I like it.
Nobody else does, which makes you a pathetic loser.
> How do some define insanity?
JSH = Insanity.
> As if fame is a motivator for someone like me.
But you are: You are the best punching bag in the net.
Jesse F. Hughes
>> How do some define insanity?
>
> JSH = Insanity.
>
>> As if fame is a motivator for someone like me.
>
> But you are: You are the best punching bag in the net.
These sorts of dull insults don't seem to be much exercise for you.
--
I'll take what you got and be satisfied.
Don't claim to be greedy or dignified.
All I need is you here by my side.
Nothin' special for me. -- Del McCoury Band
Jim Ferry
<Jens_Stuckelber...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:42:00 -0800, JSH wrote:
> > Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure,
> > and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Why do they keep doing the same thing over and over again without any
> > change in the result?
>
> Because you are too thick to understand it. Maybe if you are told
> millions of times the idea will penetrate your little brain.
There's no need to be insulting. It's a good question: why don't
people tire of telling James he's wrong? Surely it's not because they
think he'll say, "Oh, I see. How silly of me." Wouldn't that be as
quixotic as hoping to dig up a large diamond in your back yard or find
a simple proof of FLT?
> > My math is the object ring. I find it interesting. I find my prime
> > residue axiom (even if you don't think it's an axiom, I do),
> > fascinating. With it I have a prime gap equation, which can predict
> > counts if twin primes, or other gaps. It's my math. I like it.
>
> Nobody else does, which makes you a pathetic loser.
I'm not sure you have the expertise to assert that *nobody* else is
interested in the Harris's "object ring", or Musatov's axiom #19, or
the so-called "prime gap equation". (BTW, Musatov's axiom #19, which
James refers to as his "prime residue axiom", is in fact the work of
James Harris, and only got named after Musatov in one of those
historical accidents of attribution so common to mathematics.
Unfortunately the name has stuck, and it's far too late to correct it
now.)
> > How do some define insanity?
>
> JSH = Insanity.
Not a very good definition of insanity. Not all insane people are
obsessed with mathematical words and posting to Usenet.
> > As if fame is a motivator for someone like me.
>
> But you are: You are the best punching bag in the net.
Again, I dispute your expertise. The net is a big place.
rossum
>Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure,
>and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort.
You do yourself an injustice James. Your Prime Counting method works
(albeit slowly) as do your various Surrogate Factoring Methods, again
slowly.
You have also independently found other known results from (mostly)
19th century mathematics.
What you have not done is to establish a body of original work that
would justify your overblown and grandiose claims to mathematical
stardom.
>Even more intriguingly, they claim I am the one who does that, but
>today I have my prime counting function. It counts primes. It
>works.
All true, as I said above.
>They say, it's not new or interesting, but to me, it is my
>math.
It is not new, it is a minor variant of an existing formula. It was
indeed new to you because you appear not to have studied the work of
your predecessors: Lagrange, Dirichlet, Euler, Laplace, Galois, Gauss
etc. If you do that then you will be able to avoid areas that have
already been worked on and find something new to look at.
>I have lots of results that I call my math, which THEY say are all
>worthless, useless or previously known. But I like them, because
>they're my math.
You are prefectly entitled to like them. We are equally entitled not
to like them. Our opinion differs from yours. We see them as useless
(often because they are too slow) or previously known.
I suggest that you learn more 19th century mathematics so you can
avoid the "previously known" criticism. You can easily check what is
already known and find something not previously known to work at.
rossum
harry
> and for lots of reasons, including in the past worrying that posters
> were working to block widespread acceptance of my research, which is a
> concern which has faded. It's not that I don't think negative claims
> against my work have an impact. I think they do. It's just that I
> now see an advantage in the "blocking" as I see it, as it allows me to
> work on problems without being bothered with concerns of anyone
> stealing my ideas, often for years at a time. Reality is that
> mathematicians probably feel terror at the idea of continuing any of
> my research, knowing they will face outright hostility and rage in
> response. That protects my research directions.
WRONG. Your research is self-blocking.
>
> However it does remain puzzling, as one benefit I've gained over the
> years has been the gift of just being occupied with my various
> mathematical musings, which I've noted are of great interest to me.
> To be upfront, I even call it, my math. I even named my math blog, my
> math. It IS my math.
Ravings of a underempolyed troll.
>
> Now some will berate me for posting about my math musings as if it's
> this terrible thing for me to put it forward as important when I think
> it's important. Which doesn't seem to work I've noticed. Somehow
> posts still seem to keep coming out about my math despite their
> efforts, despite years of trying by them, and many more besides them,
> most of whom years ago gave up.
Not so. Your math is unimportant, and wrong.
> So what gives? Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure,
> and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort. Um, but I
> have an entire blog of my math. I like it. They may claim that no
> one else does. And that my efforts are pointless and futile, and I
> wonder, why?
You like your blog, no one else does.
How many people post that they like your work?
>
> If I say I like keeping myself occupied and have done so with my math,
> how can they claim that my efforts are pointless and futile as they
> continue to work at convincing me to stop posting, when after over a
> decade such efforts have failed?
yes, they have failed, because you math is monkey-math, troll math, loaded
with math errors
> Why do they keep doing the same thing over and over again without any
> change in the result?
you projecting again?
>
> Even more intriguingly, they claim I am the one who does that, but
> today I have my prime counting function. It counts primes. It
> works. They say, it's not new or interesting, but to me, it is my
> math. If you had your own three-dimensional prime counting function,
> a P(x,y) function while the math world still has a pi(x), two-
> dimensional function, would you not at least consider that kind of
> cool as YOUR math?
trivial, and you copied it from the internet.
> I discovered tautological spaces. They say that's not new or
> interesting. But it's my math. I came up with my own definition of
> mathematical proof. They say there are plenty of such definitions.
> But I say, it's my math.
...yawn......
>
> My math is the object ring. I find it interesting. I find my prime
> residue axiom (even if you don't think it's an axiom, I do),
> fascinating. With it I have a prime gap equation, which can predict
> counts if twin primes, or other gaps. It's my math. I like it.
>
> Result after result has intrigued me for years. Yes, some of those
> results I feel *should* be important to others and I've said as much,
> as, for instance, part of my math is showing the ring of algebraic
> integers contradicting the field of complex numbers which I think
> should interest SOMEONE, but they say, it's wrong. They say it's not
> interesting. I say, it's my math.
It is not interesting. Deal with it.
>
> So what is the mystery?
>
> How can seemingly intelligent people keep doing the same thing over
> and over again, year after year, without any change in the result?
Yes you are projecting again.
>
> I have lots of results that I call my math, which THEY say are all
> worthless, useless or previously known. But I like them, because
> they're my math.
my math = jsh mistakes
>
> Does anyone know why people would do the SAME THING year after year
> after year after year without any change in the result?
because you have NPD.
>
> If I'd stopped years ago when the first posters started on the endless
> treadmill of trying to block free speech on Usenet by insulting me,
> then I don't think I'd have my own prime counting function, nor my
> object ring. I find it hard to believe I'd have my prime residue
> axiom, or my tautological spaces.
>
> But why would I listen to people who DO THE SAME THING YEAR AFTER YEAR
> WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN THE RESULT?
You, JSH HAVE NPD.
>
> How do some define insanity?
>
> Would you have listened to them? Did you? Do you now?
They are all saying they *HATE* you.
>
> They protected my research for years because they could block so many
> of you worldwide off from fascinating mathematical concepts. Isn't
> THAT intriguing?
Not really, you just stinking troll.
>
> I find it fascinating. How much of my math would have been your math
> if that had not occurred? Thankfully that is a question that will
> never be answered. History would have changed. But maybe it was all
> fate. So many different things had to occur at just the right time,
> including the rise of the Internet, the arrival of Google, and now the
> dominance of Twitter.
Ever make any money using your math? Nope. Because it is worthless.
>
> Given what they knew at the time those posters had no way of knowing
> that years later, some company called Google would arrive, and a
> search on its search engine on the definition of mathematical proof
> would bring up a page on my math blog as #1 for people all over the
> world. Who knew? Who could have guessed?
Spoof, not proof.
>
> Now I've been amused by those posters who do THE SAME THING YEAR AFTER
> YEAR WITH THE SAME RESULT declaring boldly that Google search results
> do not matter? Was I surprised by their assertions?
>
> Nope.
>
> Oh, so why are they still so confident? Seems they have a rather
> naive definition of fame. Like most people they seem to think they
> know it when they see it. They say my aim is fame (and maybe
> fortune?) and that as long as I'm not famous by their standards then I
> have nothing.
>
> What small minds. As if fame is a motivator for someone like me.
It is the only motovater for you, NPDer.
>
>
> James Harris
We at sci.math, and sci.physics feel sorry for you. To see such a mind
wasted by NPD, instead of discovering real things, too bad, so sorry for you
and those that have to live around you.
Amy
5% indicated high NPD
I, my, me,
46+37+10 = 93
93/354 = 26.2% !!!
JSH has a New All Time High of 26.2% NPD ratio !!!!!!
http://narcissistic-personality.suite101.com/article.cfm/narcissistic_disorder_diagnosis
Way to go James!
Unique words:354 Total words:1064
Freq. Word
46 I
37 MY
31 THE
30 IT
29 OF
23 THEY
22 MATH
20 THAT
19 TO
16 AND
16 HAVE
13 AS
13 S
12 A
11 FOR
10 IS
10 ME
10 YEARS
10 SAY
10 YEAR
9 DO
9 BUT
8 IF
8 AFTER
8 WOULD
8 NOT
7 IN
7 OVER
7 THINK
7 RESULT
7 YOU
7 WHICH
7 SO
6 LIKE
6 ARE
6 ON
6 SAME
6 WITH
6 PRIME
6 THING
6 AT
6 VE
5 ANY
5 BY
5 NOW
5 WHO
5 WITHOUT
5 FUNCTION
5 OR
5 POSTERS
5 WHY
5 PEOPLE
5 T
4 MATHEMATICAL
4 BEEN
4 EVEN
4 WORK
4 HOW
4 SOME
4 HAS
4 CHANGE
4 AN
4 WHEN
4 EFFORTS
4 DOES
4 THEM
4 INTERESTING
4 MANY
4 HAD
4 RESEARCH
4 FIND
4 WHAT
4 CLAIM
3 SEEM
3 CAN
3 STILL
3 KEEP
3 THEIR
3 SEE
3 DON
3 BE
3 COUNTING
3 TIME
3 UP
3 ABOUT
3 BLOG
3 WILL
3 YOUR
3 OWN
3 JUST
3 DEFINITION
3 RING
3 ONE
3 AXIOM
3 FASCINATING
3 THOSE
3 RESULTS
3 IMPORTANT
3 BLOCK
3 ALL
3 D
3 GOOGLE
3 SEARCH
3 FAME
2 AGO
2 MUSINGS
2 KNOWING
2 COUNTS
2 PRIMES
2 NEW
2 INTEREST
2 M
2 ANYONE
2 NOTHING
2 INCLUDING
2 CALL
2 DIMENSIONAL
2 X
2 WORLD
2 NO
2 TAUTOLOGICAL
2 SPACES
2 POINTLESS
2 PROOF
2 OBJECT
2 FUTILE
2 DESPITE
2 RESIDUE
2 BEING
2 FEEL
2 TRYING
2 OCCUPIED
2 SHOULD
2 MUCH
2 SOMEONE
2 SUCH
2 DOING
2 POSTING
2 BECAUSE
2 KNOW
2 AGAIN
2 THEN
2 COULD
2 MAYBE
2 WAS
2 LOTS
2 KNEW
2 MORE
2 MOST
1 THESE
1 ROUTINELY
1 TELL
1 RAGE
1 FAILURE
1 RESPONSE
1 PROTECTS
1 SHOW
1 EFFORT
1 UM
1 DIRECTIONS
1 ENTIRE
1 HOWEVER
1 MAY
1 CONCERN
1 ELSE
1 REMAIN
1 PUZZLING
1 WONDER
1 HOSTILE
1 BENEFIT
1 KEEPING
1 MYSELF
1 DONE
1 GAINED
1 FADED
1 CONTINUE
1 CONVINCING
1 STOP
1 GIFT
1 DECADE
1 REASONS
1 FAILED
1 VARIOUS
1 ADVANTAGE
1 BLOCKING
1 NOTED
1 WERE
1 INTRIGUINGLY
1 AM
1 GREAT
1 TODAY
1 ALLOWS
1 WORKING
1 UPFRONT
1 POSTINGS
1 PROBLEMS
1 WORKS
1 WIDESPREAD
1 NAMED
1 ACCEPTANCE
1 BOTHERED
1 BERATE
1 NEGATIVE
1 CONCERNS
1 THREE
1 THIS
1 P
1 TERRIBLE
1 Y
1 WHILE
1 CLAIMS
1 PI
1 TWO
1 PUT
1 LEAST
1 CONSIDER
1 KIND
1 COOL
1 DISCOVERED
1 FORWARD
1 STEALING
1 CAME
1 IDEAS
1 DOESN
1 THERE
1 PLENTY
1 DEFINITIONS
1 OFTEN
1 NOTICED
1 SOMEHOW
1 POSTS
1 AGAINST
1 REACTIONS
1 GAP
1 EQUATION
1 PREDICT
1 TWIN
1 OTHER
1 GAPS
1 INTRIGUED
1 YES
1 COMING
1 OUT
1 REALITY
1 OTHERS
1 SAID
1 MATHEMATICIANS
1 INSTANCE
1 PART
1 SHOWING
1 ALGEBRAIC
1 INTEGERS
1 CONTRADICTING
1 FIELD
1 COMPLEX
1 NUMBERS
1 PROBABLY
1 WRONG
1 MYSTERY
1 SEEMINGLY
1 INTELLIGENT
1 CURIOUS
1 TERROR
1 IDEA
1 WORTHLESS
1 USELESS
1 PREVIOUSLY
1 KNOWN
1 CONTINUING
1 RE
1 PAST
1 BESIDES
1 STOPPED
1 FIRST
1 STARTED
1 ENDLESS
1 TREADMILL
1 FREE
1 SPEECH
1 USENET
1 INSULTING
1 IMPACT
1 NOR
1 HARD
1 BELIEVE
1 LISTEN
1 DEFINE
1 INSANITY
1 LISTENED
1 DID
1 PROTECTED
1 WHOM
1 WORLDWIDE
1 OFF
1 FROM
1 CONCEPTS
1 ISN
1 INTRIGUING
1 OCCURRED
1 THANKFULLY
1 QUESTION
1 NEVER
1 ANSWERED
1 HISTORY
1 CHANGED
1 WORRYING
1 GAVE
1 FATE
1 DIFFERENT
1 THINGS
1 OCCUR
1 RIGHT
1 RISE
1 INTERNET
1 ARRIVAL
1 FACE
1 DOMINANCE
1 TWITTER
1 GIVEN
1 OUTRIGHT
1 WAY
1 LATER
1 COMPANY
1 CALLED
1 ARRIVE
1 HOSTILITY
1 ITS
1 ENGINE
1 BRING
1 PAGE
1 GUESSED
1 AMUSED
1 DECLARING
1 BOLDLY
1 MATTER
1 SURPRISED
1 ASSERTIONS
1 NOPE
1 OH
1 CONFIDENT
1 SEEMS
1 RATHER
1 NAIVE
1 GIVES
1 AIM
1 FORTUNE
1 LONG
1 FAMOUS
1 STANDARDS
1 SMALL
1 MINDS
1 MOTIVATOR
1 JAMES
1 HARRIS
porky_...@my-deja.com
probably listened "I me mine" too many times.
harry
<porky_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:545ee344-380f-4b92...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
his mama would sing it to him every night too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01UipbZL3ww
Bacle
> to my postings,
>
> So what is the mystery?
This is it: you are an ASSHOLE, you are abusive, and you repeatedly insult others.
The real mistery is: why do you expect to be treated better than you treat others.?
>
> How can seemingly intelligent people keep doing the
> same thing over
> and over again, year after year, without any change
> in the result?
You are getting back what you dished out. Not only
are you a failure as a mathematician, but you are a failure as a person.
>
> I have lots of results that I call my math, which
> THEY say are all
> worthless, useless or previously known. But I like
> them, because
> they're my math.
>
>
Then go do _your_ math by _yourself_ , or go do it with _your_ imaginary friends --the only "people" who can stand you.
It is ridiculous for you to post "your math" publicly here, and then whine when others comment negatively on it.
> James Harris.
Go fuck yourself, you worthless asshole.
JSH
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:42:00 -0800 (PST), JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure,
> >and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort.
>
> You do yourself an injustice James. Your Prime Counting method works
> (albeit slowly) as do your various Surrogate Factoring Methods, again
> slowly.
>
> You have also independently found other known results from (mostly)
> 19th century mathematics.
>
> What you have not done is to establish a body of original work that
> would justify your overblown and grandiose claims to mathematical
> stardom.
Oh, I don't want mathematical stardom. It's not cool.
See I figured out what kind of places I'd end up with various kinds of
"stardom" as you put it, and at the bottom of the barrel is
mathematical "stardom".
Sorry but getting famous for math is lame. It's not cool.
James Harris
MichaelW
Perhaps then you could clarify your thinking on rossum's main point
(which has been mine as well). Do you agree that your "mymath"
independently reproduces existing work? Your postings up to now have
been ambiguous.
Thanks, Michael W.
JSH
Like what?
MichaelW
Well your "prime residue axiom" was proven by Poissen in 1896.
Your "twin primes probability function" is a variant of the Prime
Number Theorem.
Regards, Michael W.
Arturo Magidin
> Well your "prime residue axiom" was proven by Poissen in 1896.
Do you mean de la Vallee Poussin? His last name is "de la Vallee
Poussin"; his given names were Charles Jean.
He proved that the density of the set of primes congruent to a modulo
d is asymptotic to x/phi(d)log(x); I would say that Chebotarev's
Density Theorem is a better fit, but I can see how you can connect it
to this.
--
Arturo Magidin
MichaelW
Yep, that's the guy; shows what happens when I don't check my
spelling.
Chebotarev if I understand correctly (which I might not) generalises
the question of density so definitely a better fit. On the other hand
for the purposes of this discussion de la Vallee Poussin is more
obviously matching James' ideas since if d is prime (as it is in
James' axiom) then 1/phi(d) = 1/(d-1) which leads to the terms used in
the twin primes probability function.
Regards, Michael W.
JSH
Twin primes proof follows with a short argument from the prime residue
axiom.
> Your "twin primes probability function" is a variant of the Prime
> Number Theorem.
Actually I separated out the prime distribution, which makes for a
simpler twin primes probability calculation!
The prime distribution is NOT random, so there has been confusion when
it is mixed in with twin primes, like by working with the twin primes
distribution itself. By separating out the random portion I answered
several mysteries about primes, as there has long been a sense that
SOMETHING about them IS random.
I show what that something is.
Also note that the prime residue axiom leads to the prime gap
equation, which handles prime gaps of arbitrary even length.
So you can DO more with the prime residue axiom.
It is intriguing though that posters have alternated between claiming
the prime residue axiom is NOT true, and claiming that it is already
proven, which says something about the power of human denial.
Here the math newsgroups are arguing both sides! Fascinating.
Oh, and one can come up with a rather powerful argument disproving
Goldbach's Conjecture with the prime residue axiom, though I've
disliked that notion for years, so I've pondered at times ways around
it!
But that just may denial of my own.
James Harris
MichaelW
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding arguing both sides I would say
that this shows that sometimes people can be mistaken. The consensus
is heading towards Arturo's excellent summary in response to my
previous post (which also corrected my spelling speaking of being
mistaken).
My view for what it's worth is that your axiom is a specific case of
something that was proved much more generally around the turn of the
previous century. Your stuff about "random" merely demonstrates you
don't understand what the term means. The twin primes probability
function is incorrect as it leaves out an important constant.
If you like I will give you clear steps on how to improve your work,
although it will require you to do some self-education.
Regards, Michael W.
William Hughes
<snip>
> It is intriguing though that posters have alternated between claiming
> the prime residue axiom is NOT true, and claiming that it is already
> proven, which says something about the power of human denial.
Another hypothesis is that there is confusion about
what the "prime residue axiom" says.
Note:
The residues are uniform. This is well known
The residues are not random. This is well known
Do not bother pointing out that there is no way to
predict a given residue. If all sequences were
either random or perfectly predictable
you would have a point. However, there are many non random
sequences that are not perfectly predictable.
- William Hughes
Michael Stemper
>On Mar 8, 8:42=A0pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So what gives? =A0Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure,
>> and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort. =A0Um, but I
>> have an entire blog of my math. =A0I like it. =A0They may claim that no
>> one else does. =A0And that my efforts are pointless and futile, and I
>> wonder, why?
>>
>Why did "I love Lucy" run for so long or "Friends"?
>Because everybody loves a good laugh, and your one claim to fame is
>that you are the longest running clown on the internet.
And Robert E. McElwaine wanders off, muttering, "I coulda been a contender."
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.
JSH
People on math newsgroups arguing two contradictory opinions is just
interesting.
It's predictable though, as I've noted repeatedly that proof doesn't
matter with many of you.
So of course you can quite comfortably have a situation where some
posters say the prime residue axiom is wrong, while others claim it's
not new, without any discomfort to any of you.
> My view for what it's worth is that your axiom is a specific case of
> something that was proved much more generally around the turn of the
> previous century. Your stuff about "random" merely demonstrates you
> don't understand what the term means. The twin primes probability
> function is incorrect as it leaves out an important constant.
If I'm right "random" may be defined by prime residues relative to
other primes.
Which could mean that in reality itself THAT is where "random" is
born.
Believe me, if that is true, your opinion one way or the other is
irrelevant.
But I also think it kind of, well, not as much fun as it not being
true.
Sort of scary if numbers control reality to that extent.
> If you like I will give you clear steps on how to improve your work,
> although it will require you to do some self-education.
>
> Regards, Michael W.
Feel free. I dare you. I think it will add to interesting material
for historians!!!
James Harris
MichaelW
(1) Please try and understand the meaning of the term axiom. An axiom
is not proved. If what appears to be an axiom can be derived from
other axioms then it is not an axoim.
(2) In order to meaningfully discuss the distribution of primes then
you need to be across current mathematical knowledge including (but
not limited to) the prime number theorem, the zeta function,
techniques to solve prime probability functions etc. See the
references for (2). The first is very hard but provides links to Wiki
for most of the terms and techniques used and is an excellent example
of the sort of quality and knowledge and clarity to which you should
aspire if you wish to speak with authority in this area. The second is
less rigorous but easier to follow.
(3) Your prime probability function is a variant of a Euler product.
Let us take a generalised instance:
M(i=k to n) (p_i + a) / (p_i + b)
where k is chosen so that p_i + a and p_i + b are always greater than
zero. Your probability function is a particular case of a=-2, b=-1 and
k=2.
My generalised instance approaches the following as n -> infinity:
c(a,b) * ln(p_n)^(a-b)
where c(a,b) is some constant that varies with a and b. For your
function c(-2.-1) ~ 0.7413... and so your probability function
approaches
0.7413/ln(p_n)
From here it is possible to create any number of twin prime counting
functions (or more generally counting for any gap). For example I came
up with
pi2(p_n^2) ~ c*n^2
where c is a constant ~0.29... I am certain that this is a known
result.
(4) Your twin prime counting function is consistently out by a
multiplicative factor of about 1.12... This is because use are making
an assumption about the probability function that is not true. In
particular when determining its value you need to use certain
techniques similar to those in the second reference for (2); resolving
differential equations and allowing for constants. Apart from that the
function is in fact correct and it has been a disappointment that you
have not been able to follow this when it is pointed out to you.
Claiming it is due to statistical variation makes you look like
someone in the sort of denial you often accuse others of. No
references but I encourage you to write some code for yourself to test
this and the points I have made in (3). As a first step generate a
file of prime numbers and then run some checks.
References
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
(2) http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/the-prime-number-theorem-in-arithmetic-progressions-and-dueling-conspiracies/
and
http://cnx.org/content/m12764/latest/
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_product Note especially the
way the zeta function keeps appearing.
Regards, Michael W.
JSH
But what's the correlation?
I mean, dude, you're not making any sense. Nothing you put in the
post can handle just that simple question which shows all you put is
crap.
Can you connect the dots?
What's the correlation?
James Harris
Mark Murray
> But what's the correlation?
>
> I mean, dude, you're not making any sense. Nothing you put in the
> post can handle just that simple question which shows all you put is
> crap.
>
> Can you connect the dots?
>
> What's the correlation?
Michael,
Do you need any more convincing that James is not interested in learning
anything?
This will be provided on request :-).
M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
MichaelW
The intention was that you spent several hours doing some study but
perhaps that was not a reasonable expectation.
The point of (3) is that any function of the form M(i=1 to n)(p_i + m -1)/
(p_i + m) will approximate to c/ln(p_n) where c is some constant.
The point of (2) among other things is that the PNT tells us that for any
sufficiently large number n the prime density near n approaches 1/ln(n).
By extension the density of twin primes is proportional to 1/ln(n)^2.
The point of (4) is that your twin prime counting function (as you give
it in your examples) multiplies the local prime density (1/ln(p)) by the
probability function (c/ln(p)) to get a solution that is proportional to
the actual density of twin primes. The actual proportion is the value
1.12.... This of course is close enough to 1 to enable you to provide
examples where the count and the prediction match over small intervals.
Note: strictly speaking you take the density around p^2. This is 1/ln
(p^2) = .5/ln(p) so the point remains; feel free to work it through.
Therefore any probability function which multiplies out a term like this:
(p_i +m-1)/(p_i +m)
up to p_n will, when multiplied against the number of primes around p_n
(or indeed a power of p_n) will give approximately the same proportion
against the number of twin (or gap 4 or gap 6 etc) primes in the interval
for any large p_n.
With a sufficiently large interval (say 100,000+) the effect is quite
noticeable to three decimal places.
In my last post I typed (but then deleted) a prediction that you briefly
read my post and then immediately dismiss it. In my experience (and I
note Mark's comment to your response) this is the typical response when
the maths gets too difficult for you. I do believe that your energies
would be better spent learning what has been happening in the field.
I am glad you mentioned the correlation. I have always found the
interrelatedness of natural logs, primes, sums of reciprocals and
calculus in this area to be fascinating to the point of being like music
to me. My hope is that will learn to get the same sense.
Regards, Michael W.
harry
"MichaelW" <ms...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b99...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
don't waste your time. JSH is pure Troll. He cuts and copies off the
internet.
JSH
But what's the correlation?
> I am glad you mentioned the correlation. I have always found the
Yeah, and you didn't answer.
> interrelatedness of natural logs, primes, sums of reciprocals and
> calculus in this area to be fascinating to the point of being like music
> to me. My hope is that will learn to get the same sense.
Ok, I'll try to help you out a little further then if you DO actually
find the subject fascinating.
The probability calculation I give uses the count of primes in the
interval p_{j-1}^2 to p_j^2, as that calculation requires the use of
the primes from p_j down. As you multiply the count of primes in that
interval by:
prob = ((p_j - 2)/(p_j -1))*((p_{j-1} - 2)/(p_{j-1} - 1))*...*(1/2)
to get the expected count of twin primes
which makes it an ENORMOUS simplification on the prior art with
respect to twin primes!
I've *claimed* that the closeness of the count is related to the
distance p_j - p_{j-1}, with the hypothesis that the GREATER that
distance the more accurate the probability, while the LESSER that
distance the less accurate it is (it's actually far worse than 1.12 in
fact with larger primes), with the worst being with ***twin primes***
p_j and p_{j-1}, when the primes are large.
Now to me that's just the kind of fun assertion that a true student of
math might find interesting as presumably the primes do SOMETHING when
you look at them in that way.
Now I'm giving you a chance to see that correlation thingy upfront and
personal. To feel the mathematics like a living breathing even
musical presence, since you made a musical claim.
To maybe even get that ephemeral sense that you're in touch with the
mind of God.
Or you can reply with some typical bullshit and claim that I'm the one
in denial.
But at the end, who cares what you do. Others can see for themselves,
and understand why primes are so fascinating in a new way. They can
get a personal feel for the primes. Like they're close friends.
James Harris
MichaelW
Given that two other posters have already seen what I am saying and
warned me you would not get it then it is reasonable to assert that you
simply don't understand the maths and lack either the will or the ability
to ever do so.
The correlation was explained; you just don't get it.
You made a claim about the accuracy between two primes. The accuracy is
in fact best when the gap between p_(j-1) and p_j is close to ln(j). Your
claim simply reinforces the fact that you don't understand what you are
doing.
You also claim an enormous simplification. Actually using the maths you
have ignored I give an even simpler expression: the number of twin primes
between (p_n)^2 and (p_(n+1))^2 equals c*n where c ~ .582...
You can't help me go further until you catch up. Currently your knowledge
of primes is roughly in the early 19th century with gaps.
James, you pushed back when people claimed that you were interested in
fame. There are now three claims on this thread that you are uninterested
in learning anything, my own included, and your behaviour has only
provided clear evidence. How many times do I have to improve, clarify,
generalise or simplify your work until you understand?
Regards, Michael W.
JSH
> James,
>
> Given that two other posters have already seen what I am saying and
> warned me you would not get it then it is reasonable to assert that you
> simply don't understand the maths and lack either the will or the ability
> to ever do so.
>
> The correlation was explained; you just don't get it.
Then try again.
This time use the word "correlation" in your explanation.
James Harris
David Bernier
It would help me to understand what you say better if you gave:
(a) your hypotheses.
(b) your conclusions.
(c) the logic which leads from (a) to (b) [ the proof] .
David Bernier
Jim Ferry
> I've been curious for years about hostile reactions to my postings,
> Why do they keep doing the same thing over and over again without any
> Even more intriguingly, they claim I am the one who does that, but
I too am curious, puzzled by those who criticize me for loving the
Earth. The scent of pine needles simmering on a summer morning. The
shock of the clouds clearing to reveal the mountain now vast and
lowering. The blue and limitless ocean. And, above all, the
limitless sky. Oh, the sky! The question is not why I rhapsodize,
but why you do not. I find it fascinating. It's as if there is
something wrong with human nature itself. To me, this is even more
intriguing than the mystery of the puzzling flaws with gravity. Why
objects sometimes fall sideways, or up, or at times float on the air
and slowly drift. Though curious, it is human behavior I find more
curious still. "You're going to have to face facts sometime, Jimbo."
"I'll explain again -- slowly: we're on a colony ship, ten light
years and 100 generations from home." "Let's practice our reality
therapy, James. Is this a cup of water... or an ocean?" It is hard
to keep from laughing. These people... they're such city folk,
enamored of nothing so much as a cubicle or corridor. Why -- it is so
puzzling -- why won't they come walk with me on the sand, by the roar
of the surf, under the warm yellow sun?
JSH
It's an invite to an experiment dude.
You may already know that you can get a fairly good estimate of how
many primes between p_{j-1}^2 and p_j^2 are twin primes with a
probability calculation on the count of primes.
For instance:
prob = ((p_j - 2)/(p_j -1))*((p_{j-1} - 2)/(p_{j-1} - 1))*...*(1/2)
For example, between 5^2 and 7^2, there are 6 primes. The probability
then is given by:
prob = ((5-2)/(5-1))*((3-2)/(3-1) = (3/4)*(1/2) = 0.375
And 6*0.375 = 2.25 so you expect 2 twin primes in that interval. And
they are 29, 31 and 41, 43.
But that's old news! The experiment comes in with that distance 7-5 =
2, which is the closest you can be, and what I'm saying is that you
can look to see how well the probability does with that distance, and
there has to be an answer, right?
You could find the distance has no correlation with the accuracy,
which I'm saying won't happen!
But if it does, why? Why should it matter to the prime numbers how
far apart the primes are that define the interval for this simplified
twin primes probability calculation? Why?
I've actually presented the poster "MichaelW" with this before, and he
dodged the question, which is how I know he's a big fat liar. He
blows a lot of hot air but if you trust him you're an idiot.
He hides behind that 1.12 number as if it's the full story, but
there's detail in the granularity, when you get down to how the primes
behave depending on the distance between the two primes that define
the interval.
Hey, even if you think there's nothing there. It's an easy enough
thing to calculate if you're really bored.
James Harris
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
James, you are not acting like a polite and a responsible person.
MichaelW's post is very polite and responsible. I can understand what
he is saying and I don't find it to be "crap", as you put it.
I am new to your discussions, but maybe being rude to those, who try
to help, could account for one's problem finding any friends?
>
> Can you connect the dots?
>
> What's the correlation?
>
Correlation between which two random variables? You should be
specific.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
James,
Are you familiar with the work of a gentleman who seems to have really
discovered the true nature of prime numbers. Maybe you can borrow his
powerful results to help you deal with your twin primes issues:
On Mar 12, 12:53 pm, Inverse 19 mathematics <hope9...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> BRIEFLY PUT AT NOW
>
> 1. Genesis and Circlage points
>
> The genesis of Prime numbers is in 1/6 , and mainly results from the
> mathematical fusion at 3:4 numbers because of -1. The Introduction of
> of 0.166666666666(11), and 0.8333333333(11) into proportions starts
> the prime numbers as. Circilager points are where Prime numbers are
> formed , these have been shown patentbby us as sets of 36 , and 6
> apart , with delineation of pseudo prime numbers in those sets
>
> 2/3 is at 0.66666666667(11)
>
> 3/4 is at 0.75.
>
> 4/5 is at 0.8 precise
>
> 0.75-0.666666666667 = 0.0833333333333(11)
>
> 0.8-0.75 = 0.05
>
> 0.083333333333(11)/0.05 = 1.66666666666667(11) (5/6 and 1/6) . All
> prime numbers/ pseudo primes leave this residue by divisor 6
>
> 0.05/.083333333333(11) =0.60000000002(2) , very precise at (11) ,,
> FOR IT DIVIDES ALL SUBSEQUENT NUMBERS AT GAPS OF1/6 AND DIVISIBLE BY
> NUMBER 6 , AS
>
> PRIMALITY( PRIME NUMBER OR PSEUDO LOOK ALIKE PRIME NUMBER
>
> We have formalized 5 different methods, but thes basically
> involves
>
> (a) . A formula to identify each prime number to be tested as to
> which 36+1 set it belongs in, these sets have been recorded before and
> are absolute. We can at this moment absolutlyy do upto 200 prime
> numbers.
>
> (b) A formula to determine Divisors at specific sets of prime
> numbers, for example set 36 will have X Yor Z orZz divisor
>
> (c) In our methods division on ly once lead to prime number and ifhat
> is a prime number id does not divide further . Isolated Psuedo prime
> numbers divide twice or several times
>
> All this seems simple enough and is simple , we have total proof and
> record of every thing except a few secret formulas at sci math , and
> we will publish the NEW Inverse 19 Mathematics in June along with five
> different primality formulas
>
> HOPE RESEARCH : In the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ . We
> respect all persons and all religions
>
> Vinoo Cameron , and Theo Denotter (1:1)
>
Mark Murray
> ... How many times do I have to improve, clarify,
> generalise or simplify your work until you understand?
Very occaisionally, James does "get it", but this is a rare ocurrence
indeed.
This has been an interesting debate. I've learned enough about the
discussed topics (from you!) to become interested in reading further.
James has simply provided my morning entertainment, along with the daily
cartoons and other trivia that I follow.
James, Michael, Thank You!
MichaelW
James, if I understand you there is now a new claim which you posted late
in this thread and which is new to me. If you think this is important
then you should probably started a new thread.
As I understand it you are saying that for the square of any two adjacent
primes (call them q1 = (p_j)^2 and q2=(p_(j+1))^2 we have two numbers:
t1 = the actual number of twin prime pairs between q1 and q2 and
t2 = prob function for p_j times the number of primes between q1 and q2
Now you give t2 as a prediction of t1. I have stated that as j ->
infinity that t2 = t1 * 1.12...
My understanding now is that you are indicating that the accuracy of the
prediction (that is, the variation between t2 and t1) is correlated to
the difference between the primes (that is, p_(j+1) - p_j).
I have some scripts that I can run to do the proposed experiment but you
will need to give me a couple of days due to Real Life commitments. In
the meantime could you let me know (1) if I have accurately represented
your position as summarised here:
<quote>
You could find the distance has no correlation with the accuracy, which
I'm saying won't happen!
</quote>
Also (2) what I would do is run the analysis for j ranging from (say)
1000 to 2000 and for each gap (that is, for 2,4,6...) where there is a
significant sample size (say 10 in this case) give the average accuracy.
Would you consider this an adequate sampling approach?
Finally regarding this:
> I've actually presented the poster "MichaelW" with this before, and he
> dodged the question, which is how I know he's a big fat liar. He blows
> a lot of hot air but if you trust him you're an idiot.
I don't think I have dodged the question. It's your conjecture; you
should do your own damned code. Out of the kindness of my heart I have
provided a development proposal.
The other inaccuracy is what I'm blowing; that's not air dude. It is true
that anyone who trusts me is an idiot. That is why I provide references
to the good work of small skinny honest people.
Regards, Michael W.
MichaelW
The following functions:
<list>
1+1/2+1/3+1/4...
M(over primes p):(p-k)/(p-k-1)
Natural logarithms and by extension the prime number theorem
Riemann zeta function for s=1
</list>
are all *correlated* in that they are variants of the same thing.
Analytics that work on any one can be used to obtain greater
understanding of the others.
Regards, Michael W.
P.S. You can stop there but for further technical clarification I provide
the following:
Note that I am not saying that they are exactly equal; there may be the
addition or multiplication of a constant or equality comes as numbers
increase.
Since these all represent approaches to the density of primes then by
extension the density of twin primes can be calculated by combining any
two. For example in your algorithm you combine the second (probability
function) and the third (when you count the number of primes between two
points).
Personally I prefer combining the third with itself (i.e. Hardy-
Littlewood) but as noted this is not a *different* approach rather a
different toolset on the *same* approach.
JSH
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:18:22 -0800, JSH wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 5:43 pm, MichaelW <ms...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> >> James,
>
> >> Given that two other posters have already seen what I am saying and
> >> warned me you would not get it then it is reasonable to assert that you
> >> simply don't understand the maths and lack either the will or the
> >> ability to ever do so.
>
> >> The correlation was explained; you just don't get it.
>
> > Then try again.
>
> > This time use the word "correlation" in your explanation.
>
> > James Harris
>
> The following functions:
>
> <list>
> 1+1/2+1/3+1/4...
>
> M(over primes p):(p-k)/(p-k-1)
>
> Natural logarithms and by extension the prime number theorem
>
> Riemann zeta function for s=1
> </list>
>
> are all *correlated* in that they are variants of the same thing.
> Analytics that work on any one can be used to obtain greater
> understanding of the others.
My idea rips the prime distribution out of the equation.
THAT is MY point which you seem intent on ignoring or missing over and
over and over again.
So no, it doesn't correlate with ANYTHING you mentioned and the
correlation is a well-defined value when you're talking about a
predicted value and an actual value. Here you seem to not be sure
what that entity is.
I suggest you read up on it!
Notice that my twin primes probability probability calculation works
by taking the ACTUAL COUNT of prime numbers in the interval p_{j-1}^2
to p_j^2, and multiplying times:
prob = ((p_j - 2)/(p_j -1))*((p_{j-1} - 2)/(p_{j-1} - 1))*...*(1/2)
For example:
For example, between 5^2 and 7^2, there are 6 primes. The probability
then is given by:
prob = ((5-2)/(5-1))*((3-2)/(3-1) = (3/4)*(1/2) = 0.375
And 6*0.375 = 2.25 so you expect 2 sets of twin primes in that
interval.
And those twin primes are 29, 31 and 41, 43.
Got it? It's SIMPLE!!! IDIOT SIMPLE!!!!!!!
Since the result equals prediction correlation is 1. But that's just
one example, and you need to do a lot of them, where I've predicted a
potential relationship with the distance p_j - p_{j-1}.
So I'm suggesting there are interesting questions raised by this
simple technique which has a correlation--I think--which indicates
something by traditional theories of probability and statistics.
That is, I'm appealing to mainstream interpretation for once. Which
may be why you're dancing all around the "correlation" word!
You don't like the answer.
James Harris
amzoti
>IDIOT SIMPLE!!!!!!!
>
> James Harris
You're a monster!
Once again, people are trying to help you and you are nothing bu
arrogant, dismissive and argumentative.
You never answer legitimate questions, never clarify items that are
poorly stated and don't give a damn about learning.
Then you claim that everyone else is a lying scum bucket.
Seek help, you lying, cheating and narcissistic animal.
You are a troll, crank and snake oil salseman.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
You are too stupid to have rational discourse with mathematicians!
~A
JSH
> On Mar 14, 9:12 am, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >IDIOT SIMPLE!!!!!!!
>
> > James Harris
>
> You're a monster!
>
> Once again, people are trying to help you and you are nothing bu
> arrogant, dismissive and argumentative.
The poster to whom I was replying repeatedly failed to address the
issue of "correlation" while being dismissive of mathematical ideas
where that is an important issue as to their real value.
That is not exactly a nice thing to do!
I'm emphasizing that the actual twin primes probability calculation is
VERY simple, as it is, especially in comparison to prior research on
twin primes.
Your response is territorial, which I see as a bizarre reality where
some posters think they have a math "territory" so they fight
perceived intruders.
I liken it to people who fight over seats next to them on a bus,
glaring at other people who think about sitting down and trace it back
to feudal yearnings and a desire for a class system where the poster
perceives themselves as some kind of royal person i.e. as nobility.
So to yourself you are some kind of Usenet noble and I'm some
"commoner" who refuses to acknowledge your "class rights".
> You never answer legitimate questions, never clarify items that are
> poorly stated and don't give a damn about learning.
>
> Then you claim that everyone else is a lying scum bucket.
>
> Seek help, you lying, cheating and narcissistic animal.
>
> You are a troll, crank and snake oil salseman.
>
> See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29
I like that link referral as it's an article I helped edit. Curious
readers should look over the Talk section.
Posters who repeatedly insult in order to try to control other posters
and then claim that it's the target who is the problem are fascinating
so I study them. And I tell them that I study them!
It doesn't make any difference. They are locked in a weird brain
cycle as the perception of inherent nobility is so appealing to them.
They are wannabe royalty. Accepting the truth means giving up what
may be their primary basis for ego acceptance.
That is, it's the only way they feel important. So the delusion is
unfixable.
If you're think you're a noble, then what's the upside of accepting
that you are not?
James Harris
MichaelW
When you first raised the word "correlation" it was in this text:
<quote>
But what's the correlation?
I mean, dude, you're not making any sense. Nothing you put in the
post can handle just that simple question which shows all you put is
crap.
Can you connect the dots?
What's the correlation?
</quote>
Since it was in reply to a set of ideas related to the prime number
theorem I assumed that James was using the word in its general sense.
That is, he were saying "how do logarithms and Euler products related
to each other". Others who popped in comments took it the same way.
James' subsequent posts did little to clarify the issue.
It is now possible (but still not clear) that what is meant is
statistical correlation. That is, he is referring to the how close the
algorithm matches the actual count of twin primes. Given that James is
not using the word "correlation" in this context entirely correctly
and it came out of left field in a discussion about something else the
misunderstanding was inevitable.
Anyway once I got that there is a new idea being raised I suggested a
new thread and indeed a new thread has been started on the issue of
accuracy and correlation. It will be recalled that I have already in
fact run a statistical analysis for twin primes up to 5*10^8 so
modifying the code for these requirements will not take long. See
everyone over on the new JSH thread!
Regards, Michael W.
rossum
wrote:
>It is now possible (but still not clear) that what is meant is
>statistical correlation. That is, he is referring to the how close the
>algorithm matches the actual count of twin primes. Given that James is
>not using the word "correlation" in this context entirely correctly
>and it came out of left field in a discussion about something else the
>misunderstanding was inevitable.
I get the impression that James thinks a lot faster than he types,
which is not unusual. However he also assumes that we are thinking the
same thoughts as we are reading. Hence his writing can make large
jumps of logic which are clear to him (at least at the time he is
writing) but are not clear to us.
$0.02
rossum
JSH
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:05:02 -0700 (PDT), MichaelW <ms...@tpg.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >It is now possible (but still not clear) that what is meant is
> >statistical correlation. That is, he is referring to the how close the
As opposed in mathematics to what other kind?
> >algorithm matches the actual count of twin primes. Given that James is
> >not using the word "correlation" in this context entirely correctly
> >and it came out of left field in a discussion about something else the
> >misunderstanding was inevitable.
Which begs the question of what other kind of "correlation" could have
been imagined?
> I get the impression that James thinks a lot faster than he types,
> which is not unusual. However he also assumes that we are thinking the
> same thoughts as we are reading. Hence his writing can make large
> jumps of logic which are clear to him (at least at the time he is
> writing) but are not clear to us.
Whatever floats your boat dude. To me I LIKE pondering the subject,
and think the mathematics might be interesting (maybe not). So to me
continually raising questions and considering possibilities is part of
mathematical discovery. Fun in and of itself.
But I think some of you just like to deny anything I say. Oddly
enough.
So such considerations mean NOTHING to you, so it can take repetition,
repetition, repetition, and usually that doesn't work either!
And again, one wonders, what could any math person possibly think
other than the correlation of the expected count of twin primes with
the results predicted by my twin primes probability simplification
given that was being discussed?
What else is there?
Makes sense to me, but to posters who make it their business to argue
with me endlessly I guess there's always something else, eh? Always
some way to make something simple, with a clear mathematical meaning
into some supposed "crackpot" rantings of a deluded person who they
claim refuses to learn.
Luckily for them that is fascinating in its own right, as going off-
topic, I see it in so many areas! It can help people understand, say,
how Republicans can fight, anything that Democrats do. Or how some
nations can do the weirdest things as they undermine themselves. Or
how businesses can gleefully destroy themselves claiming it's
everybody else's fault!
So I study a wide range of areas, including politics, and things like
the recent financial crash, as well as international politics,
carrying lessons learned from Usenet arguments!
But I digress.
James Harris
amzoti
>
> If you're think you're a noble, then what's the upside of accepting
> that you are not?
>
> James Harris
That you are going to waste your entire life and have zero
accomplishments to show for it!
IDIOT SIMPLE!!!!!!!
~A
Mark Murray
> I get the impression that James thinks a lot faster than he types,
> which is not unusual. However he also assumes that we are thinking the
> same thoughts as we are reading. Hence his writing can make large
> jumps of logic which are clear to him (at least at the time he is
> writing) but are not clear to us.
There is solid evidence for this; James reading his own material some
time after writing it and commenting publically on how inpenetrable it
is.
Here he becomes his own target audience, and is caught out in exactly
the way you say.
MichaelW
James,
My view is that each of us should have given the other the benefit of
the doubt and (rather than assume deliberately bad behaviour) consider
where there might be areas of misunderstanding. For my part I should
have been more considerate to your obvious frustration.
For what it is worth I think your algorithm exactly correlates with
the count of twin primes. I just don't think that the two numbers are
the same. More on the new thread.
Regards, Michael W.
/dev/null
> I suggest you read up on it!
What is the sound of an irony meter exploding?
--
"I am working on the idea of building a small army of people
to do this check with mathematicians around the world. So,
look out for them coming to YOU." -- James Harris