JSH: Give me a name
JSH
that you people actually respect! So it is conceivable that I can
convince that one, single, solitary human being and in the endless
arguing.
So give me a name.
At this point given my reach I can get a message to just about anyone
in the world, directly, or through others who will find that person.
Or maybe posters are correct and I don't have that reach into 100+
countries. LOL. My reach is something that I don't mind testing. I
can get a message to just about anyone on the planet at any level,
including heads of state. (If that would do it, fine! You can even
say President Obama. It doesn't matter. I can get a message to him
too.)
But if I cover the world I can reach just about anyone you people
name, wherever they are on the planet.
So give me a name.
Maybe then I can quit bugging you guys!
I'd probably just use Twitter. A couple of tweets should do it! If
that person has a Twitter account I'd tweet at them directly. If not,
I'd use a general tweet or two. If they're really tough it might
actually take three!
If there is no one, fine. Maybe no human being could convince you no
matter who agreed with me.
But supposedly math people have "leading mathematicians" they respect,
like Andrew Wiles, Andrew Granville, Ken Ribet, and some guy I think
his name is Taylor among others.
Pick one. I'll go with the group consensus on who is best. Wiles
might be a good choice?
James Harris
adamk
> mathematical world
> that you people actually respect! So it is
> conceivable that I can
> convince that one, single, solitary human being and
> in the endless
> arguing.
>
> So give me a name.
Stupid Bitch Harris comes to mind....
>
Joshua Cranmer
> But if I cover the world I can reach just about anyone you people
> name, wherever they are on the planet.
>
> So give me a name.
I will pick, ohhh, Brandon Whitehead. Specifically, the one whom I see
every day or every other day (as opposed to the other Brandons that
might be out there).
> I'd probably just use Twitter. A couple of tweets should do it! If
> that person has a Twitter account I'd tweet at them directly. If not,
> I'd use a general tweet or two. If they're really tough it might
> actually take three!
I doubt he uses Twitter. Or perhaps I could pick my roommate, who I know
for a fact does not use Twitter.
> Pick one. I'll go with the group consensus on who is best. Wiles
> might be a good choice?
To quote Mark Twain:
It had not occurred to anyone in the crowd--that simple trick of
inquiring about someone who wasn't ten thousand miles away. The magician
was hit hard; it was an emergency that had never happened in his
experience before...
[A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, pg. 238]
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
spudnik
both of them have results toward Wiles' alleged proof
(and, I prettymuch believe them, that it works .-)
on the other hand, it ain't Fermat's "miracle." anyway,
you are going to have to make an extra effort
with your English, not to say your alleged math,
to make any headway with these guys ... so,
try the Prez, firstly, if you aren't really him!
thus:
Occam was a part of the oligarchical "science establishment," although
he issued a commonplace sentiment.
the Arctic ice is simply & utterly fragile, evanescent & unstable,
to any changes in the differentials of weather & a-changin'climate.
anyway, I have yet to see one of you, seriously
to consider Singer's very old metastudy on glaciers ... so,
there's no where, hereinat; thou refusest.
> Take the current state of the Arctic melt. This year will see 2010
> with a lower ice extent than 2009. That in itself is as meaningless as
> the fact that 2009 had more ice than 2008.
thus: oh, very well said. however, I'll wait for the report
from Netherlands U., about the problems.
the whole world is going a)
nuclear electric and b)
into space, and
we are still stuck in '50s and '60s techniques (like
the "new" reactors from GE and Toshiba/Westinghouse); I mean,
it might as well be what Elron Hubbard said
about USA 'Fifties "culture, implanted from the planet Marduk."
(of course, solar is gangbusters *in* space .-)
> the best way to think of wind energy is as a form of agriculture.
thus: upon skimming, it seemed to contain only one sentence
about Singer; would you like me to give the highlights
of his CV, or would you prefer to look it "up?"
I recall a *Popular Science* ([L.A.] Times Mirror Corp.) cover-
story,
where three mainstream "holers" were given beautiful portraits,
and Singer was given a mugshot, no CV.
I just missed the authors of the prohominem that you cited,
at the local library to sell it, perhaps sponsored by the city;
everything Greenpolitical in L.A., starts in SM,
largely because of the WAND Corp., I know it.
> http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/manufactured-ignorance
thus: I stopped at the part about what Heisenberg "says"
about the electron. it's just about the impossiblity
of two kinds of measurements, taken at the same time, and
it certainly applies to many "macro" situations (like,
Lord Bertie Was Lying, Then .-)
Schroedinger made an excellent joke about the Copenhagenskoolers,
and that cat stinks to high-Heaven, by now!
thus: size of sail is not really limited;
tack at a right angle to the wind.
> Yes and directly into the wind.
thus: ah, so; never done a proof by contradiction??
thus: wow, that is exemplary, dood. (of course,
it's in the M&M paper, that they most certainly did
n o t find "no results," however slight .-)
> You cannot have an aether that is
> at rest with any one body. If the earth
> were at rest with the aether at any
> point, then every other galaxy that is
> accelerating away from earth would
> experience an aether flow towards earth,
> and *their* light would be affected....
> Therefore the aether must be
> moving in all directions wrt ALL bodies equally....
> M and M simply disproved something
> that could not be possible in the first place.
thus: Bjorn's change-of-heart could've been predicted, since
1st espoused his views in a Holy Economist guest editorial
-- the only thing that is ever signed by an author in it. so,
naturally, he is a proponent of bpTM's old KyotoTM cap&tradeTM,
and my Rep. Waxman's and my California Assemblywoman's
(now Senator) cap&trade derivatives, a.k.a. "free-er trade
on the free market -- free beer &or freedom!"
and, of course, one of Bjorn's telltales is that
cold generally leads to more deaths than heat,
per annum.
thus: he stole that from Hooke, then burnt all
of his portraits -- "ahahaha,
on the shoulders of that clever little dwarf!" (viz,
Sir I., the plagiarist, Freemason, alchemist-
who-burnt-his-"Principles"-in-an-accident-and-
had-it-"reconstructed"-by-the-RS-with-the-dydx-rectangle
etc. ad vomitorium .-)
thus: Euclid's proof is so simple, that
it takes a truly linguistically challenged individual
to dyss it; after all, all
of math problems are, really, wordproblemmas!
thus: as for ordinary spatial finite elements,
you really need tetrahedronometry; eh?
--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
JSH
LOL. That was funny...but, um, I've already convinced myself.
Good one though!
___JSH
JSH
> On 09/01/2010 10:17 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > But if I cover the world I can reach just about anyone you people
> > name, wherever they are on the planet.
>
> > So give me a name.
>
> I will pick, ohhh, Brandon Whitehead. Specifically, the one whom I see
> every day or every other day (as opposed to the other Brandons that
> might be out there).
Never heard of him, but that doesn't matter.
He's in contention!
And dude, do NOT underestimate my ability to put a name out there.
I contain a lot of that for multiple reasons, but the saner of you may
realize that I do. I can push things a lot more than I do, as I study
the fame game and it's a scary one.
For instance, I have a blog with hits from 100+ countries on an annual
basis, without a photo of me.
So yeah, at will, I can put my picture across 100+ countries on an
annual basis, just by putting it up across my 3 blogs.
And I don't name any of you on my blogs, or on Twitter.
However, I am shifting somewhat and possibly will push one of your
names out there if you so wish.
If being known about in a lot of countries motivates you--I can do it
for you.
> > I'd probably just use Twitter. A couple of tweets should do it! If
> > that person has a Twitter account I'd tweet at them directly. If not,
> > I'd use a general tweet or two. If they're really tough it might
> > actually take three!
>
> I doubt he uses Twitter. Or perhaps I could pick my roommate, who I know
> for a fact does not use Twitter.
Doesn't matter. Person doesn't need to use Twitter.
Way it works is, if I put a name out there, someone will find that
person.
SOMEONE will I assure you.
Someone will. Don't worry about that part.
Hey, I'm guessing you don't take this seriously so I'll give you a
couple of days to maybe learn about my world. And maybe hear from
your friend about using his name in a public space!!!
Usenet is a very public space. It can be contained but it can spill
into any other avenue.
Maybe someone should talk to his buddy so that he gets the picture.
But BE nice, please.
If I push someone out there, it's not like it goes away quickly, or as
easily as you'd think.
Attention is a special kind of animal. It can also bite.
James Harris
JSH
> yeah, I have met Ribet; also Barry Mazur, and
> both of them have results toward Wiles' alleged proof
> (and, I prettymuch believe them, that it works .-)
>
> on the other hand, it ain't Fermat's "miracle." anyway,
> you are going to have to make an extra effort
> with your English, not to say your alleged math,
> to make any headway with these guys ... so,
> try the Prez, firstly, if you aren't really him!
Ok, I'll take that as a vote for President Obama.
Just getting started here and some possibilities already which isn't a
bad thing.
I was a bit hesitant about this idea, but now think it may help a lot
for some of you to understand a bit about what "worldwide reach"
means.
And remember, that means just about anyone.
You can pick head's of state. You can pick celebrities!
But it probably would be best to pick mathematicians.
But it doesn't matter.
I can reach just about anyone.
James Harris
spudnik
on the net ... but
that wasn't a vote for Obama, so to say, per se;
it was a vote for you to consider how to approach a real math-guy,
and they seem to be, to me, in conversation (Mazur, last year;
Ribet, maybe 10ya; both at UCLA as distinguished lectureres or
some thing).
on the other hand, considering that he was the private lawyer
for CCX, while a Senator, he could actually know some thing
about derivatives, and hence real calculus (because,
the derivatives on CO2-credits, and ordinary derivatives,
are actually "second derivatives," considering stocks or bonds
to be first derivatives .-)
and, CCX is really, really big, and possibly a major source
of political bucks; go figure!
thus:
it was a non-tenured position; still, I know,
it was a long article, so, you mayn't have noticed a few
of the nuances. (I have met Mary. I told her that,
both times that Gore's movie was shown on campus,
*no-one showed up* but me, possibly because
they already are total believers.)
because of the budget-cuts, it is my experience that
people in anything remotely climate-related are on tenterhooks
-- what ever that means. although, I have to say,
they ended the funding of Public Citizen via registration fees,
some time ago.
oh, and, on the wayside,
diesel gets much better milage that gasoline, though, and
their is quite a long-on-going "green diesel" programme ... also,
there is essentially no difference between "biodiesel" and
ordinary diesel, excepting the bouquet. so, there.
> Enstrom probably has more cash on hand than a Mexican drug lord.
thus: I have met Ribet; also Barry Mazur, and
both of them have results toward Wiles' alleged proof
(and, I rather believe them, that it works .-)
thus: Occam was a part of the oligarchical "science establishment,"
like Galileo and Newton, who issued a commonplace sentiment.
Arctic ice is simply & utterly fragile, evanescent & unstable,
to any changes in the differentials of weather/climate. anyway,
I have yet to see one of you, seriously
to consider Singer's very old metastudy on glaciers ... so,
there's no where, hereinat; thou refusest.
thus: oh, very well said. however, I'll wait for the report
Amy
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4f86ca7-3c07-4a2d...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
You are Professor Tooter "Mushmouth" Turtle of Math(s) Without Boundries.
Not quite the fastest beenie in the box.
Mark Murray
> So give me a name.
Knuth, Donald E.
He's more of a computer scientist than a mathematician, but he's
no slouch when it comes to mathematics.
I know for a fact that he doesn't use email, but he does have
a web site.
Convince him, and you'll have my vote.
M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
Mark Murray
> But supposedly math people have "leading mathematicians" they respect,
> like Andrew Wiles, Andrew Granville, Ken Ribet, and some guy I think
> his name is Taylor among others.
>
> Pick one. I'll go with the group consensus on who is best. Wiles
> might be a good choice?
What would you accept as counter-evidence?
In other words, what would you accept, in the event that it was found,
that would convince you that you have been substantially WRONG all
along?
Tim Little
> But if I cover the world I can reach just about anyone you people
> name, wherever they are on the planet.
>
> So give me a name.
Paul Erdos.
- Tim
Pubkeybreaker
So what's your Erdos number?
Rick Decker
> It occurs to me that there MAY be someone in the mathematical world
> that you people actually respect! So it is conceivable that I can
> convince that one, single, solitary human being and in the endless
> arguing.
>
> So give me a name.
Your arrogance continues to amaze me. Why on earth should we sic you on
a respected mathematician so that you can occupy his or her time with
pointless arguments?
<snip>
Regards,
Rick
featherlite
>Good one though!
That one does fit, Stupid Bitch Harris => JSH = SBH
you are stupid when it comes to math,
and you are a bitch, a whiney Bitch
SBH fits
rossum
>So give me a name.
Leonhard Euler.
You need to specify the limits of your problem more precisely. :)
rossum
David Bernier
Yes, Erdos was very much liked and admired, from what I've read. Erdos
was awarded the Wolf Prize in Mathematics. I bought the book volume I
about Math. Wolf Prize recipients. There is there an abbreviated version
of Bela Bollobas's article "To Prove and Conjecture: Paul
Erdos and his Mathematics", Amer. Math. Monthly, vol. 105 (1998),
pp. 209-237.
"Wolf Prize in Mathematics volume I"
< http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Prize-Mathematics-S-Chern/dp/9810239459 > .
David Bernier
featherlite
> It occurs to me that there MAY be someone in the mathematical world
> that you people actually respect! So it is conceivable that I can
> convince that one, single, solitary human being and in the endless
> arguing.
not possable until you flatline.
>
> So give me a name.
Stupid Bitch Harris
>
> At this point given my reach I can get a message to just about anyone
> in the world, directly, or through others who will find that person.
Wrong. Ali Sahporie in butfuck Idaho, How you going to send your message to
Him, asshole?
> Or maybe posters are correct and I don't have that reach into 100+
> countries.
you believe what Google tells you, sucker.
> LOL. My reach is something that I don't mind testing. I
> can get a message to just about anyone on the planet at any level,
> including heads of state.
"Prove it". Not "Spoof it".
> (If that would do it, fine! You can even
> say President Obama. It doesn't matter. I can get a message to him
> too.)
Obama is far above your insect like existance and will never know you.
His keepers ignore you.
> But if I cover the world I can reach just about anyone you people
> name, wherever they are on the planet.
Liar. You can not reach 99.999999997% of the worlds population.
How may have viewed your stuff ? 150 ? out of how many millions ?
you never were good at math.
>
> So give me a name.
Stupid Bitch Harris
>
> Maybe then I can quit bugging you guys!
you troll with NPD. Get Brainectomy quick.
> I'd probably just use Twitter. A couple of tweets should do it! If
> that person has a Twitter account I'd tweet at them directly. If not,
> I'd use a general tweet or two. If they're really tough it might
> actually take three!
You SBH, are a match for Twitter, tweet away!
>
> If there is no one, fine.
This means that you can reach no one. No one in the entire universe.
> Maybe no human being could convince you no
> matter who agreed with me.
Projecting again?
>
> But supposedly math people have "leading mathematicians" they respect,
> like Andrew Wiles, Andrew Granville, Ken Ribet, and some guy I think
> his name is Taylor among others.
how about "some guy Stupid Bitch Harris"
>
> Pick one. I'll go with the group consensus on who is best. Wiles
> might be a good choice?
Stupid Bitch Harris
stupid in math, bitches about it.
>
>
> James Harris
James Burns
> It occurs to me that there MAY be someone in the mathematical world
> that you people actually respect! So it is conceivable that I can
> convince that one, single, solitary human being and in the endless
> arguing.
"It is conceivable" is an argument you have used again and again
over the years, ever more often as your other arguments get shot down.
"It is conceivable" that there is a short, simple proof of
Fermat's Last Theorem -- and that is enough for you to dedicate
your life to finding this /hoped-for/ theorem. "It is NOT conceivable"
that you are wrong about the "problem" with algebraic integers,
and so you conclude that all the arguments against you are wrong,
even the ones only using grade-school arithmetic, and that there must
be a world-wide conspiracy focused on keeping you, James Harris,
unappreciated.
I shouldn't have to say this, but, if something is conceivable,
that does not mean that it is true or even possible. I can conceive
that there are pigs with wings floating past my window, circling
my building. Are you willing to take my "conceiving" as even the
weakest sort of evidence that pigs can fly?
Set to one side your own conceiving, and what is left? You want
to try again with one more name, after having failed to convince
the posters in sci.math of anything of importance.
> So give me a name.
And, why do you conceive that you will do better with this one
new individual to be named later than you have with any of the
many posters in sci.math? Is there some argument you have held
back from all of us, that you would be willing to show this
one person?
I suspect that you will claim that each of the sci.math posters
is determined to see you fail. (I don't have a quote from you to
that effect at hand, but I vaguely remember something like that.)
I can't imagine why you imagine that, the sci.math posters having
already sworn a blood oath that you will fail, they will then
mistakenly give you the name of someone from outside The Cabal.
I suppose that "you can conceive" that it could happen, and
so it must be so.
However, I have a better idea. This idea does not require you
to trust us at all. Even better, it does not ask you to harass
some unsuspecting mathematician.
Pick a new name for yourself, James, any name, and post your
ideas from an account under that name. If your ideas can't find
agreement even dressed up as someone else's, then the ideas
were the problem all along, and not your reputation.
I suspect that the risk of proving (to yourself -- we have long
known) that your ideas are worthless is enough to keep you from
trying this out. But I could be wrong, so I give you yet another chance.
Jim Burns
Jim Ferry
> On 02/09/2010 03:17, JSH wrote:
>
> > So give me a name.
>
> Knuth, Donald E.
>
> He's more of a computer scientist than a mathematician, but he's
> no slouch when it comes to mathematics.
>
> I know for a fact that he doesn't use email, but he does have
> a web site.
A colleague at my previous job told me that when he was in grad school
he was having a problem with TeX, so he called Don Knuth. Dr. Knuth
listened politely to his question and provided a concise solution. I
was impressed but also somewhat appalled by my colleague's chutzpah:
Don Knuth has better things to do than provide TeX support.
Instead of wasting more of Knuth's time, I'd suggest that James
prevail upon Underwood Dudley. If Dr. Dudley were to say, "no, no,
no, this James Harris fellow may seem like a crank to you, but in fact
his work contains deep insights obscured by an unconventional style"
then people would listen: Underwood Dudley is probably the world's
foremost expert on mathematical cranks. Apparently he has defined a
spectrum of mathematical crankiness -- see, e.g., this excerpt from
http://www.projectposner.org/case/1996/75F3d307
---
Earlier in the book Dudley had explained that the spectrum of
mathematical cranks runs from those whose behavior "hardly deserves
the label of crankery; 'crotchety' or 'slightly eccentric' describes
it more accurately" to "people who are convinced that they have the
truth, that it is revolutionary, that mathematicians are engaged in a
vast conspiracy to suppress it, and that fame and wealth are
rightfully theirs and that one day they will have them. Again, 'crank'
is not as descriptive as another word--'lunatic' in this case."
Dilworth seems to be in about the midpoint of this spectrum--the
median "crank" in Dudley's system of classification.
---
Mark Murray
> Instead of wasting more of Knuth's time, I'd suggest that James
> prevail upon Underwood Dudley. If Dr. Dudley were to say, "no, no,
> no, this James Harris fellow may seem like a crank to you, but in fact
> his work contains deep insights obscured by an unconventional style"
> then people would listen: Underwood Dudley is probably the world's
> foremost expert on mathematical cranks.
Inspired!
This suggestion has my vote!
spudnik
he used the term per Dudley as,
"dood has a bee in his bonnet."
> This suggestion has my vote!
however, there are two "proofs" in his book,
that may be amenable to reading, and
Dudley admitted this about one of them;
that was many years ago.
--lesw ducs d'Enron!
Enrico
> On Sep 2, 2:22 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...@example.com> wrote:
>
> > On 02/09/2010 03:17, JSH wrote:
>
> > > So give me a name.
>
> > Knuth, Donald E.
>
> > He's more of a computer scientist than a mathematician, but he's
> > no slouch when it comes to mathematics.
>
> > I know for a fact that he doesn't use email, but he does have
> > a web site.
>
> A colleague at my previous job told me that when he was in grad school
> he was having a problem with TeX, so he called Don Knuth. Dr. Knuth
> listened politely to his question and provided a concise solution. I
> was impressed but also somewhat appalled by my colleague's chutzpah:
> Don Knuth has better things to do than provide TeX support.
>
> Instead of wasting more of Knuth's time, I'd suggest that James
> prevail upon Underwood Dudley. If Dr. Dudley were to say, "no, no,
> no, this James Harris fellow may seem like a crank to you, but in fact
> his work contains deep insights obscured by an unconventional style"
> then people would listen: Underwood Dudley is probably the world's
> foremost expert on mathematical cranks. Apparently he has defined a
> ---
> Earlier in the book Dudley had explained that the spectrum of
> mathematical cranks runs from those whose behavior "hardly deserves
> the label of crankery; 'crotchety' or 'slightly eccentric' describes
> it more accurately" to "people who are convinced that they have the
> truth, that it is revolutionary, that mathematicians are engaged in a
> vast conspiracy to suppress it, and that fame and wealth are
> rightfully theirs and that one day they will have them. Again, 'crank'
> is not as descriptive as another word--'lunatic' in this case."
> Dilworth seems to be in about the midpoint of this spectrum--the
> median "crank" in Dudley's system of classification.
> ---
>
>
>
> > Convince him, and you'll have my vote.
>
> > M
> > --
> > Mark "No Nickname" Murray
>
> - Show quoted text -
==========================================================
Underwood Dudley
Perfect. Got the book.
Enrico
JSH
I HAVE considered that in the past, but decided, why bother?
James Harris
JSH
Good answer!
James Harris
JSH
I agree. I also like Knuth.
I count 3 votes for Underwood Dudley giving him the lead by far. I
like as a personal favorite Knuth. There is some person put up by
Joshua Cranmer earlier that I'd have to look back in the thread for
his name, so he has 1 vote.
And there is one for President Obama.
If readers are satisfied with Underwood Dudley this exercise may be
complete.
I won't make a decision before Labor Day. September 6th.
I'd prefer to defer to vote totals, but if I don't I'll give a reason.
Remember the test is of my worldwide reach. I claim my math blog has
hits on an annual basis from 100+ countries. Presumably then I can
reach just about anyone in the world including celebrities, or heads
of state, but I'd think mathematicians would be preferred.
But remember, it's an entire world to consider.
Scientists are fine. Again, celebrities are ok. ANY world leaders
just about may be considered though I'll probably stay away from
enemies of the United States.
But I can reach just about anyone you can imagine--or I don't have
worldwide reach!
It's a fantastic real world test.
The kind few people in the world can do.
Of course, my failure would be rather large as well, eh?
Betting against my ability to succeed is allowed. Otherwise don't
take it too seriously then!
Have fun. Put more names in the hat.
I'll do the rest, if I can.
James Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
Rick's response is absolutely correct.
--
"Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into
later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a
gentleman and a person of honor ought to know."
--Callicles, in "Gorgias"
Jesse F. Hughes
> Remember the test is of my worldwide reach. I claim my math blog has
> hits on an annual basis from 100+ countries. Presumably then I can
> reach just about anyone in the world including celebrities, or heads
> of state, but I'd think mathematicians would be preferred.
>
> But remember, it's an entire world to consider.
>
> Scientists are fine. Again, celebrities are ok. ANY world leaders
> just about may be considered though I'll probably stay away from
> enemies of the United States.
>
> But I can reach just about anyone you can imagine--or I don't have
> worldwide reach!
What does "reach" mean? Do you have to convince the recipient that you
are correct, or do you merely have to contact him in some manner?
The latter is not so hard. I think that I've emailed Underwood Dudley
in the distant past. Big deal.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Why do the dirty villains always have to tie your hands *behind* ya?"
"That's what makes them villains."
--Adventures by Morse (old radio show)
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Remember the test is of my worldwide reach. I claim my math blog has
> > hits on an annual basis from 100+ countries. Presumably then I can
> > reach just about anyone in the world including celebrities, or heads
> > of state, but I'd think mathematicians would be preferred.
>
> > But remember, it's an entire world to consider.
>
> > Scientists are fine. Again, celebrities are ok. ANY world leaders
> > just about may be considered though I'll probably stay away from
> > enemies of the United States.
>
> > But I can reach just about anyone you can imagine--or I don't have
> > worldwide reach!
>
> What does "reach" mean? Do you have to convince the recipient that you
> are correct, or do you merely have to contact him in some manner?
It's kind of like, I put out there there's something I want?
And people will emerge who will help make that happen.
Or theoretically something like that, and I'll probably just use
Twitter.
> The latter is not so hard. I think that I've emailed Underwood Dudley
> in the distant past. Big deal.
Let's just say that if there is pressure applied that it will be in
the form of someone he probably wouldn't expect who will probably be
close and will use influence in a familiar and not mean way.
It's a fun experiment.
Quite simply it's like degrees of separation.
Or it could be numbers. Maybe a swarm of people will send him some
kind of message.
I'm not sure. It's a vague notion built around what I'm learning
about "celebrity" or as I like to call it: the science of attention.
Others will do most of the work. I just need to let them know who.
James Harris
mjc
Terence Tao at UCLA (http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tao/)
Tim Little
> So what's your Erdos number?
Unfortunately I have no joint publications of a qualifying nature and
must settle for "undefined". The closest I get would probably be a
local seminar presentation, which if it counted would give me Erdos
number 4 via P. G. Trotter (who has 3).
I just liked the idea of JSH attempting to convince Erdos of his ideas
(didn't JSH once say that even in death mathematicians would not
escape?), and his mention of reaching anyone we could name via his
connections seemed to fit well ;-)
- Tim
JSH
Thanks! He's now a potential. One thing I'll do to keep this from
being just me emailing someone as one poster opined, is I'll just use
Twitter and it doesn't matter if that person is not on Twitter.
James Harris
JSH
> Rick Decker <rdec...@hamilton.edu> writes:
> > On 9/1/10 10:17 PM, JSH wrote:
> >> It occurs to me that there MAY be someone in the mathematical world
> >> that you people actually respect! So it is conceivable that I can
> >> convince that one, single, solitary human being and in the endless
> >> arguing.
>
> >> So give me a name.
>
> > Your arrogance continues to amaze me. Why on earth should we sic you on
> > a respected mathematician so that you can occupy his or her time with
> > pointless arguments?
>
> Rick's response is absolutely correct.
I replied to him that it was a good answer!
James Harris
Sam Stump
> It occurs to me that there MAY be someone in the mathematical world
> that you people actually respect! So it is conceivable that I can
> convince that one, single, solitary human being and in the endless
> arguing.
>
> So give me a name.
>
> in the world, directly, or through others who will find that person.
> can get a message to just about anyone on the planet at any level,
> say President Obama. It doesn't matter. I can get a message to him
> too.)
>
> name, wherever they are on the planet.
>
>
>
> that person has a Twitter account I'd tweet at them directly. If not,
> I'd use a general tweet or two. If they're really tough it might
> actually take three!
>
> matter who agreed with me.
>
> like Andrew Wiles, Andrew Granville, Ken Ribet, and some guy I think
> his name is Taylor among others.
>
> might be a good choice?
>
You neglected to mention the consequences to your work if you fail to
convince this person. Are there any?
Jesse F. Hughes
Yes, you did.
--
"I am a force of Nature. Time is a friend of mine, and We talk about
things, here and there. And sometimes We muse a bit [...] and then We
watch them go... in the meantime, Time and I, We play with some of
them, at least for a little while." --- JSH and His pal, Time.
Mark Murray
> You neglected to mention the consequences to your work if you fail to
> convince this person. Are there any?
I asked him a similar question. He ignored it. My assumption is that
he'll simply reject any negative outcome on the usual grounds; lies,
conspiracy etc.
At the moment, though, he's pretty cocksure of himself, and I doubt
that he even feels the need to address the issue on the grounds that
he "just /knows/ he's right".
M
--
Sam Stump
You are probably right. So another no-lose situation for JSH. I
thought there may be a forseeable end to this decades long drama.
Silly me.
JSH
Ooh, that's a good one! When did I say that? I was I think at times
more creative in the early years, at least towards the poetic side.
James
Jesse F. Hughes
Full post follows. It is poetic as the dickens.
Note also that in 2004, you expected to right these mathematical wrongs
in a couple of months. But not to worry. I'm sure you'll get it this
time.
Message-ID: <3c65f87.04091...@posting.google.com>
From: jst...@msn.com (James Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: JSH: Time, yes time
Date: 10 Sep 2004 17:23:32 -0700
Lines: 51
Organization: http://groups.google.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.217.204.131
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1094862217 1313 127.0.0.1 (11 Sep 2004 00:23:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:23:37 +0000 (UTC)
Through the years I've watched many critics come and go, and seen a
few stay.
I guess they figure they can stay indefinitely, but will they?
What's ten years to me?
What's twenty?
Some of you may think you'll still be here twenty years from now, or
you may think you can guess what others will say to me twenty years
from now, but you're deluded.
How about thirty years?
How about fifty?
When it comes down to it, some of you are caught in a drama I created
for you, and I toss out big numbers for years but really think more
like a couple or a few months.
I watch some of you come and go, and some of you stay and I wonder
about you sometimes, and think about what you believe, how you seem to
see constancy where I see a sea of change.
I look at your posts and listen to you get dramatic, or lie, or upset
or whatever and sometimes I just smile.
I think about that strange little adolescent sense of immortality, as
if you can be there, always. As if the drama will continue with you a
part of it, indefinitely.
As if you can last.
But what do you really know? How do you know who writes the story?
How do you know when your time is up, and your last post is made, and
you go elsewhere, whatever your reasons.
I am a force of Nature. Time is a friend of mine, and We talk about
things, here and there.
And sometimes We muse a bit, about what some people think, and then We
watch them go...
They come and they go. That is constant in the sea of change. The
coming and the going, but in the meantime, Time and I, We play with
some of them, at least for a little while.
James Harris
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You're terrified of your daughters dreaming about me."
-- James S. Harris, on why mathematicians fear him
JSH
Ooh cool. Thanks! I rarely go back far to read what I've written.
There's no way I'd have re-read that without your help.
I do wonder about that guy--me, back then--what he was thinking. How
he was feeling, and what would he have done if he'd known back then
how many more years to me?
But I live in a world he barely imagined. And so many of his issues
now are not mine.
But it was me back then, and is me now, in a different world.
2004? It seems so long ago... Oh and September too!
James Harris
Jim Ferry
> On Sep 3, 2:07 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> > JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Some of you may think you'll still be here twenty years from now, or
> > you may think you can guess what others will say to me twenty years
> > from now, but you're deluded.
>
> > or whatever and sometimes I just smile.
>
>
> Ooh cool. Thanks! I rarely go back far to read what I've written.
> There's no way I'd have re-read that without your help.
>
> I do wonder about that guy--me, back then--what he was thinking. How
> he was feeling, and what would he have done if he'd known back then
> how many more years to me?
>
> But I live in a world he barely imagined. And so many of his issues
> now are not mine.
>
> But it was me back then, and is me now, in a different world.
>
> 2004? It seems so long ago... Oh and September too!
>
> James Harris
This is interesting: "I do wonder about that guy... How he was
feeling..." Anybody care to recant their callous slander of James?
Oh, look at them all hide in the woodwork!
Many people here have accused James of having Narcissistic Personality
Disorder. However, one of the hallmarks of a narcissist is that
although he can be delightedly chatty and emotionally engaged on
topics that center on himself, he bores quickly when the conversation
turns to other people. It's not that he's hostile towards other
people -- it's just that the topic seems completely boring and
irrelevant to him. (An attitude that many people seem to have towards
mathematics... sigh.)
Well, here James adopts an attitude of *wonder* towards this other
being. He is fascinated by the way he *feels*. Is this the attitude
of a narcissist? I'd say that the claims of James suffering from NPD
have been completely refudiated.
Jim Burns
>>> It occurs to me that there MAY be someone in the mathematical world
>>> that you people actually respect! So it is conceivable that I can
>>> convince that one, single, solitary human being and in the endless
>>> arguing.
[...]
>>> So give me a name.
[...]
>> Pick a new name for yourself, James, any name, and post your
>> ideas from an account under that name. If your ideas can't find
>> agreement even dressed up as someone else's, then the ideas
>> were the problem all along, and not your reputation.
I should mention: disguise the style of writing, as well.
The best way I can think of is to get someone else to write
the posts for you. Of course, you will have to successfully
communicate your ideas to this one person. They should be
mathematically literate, I think, but otherwise it could be
anyone, a well-known professor, if you can get one, or
a buddy from college, or a family member.
The feeling of explaining your ideas /successfully/ at last
should be enough by itself to make this a thing worth doing.
> I HAVE considered that in the past, but decided, why bother?
You should bother because, whatever the outcome of your experiment,
you will be better off for it.
If we see "Joe Schmoe" present various ideas (your ideas) and
welcome them, then then that would be a vindication of everything
you've said about how evil we are. After you unmasked yourself,
you would find yourself in exactly the situation you say that
you have been working to create, with your ideas publicly
acknowledged, plus -- as a bonus -- you would be able to
rub your success in the faces of the sci.math posters. Surely,
you would find this enjoyable, wouldn't you?
Given how confident you say you are that you are right and we are
evil, I should be able to stop there. But consider, at least,
the possibility of Joe Schmoe being told that "his" ideas are
wrong or not-even-wrong. Then you have /unbiased/ evidence that
you do NOT have a simple proof of FLT, that you do NOT have
an error in the core of algebraic integers, and so on.
(NOTE: You do NOT have to announce to sci.math anything about
who Joe Schmoe really is.)
You have been at this a long time, with the only encouragement
you could find being "Wouldn't it be GREAT if this were true?"
Consider the First Law of Holes: "When you are in one, stop
digging." Maybe this is the time for you to stop digging your
personal hole deeper.
Take a break. Take some classes. Get the background to
understand Wiles' proof. Your insistence upon NOT
finding out what is already known before you try to
revolutionize some area of mathematics is like tying
your shoe laces together before the Big Race.
Jim Burns
sci.math
THERE YOU GO
sci.math
>
> - Show quoted text -
THERE IS A TOWER
JSH
> On Sep 3, 5:49 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 2:07 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> > > JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Some of you may think you'll still be here twenty years from now, or
> > > you may think you can guess what others will say to me twenty years
> > > from now, but you're deluded.
>
> > > I look at your posts and listen to you get dramatic, or lie, or upset
> > > or whatever and sometimes I just smile.
>
> > > James Harris
>
> > Ooh cool. Thanks! I rarely go back far to read what I've written.
> > There's no way I'd have re-read that without your help.
>
> > I do wonder about that guy--me, back then--what he was thinking. How
> > he was feeling, and what would he have done if he'd known back then
> > how many more years to me?
>
> > But I live in a world he barely imagined. And so many of his issues
> > now are not mine.
>
> > But it was me back then, and is me now, in a different world.
>
> > 2004? It seems so long ago... Oh and September too!
>
> > James Harris
>
> This is interesting: "I do wonder about that guy... How he was
> feeling..." Anybody care to recant their callous slander of James?
> Oh, look at them all hide in the woodwork!
The social psychology is a little more complicated I would think than
one might expect.
I've been ramping up the perception of my attention level, or at least
trying, which means I'm putting out more information that would tend
to have posters less likely to think I'm some lone person without wide
readership interest in what I say.
The idea that there may be other people out there more than a dozen--
oddly enough surveys I try indicate that the average poster who
replies to me obsessively thinks maybe a ***dozen*** or so readers--
they tend to get shy.
The actual number is hard for me to get, but from some Google stats
here and there--wish they'd give more--rough guess is roughly about
5000 readers per week in, oh, about 30 countries or thereabouts.
If they realized that fully they'd all probably run for the hills.
> Many people here have accused James of having Narcissistic Personality
> Disorder. However, one of the hallmarks of a narcissist is that
> although he can be delightedly chatty and emotionally engaged on
> topics that center on himself, he bores quickly when the conversation
> turns to other people. It's not that he's hostile towards other
> people -- it's just that the topic seems completely boring and
> irrelevant to him. (An attitude that many people seem to have towards
> mathematics... sigh.)
Actually I MAY be a narcissist, and trying to beat that which is why I
admit it, but NPD actually requires lack of actual success, which is
why actual celebs tend to be considered narcissists if they show
certain characteristics--versus having NPD.
Having an actual worldwide readership would indicate I don't have NPD
because I can look at an actual success-not everyone is read worldwide
on any topic whatsoever.
Oh, and um, I actually years ago presented the possibility of NPD
myself! So I'm the original source on the newsgroup of the
accusation. Which is a major contra-indicator against actually having
the disorder, which is an irony I like to present.
> Well, here James adopts an attitude of *wonder* towards this other
> being. He is fascinated by the way he *feels*. Is this the attitude
> of a narcissist? I'd say that the claims of James suffering from NPD
> have been completely refudiated.
I like to think of my past self, my current self, and my future self
as kind of a community!
That way we help each other, or try, but it's all me. Which yeah
could be a sign of narcissism but not necessarily NPD!
Oh, I'm replying here to point out that I haven't forgotten this
possibility presented by the existence of this thread.
Um, I think at this point Underwood Dudley has the most votes and I've
limited myself to using Twitter where I don't care if he's on it or
not. But I'm not set before tomorrow. Sept. 6th
Whoever it is, even if it were President Obama, wouldn't take more
than a tweet I'd think. Maybe two, but that seems like a lot for such
a small task.
James Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
> Um, I think at this point Underwood Dudley has the most votes and I've
> limited myself to using Twitter where I don't care if he's on it or
> not. But I'm not set before tomorrow. Sept. 6th
>
> Whoever it is, even if it were President Obama, wouldn't take more
> than a tweet I'd think. Maybe two, but that seems like a lot for such
> a small task.
So, after a well-lobbed tweet or two, we should expect Underwood Dudley
to refer to your great mathematical achievements in positive terms,
right?
Is that the expected outcome? Dudley will publicly acknowledge the
general correctness of your mathematical insights?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"[Iota]'s the smallest infinitesimal, Russell, there are smaller
infinitesimals." -- Ross Finlayson
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Um, I think at this point Underwood Dudley has the most votes and I've
> > limited myself to using Twitter where I don't care if he's on it or
> > not. But I'm not set before tomorrow. Sept. 6th
>
> > Whoever it is, even if it were President Obama, wouldn't take more
> > than a tweet I'd think. Maybe two, but that seems like a lot for such
> > a small task.
>
> So, after a well-lobbed tweet or two, we should expect Underwood Dudley
> to refer to your great mathematical achievements in positive terms,
> right?
>
> Is that the expected outcome? Dudley will publicly acknowledge the
> general correctness of your mathematical insights?
Oh, I don't know. It's a test of my reach. I haven't done one in
this way before, so I'm not sure what would happen.
But it's like I replied to you before--SOMEONE out there or some group
of people will make the actual contact. The idea is that if I ask for
something there are people who will try to make it happen.
So it depends on what they do. If "they" exist and do anything.
You don't understand celebrity, right? So I think there is this
knowledge gap that is befuddling you.
My role here is just to make my need known. Others will do the rest,
presumably, or not.
That's why it's a test of my worldwide reach.
You see, people are everywhere. Conceivably I can reach anyone who
hasn't hermited themselves off in some cave.
James Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Sep 5, 12:33 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Um, I think at this point Underwood Dudley has the most votes and I've
>> > limited myself to using Twitter where I don't care if he's on it or
>> > not. But I'm not set before tomorrow. Sept. 6th
>>
>> > Whoever it is, even if it were President Obama, wouldn't take more
>> > than a tweet I'd think. Maybe two, but that seems like a lot for such
>> > a small task.
>>
>> So, after a well-lobbed tweet or two, we should expect Underwood Dudley
>> to refer to your great mathematical achievements in positive terms,
>> right?
>>
>> Is that the expected outcome? Dudley will publicly acknowledge the
>> general correctness of your mathematical insights?
>
> Oh, I don't know. It's a test of my reach. I haven't done one in
> this way before, so I'm not sure what would happen.
>
> But it's like I replied to you before--SOMEONE out there or some group
> of people will make the actual contact. The idea is that if I ask for
> something there are people who will try to make it happen.
Okay, so now the claim is: someone will try to make Dudley acknowledge
your mathematical insights?
Or what?
--
"Reality is that I've worked all over the United States in so many
different jobs that I jokingly call myself The Pretender. I've been a
bartender, worked at Equifax, sold new cars for Honda, and that's from
about six months of my life." -- James S. Harris: a great Pretender.
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sep 5, 12:33 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> >> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > Um, I think at this point Underwood Dudley has the most votes and I've
> >> > limited myself to using Twitter where I don't care if he's on it or
> >> > not. But I'm not set before tomorrow. Sept. 6th
>
> >> > Whoever it is, even if it were President Obama, wouldn't take more
> >> > than a tweet I'd think. Maybe two, but that seems like a lot for such
> >> > a small task.
>
> >> So, after a well-lobbed tweet or two, we should expect Underwood Dudley
> >> to refer to your great mathematical achievements in positive terms,
> >> right?
>
> >> Is that the expected outcome? Dudley will publicly acknowledge the
> >> general correctness of your mathematical insights?
>
> > Oh, I don't know. It's a test of my reach. I haven't done one in
> > this way before, so I'm not sure what would happen.
>
> > But it's like I replied to you before--SOMEONE out there or some group
> > of people will make the actual contact. The idea is that if I ask for
> > something there are people who will try to make it happen.
>
> Okay, so now the claim is: someone will try to make Dudley acknowledge
> your mathematical insights?
>
> Or what?
Or nothing. I've decided I don't like Dudley as I don't think he's
influential enough.
I choose Knuth instead.
James Harris
Tim Little
> Or nothing. I've decided I don't like Dudley as I don't think he's
> influential enough.
So what happened to your promise:
"Pick one. I'll go with the group consensus on who is best."
You can't even keep your own statements straight? I've got a better
idea though - since you're going to just ignore your own conditions
and arbitrarily pick whomever you like, you may as well just pick
James S Harris. That'll show us!
- Tim
Jesse F. Hughes
Okay, so now the claim is: someone will try to make Knuth acknowledge
your mathematical insights? And we will somehow notice this attempt?
Or what?
--
"It was over ten years ago that I was a lieutenant in the U.S. Army
and one day for some reason I thought to myself that I should be able
to figure out something brilliant. [...] Like, why can't I figure out
some math thing?" -- James S. Harris on inspirational moments.
JSH
> On 2010-09-07, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Or nothing. I've decided I don't like Dudley as I don't think he's
> > influential enough.
>
> So what happened to your promise:
>
> "Pick one. I'll go with the group consensus on who is best."
The group picked silly.
> You can't even keep your own statements straight? I've got a better
> idea though - since you're going to just ignore your own conditions
> and arbitrarily pick whomever you like, you may as well just pick
> James S Harris. That'll show us!
Hey, we're talking about 3 posters mentioning Underwood Dudley in a
burst. There was no sense of a group consensus there.
While Knuth I think probably would be a consensus pick, if people felt
free to admit that he's someone they'd probably think a LOT more
influential than Dudley.
But I think when his name came into the pot, people realized, hey,
that's one of our heroes!
And were wary of how I might proceed.
I've already done the tweet. Any concerns that I might try to
directly bug Knuth are unjustified.
Your hero will not be contacted directly by me.
The experiment is in play!!!
Knuth was the choice, and I've done the tweet.
Let's see what happens...
James Harris
Marshall
> On Sep 5, 12:33 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> > JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > Whoever it is, even if it were President Obama, wouldn't take more
> > > than a tweet I'd think. Maybe two, but that seems like a lot for such
> > > a small task.
>
> > So, after a well-lobbed tweet or two, we should expect Underwood Dudley
> > to refer to your great mathematical achievements in positive terms,
> > right?
>
> > Is that the expected outcome? Dudley will publicly acknowledge the
> > general correctness of your mathematical insights?
>
> Oh, I don't know. It's a test of my reach. I haven't done one in
> this way before, so I'm not sure what would happen.
>
> But it's like I replied to you before--SOMEONE out there or some group
> of people will make the actual contact. The idea is that if I ask for
> something there are people who will try to make it happen.
>
> So it depends on what they do. If "they" exist and do anything.
>
> You don't understand celebrity, right? So I think there is this
> knowledge gap that is befuddling you.
Honestly professor Hughes, it's all a bit much the way you're
participating in this thread, given as stated that you don't
understand celebrity. As an academic, I think you'd at least
feel compelled to audit a course or two in celebrity theory
before jumping in here. This is sci.math after all.
Marshall
Mark Murray
> Let's see what happens...
My bet is that nothing will happen. Null result.
M
Jesse F. Hughes
> Knuth was the choice, and I've done the tweet.
>
> Let's see what happens...
I still don't get what you predict will happen.
Is it that Knuth will publicly acknowledge you somehow? Is it that your
massive fanbase will somehow contact Knuth in a public manner? What
exactly is supposed to happen?
How will we know when it does?
--
Scissors and string, scissors and string,
When a man's single, he lives like a king.
Needles and pins, needles and pins,
When a man marries, his trouble begins. --- Mother Goose
Jesse F. Hughes
> Honestly professor Hughes, it's all a bit much the way you're
> participating in this thread, given as stated that you don't
> understand celebrity. As an academic, I think you'd at least
> feel compelled to audit a course or two in celebrity theory
> before jumping in here. This is sci.math after all.
I've watched every Real Wives episode ever broadcast (except Atlanta).
Don't tell me I don't understand celebrity.
--
"In a world of ideas there should be a place for people who are not
experts [...] to talk out their ideas [...] without facing personal
insults. And if they are frustrated[...], why should it be a surprise
if they end up contacting news organizations, or Noam Chomsky?" --JSH
mjc
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you look at Knuth's web site, you will find that he does not reply
to email.
JSH
Doesn't matter.
James Harris
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Knuth was the choice, and I've done the tweet.
>
> > Let's see what happens...
>
> I still don't get what you predict will happen.
>
> Is it that Knuth will publicly acknowledge you somehow? Is it that your
> massive fanbase will somehow contact Knuth in a public manner? What
> exactly is supposed to happen?
Good question. I don't know.
> How will we know when it does?
That's another good question. Answer again is, I don't know.
Think of it this way: human beings can be highly intelligent and
particular to how they do things, so why should I try to constrain
anyone? Beyond saying be nice?
What has happened is that I've offered that Knuth might be a good
person to contact about helping the cause, you might say.
If I have worldwide reach there may be hundreds or even thousands of
people who might get that message.
Of those people there may be some who have contacts that can get them
to him.
Of those there may be someone who can do more, but what exactly?
I don't know.
Or nothing happens. No one bothers with this silly idea of mine. No
contacts attempted. Nothing.
So how to evaluate?
Good question. It seems rather open ended to me. I didn't put it
forward as an option to be satisfying to others but as an alternate
way I might do things.
It's a practice run. I'll try and figure out some way to evaluate for
myself. I don't really care about any of you on this sort of thing.
Prior practice runs were things like self-publishing a book on some of
my math. Only sold a single couple--to myself.
I'd guess failure is very likely here.
James Harris
Joshua Cranmer
> So how to evaluate?
I will let Mark Twain write the answer for me:
It had not occurred to anyone in the crowd--that simple trick of
inquiring about someone who wasn't ten thousand miles away. The magician
was hit hard; it was an emergency that had never happened in his
experience before...
[A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, pg. 238]
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
David R Tribble
> For instance, I have a blog with hits from 100+ countries on an annual
> basis, without a photo of me.
> So yeah, at will, I can put my picture across 100+ countries on an
> annual basis, just by putting it up across my 3 blogs.
I just hope it isn't this photo:
http://tinyurl.com/JSH-XBox
reutor1
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba95384a-1954-4c59...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 7:00 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
your new name is "The Tooter Turtle of sci.math"
>James Harris
reutor1
>> If you look at Knuth's web site, you will find that he does not reply
>> to email.
>Doesn't matter.
>James Harris =>The Tooter Turtle of Math
adamk
> > > It occurs to me that there MAY be someone in the
> > > mathematical world
> > > that you people actually respect! So it is
> > > conceivable that I can
> > > convince that one, single, solitary human being
> and
> > > in the endless
> > > arguing.
> >
> >
>
> LOL. That was funny...but, um, I've already
> convinced myself.
>
> Good one though!
>
>
> ___JSH
>
Wow, this response humanizes you ; I am even
having trouble now thinking of dead bodies
cut-up in your freezer.!