WHY DENIS IS A STUPID ASSHOLE + PROVING TO ALL CRITICS MY LEVEL OF MATH
tommy1729
> >
> > (and did no math whatsowever rather insulted as
> usual)
> >
> > > tommy1729 a écrit :
> >>>> In article
> >>>>
> >>
> <33119411.1186861057...@nitrogen.math
> >>>> forum.org> tommy1729 <tomm...@gmail.com>
> writes:
> >>>> > considering series expansion ..
> >>>> >
> >>>> > a power series is taylor
> >>>> > an nth derivate series is taylor
> >>>>
> >>>> You are doing things the wrong way. A Taylor
> >> series
> >>>> exists for a function
> >>>> that is analytical in a circle around the
> origin.
> >> In
> >>>> that case the Taylor
> >>>> series is convergent within that circle. When a
> >>>> Taylor series does exist
> >>>> we can get the n-th derivative of it by taking
> the
> >>>> n-th derivative of the
> >>>> terms, constructing a new Taylor series. And we
> >> can
> >>>> integrate the function
> >>>> by integrating the terms (where we have to
> insert
> >>>> suitable constant terms).
> >>>> A function for which the n-th derivative does
> not
> >>>> exist at x = 0 does not
> >>>> have a Taylor series expansion at all. (An
> >> example
> >>>> is x^3.|x|, which has
> >>>> first, second, third and fourth derivatives, but
> >> for
> >>>> which the fifth
> >>>> derivative at x = 0 does not exist, so it is not
> >>>> analytical in x = 0 and
> >>>> so does not have a Taylor series expansion.)
> >>>>
> >>>> > what is the analogue for an integral ??
> >>>>> wich series can be expressed in the nth
> integral
> >>>> l ??
> >>>>
> >>>> See above. Although I do not understand the
> >> second
> >>>> question.
> >>>> --
> >>>> dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj
> >>>> amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
> >>>> home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam,
> >> nederland;
> >>>> http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
> >>> once agian i am misunderstood ...
> >>>
> >> once again, you obfuscated issues, then complained
> >>
> >>> i understand taylor series perfectly ...
> >> Certainly not . You are a troll. Dont expect any
> >> further serious help
> >> for us now.
> >>> radius of convergeance too...
> >>>
> >>> thats NOT the issue here !!!
> >> If you say so...
> >>
> >>> considering f(x+a) = f(a)+f'(a)x +...
> >>>
> >>> (taylor ) it is clear that taylor is a power
> series
> >> ( infinite polynomial of x )
> >>> and a series of nth derivates ( f^n(a))
> >>>
> >>> i am looking for the analogue of nth integrals
> ...
> >>>
> >>> tommy1729
> >> Keep looking. Remember Taylor series are unique.
DUH !!!
of course taylor is unique ...
but i wasnt looking for taylor
so duh !!!
> >> Perhaps you are looking
> >> for something like Euler-MacLaurin smomation
> formula?
no
> >> But I strongly
> >> doubt it. You are just trolling as usual
no you are
> >
> > no , just as usual you dont understand the math i
> am describing...
>
> If you say so
i say so
and anybody who understands that your comment is irrelevant understands that too
>
>
> >
> > i am better at math then you are
> >
> >
>
>
> Wanna bet? You are usually ridiculous
no you are rediculous
could not even compute an average , remember ?
>
> > want a second opinion ??
> >
> > ask quasi about my factoring tricks for instance
>
>
> Quasi is not so good either.
YOU SIMPLY DID NOT LOOK AT THE FACTORING TRICKS NOW DID YOU ?????
so , you really think you are better than me ??
and even better than quasi ???
quasi , are you letting him say that ??
well if your so good , you might wanna proof my factoring tricks ...
why dont you proof or disproof all conjectures and theorems made by me and quasi ???
you cant , can you ??
And you were badly lying
> on that one
> >
> > or look up sequences called after me
>
> What is your real name? I dont hide mine...
look them up under tommy1729 perhaps ??
once again , you did not do that
doesnt fit you hmm ?
> >
> > i won a math olympiad too
>
> Liar
> >
> > i have at least one operator and two constants
> named after me
> Liar (you dont even jknow what is an operator, by the
> way)
you havent looked that up hmm ???
here is one
(on the on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences)
id:A102575 (on tetration , number proven irrational)
( can you prove it's irrationality ?? )
or more if you like:
A096436 (prime representation theory)
A111129 (continued fractions theory)
certain proof of the universality of certain classes of differental equations and cellular automata
helping to write math software
coaching students
> > ...
> >
> > you remind me of bit188
> >
> > you have a lot of nerve for a newbie...
>
> I was here since 1997 (where were yopu), not to
> mention my carreer in
> the real world
i was doing math ...
and i was here , under another name perhaps ??
did not think of that hmm ??
only looked at the number of posts hmm ??
well then since you only have 91 posts , so by your own logic , i have been here much longer, since i have more posts
HA!!
> >
> > you dont even know about the math i have done in
> the past
> >
> > you were not even here ...
> >
> > and i guess you were not present at the math
> olympiad either ...
>
> They were not created when I was a student.
yeah right
perfect excuse !!
But I won
> a few distinctions
> in my time.
>
> >
> > it is YOU WHO HAS TO CONVINCE US THAT YOU ARE NOT A
> TROLL
> >
> > SINCE YOU ONLY INSULT PEOPLE HERE
>
>
> Wrong, and very badly so. See for instance my
> contributions to 4D
> rotation threads with Pertti Lounesto, or my recent
> puszzle (I know, it
> contained a lot of misprints at first, but the final
> expression
> iscorrect, and I still bet you are not able to prove
> it is always real,
> not mentioning how I found it. Hint : it is not so
> elementary as it
> look, and I used a (reasonably) advanced tool to find
> it)
> >
> > rather than to ask questions , let alone do math...
> >
> > i have seen lots of critics towards me ...
> >
> > the only reason you can react like that is because
> this forum is unmoderated !!
> >
> > NOT because you are a genius...
> >
> > you could not even compute an average remember ???
> >
> > now what kind of mathematician cant compute an
> average
>
>
> Poor iiot.
your the idiot
You never eve,n try to understand quasi
> answer,
lol , i understand quasi
and quasi understands my posts
whereas you dont
yet you claim to be smarter than the both of us
HA !!
or to realize
> your conjecture was doomed beyond repair...
yet not as bad as not being able to compute an average hmm
> ;
> >
> > yet claims to understand calculus ??
> >
> > denis and denis only ...
> >
> >
> > there is a pattern in critics towards me
> >
> > 1) they insult me
> >
> > 2) they dont do math
> >
> > 3) they leave , realising they misjudged me ,
> and/or they cant do math...
> >
> > (usually both)
> >
> >
> > your faith will be the same as bit188...
> > (or any other)
> >
> > she considered me a crank too...
> >
> > till some people here pointed out the level of my
> postings*
>
> *Name one posting not low level.
> >
> > ( especially the ones she did not read )
> >
> > she refused to read them...
> >
> > finally she apologized
> >
> > promised to do some math
> >
> > and then left ...
> >
> > and time will repeat itself ...
> >
> > notice how most people on my cranklist have left
> >
> > they were all critics of mine ...
> >
> > and those are only the recent ones ...
> >
> > so they all had to go ...
> >
> > realizing they made a fool out of themselves
> doubting me ...
>
> You are a liar and a troll.
> >
> > go ahead
> >
> > look for my factoring tricks ...
> >
> > ask quasi about it if you dont believe me ...
> >
> > dont expect JSH type factoring tricks , mine are
> much more advanced !!!
> >
> > go ahead , look it up
> >
> > or ask quasi
> >
> > or ask timothy golden
> >
> > or ask neilist
> >
> > or even robert israel will remember that
ill let you in on a little secret here
robert isreal is a good mathematician
and he worked on tetration
( a word you probably never heard of )
so plz dont make a fool of yourself claiming
your a better mathematician then him...
im way to friendly to warn you for this actually ...
>
>
> You lie. Anyway, why do you never give any reference?
i just did hahaha
> >
> > or do you consider those guys cranks too ??
> >
> > time will repeat itself...
> >
> > you probably think this does not apply to you ;
> that your different ...
> >
> > think again ...
> >
>
> As I told you, I have been here for more than 10
> years,so...
i was here before under other names
so what ?
> >
i dare you to prove/disproof all of mine or quasi's conjectures and theorems
ha !
> ------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >
"dimensionality is resolved !! "
tommy1729 about perelmanns proof
btw 1729 is the taxicab number if you might wonder about that.
Riemann Matiyasevich and Wiles forever
tommy1729
jonas.t...@hotmail.com
> > > denis wrote:
>
> > > (and did no math whatsowever rather insulted as
> > usual)
>
> > > > tommy1729 a écrit :
> > >>>> In article
>
> > >>>> forum.org> tommy1729 <tommy1...@gmail.com>
In Leisure suit Larry in the land of the lounge Wizards?
> Riemann Matiyasevich and Wiles forever
> tommy1729- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
tommy1729
no in the work of the mathematician Ramanujan ...
this type of replies is symbolic for the average math forum poster ...
unfortunately :-(
neilist
> > > denis wrote:
>
> > > (and did no math whatsowever rather insulted as
> > usual)
>
> > > > tommy1729 a écrit :
> > >>>> In article
>
> > >>>> forum.org> tommy1729 <tommy1...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tommy, can you stay focussed on your math?
1. As to your mathematical background:
Saying you won an Olympiad may be true, but it's not verifiable in
this anonymous forum, and it only serves to self-aggrandize.
If I said I won an Olympiad or a Putnam competition or had a Ph.D in
Math, certain others here wouldn't believe it, so there is no value in
saying such things. (None of these are true, but I could just say it,
couldn't I?)
Even if I said true things about "my vast mathematical abilities" (in
quotes so some can't get on my case for lying), others still wouldn't
believe them.
2. As to your accomplishments:
That is, your mathematical "discoveries" and other things you've done
such as "factoring tricks", you seem to be bragging and looking for
praise.
Ahem, you are starting to sound like that crank James Harris.
And your dislike of non-commutative math such as matrix multiplication
is kind of weird - like you have a choice. It doesn't (usually)
commute, so accept it!
So please restrain yourself as to your background and
accomplishments. Let the math (if it's good) speak for itself.
3. Spelling and grammar
Tommy, do you just type too fast? Are the ideas speeding out of your
brain more rapid than your hands can type, and then you just HAVE TO
press ENTER before proofreading?
Try being like Gauss, with his motto "few but ripe" (as quoted from
E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics).
Slow down a bit, huh?
4. Don't rank other mathematicians
Comparing Denis Feldman to Quasi, or whoever to whoever, or Ullrich to
Madigan is a bit pointless.
Except for James Harris and Bassam King Whatever - they're just shit.
Outside of sci.math, you really should check Dirk Van de Moortel's
Immortal Fumbles page, to see the insanity and stupidity of non-
mathematicians and purported physicists Ken Seto, Androcles, and
others. That website is da bomb! (as they say in the vernacular)
So do the math! Literally!
Denis Feldmann
> On Aug 14, 6:04 pm, tommy1729 <tommy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[cut]
>
> Tommy, can you stay focussed on your math?
>
> 1. As to your mathematical background:
>
> Saying you won an Olympiad may be true, but it's not verifiable in
> this anonymous forum, and it only serves to self-aggrandize.
>
In fact, it is : anyone with some patience can check the identity of
tommy1789, starting from the Sloane site... Many participants here dont
hide their true identities either.
> If I said I won an Olympiad or a Putnam competition or had a Ph.D in
> Math, certain others here wouldn't believe it, so there is no value in
> saying such things. (None of these are true, but I could just say it,
> couldn't I?)
>
> Even if I said true things about "my vast mathematical abilities" (in
> quotes so some can't get on my case for lying), others still wouldn't
> believe them.
>
> 2. As to your accomplishments:
>
> That is, your mathematical "discoveries" and other things you've done
> such as "factoring tricks", you seem to be bragging and looking for
> praise.
>
> Ahem, you are starting to sound like that crank James Harris.
Starting only? I thought he was copying him
>
> And your dislike of non-commutative math such as matrix multiplication
> is kind of weird - like you have a choice. It doesn't (usually)
> commute, so accept it!
>
> So please restrain yourself as to your background and
> accomplishments. Let the math (if it's good) speak for itself.
>
> 3. Spelling and grammar
>
> Tommy, do you just type too fast? Are the ideas speeding out of your
> brain more rapid than your hands can type, and then you just HAVE TO
> press ENTER before proofreading?
>
> Try being like Gauss, with his motto "few but ripe" (as quoted from
> E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics).
>
> Slow down a bit, huh?
>
> 4. Don't rank other mathematicians
>
> Comparing Denis Feldman to Quasi, or whoever to whoever, or Ullrich to
> Madigan is a bit pointless.
>
> Except for James Harris and Bassam King Whatever - they're just shit.
>
> Outside of sci.math, you really should check Dirk Van de Moortel's
> Immortal Fumbles page, to see the insanity and stupidity of non-
> mathematicians and purported physicists Ken Seto, Androcles, and
> others. That website is da bomb! (as they say in the vernacular)
>
> So do the math! Literally!
>
And I would add 5. Dont post any half-baked idea you get as a
"conjecture" or as "I wonder why mathematicians are not interested
by..." before having done a bit of serious research (in the Google
sense, in the second case)
neilist
internet.fr> wrote:
<snip>
> In fact, it is : anyone with some patience can check the identity of
> tommy1789, starting from the Sloane site... Many participants here dont
> hide their true identities either.
Well, I personally wouldn't spend (waste?) time trying to verify
someone's boasts.
If they said they had a Ph.D. and was "pulling rank" on a mathematical
point based on their education, then maybe I would.
<snip>
> > Ahem, you are starting to sound like that crank James Harris.
>
> Starting only? I thought he was copying him
I was trying to be tactful :-)
<snip>
> And I would add 5. Dont post any half-baked idea you get as a
> "conjecture" or as "I wonder why mathematicians are not interested
> by..." before having done a bit of serious research (in the Google
> sense, in the second case)
True, true ...
But Denis, how do you and other advanced mathematicians feel when a
newbie or a student posts something that is sooooooo elementary and
beneath you?
Some would take the student or newbie to task immediately.
On the other hand, others are more patient, like a recent post by
Magidan responding to a student (?) regarding a probability question.
It's hard to keep the trolls out without scaring away the truly
inquisitive, right?
OwlHoot
internet.fr> wrote:
>
> neilist a écrit :
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > Saying you won an Olympiad may be true, but it's not verifiable in
> > this anonymous forum, and it only serves to self-aggrandize.
>
> In fact, it is : anyone with some patience can check the identity of
> tommy1789, starting from the Sloane site... Many participants here
> dont hide their true identities either.
What is this Sloane site? Also, for people with insufficient patience,
could you indicate who Tommy is from the clues there?
Cheers
John R Ramsden
galathaea
its the integer sequence site
this is one of tommy's sequences
his first name is apparently tom and his las%^$#%&#^$&$
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
OwlHoot
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh _that_ Sloane - From the context I thought it might be some
Olympiad
site I hadn't heard of.
BTW On Google Groups someone marked your post with one star, which
seems
a bit harsh. Must have been your typing towards the end ;-P
Also, you sound like an expert in elliptic curves and modular
functions.
Do you know if anyone has devised a model, or tried, that associates
the
group structure of an elliptic curve (i.e. the chord-tangent process,
to use a quaint term, involving triplets of points with a fourth point
at infinity) with the 3 + 1 dimensions of spacetime at familiar
scales?
It sounds like a lunatic idea, and I wouldn't know where to begin.
For a start, presumably a single curve would be no use - One would
need a whole nest of associated curves (a moduli space?). But I
gather modular functions feature in many modern physical theories,
such as string theory, and Andrew Wiles proved that every elliptic
function is modular. So it isn't so remote from physics, and John
Baez often mentions elliptic curves in his excellent "Finds" posts.
Cheers
John R Ramsden
Denis Feldmann
> On Aug 15, 11:58 am, Denis Feldmann <denis.feldmann.sanss...@club-
> internet.fr> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In fact, it is : anyone with some patience can check the identity of
>> tommy1789, starting from the Sloane site... Many participants here dont
>> hide their true identities either.
>
> Well, I personally wouldn't spend (waste?) time trying to verify
> someone's boasts.
>
> If they said they had a Ph.D. and was "pulling rank" on a mathematical
> point based on their education, then maybe I would.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Ahem, you are starting to sound like that crank James Harris.
>> Starting only? I thought he was copying him
>
> I was trying to be tactful :-)
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> And I would add 5. Dont post any half-baked idea you get as a
>> "conjecture" or as "I wonder why mathematicians are not interested
>> by..." before having done a bit of serious research (in the Google
>> sense, in the second case)
>
> True, true ...
>
> But Denis, how do you and other advanced mathematicians feel when a
> newbie or a student posts something that is sooooooo elementary and
> beneath you?
It all depends on *how* he posts it. Almost my first experience here was
trying to explain (to whom? I dont recall now, but he was one of the
best logicians present) that sentences like "If GC is undecidable, then
it is true") had no meaning, because of the existence of models where
then GC would be false. I was (reasonably politely, but tersely) invited
to read a book or two before lecturing my betters again. So I perfectly
well know that "advanced mathematician" is quite relative. But otoh, I
spend a lot of time (mostly on fr.sci.maths, but here too) helping (or
trying to help) students of good will. When someone posts things like "I
have made a great discovery : 1+2+...n=n(n+1)/2", I will congratulate
him, and direct him towards, say, "Concrete mathematics" instead of
telling his it has been known for 2500 years. On the other hand, any one
who tells me, not only that n^2+n+41 is always prime, but that he has a
perfect proof of it, and where can he publishes it, may indeed be
greeted with sarcasm...
>
> Some would take the student or newbie to task immediately.
>
> On the other hand, others are more patient, like a recent post by
> Magidan responding to a student (?) regarding a probability question.
>
> It's hard to keep the trolls out without scaring away the truly
> inquisitive, right?
>
>
Not really. Also, any serious Usenet newbie could have a look at the
forum for a week or two before posting...
Denis Feldmann
> On Aug 15, 4:58 pm, Denis Feldmann <denis.feldmann.sanss...@club-
> internet.fr> wrote:
>> neilist a écrit :
>>> [..]
>>>
>>> Saying you won an Olympiad may be true, but it's not verifiable in
>>> this anonymous forum, and it only serves to self-aggrandize.
>> In fact, it is : anyone with some patience can check the identity of
>> tommy1789, starting from the Sloane site... Many participants here
>> dont hide their true identities either.
>
> What is this Sloane site?
Sloane's Integer Sequences On Line :
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/
This is almost a must in any bookmark's list, with Plouffe's inverter (
http://pi.lacim.uqam.ca/eng/ )
Also, for people with insufficient patience,
> could you indicate who Tommy is from the clues there?
>
>
Tom Raes
> Cheers
>
> John R Ramsden
>
galathaea
OwlHoot <raven...@googlemail.com> wrote:
!! BTW On Google Groups someone marked your post with one star, which
!! seems a bit harsh. Must have been your typing towards the end ;-P
i've noticed that everything i've been posting recently is soon marked with one star
i expect that is probably a good idea
as my posts are mostly a waste of usenet space
but i just wish it could be automated in some way
i hate to think that someone is wasting their time on such endeavors
!! Also, you sound like an expert in elliptic curves and modular functions.
!! Do you know if anyone has devised a model, or tried, that associates the
!! group structure of an elliptic curve (i.e. the chord-tangent process,
!! to use a quaint term, involving triplets of points with a fourth point
!! at infinity) with the 3 + 1 dimensions of spacetime at familiar
!! scales?
it is very strange that you mention that
i have been looking over this paper recently
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0205236
this paper asks a lot from me
and i am sure it will end up being one i return to regularly
but i think it gives an idea of where you might find such research
i am not an expert on elliptic curves
i am fascinated by them and try to read about their properties from many sources
but simply reading about them doesn't mean i understand what i am reading
it takes time and real practice with a pen and paper
and i expect i have a few more decades left before i am practiced enough to do anything interesting
!! It sounds like a lunatic idea, and I wouldn't know where to begin.
!! For a start, presumably a single curve would be no use - One would
!! need a whole nest of associated curves (a moduli space?). But I
!! gather modular functions feature in many modern physical theories,
!! such as string theory, and Andrew Wiles proved that every elliptic
!! function is modular. So it isn't so remote from physics, and John
!! Baez often mentions elliptic curves in his excellent "Finds" posts.
quick nit: wiles' only showed modularity for "semistable" elliptic curves
ie. those that have good or multiplicative reduction
which is all that was needed for fermat but didn't cover all elliptic curves
but your idea is not crazy
it is a tried and tested process that
if you want to discern more about a mathematical structure
add some additional algebraic structure to it that in some sense "respects" it
and see what this tells you
for geometric problems these have traditionally been various fiber bundles, forms, ...
whereas for diophantine problems these have tended to be some type of binary structure
but the distinction between these cases is not very clear
and there has been much overlap
elliptic curves are in some sense "well-known"
(despite still being mysterious in many ways)
they have been rigorously studied for at least three centuries
they have the smallest nontrivial genus
they are 1-dimensional
and some of the most insightful math superheroes have contributed
the new tough-nut on the block seems to be calabi-yau surfaces
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9309097
these are currently being analysed in much the way you describe
given group structures
determining their moduli spaces
...
as well as traditional homotopy bundle analyses
these are coming out all over the place
string theory
topological quantum field theory
natural algebraic geometry questions
the theory of hypergeometric systems
i give it a month and a half before some major number theory connection gets found!
(ignoring some minor ones already extant)
the crazy thing about the paper i linked is that it brings in the langlands programme
which is still revolutionising algebraic geometry
and revealing much structural reasoning about wiles' result on fermat's last theorem
what you talk about is not only possible
but i think that right now
it is one of the most promising programmes of modern research
tommy1729
> > On Aug 15, 4:58 pm, Denis Feldmann
> <denis.feldmann.sanss...@club-
> > internet.fr> wrote:
> >> neilist a écrit :
> >>> [..]
> >>>
> >>> Saying you won an Olympiad may be true, but it's
> not verifiable in
> >>> this anonymous forum, and it only serves to
> self-aggrandize.
> >> In fact, it is : anyone with some patience can
> check the identity of
> >> tommy1789,
it is tommy1729 , not 1789
1729 is the taxicab number
i told you before
starting from the Sloane site... Many
> participants here
> >> dont hide their true identities either.
> >
> > What is this Sloane site?
>
>
> Sloane's Integer Sequences On Line :
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/
>
> This is almost a must in any bookmark's list, with
> Plouffe's inverter (
> http://pi.lacim.uqam.ca/eng/ )
>
> Also, for people with insufficient patience,
> > could you indicate who Tommy is from the clues
> there?
> >
> >
>
> Tom Raes
>
> > Cheers
> >
> > John R Ramsden
> >
i have proven my sequences and operator !!!
ha !
tommy1729
you are lying , you are not polite
you have done almost nothing then to insult me
you would have told me it existed for 2500 years
even worse you would have insulted me again
and you and everybody here knows it !!
> who tells me, not only that n^2+n+41
is always prime,
> but that he has a
> perfect proof of it
i never posted such nonsence !!
you confuse such things with my factoring tricks !!
and you confuse my factoring tricks with those of JSH
they are VERY different !!
, and where can he publishes it,
> may indeed be
> greeted with sarcasm...
>
>
> >
> > Some would take the student or newbie to task
> immediately.
> >
> > On the other hand, others are more patient, like a
> recent post by
> > Magidan responding to a student (?) regarding a
> probability question.
> >
> > It's hard to keep the trolls out without scaring
> away the truly
> > inquisitive, right?
> >
> >
>
> Not really. Also, any serious Usenet newbie could
> have a look at the
> forum for a week or two before posting...
i was here before you
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Sorry, I didn't see your article until just now, hence my delayed response.
> From: neilist <littora...@gmail.com>
> If I said I won an Olympiad or a Putnam competition or had a Ph.D
> in Math, certain others here wouldn't believe it, so there is no
> value in saying such things.
I actually *did* win the Putnam competition. (I placed top five.)
Do you believe me? Does anybody here believe me?
Does anyone here *not* believe me, instead believe I'm lying about that fact?
rolf180 at yahoo.com
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2008...@yahoo.com...
Neilist
wrote:
I could give you the benefit of the doubt, and therefore believe you.
Sure, why not?
But if you were to (hypothetically) use your achievements or degrees
to justify bad math or a lousy attitude (as well as bad and sloppy
spellings and grammar), then I would change my mind.
Like James Harris and Quinn Tyler Jackson being members of the Mega
Foundation, a High-IQ group. Those might make one appear smart, but
lousy attitudes made James Harris and Quinn Tyler Jackson look like
idiotic crybaby children.
Mohan Pawar
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:rem-2008...@yahoo.com...
> Sorry, I didn't see your article until just now, hence my delayed
response.
>
> > From: neilist <littora...@gmail.com>
> > If I said I won an Olympiad or a Putnam competition or had a
Ph.D
> > in Math, certain others here wouldn't believe it, so there is no
> > value in saying such things.
>
> I actually *did* win the Putnam competition. (I placed top five.)
> Do you believe me? Does anybody here believe me?
I believe you. For others, the link is
http://www.maa.org/awards/putnam.html (see Twenty-seventh
Competition - 1966)
> Does anyone here *not* believe me, instead believe I'm lying about
that fact?
--
Best regards
Mohan Pawar
www.mpClasses.com
US Central Time: 5:38 PM 2/21/2008
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> ... if you were to (hypothetically) use your achievements or degrees
> to justify bad math or a lousy attitude (as well as bad and sloppy
> spellings and grammar), then I would change my mind.
We all make mistakes, but on the average I wouldn't do bad math or
sloppy spelling or grammar, except for very long run-on sentences.
My policy is to accept corrections when I make a math/spelling/grammar
mistake.
> Like James Harris and Quinn Tyler Jackson being members of the
> Mega Foundation, a High-IQ group.
<http://www.megafoundation.org/Mission.html>
The Mega Foundation is a 501c(3) tax-exempt non-profit corporation
established in 1999 to create and implement programs that aid in the
development of severely gifted individuals and their ideas.
I have an idea what "severely disabled" means, but "severely
gifted" like conflicting meaning, an oxymoron.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_IQ_society>
* Mega Foundation: with The Ultranet and Mega International Society
* Top 0.001% (99.999th percentile; 1/100000; IQ 164 sd15, IQ 168
sd16): The Ultranet
* Top 0.0001% (99.9999th percentile; 1/1000000; IQ 172 sd15, IQ 176
sd16): Mega Society, Mega International, Pi Society, Omega
Society, StrictIQ Society
Hmm, did each of them pass such a specialized IQ test to qualify
for one of those, or are they merely contributing members to the
charity but not qualified per high IQ?
I got in top one percent, which would qualify me for:
* Top 1% (99th percentile; 1/100; IQ 135 sd15, IQ 137 sd16):
Intertel, Top One Percent Society, Elateneo/s Society,
Superdotados-Intelectuales, The Mind Society, Sinapsa Society
Anything higher I have no way to know whether I qualify or not
because the IQ tests I took gave only whole percentage results. I
got about 145 on the standard test and about 155 on the interesting
test, so I might possibly qualify for these:
* Top 0.5% (99.5th percentile; 1/200; IQ 139 sd15, IQ 141 sd16):
Colloquy, Poetic Genius Society
* Top 0.37% (99.63rd percentile; 37/10000; IQ 140 sd15, IQ 143
sd16): Infinity International Society
* Top 0.3% (99.7th percentile; 3/1000; IQ 141 sd15, IQ 144 sd16):
Cerebrals Society
* Top 0.2% (99.8th percentile; 1/500; IQ 143 sd15, IQ 146 sd16):
ePiq Society, Neurocubo
* Top 0.13% (99.87th percentile; 13/10000; IQ 145 sd15, IQ 148
sd16): CIVIQ Society, Artifex Mens Congregatio (Artistic Minds
Society)
* Top 0.1% (99.9th percentile; 1/1000; IQ 146 sd15, IQ 149 sd16):
International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, Triple Nine
Society, IQuadrivium Society
* Top 0.09% (99.91th percentile; 9/10000; IQ 147 sd15, IQ 150 sd16):
Glia Society, One-in-a-Thousand Society, Milenija
* Top 0.07% (99.93th percentile; 7/10000; IQ 148 sd15, IQ 151 sd16):
ISI-Society
I wouldn't qualify for the rest, starting with:
* Top 0.009% (99.991st percentile; 9/100000; IQ 156 sd15, IQ 160
sd16): Vertex
I don't suppose there's anybody reading this thread who would be
willing to hire me to do work that somehow uses some of my high IQ?
Neilist
wrote:
<snip. Regarding James Harris and Quinn Tyler Jackson ...>
> Hmm, did each of them pass such a specialized IQ test to qualify
> for one of those, or are they merely contributing members to the
> charity but not qualified per high IQ?
The Mega Foundation had a website which, at one point, listed James
Harris and Quinn Tyler Jackson as well as others with pictures, which
didn't make clear whether or not James Harris or Quinn Tyler Jackson
had passed the specialized IQ test, or merely were "associated" with
Mega.
From the poor postings and cranky attitudes of James Harris and Quinn
Tyler Jackson, I am convinced that they did NOT pass any IQ test, but
merely paid some money/dues to be associated with the Mega Foundation.
That is, James Harris and Quinn Tyler Jackson are LYING FRAUDS who
feebly try to pump up their weak egos by associating themselves with
the Mega Foundation to impress people, while these frauds post garbage
math and abuse others who question them. Such as their mentioning a
"closed list" of math reviewers, and their "personal space" on the
Internet and sci.math which no one should violate. Ha!
Quinn
news:a14319a2-f867-4feb...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
"...who feebly try to pump up their weak egos by associating themselves with
the Mega Foundation to impress people, while these frauds post garbage
math and abuse others who question them..."
Neilist ....
Haven't you spouted off just about enough on the JSH paper that got pulled?
That was some years ago, and yet you still go on and on about it, and you
still attack me, even though I've essentially minded my own business for
some years now as regards you.
I know you have a hard-on about it -- I know your feelings got hurt -- I
know you don't want to let it go ... but c'mon.... death wishes posted
against me in public? What's that about? Did my calling you an ELIZA program
really deserve you to publicly wish me dead?
Are you really that broken?
And now you go on speculating and bullshitting about me in public. No, it's
not my personal space. I know that. I admit that. But that is my personal
name you have been attacking, whereas you have the benefit of your
anonymity.
You rant on and on in what should be sci.math, not sci.aftermath, and for
what? What personal gain is there in it for you to constantly be bringing up
my name and assaulting it?
I know the books all advise to never confront or acknowledge those who would
do what you've been doing -- it just feeds it. But I'm really, really sick
and tired of your inane attacks against my name.
Let it go.
Or don't. I don't really care all that much -- your nonsense is so whacked
that nobody takes it seriously. Or at least one would hope that it's fairly
transparent.
But it is rather tedious. And it's time for you to move on, don't you agree?
As for my IQ -- who the hell cares?
As for my maths -- well, send me an email directly, and I'll send you (or
anyone who asks using a real name) 295 pages of my published maths, and a
list of where my maths have been cited academically. Call me a bluffer and
DON'T send me an email to verify what I just offered -- but I put up or shut
up. I'm too old to bluff; life's too short to waste on fluff.
So now it's your turn to put up or shut up.
--
Quinn
tommy1729
> "Neilist" <latto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a14319a2-f867-4feb-99c1-44b881b42e4b@s8g2000prg.g
> ooglegroups.com...
>
> "...who feebly try to pump up their weak egos by
> associating themselves with
> the Mega Foundation to impress people, while these
> frauds post garbage
> math and abuse others who question them..."
>
> Neilist ....
>
> Haven't you spouted off just about enough on the JSH
> paper that got pulled?
> That was some years ago, and yet you still go on and
> on about it, and you
> still attack me, even though I've essentially minded
> my own business for
> some years now as regards you.
>
> I know you have a hard-on about it -- I know your
> feelings got hurt -- I
> know you don't want to let it go ... but c'mon....
> death wishes posted
> against me in public? What's that about? Did my
> calling you an ELIZA program
> really deserve you to publicly wish me dead?
>
> Are you really that broken?
nope , its just his personality.
>
> And now you go on speculating and bullshitting about
> me in public. No, it's
> not my personal space. I know that. I admit that. But
> that is my personal
> name you have been attacking, whereas you have the
> benefit of your
> anonymity.
>
> You rant on and on in what should be sci.math, not
> sci.aftermath, and for
> what? What personal gain is there in it for you to
> constantly be bringing up
> my name and assaulting it?
>
> I know the books all advise to never confront or
> acknowledge those who would
> do what you've been doing -- it just feeds it. But
> I'm really, really sick
> and tired of your inane attacks against my name.
>
> Let it go.
>
> Or don't. I don't really care all that much -- your
> nonsense is so whacked
> that nobody takes it seriously.
thats true.
some even call neilist the biggest crank of all.
( and JSH only second )
Or at least one would
> hope that it's fairly
> transparent.
>
> But it is rather tedious. And it's time for you to
> move on, don't you agree?
yes.
quinn rarely post here.
so whats the problem ?
you dont have to say get out of sci.math , hes barely here.
( apart from in the minds of JSH and neilist )
> As for my IQ -- who the hell cares?
i certainly dont.
>
> As for my maths
dont care about that either.
-- well, send me an email directly,
> and I'll send you (or
> anyone who asks using a real name) 295 pages of my
> published maths, and a
> list of where my maths have been cited academically.
> Call me a bluffer and
> DON'T send me an email to verify what I just offered
> -- but I put up or shut
> up. I'm too old to bluff; life's too short to waste
> on fluff.
will neilist take the challange ??
295 pages ...
well the number of pages says not all.
its the quality that matters.
on some days i have written over 30 pages.
but the very next day i threw 29 of them in the garbage litter.
>
> So now it's your turn to put up or shut up.
>
> --
> Quinn
>
>
will neilist take the challange ?
whoever loses the challange , ill be amuzed.
:)
tommy1729
Neilist
<snip>
> Haven't you spouted off just about enough on the JSH paper that got pulled?
> That was some years ago, and yet you still go on and on about it,
Oh, deceiver and distorter! I haven't brought up the pulled James
Harris paper for YEARS.
What I have and do bring up is your lame and pathetic support for him.
You said a "closed list" of mathematicians reviewed James Harris'
paper and allegedly found no errors. Suuuuuurrrreeee.
"closed list", "closed list", "closed list"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I just love bringing that up. That "closed list" line was so devoid
of intellectual honesty.
High IQ? Yeah, right.
> and you
> still attack me, even though I've essentially minded my own business for
> some years now as regards you.
Go ahead. Keep minding your own business, while I continue on and
on ...
> I know you have a hard-on about it
You're a pervert.
> -- I know your feelings got hurt --
Trying to get the moral high ground, huh? Trying to psychoanalyze me,
huh?
Well ...
"closed list", "closed list", "closed list"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> I know you don't want to let it go ... but c'mon.... death wishes posted
> against me in public? What's that about? Did my calling you an ELIZA program
> really deserve you to publicly wish me dead?
You deny my humanity, I deny yours.
> Are you really that broken?
Your mind is broken wih your intellectual dishonest attitude. Besides
the ELIZA program crap and other evasiveness, ....
"closed list", "closed list", "closed list"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> And now you go on speculating and bullshitting about me in public. No, it's
> not my personal space. I know that. I admit that.
Yeah, that's another golden oldie. You had said that the Internet and
your postings to newsgroups are your "personal space". When did you
come to the rude awakening that it wasn't?
Such as when someone started repeatedly posting:
"personal space", "personal space", "personal space"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>But that is my personal
> name you have been attacking, whereas you have the benefit of your
> anonymity.
Oh, I see your profile is disabled. Who's anonymous now?
"personal space", "personal space", "personal space"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> You rant on and on in what should be sci.math, not sci.aftermath, and for
> what? What personal gain is there in it for you to constantly be bringing up
> my name and assaulting it?
The gain is to counter intellectual dishonesty, such as James Harris'
garbage and your defense of him and his bad behavior. In ancient
posts and in the real world, James Harris supposedly threatened real
people and their careers.
And your defense of him? It was:
"closed list", "closed list", "closed list"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> I know the books all advise to never confront or acknowledge those who would
> do what you've been doing -- it just feeds it. But I'm really, really sick
> and tired of your inane attacks against my name.
Well, I guess you will get sicker and sicker, and tired-er and tired-
er (sounds like a real word, yeah!) for years and years to come, from
different aliases and in different forums.
Hey, Google yourself and see my handiwork! Some of that will be
publicly available for YEARS!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> Let it go.
Let go of your "friend" James Harris. Is he really worth your looking
like an intellectually dishonest co-member of the Mega Foundation,
with your "closed list" defense of him?
Denounce James Harris for the crank or crackpot he is. Or stay with
him with your historical defenses of him ...
"closed list", "closed list", "closed list"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> Or don't.
And if you don't feel like denouncing James Harris as a crank or
crackpot, I don't feel like letting go of such wacky phrases as
"closed list" and "personal space". They're FUNNY!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>I don't really care all that much --
Good. Enjoy Googling yourself for the rest of your life.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>your nonsense is so whacked
> that nobody takes it seriously.
Oh, but YOU do, since I remind you of how intellectually dishonest you
are.
"closed list" and "personal space".
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>Or at least one would hope that it's fairly
> transparent.
>
> But it is rather tedious. And it's time for you to move on, don't you agree?
No. That's why there's a little thing in the United States called
FREEDOM!!!!
Cranks like James Harris feel free to post crap and to insult and
threaten people with THE ARMY and THE HAMMER, and generally insult the
mathematical community.
And I feel free to parrot the phrases:
"closed list" and "personal space".
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> As for my IQ -- who the hell cares?
Well, you and James Harris care. Joining the Mega Foundation, having
your pictures on their website.
And then using the "closed list" excuse to shut down any questioning
of James Harris' lies.
High IQ? Yeah, suuuuurrreeee.
Perhaps you can answer a question that came up? Did James Harris
actually pass an IQ test to join the Mega Foundation?
I bet he didn't! But he somehow got associated with it. And so YOU
are forever associated with James Harris!
> As for my maths -- well, send me an email directly, and I'll send you (or
> anyone who asks using a real name) 295 pages of my published maths, and a
> list of where my maths have been cited academically. Call me a bluffer and
> DON'T send me an email to verify what I just offered
Evasion and/or deceit. Your E-mail on this post doesn't work.
Make a post in sci.math with a real E-mail address and/or your list of
publications. Just try to impress others.
You won't impress me. Your phrases "closed list" and "personal space"
and your evasiveness in answering questions made you look dumb.
Denouncing James Harris as a crank would be more impressive than some
list of "math" achievements or publications.
But you won't. You can't admit your error defending him. Or can
you? Let James Harris go, and let's see you move on to being more
enlightened in standing against James Harris' crankiness.
>-- but I put up or shut
> up. I'm too old to bluff; life's too short to waste on fluff.
>
> So now it's your turn to put up or shut up.
Gee, are those my only choices?
Well, I choose ... another path of my own making.
That is, remind Quinn Tyler Jackson of how intellectually dishonest he
is.
"closed list" and "personal space".
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> --
> Quinn
Quinn Tyler Jackson is "friend" of James Harris, if you know what I
mean.
;-)
Neilist
<snip>
> willneilisttake the challange ?
Tommy1729 is too challenged mentally with just the simple definition
of the noun "integral".
On August 28, 2007, 2:35 PM, Tommy1729 wrote:
"integers ...-2,-1,0,1,2,...
integrals 1,2,3,4,...
natural numbers 0,1,2,3,..."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Quinn
Not my fault that Google Groups obfuscates these things.
Go ahead -- make my day, punk. You want my maths -- come and get 'm. Or do
you only snipe when you have shadows on your side?
> Denouncing James Harris as a crank would be more impressive
> than some list of "math" achievements or publications.
I'm not trying to "impress" anyone. I'm trying to tell you to take a long,
hard swing of a mug of Shut the Fuck Up about me, you Specious Twit.
But yes, I've come to understand that James is a "crank" and that life is
also too short to stand behind lost causes.
In the category of Lost Causes is trying to get you to Shut the Fuck Up ...
So -- unless you decide to send me an email for my maths --
Have a nice day.
--
Quinn
Quinn
No. I've been surprised before in life, however, so maybe "Who knows?" is a
better answer.
> 295 pages ...
>
> well the number of pages says not all.
>
> its the quality that matters.
Well, therein is the test, I suppose. As long as the theorems hold, eh? ;-)
It's a dissertation, so there's a lot of filler, such as the chapter on the
literature -- so 295 pages may be a bad metric.
> on some days i have written over 30 pages.
>
> but the very next day i threw 29 of them in the garbage litter.
By that standard, then, the book is about 10 (good) pages long.
Cheers.
--
Quinn
Neilist
> > Evasion and/or deceit. Your E-mail on this post doesn't work.
> > Make a post in sci.math with a real E-mail address....
>
>
> Not my fault that Google Groups obfuscates these things.
>
> Go ahead -- make my day, punk. You want my maths -- come and get 'm. Or do
> you only snipe when you have shadows on your side?
>
> > Denouncing James Harris as a crank would be more impressive
> > than some list of "math" achievements or publications.
>
> I'm not trying to "impress" anyone. I'm trying to tell you to take a long,
> hard swing of a mug of Shut the Fuck Up about me, you Specious Twit.
>
> But yes, I've come to understand that James is a "crank" and that life is
> also too short to stand behind lost causes.
>
> In the category of Lost Causes is trying to get you to Shut the Fuck Up ...
>
> So -- unless you decide to send me an email for my maths --
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> --
> Quinn
Ha ha, Quinn can't stop the eternal propagation and exposure of his
stupidity with his terms "closed list" and "personal space".
Nor can Quinn get me to E-mail him, so he can get my E-mail address
and attempt to hunt me down and harass me to satisfy his weak ego.
Ha ha!
"closed list" "closed list" "closed list"
"personal space" "personal space" "personal space"
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Quinn
> Make a post in sci.math with a real E-mail address and/or your list of
> publications.
Hmmm... OK, ...
That is my email address.
Now here is a list of a few papers, dissertations, and books that cite my
work. Mind you, it's not a list of my publications, but a list of those
works that *cite* my results. I don't have access to the kinds of resources
you do to find these things, so it's likely incomplete.
Each one of those can be checked on the Internet.
I stand behind my claims and my results.
What do *you* stand behind, "Neilist" -- besides your God-given right to
anonymity?
· J. J. Neto, "A Small Survey of the Evolution of Adaptivity and
Adaptive Technology," Latin American Transactions, IEEE, pp. 496-505, Vol. 4
No. 7, Nov. 2007.
· Ivone Penque Matsuno, Um Estudo do Processo de Inferência de
Gramáticas Regulares e Livres de Contexto Baseados em Modelos Adaptativos,
Master's dissertation, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of São
Paulo, 2006.
· Blake Hegerle, "Parsing Transformative LR(1) Languages,"
http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.PL/0605104, July 2006.
· Dick Grune and Ceriel J.H. Jacobs, Parsing Techniques-A Practical
Guide, (2nd ed.), Springer Verlag, (In Press) 2006.
· Aparacido Valdemir de Freitas & João José Neto, "Conception of
Adaptive Programming Languages," Proceedings of the 17th IASTED
International Conference, Montreal, Canada, 14-16 May 2006.
· Hemerson Pistori et al., "Adaptive Non-Deterministic Decision
Trees: General Formulation and Case Study," INFOCOMP Journal of Computer
Science, (In Press) 2006.
· Alexander Okhotin, Boolean Grammars: Expressive Power and Parsing
Algorithms, Doctoral thesis, School of Computing, Queen's University,
Canada, Oct. 2004.
· Alexander Okhotin, "An extension of recursive descent parsing for
Boolean grammars," Technical Report 2004-475 School of Computing, Queen's
University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Mar. 2004.
· César Bravo, Grámmaticas Livres de Contexto Adaptativas com
verificação de aparência, Doctoral thesis, Dept. of Electrical Engineering,
University of São Paulo, Jan. 2004.
· Hemerson Pistori, Tecnologia Adaptativa em Engenharia de
Computação: Estado da Arte e Aplicações, Doctoral thesis, Dept. of
Electrical Engineering, University of São Paulo, 2003.
· Markus L. Noga, Optimierung der Verarbeitung von Dokumenten,
Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Computer Science, Universität Karlsruhe,
Germany, Dec. 2003.
· Trent Heath Apted, Learning and Collaborative Tangible User
Interfaces (SmartToys), Honors B.C.S.T. (Adv.) thesis, School of
Information Technologies, University of Sydney, Australia, Nov. 2003.
· Mary Fernandez & Jerome Simeon, "Growing XQuery," European
Conference on Object-Oriented Programming 2003, Darmstadt, Germany, 21-25
July 2003.
· Vyacheslav Levitsky, Mykola Kolodnytsky & Andriy Kovalchuk,
Modern Compiler Generation Tools, Zhytomyr: ZIET, 2002.
· Adam Carmi, "Adapser: An LALR(1) Adaptive Parser," The Israeli
Workshop on Programming Languages & Development Environments, Haifa, Israel,
1 July 2002.
· Eugenio Herrera Hernández & Servilio Afre Puentes, "Analisis de
Herramientas para la Construccion de Compiladores," Revista Ciencias
Mathemáticas, Vol. 2 No. 2, Universidad de Habana, Habana, Cuba, 2002.
· Sarita J. Bassil & Rudolf K. Keller, "Software Visualization
Tools-Survey and Analysis," in Proceedings of the Ninth International
Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC'2001), pp. 7-17, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, May 2001.
· Sarita J. Bassil, Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of
Software Visualization Tools, (French title: Évaluation qualitative et
quantitative d'outils de visualisation logicielle), Master's thesis,
Université de Montréal, Canada, Dec. 2000.
· Morten Nicolaj Pedersen, A study of the practical significance of
word RAM algorithms for internal integer sorting, M.Sc. thesis, Department
of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2 Aug. 1999.
--
Quinn
Quinn
and attempt to hunt me down and harass me to satisfy his weak ego."
Listen, you Viliage Idiot....
There's nothing about you that two fingers of Scotch doesn't cure really
fast.
Have a nice day in your personally configured little Hell.
--
Quinn
Quinn
Well, I guess you will get sicker and sicker, and tired-er and tired-
er (sounds like a real word, yeah!) for years and years to come, from
different aliases and in different forums.
Hey, Google yourself and see my handiwork! Some of that will be
publicly available for YEARS!!!
....
Actually, Neilist, you're just annoying, in the way a bad case of the runs
is annoying.
I can get a bad case of the runs by eating at a cheap restaurant, and the
cure is as close as a few Imodium.
So don't pat yourself on the back *too* hard for all your efforts, eh?
--
Quinn
Neilist
Ha Ha, ya can't silence every critic.
Neilist
Ha Ha, ya can't stop responding.
Neilist
<snip list of "publicatons">
And yet, after all those publications, you stooped to using the terms:
"closed list" and "personal space"
to try to stop anyone questioning you and your "friend" James Harris
with posts in newsgroups.
What a worthless list of publications you got there!
You were supposedly in a High-IQ society? More like a High
Bullshitting society?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Let's have some variety in the maniacal laughter:
Heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee!
Quinn
"Ha Ha, ya can't silence every critic."
Is that the role you're deluding yourself into? Critic?
If you can tell more about a man by looking at his enemies than by looking
at his friends ...
... my enemy here is what? An anonymous Internet twit who has smeared me for
the last few years (oooh ahhhh) and who promises to anonymously smear me for
years to come.
I'm shaking in my boots.
You want to be a critic?
L=a^nb^phi(n), where phi(n) is Euler's totient of n.
Write a context-sensitive grammar in 4 productions that generates the
language L. Prove that it generates L.
There you go. When you can do that -- in 4 productions or less -- and show
your work -- you're allowed to be my "critic."
Until then you're just an 17-year-old psycho-anonymous twit living in his
grandmother's basement using up air.
--
Quinn
Quinn
"What a worthless list of publications you got there!"
Let L=a^nb^C_n.
Write a context-sensitive grammar in 14 or fewer productions that generates
the language L. Show that it generates L.
When you can do that, you've earned the right to be my critic.
Until then, you're an anonymous pimple on the Internet's hind end.
--
Quinn
Quinn
--
--
Quinn
"Quinn" <quinn_ja...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:p_exj.41314$FO1.25245@edtnps82...
Neilist
<snip>
> Is that the role you're deluding yourself into? Critic?
Delusions? I'm directly criticizing you and your intellect. "closed
list" in your Mega-Bullshit Foundation, and that your "personal space"
extends into the Internet. Ha!
I'm laughing at the "superior intellect".
> ... my enemy here is what? An anonymous Internet twit who has smeared me for the last few years
<snip>
So you consider me your enemy? Well, you have a poor choice of
friends, just by looking at your "friend" James Harris and your
relationship with him - your lying for him, evoking the "closed list",
evading criticism of him and of yourself.
Ha ha! Enjoy Googling yourself for years and years. Can't scratch
this itch!
And you can't even list your own publications. You merely cite
_others_ who might overhand mention you, and then you take pride in
being cited.
Yeah, you sure stand behind your claims and your results. What a joke
you are!
Quinn, you must be extremely bored (or not the real Quinn? Mentioning
the totient function. Hmmm? I had my suspicions from the beginning of
your return.) to crawl from under your rock to attempt to salvage your
battered ego.
Go back to your closed list! Go hide in your personal space!
Ha ha hee hee ho ho!
Quinn
> the totient function. Hmmm?
So -- you can't do it in 4 or fewer productions, then?
Well -- then you don't get to be my critic. I have standards of who I allow
to be my critic, and you fail the entry exam.
By the way -- the more you ramble, the more you give up about who you are
behind the curtain. Keep it up.
--
Quinn
Quinn
> So you consider me your enemy? Well, you have a poor choice of
> friends, just by looking at your "friend" James Harris and your
> relationship with him - your lying for him, evoking the "closed list",
> evading criticism of him and of yourself.
Neilist, Neilist, Neilist....
I didn't lie for JSH. He's not my friend. I already conceded that I have
come to see he's a "crank."
But you ... for the last few years ... have been wishing me dead in public,
and have continued to promise more of the same from your ass end in my
general direction ... so OF COURSE ... of course I consider you my enemy.
You don't have the intellectual honesty to post under your real name,
because you are a fucking dimwitted coward.
Now, you *could* prove to me that you know your Kung Fu ... simply solve
either of these:
L1=a^b^phi(n) (in 4 or fewer productions)
L2=a^b^C_n (in 14 or fewer productions)
Where phi(n) is the totient function, and C_n is the Catalan of n.
Both grammars have already been written ... hell, I could even accept if you
just look it up and point to a page.
But no -- you elect to be my anonymous "critic" and you don't have the
intellectual honesty to take any of my challenges that would show me you
deserve the title. You don't even send me an email to verify my claims.
Instead you prattle on and on.
I might be an insignificant twit myself -- but at least I *know* it and
*admit it*.
You, on the other hand, don't have the finesse to be even a half-amusing
gadfly.
Either take one of my challenges and show me your magic -- or go fuck
yourself.
--
Quinn
Neilist
<snip>
> Write a context-sensitive grammar in 14 or fewer productions that generates
> the language L. Show that it generates L.
>
> When you can do that, you've earned the right to be my critic.
"closed list" "closed list" "closed list"
Quinn Tyler Jackson, you can't take the criticism, so you evade
reality and try to define just who your critics are.
"personal space" "personal space" "personal space"
I iz n ur perzenal spas!
And as a freqeunt poster now evoking math as a touchstone for
criticizing you, you are sounding more and more like that idiot
Tommy1729. Using the term "maths" too.
It seems Tommy1729 simply can't address his own stupidity which I
remind HIM about:
On August 28, 2007, 2:35 PM, Tommy1729 wrote:
"integers ...-2,-1,0,1,2,...
integrals 1,2,3,4,...
natural numbers 0,1,2,3,... "
So he has to create an alias for Quinn, and try to distract me and
others from the fact that
TOMMY1729 doesn't know the definition of the noun "integral"
(Tommy1729 alwasy reverts back to the adjective definition to hide his
shame)
How sad that neither Quinn Tyler Jackson (with his "closed list" and
"personal space") and Tommy1729 (with his wrong definition of the noun
"integral") can face criticism and reminders of their stupidity,
evasiveness, and intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, Tommy1729 and Quinn have such weak and feeble egos!
Hahahahaha!
Neilist
> Where C_n is the Catalan number of n.
>
> --
> --
> Quinn
>
>
> news:p_exj.41314$FO1.25245@edtnps82...
>
>
>
> > Neilist gurgled:
>
> > "What a worthless list of publications you got there!"
>
> > Let L=a^nb^C_n.
>
> > Write a context-sensitive grammar in 14 or fewer productions that
> > generates the language L. Show that it generates L.
>
> > When you can do that, you've earned the right to be my critic.
>
> > Until then, you're an anonymous pimple on the Internet's hind end.
>
> > --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Quinn, do you think Tommy1729 is a MORON when, on August 28, 2007,
2:35 PM, Tommy1729 wrote:
"integers ...-2,-1,0,1,2,...
integrals 1,2,3,4,...
natural numbers 0,1,2,3,... "
Now, if you answer yes, then Tommy1729 cannot face the fact that he's
a moron.
If you answer no, then you are either Tommy1729, or Quinn being too
weak in the ego department to agree with me, the anonymous guy he
calls his enemy.
Either way, you and Tommy1729 give us all plenty of fodder for
laughing at both of you.
"closed list", "personal space", and a WRONG definition of the noun
"integral" which Tommy1729 refused to admit as being HIS BIG FAT
ERROR.
Yeah, Catalan numbers. Big deal. How about correcting Tommy1729
definition which he wrote:
"integers ...-2,-1,0,1,2,...
integrals 1,2,3,4,...
natural numbers 0,1,2,3,... " ?
Hahahahahahahaha!
Quinn
> I iz n ur perzenal spas!
No, you're not. You're wanking in public.
And yes, I *do* get to decide who I accept as a Critic. If your magic isn't
as good as my magic ... if you can't do at least what I can -- then you
can't criticize me ... at least not in your Anonymous Form.
Since you'll never have the capacity to meet my other challenges, I'll give
you a handicap:
Post under your real name and I'll let you be my critic. That doesn't take
any math to do -- so you won't have to work too hard to meet the challenge.
Just type in your real name instead of hiding behind "Neilist."
Or are you as big a coward as I think you are?
Or have you said so many Evil and Nasty things as "Neilist" that posting
under your real name now is unthinkable?
However it goes, Twit -- you lose.
So goodbye.
It's been real.
--
Quinn
Neilist
> Well -- then you don't get to be my critic. I have standards of who I allow
> to be my critic, and you fail the entry exam.
Yeah, weave your own reality in your "closed list" and "personal
space".
I'll be out here with the Internet and the Googling of "Quinn Tyler
Jackson" to show the rest of humanity what an idiot you are.
> By the way -- the more you ramble, the more you give up about who you are
> behind the curtain. Keep it up.
Oooooooo, intimidation? Still won't work.
Back to the maniacal laughter:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Neilist
<Ha ha, watch me snip everything you wrote>
Quinny-winny, I dare you to create a brand new thread and denounce
James Harris as a crank.
Don't hide your statements of his being a crank in this thread. You
yourself say that people (except you, obviously) ignore me.
So tell everyone that you consider James Harris to be a crank.
That will show you are not his friend, and that you are against the
garbage against mathematicians and the lies and delusions that James
Harris spews.
I'll wait to see that new thread from "Quinn" with a real E-mail
address denouncing James Harris as a crank.
Until then, I'll ignore your pathetic challenges and lame words, but
merely remind YOU of your stupidity:
Quinn Tyler Jackson wrote (years ago):
"closed list" and "personal space"
Hey Quinn, I'm laughing at the "superior intellect".
Hahahahahaahahahahaha!
Neilist
And YOU are afraid of starting a new thread calling James Harris a
crank. Coward!
And don't put "crank" in quotes, so you can weasel your way of self-
defining that word, just as you define "critic".
Ha ha. Stay in your "closed list" in your "personal space".
And Google "Quinn Tyler Jackson". My posts are fourth and fifth
down. I'm trying to get to the TOP!
Ha ha!
Quinn
>>
So tell everyone that you consider James Harris to be a crank.
That will show you are not his friend, and that you are against the
garbage against mathematicians and the lies and delusions that James
Harris spews.
<<
When I was younger, I had a penchant for tilting windmills, Neilist.
Speaking out against perceived social and other injustices made me feel ...
oh, I don't know ... like I was doing the Right Thing or something.
It earned me a fairly long list of "Things I Regret Doing and Wouldn't Do
Again (Hindsight Being What It Is)".
I mean, hell ... it earned me having some anonymous twit like you, years
later, spewing my full name (thus making it show up in nasty ways in Google
searches) ... didn't it?
As I grew older, however, I realized that it's in my best interests to be
more selective as to the battles I wish to fight.
Do I want to rid the Internet and Usenet of math crankiness?
I don't give two shakes of a rat's ass about it.
I do, however, get sick and tired of seeing posts show up in Google wherein
some fucktwit is smearing my name yet again.
So let's cut to the chase:
Stop it -- and I'll send you a nice shiny dollar.
While I'm not willing to concede to your demands (without better reasoning
than you've provided thus far) to get you to shut the fuck up about me --
-- I am willing to pay you off.
One buck.
I'll leave it in a bowling ball bag inside the trash can on the corner of
.....
--
Quinn
Neilist
<snip>
> I mean, hell ... it earned me having some anonymous twit like you, years
> later, spewing my full name (thus making it show up in nasty ways in Google
> searches) ... didn't it?
So, you're blaming ME for your lack of idealism?
What a joke! Just like you!
You're always evasive and worming your way around arguments and
challenges.
You are bereft of intellectual honesty. James Harris is a crank, but
you and your pride won't
distance yourself from him, your "friend", when challenged in full
view of James Harris' crankiness.
That was years ago. And you say that I won't let it go?
Let go of that crank James Harris! Free yourself!
How sad that you are stuck being in that "closed list" with James
Harris, and you can't get out.
Only you can choose to get out; that is, get away from James Harris,
but you won't.
Pride. Foolish pride on your part.
One reason I continue my chalenging you is because:
a) you defended your friend James Harris
b) you used lame and evasive excuses such as "closed list" and
"personal space" to try to shut down any
disagreements with you and your pal James Harris
c) you had already called James Harris a crank recently, but those
declarations are buried in
obscure threads, and you choose not to be more open about it
So go pay off someone else with your chump change.
Enjoy being so close and so in love with James Harris. The company
you keep reflects on YOU!
Ha ha! Enjoy ego-surfing Google! Ha ha!
I'm laughing at the "superior intellect"!
Quinn
> Only you can choose to get out; that is,
> get away from James Harris, but you won't.
In case you haven't noticed, Neilist -- James Harris is not amongst my
circle of friends.
The only person I haven't gotten away from, Neilist, is you.
I'm not making this a top level thread because you "dare" me. Why should I
comply to your demands? Because you'll leave me alone if I do what *you*
say?
That sounds an awful lot like ....
extortion
So, we've already determined that you are an extortionist, and are now
simply negotiating your price.
One dollar not enough? It's all I'm willing to pay.
--
Quinn
Neilist
<snip>
> In case you haven't noticed, Neilist -- James Harris is not amongst my
> circle of friends.
And yet you won't call him a crank?
It's not that you're protecting him and his pride.
It's only because you're protecting your pride and your ego.
<snip>
> I'm not making this a top level thread because you "dare" me. Why should I
> comply to your demands? Because you'll leave me alone if I do what *you*
> say?
How about because calling James Harris a crank is the truth?
Or did you LIE when you said, in buried threads, that James Harris is
a crank?
Oh, I forgot, you used the word "crank" in quotes, which may be your
way of not actually calling James Harris a crank.
As you redefine "critic", you perhaps in your feeble mind think
"crank" means "good friend".
> That sounds an awful lot like ....
>
> extortion
No, you are free to do what you like, and I am free to do what I like.
You refuse to denounce James Harris. Well, I will take that into
account in my future actions.
Ha ha! Freedom is a bitch, ain't it? That is, other people's freedom
just rankles you.
> So, we've already determined that you are an extortionist, and are now
> simply negotiating your price.
The price is denouncing James Harris as being a crank, in a new top-
level thread in sci.math, and none of your tricks or games by using
quotes around the word "crank", or even around "James", "Harris", and
even around "is" or "a".
What are you, Clintonesque in putting quotes around "crank"?
Look who I'm talking (posting) to - an idiot who used the terms
"closed list" and "personal space" to shut down challenges.
> One dollar not enough? It's all I'm willing to pay.
Oh, you will PAY with publicity on the Internet.
Is not your name worth more than your purse ala Iago in "Othello".
The worst part about ego-surfing is not seeing your name at all (hey,
almost an Oscar Wilde quote!).
The second worse part is seeing your name near insults.
So, go on, enjoy being who you are. Ha ha!
You're free to stick (ew) with James Harris.
(Is that a contradiction - "free to stick with"?)
And you're not free in your mind and on the Internet.
You're trapped, trapped I tell you, in your past with your saying
"closed list" and "personal space".
Quinn
>>>
Oh, you will PAY with publicity on the Internet.
<<<
Is that 9 inches of STUPIDITY in your pocket, or are you just happy to see
me?
Your malice in smearing me is clear, because you admit your intent publicly.
But I'm going to give you a freebie ... just because yesterday was
Anti-Bully day in school here where I live ...
I'm going to forgive all of your past libel against me, without prejudice.
Your slate is clear up to this point.
Anyway, here's the truth, Neilist:
1. James and I used to be on the Ultranet email list, which was closed to
members and guests.
2. The Ultranet email list had a TOS that required that no member violate
the confidentiality of the list by naming other members who didn't
self-identify.
3. James had a paper accepted by a math journal. He posted the acceptance
email he received from the journal on the Ultranet list.
4. When certain members of sci.math found out about the publication, they
contacted the journal.
5. The journal recoiled, pulled the paper, and then claimed it wasn't
*really* accepted -- that the acceptance had been a clerical error.
6. This annoyed me, because protocol on these matters should have been that
the journal publish a retraction -- but not actually pull the paper.
7. I stood up on sci.math and affirmed that several members of the list had
read James' paper and had stated it stood. At the time, I also disclaimed
being able to know up from down as regards content because number theory is
not my field.
8. You took umbrage because I refused to identify by name those who had
stated the paper stood.
9. Years passed.
10. You continue to attack me for my part in standing behind James.
Now, you want me to say James is a crank in a new thread. I've stated
already this past few days that I have come to see that James, is, indeed, a
crank. (There -- no quotation marks.)
What follows is my opinion and may or may not be supported by reality:
My reasons for coming to this conclusion are several. James attacks
mathematicians based on ... oh, heck, let's just quote him from a fairly
recent post on sci.math rather than paraphrase:
>>>
But I say proof is discovery, and so it can be like prospecting,
hunting for gold treasure. Treasure seekers don't worry about the
dressing, they worry about the goods. After all, they're rooting in
dirt or streams. It's not a pretty process.
Fiction writers took over the math field and fiction writing is about
conflict, and contradiction, or apparent contradiction can be part of
conflict and good fiction, so math society believes in "logical
contradiction" along with those "delicate proofs" that can be wrong.
<<<<
Anyone who understands the methodology of mathematics knows that the above
claim is Utter shite. James doesn't appear to realize that math proofs are,
in fact, logically true sentences that hold within a given axiomatic
framework. They are not self-referential logical statements that exist
outside of a larger set of axioms. You can't, in Axiom Space A introduce
poppycock that ignores Axiom Space A.
Consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomathematics
Read the section "An illustrative contrived example". I point this out
because, lo and behold, if you go back in that article's history far enough,
you'll see that I was the Wiki editor who wrote that section.
Yes, it is a "contrived example" but it is also, it appears, what some
people attempt to do, in some form or another. The quote from James above,
to me, at least, is indicative of his lacking understanding of what
mathematical proofs *are*.
And his endless attacks on the math establishment ... do nothing to convince
me that I may be in error on the matter.
He's not doing himself, mathematics, or anyone a favor. I don't owe it to
him or anyone else to say otherwise. It clutters up sci.math.
I never should have taken such offense that the journal violated a basic
principle of paper publication by pulling rather than retracting. I espoused
the wrong battle. Yes, they screwed with protocol -- but hindsight says: "So
what?"
The sun continues to rise and the sun continues to set with or without that
journal, that paper, or that particular violation of academic protocol.
If you want this to be a top level thread, Neilist, put it there yourself.
You have my blessing to do so.
But I'm not going to put it there just because you told me to. I'm just too
tired of your nonsense to take the time to write this all AND to bend over
to your extortion. If you keep my "blessing" for you to do it yourself when
you copy to the top level -- isn't that good enough for you? Can't we agree
on at least that?
--
Quinn
Jesse F. Hughes
> And yet you won't call him a crank?
James S. Harris is a crank.
Quinn is a silly person entering into this stupid conversation and
saying strange things about choosing his critics.
But you are a goddamn asshole incapable of basic decency and coherent
thought.
Guess which one people tend to like least.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Intelligence. Nothing has caused the human race so much trouble as
intelligence. Hmph. Modern marriage." -- Hitchcock's _Rear Window_
Quinn
> Quinn is a silly person entering into this stupid conversation and
> saying strange things about choosing his critics.
You, Jesse -- you're allowed to be my critic.
Am I still silly? ;-)
--
Quinn
Jesse F. Hughes
Of course.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Things are pretty mixed up, but I think the worst is over."
-- A LaTeX error message or a psychic forecast?
Neilist
Ha ha ha!
Neilist
<snip>
> But you are a goddamn asshole incapable of basic decency and coherent
> thought.
Oh look, that useless nothing Jesse F(uck) Hughes just had to chime
in. No surprise there.
Ha ha!
> Guess which one people tend to like least.
Now J. Fuck Hughes thinks it's all a popularity contest? Nope, it
ain't. Never was.
Ha ha!
Marshall
>
> When I was younger, I had a penchant for tilting windmills
> As I grew older, however, I realized that it's in my best interests to be
> more selective as to the battles I wish to fight.
I say, with respect, that you still have work to do in this area.
Don Quixote : Windmills :: Quinn : Neilist
Marshall
Quinn
> I say, with respect, that you still have work to do in this area.
>
> Don Quixote : Windmills :: Quinn : Neilist
Well -- I put off this particular Wind(bag|mill) for over a year -- so I am
making *some* progress in the area of being less Quixotic.
--
Quinn
I.N. Galidakis
Assuming _some_ defamation for person A already exists in the net (say cached
under Google), it can only either stay constant or get worse as a function of
time (i.e., if a potential defamator B decides to add more defaming (and
ultimately cached) comments).
It's a no-win situation, hence the best strategy for A is to avoid confronting a
potential defamator B further by not annoying him/her further :-)
One particularly interesting (behavioraly) example came up in sci.astro.amateur,
with a certain person A annoying a certain anonymous person B with A ending up
in the hospital from a stroke and also ending up having this public record:
http://tinyurl.com/ypt5fn
--
I.N. Galidakis
Aatu Koskensilta
> Now J. Fuck Hughes thinks it's all a popularity contest? Nope, it
> ain't. Never was.
Quite so. It's a pissing contest.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Neilist
Oh, stop lying to everyone, Quinn. I wasn't bashing you "for over a
year".
And nope, no progress for you. You weakened and eventually responded
to me. Assuming you were above me (which I don't concede) you stooped
down to my level!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Meet you're "doom"!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(For those who would DARE correct my spelling or grammar, "you're" is
not a typo, and the quotes around "doom" are also an error. I'm just
repeating some joke from a wacky U.S. cartoon called Frisky Dingo,
when some fictional megalomanic Killface, who is planning to destroy
the Earth, announced his intentions with that phrase on a mass mailing
of postcards. He even proofed the postcards before they went out.
That is, Killface is lame! Ha ha!)
Mensanator
> Neilist drooled and the following spit was produced:
>
>
>
> Oh, you will PAY with publicity on the Internet.
> <<<
>
> Is that 9 inches of STUPIDITY in your pocket, or are you just happy to see
> me?
>
> Your malice in smearing me is clear, because you admit your intent publicly.
>
> But I'm going to give you a freebie ... just because yesterday was
> Anti-Bully day in school here where I live ...
>
> I'm going to forgive all of your past libel against me, without prejudice.
> Your slate is clear up to this point.
>
> Anyway, here's the truth, Neilist:
First of all, let me say I don't condone the actions
of a certain poster.
Nevertheless, I would like to see the WHOLE truth.
>
> 1. James and I used to be on the Ultranet email list, which was closed to
> members and guests.
> 2. The Ultranet email list had a TOS that required that no member violate
> the confidentiality of the list by naming other members who didn't
> self-identify.
> 3. James had a paper accepted by a math journal. He posted the acceptance
> email he received from the journal on the Ultranet list.
For example, what was discussed PRIOR to the publication?
Obviously not the merits of the paper, as none of the
Mega Foundation cranks "saw anything wrong with it".
But the facts are:
- Harris just happened to find a disreputable journal
where peer review was wanting (if it even existed).
- Andrew Beckwith lied about being the papers's author in
a vain attempt to use his credentials to get the paper
accepted at other journals.
Those of us who haven't just fallen off the turnip truck
are led by these facts to speculate that the discussion
prior to publication was a conspiracy to advise Harris on
how best to commit fraud.
> 4. When certain members of sci.math found out about the publication, they
> contacted the journal.
> 5. The journal recoiled, pulled the paper, and then claimed it wasn't
> *really* accepted -- that the acceptance had been a clerical error.
> 6. This annoyed me, because protocol on these matters should have been that
> the journal publish a retraction -- but not actually pull the paper.
And this is perceived to be mock indignation as, although
the evidence doesn't indicate you participated, one can't help
but assume you were aware of it.
Now, WE have no way of knowing if any of this speculation
is true, but in the absecnce of any other facts, what else
is there?
Quinn
> "For example, what was discussed PRIOR to the publication?"
and said:
>>>
And this is perceived to be mock indignation as, although
the evidence doesn't indicate you participated, one can't help
but assume you were aware of it.
<<<
I don't know. I'm not a number theorist, nor am I a group theory theorist.
My particular branch of mathematics falls at times into group theory,
perhaps, but not numerics except so far as regularly enumerable sets, class
theory, et cetera. So I did not personally review the paper in question
before it was submitted, and my indignation at the time (not mock) centered
on the notion of an academic journal sending an acceptance email that was
rather clearly worded as such, publishing the paper, and then pulling the
paper later and denying it was ever accepted. My particular annoyance had
nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the paper, but of the principle
of immutability of academic publication.
There is a reason that academic journals never "unpublish" a published work.
Sure as shootin' -- they can recant and retract and denounce and apologize
and get down on their knees and beg indulgence -- but they aren't supposed
to PULL a paper from publication once it has been published. (I'm tired --
too much to get into it now -- but it has to do something with revisionism
and academic freedom to not be pressured to pull controversial results to
please the Common Understanding.) If they made a mistake in publishing it --
they should have owned up to it, retracted, and left the paper in
publication.
Perhaps life would have been more blissful had the journal violated this
basic principle on someone else's paper -- someone with far less a stigma
... then maybe my standing up on principle wouldn't have been such an
annoying faux pas on my part.
I would still have been standing up for the same principle -- but maybe then
it would have amounted to more than a bad case of poorly digested potato.
Hindsight is lovely.
But then so is a nice glass of brandy.
--
Quinn
Neilist
<snip>
> There is a reason that academic journals never "unpublish" a published work.
> Sure as shootin' -- they can recant and retract and denounce and apologize
> and get down on their knees and beg indulgence -- but they aren't supposed
> to PULL a paper from publication once it has been published.
Not "supposed to"? What written laws or regulations, or what written
ethical guidelines dictate that journals "aren't supposed to" pull a
published paper.
And clarify what you mean by "published". If it's on paper, obviously
they can't (or it may be nigh impossible to) collect all of the
issues.
I've heard of school newspapers being yanked legitimately or even
outright stolen to hide stories from the students.
And don't forget government reports which are censored or rewritten,
such as from the EPA. Puleeease! Publishing is obviously an ugly
business.
But wasn't James Harris' crap article published on the journal's
website?
In this malleable electronic age, publications can be un-published.
Face it!
The supposed journal did what they wanted, James Harris and others
belly-ached, and others (like me) supported the journal. Many others
just didn't care.
Your "not supposed to unpublish" position is comparable to the "closed
list" issue.
You didn't violate your "closed list" confidentiality (cough cough,
bullshit, cough), and the journal in question didn't violate their own
perceived "publishing standards" or "publishing ethics", whatever they
are.
You did what you want, they do what they want, and let's see the
results and how people react.
So far, James Harris is still marginalized to near oblivion. He has
his pathetic blog, right?
The journal in question is defunct? Some, such as you and James
Harris, may be pleased with that.
And you still have maintained your "closed list" confidentiality
(cough cough, lies, cough).
So except for James Harris, most everyone has what they want.
James Harris wants fame and credibility. According to Mensanator,
that publishing incident shows he doesn't deserve such honors.
Committing a fraud on the journal? For shame on James Harris!
Quinn
<<
Not "supposed to"? What written laws or regulations, or what written
ethical guidelines dictate that journals "aren't supposed to" pull a
published paper.
>>
It's called the "fixity" of works, Neilist.
http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/?searchterm=reference+version#Fixity
That's a good place to start if you want to grok my stance on the matter.
Now, I realize that the ACM guidelines aren't "Law".
But they are based on guidelines that, while perhaps unwritten as such in
many cases -- deserved a clause in their copyright policy ... why?
Keep in mind that I'm a computer scientist, and my exposure to journals is
largely in that field, and at the time I stood up against the matter -- I
was a member of the ACM, and had been for some time, and so was exposed to
that particular culture.
Do your own homework from now on, eh?
--
Quinn
Quinn
their rationale for fixity explained in black and white:
http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/version1.html
Which reads in part:
----
9. Fixity of Works
The electronic media provide means whereby readers can attach comments to an
author's work and the author can respond. The ACM wishes to encourage this
and intends eventually to support this as a service in the ACM digital
library.
ACM subscribes to the general scientific convention that published works not
be altered without review and approval by an editor. ACM also considers all
reader and author comments formally attached to a work are part of the
public discussion and should not be altered by their authors without
approval by an editor. If the author or a reader wishes to withdraw a
comment after posting, the withdrawn item will be annotated by a withdrawal
notice.
--------
Do you see the part "the general scientific convention that published works
not be altered without review and approval by an editor"?
Sure, one might claim that pulling the thing technically fell within "review
and approval by an editor" -- one could say that and all would be fine and
merry.
But I wasn't blowing hot air when I stood up when the journal in question
unceremoniously yanked-and-denied-ever-having-accepted ... that's not quite
the same thing as "altered". That's ... disappeared.
Anyway -- you get the idea ... so enough, eh?
--
Quinn
"Quinn" <quinn_ja...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bO_xj.50640$w57.16267@edtnps90...
Mensanator
This is well understood (at least from what I've read).
What apparently is not well understood is how this protocol
should be applied to cases of outright fraud such as perpetrated
by Harris & Beckwith. Some, such as myself, feel the journal
was within it's rights to yank the paper although it was wrong
to lie about the reasons and not admit it's incompetence.
Should I continue to speculate as to why you're not indignant
over the fraud (I notice you didn't address my question about
what was discussed prior to publication)?
If you're going to dance around the truth, then I can't
have any sympathy for you.
>
> Perhaps life would have been more blissful had the journal violated this
> basic principle on someone else's paper -- someone with far less a stigma
> ... then maybe my standing up on principle wouldn't have been such an
> annoying faux pas on my part.
>
> I would still have been standing up for the same principle -- but maybe then
> it would have amounted to more than a bad case of poorly digested potato.
>
> Hindsight is lovely.
Foresight is even better, that if you willingly join
an organization of cranks, you shouldn't be surprised
or offended by being tarred by the Harris brush.
junoexpress
> It's called the "fixity" of works, Neilist.
>
>
You notice also the caveat about being able to correct or revise the
work. The problem is that James's work fell into the category that it
could not be revised or corrected because it was judged to be
*wrong*.
One fact you have to recognize is that the quality of the journals
adhering to the "fixity of works" policy are in a totally different
ballpark than the one James sent his too. If you ever published
anything in a professional journal, you can tell just by looking at
James's paper, the journal was a TOTAL joke. This should be bloody
clearly obvious to anyone with any sense in this area at all. The
reality is that the "editors" made a mistake in publishing it in the
first place because they were either : a) incompetent, b) lazy and
never even looked at it or c) accepted anything submitted. Their
retraction was simply an admission of the mistake and its correction
on their part.
OTOH however, I have to give James some credit in perhaps being the
primum mobile for getting the plug pulled on a journal that was
already a piece of crap.
;>)
M
Neilist
> Neilist chortled:
>
> <<
> Not "supposed to"? What written laws or regulations, or what written
> ethical guidelines dictate that journals "aren't supposed to" pull a
> published paper.
>
>
>
> It's called the "fixity" of works, Neilist.
>
>
> That's a good place to start if you want to grok my stance on the matter.
>
> Now, I realize that the ACM guidelines aren't "Law".
>
> But they are based on guidelines that, while perhaps unwritten as such in
> many cases -- deserved a clause in their copyright policy ... why?
>
> Keep in mind that I'm a computer scientist, and my exposure to journals is
> largely in that field, and at the time I stood up against the matter -- I
> was a member of the ACM, and had been for some time, and so was exposed to
> that particular culture.
>
> Do your own homework from now on, eh?
Oh, now you expect me to read your mind as to what policies you
referred to?
Of course I know of some policies and preferences as to "fixity".
But what was the policy of the math journal to which James Harris
submitted? Do your homework before you answer.
How does the ACM policy of fixity even bear on math journal policies?
Does ACM publish mathematical proofs? Well? Do your homework before
you answer.
Shouldn't a math journal have stricter policies, and possibly stricter
penalties, such as de-publication, to prevent false and error prone
proofs from propagating into the "math-verse" (or mathe-sphere or
mathosphere, whatever)?
Did that math journal have any policy at all? Do your homework before
you answer.
What is the general policies of math journals? Do your homework before
you answer.
What is the general policy of all types of journals in connection with
ELECTRONIC publication as opposed to printed publication? Do your
homework before you answer.
And in the abstract, you view the de-publication as a violation of
standards, especially your own, when in fact, there IS NO SINGLE
STANDARD. Thus the debate that raged at the time.
But in the end, didn't James Harris attempting a fraud by putting
someone else's name on his paper merit the harsh penality of de-
publication?
So, tell everyone, is Mensanator's history of James Harris' attempted
fraud correct? Do your homework before you answer.
And don't say I have to "do my homework", when you don't even have
good answers to anything, including that "closed list" bullshit.
You're a joke, Quinn. A sad joke.
Ha ha (tepidly expressed)
Neilist
<snip>
Quinn uses ACM policies - it's a red herring.
ACM publishes mathematical proofs?
And James Harris wasn't publishing in ACM journals.
So don't be misled by Quinny, who was and is Mr. Evasiion.
"closed list". HA!
Mensanator
Actually, JSH had his name on the published version. His fraud
was knowing full well the problems in the paper (having discussed
it on sci.math) and submitting it under the false pretense of
it being correct.
As far as I know, no other journal ever published Beckwith's
fraud of trying to take credit for JSH's work (high IQ my ass).
>
> So, tell everyone, is Mensanator's history of James Harris' attempted
> fraud correct? Do your homework before you answer.
>
> And don't say I have to "do my homework", when you don't even have
> good answers to anything, including that "closed list" bullshit.
>
> You're a joke, Quinn. A sad joke.
>
> Ha ha (tepidly expressed)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quinn
> What apparently is not well understood is how this protocol
> should be applied to cases of outright fraud such as perpetrated
> by Harris & Beckwith. Some, such as myself, feel the journal
> was within it's rights to yank the paper although it was wrong
> to lie about the reasons and not admit it's incompetence.
Um, Mensanator -- please refresh my recollection on this?
As I recall, the paper in question was submitted to the original (yanking)
journal under one name. Beckwith, if I recall, was, indeed one of those who
reviewed it, and *later* added his name to it. (I don't know what his
contribution was to the content, if any.)
So what exactly are you on about? I'm not being snide -- I'm just old and
brandy-soaked, and believe the details are a bit hazy.
> Should I continue to speculate as to why you're not indignant
> over the fraud (I notice you didn't address my question about
> what was discussed prior to publication)?
Prior to publication, and up to publication -- it was a JSH production.
Several list members of Ultranet stated they'd read it and that it stood.
> If you're going to dance around the truth, then I can't
> have any sympathy for you.
If what you are really asking is whether or not I had any clue that sci.math
participants had already reviewed the paper in question (and posted their
rebuttals to its content) before publication ... the answer is -- no, I had
no idea until after the journal pulled the version under the single by-line.
That act of denying it was ever published in the first place ... that was
what pissed me off.
As I read sci.math, I came to see that many qualified mathematicians had
already been over it, and had refuted its claims. James, knowing that those
claims had not been addressed, submitted it (under his own name) anyway.
While I don't go as far as you do and call that "fraud" -- I think that was,
ultimately, shoddy of him.
I'll also add that it was, indeed, the right (and obligation) of sci.math
participants who could show (formally) that the paper's result didn't stand
to contact the journal, and it was (at that point) the right (and duty) of
the journal to publish the refutations of the paper's claims.
Rather than publish the refutations of the paper's claims in the "standard
way" -- the journal yanked.
Finally, I'll add that it likely wasn't the intention of those who submitted
their refutations that the journal's editors do what they ultimately did.
Was it then a matter of acting in good faith towards the academic
mathematical community to continue to submit to other journals without
addressing those refutations each in turn? I believe, once Harris had the
refutations presented to him -- it was his duty to address them, correct
them, note them if he wasn't going to correct them (if the refutations were
made in good faith and stood) ... and let the chips fall where they may.
Harris behaved wrongly by not noting the criticisms, in my opinion. I didn't
become aware of the volume and tenor of those until *after* the journal had
already yanked the paper.
Was it academic fraud, ignorance, or sheer stupidity on Harris' part -- or
some amorphous amalgam of all three? I know only that if someone publishes a
challenge of my formal results -- I can't ignore the challenge. If the
results are truly broken -- I must fix them, or, at the very least, note the
breakage. Ignoring a gaping hole in math doesn't make it go away.
--
Quinn
Mensanator
> > This is well understood (at least from what I've read).
> > What apparently is not well understood is how this protocol
> > should be applied to cases of outright fraud such as perpetrated
> > by Harris & Beckwith. Some, such as myself, feel the journal
> > was within it's rights to yank the paper although it was wrong
> > to lie about the reasons and not admit it's incompetence.
>
> Um, Mensanator -- please refresh my recollection on this?
>
> As I recall, the paper in question was submitted to the original (yanking)
> journal under one name. Beckwith, if I recall, was, indeed one of those who
> reviewed it, and *later* added his name to it. (I don't know what his
> contribution was to the content, if any.)
That's my understanding also. Beckwith has admitted here
he added his name to the paper in order to enhance its
acceptance by other journals, not the original journal in
question.
>
> So what exactly are you on about? I'm not being snide -- I'm just old and
> brandy-soaked, and believe the details are a bit hazy.
What I'm on about is how did Harris locate the disreputable
journal in the first place? He's not an acedemic and has no
prior history of publication. The obvious answer is that he
was advised by others who were familiar with the reputations
of journals. What I'm on about is whether or not such advice
occured on this Ultranet thing you speak of. If not, we would
like a specific denial to that effect. Otherwise, we have
no choice but to assume you're pleading the 5th.
>
> > Should I continue to speculate as to why you're not indignant
> > over the fraud (I notice you didn't address my question about
> > what was discussed prior to publication)?
>
> Prior to publication, and up to publication -- it was a JSH production.
> Several list members of Ultranet stated they'd read it and that it stood.
>
> > If you're going to dance around the truth, then I can't
> > have any sympathy for you.
>
> If what you are really asking is whether or not I had any clue that sci.math
> participants had already reviewed the paper in question (and posted their
> rebuttals to its content) before publication ... the answer is -- no, I had
> no idea until after the journal pulled the version under the single by-line.
> That act of denying it was ever published in the first place ... that was
> what pissed me off.
What I'm really asking is whether you knew that Harris was
going to submit a paper he knew was flawed. Whether you knew
that he was advised as to which sucker journal might accept
his paper without proper review.
If you were aware of this, you may have been truly indignant,
but you certainly had no right to be.
That's what I'm after: what you knew and when did you know it.
I'm not doubting what you've said so far, I'm just wondering
how complete it is.
>
> As I read sci.math, I came to see that many qualified mathematicians had
> already been over it, and had refuted its claims. James, knowing that those
> claims had not been addressed, submitted it (under his own name) anyway.
> While I don't go as far as you do and call that "fraud" -- I think that was,
> ultimately, shoddy of him.
Depends on the circumstances. If he picked the journal he did
out of the blue, then maybe. If he was advised to send to that
particular journal, then it's fraud. Period.
>
> I'll also add that it was, indeed, the right (and obligation) of sci.math
> participants who could show (formally) that the paper's result didn't stand
> to contact the journal, and it was (at that point) the right (and duty) of
> the journal to publish the refutations of the paper's claims.
>
> Rather than publish the refutations of the paper's claims in the "standard
> way" -- the journal yanked.
I noticed those ACM links didn't cover cases of fraud, so I
am still unsure what the "standard way" of dealing with it is.
>
> Finally, I'll add that it likely wasn't the intention of those who submitted
> their refutations that the journal's editors do what they ultimately did.
As I recall, those who submitted refutations were just as surprised
and indignant over the journals behaviour.
>
> Was it then a matter of acting in good faith towards the academic
> mathematical community to continue to submit to other journals without
> addressing those refutations each in turn? I believe, once Harris had the
> refutations presented to him -- it was his duty to address them, correct
> them, note them if he wasn't going to correct them (if the refutations were
> made in good faith and stood) ... and let the chips fall where they may.
>
> Harris behaved wrongly by not noting the criticisms, in my opinion. I didn't
> become aware of the volume and tenor of those until *after* the journal had
> already yanked the paper.
What I'm asking is whether there was chatter on Ultranet of where
to submit a paper, whether there was an offer by Beckwith to submit
the paper to other journals if Harris agreed to list him as author,
those kinds of things.
That had to have occured, I just don't know whether it occured on
Ultranet or not.
Quinn
>>>
What I'm really asking is whether you knew that Harris was
going to submit a paper he knew was flawed. Whether you knew
that he was advised as to which sucker journal might accept
his paper without proper review.
If you were aware of this, you may have been truly indignant,
but you certainly had no right to be.
That's what I'm after: what you knew and when did you know it.
I'm not doubting what you've said so far, I'm just wondering
how complete it is.
<<<
Honestly ... numerics aren't my thing. Send me an email at
quinn_ja...@yahoo.ca, and I'll send you back a 295 page published,
cited scientific monograph as to what my branch of mathematics is. I'm not
saying this to brag, but to give you some context.
If I recall correctly, the paper in question claimed to topple Galoisian
group theory or some such. As such, it's not my specialty -- and so I didn't
follow the content, and can't remember what occurred on the Ultranet list
(if anything) before publication.
I don't recall whether or not "where to send" was discussed on list. I
rather think it wasn't, but can't recollect.
--
Quinn
Mensanator
> Mensanator said:
>
>
>
> What I'm really asking is whether you knew that Harris was
> going to submit a paper he knew was flawed. Whether you knew
> that he was advised as to which sucker journal might accept
> his paper without proper review.
>
> If you were aware of this, you may have been truly indignant,
> but you certainly had no right to be.
>
> That's what I'm after: what you knew and when did you know it.
> I'm not doubting what you've said so far, I'm just wondering
> how complete it is.
> <<<
>
> Honestly ... numerics aren't my thing. Send me an email at
> cited scientific monograph as to what my branch of mathematics is. I'm not
> saying this to brag, but to give you some context.
>
> If I recall correctly, the paper in question claimed to topple Galoisian
> group theory or some such. As such, it's not my specialty -- and so I didn't
> follow the content, and can't remember what occurred on the Ultranet list
> (if anything) before publication.
>
> I don't recall whether or not "where to send" was discussed on list. I
> rather think it wasn't, but can't recollect.
Fair enough. That's what I wanted to hear, not whether
you think Harris is a crank.
>
> --
> Quinn
Quinn
> Does ACM publish mathematical proofs?
Yes, they do.
--
Quinn
Quinn
> Meet you're "doom"!
Neilist -- I came onto sci.math this time around to try to tell you to shut
the fuck up.
There's only so much of my time that I am willing to commit to such an
effort.
I'll give it a few days -- but assume if I go silent that I just un-subbed
the list and went on my merry way, brandy (or Scotch) in hand,
Amphora-spewing pipe in mouth, and shrugged-of-shoulder.
Have a nice day.
I would have enjoyed some kind of truce, but I would enjoy spending the next
little while not giving a flying-fuck even more.
So -- pick your poison. Keep wailing on my name -- or shut the fuck up.
Either way suits me fine ....
--
Quinn
Neilist
<snip>
> So -- pick your poison. Keep wailing on my name -- or shut the fuck up.
> Either way suits me fine ....
>
> --
> Quinn
Ha ha, now I can do whatever I like (which has always been the case),
and Quinn can't complain. Otherwise, this quote of his will make him
a liar.
Quinn, meet you're "doom"!
All your base is belong to us!
Ha ha!
Quinn
feel free to piss in the wind without an audience from me. Have at it. Yawn.
Others - sorry about the recent noise. Only so much I could take of this
nitwit.
Cheers.
--
Quinn
"Neilist" <latto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b72a7a5c-36eb-453f...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
tommy1729
> On Feb 28, 7:55 pm, "Quinn"
> <quinn_jackson2...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Marshall said:
> >
> > > I say, with respect, that you still have work to
> do in this area.
> >
> > > Don Quixote : Windmills :: Quinn : Neilist
> >
> > Well -- I put off this particular Wind(bag|mill)
> for over a year -- so I am
> > making *some* progress in the area of being less
> Quixotic.
> >
> > --
> > Quinn
>
> Oh, stop lying to everyone, Quinn. I wasn't bashing
> you "for over a
> year".
no , it has to be at least 2 years of course.
>
> And nope, no progress for you. You weakened and
> eventually responded
> to me. Assuming you were above me (which I don't
> concede) you stooped
> down to my level!
yes be carefull not to lower yourself to the lowest level of neilist.
and here neilist faces his "doom" ; he admitted his level is lower than Quinn.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
> hahahahahahahaha!
the psychopath laughes again.
not realizing he is making a fool of himself , must be his low level.
>
> Meet you're "doom"!
neilist once said he consideres himself polite.
he is of course alone with that opinion.
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
those points should have been math, but since its a neilist post , no math can be found.
not even a mathematical word.
>
> (For those who would DARE correct my spelling or
> grammar, "you're" is
> not a typo, and the quotes around "doom" are also an
> error. I'm just
> repeating some joke from a wacky U.S. cartoon called
> Frisky Dingo,
> when some fictional megalomanic Killface, who is
> planning to destroy
> the Earth, announced his intentions with that phrase
> on a mass mailing
> of postcards. He even proofed the postcards before
> they went out.
> That is, Killface is lame! Ha ha!)
go learn more from your cartoons neilist.
your such a child.
ask your mom if your allowed to watch donald duck and stop spamming the forum here , you 7 yo.
btw you can have another ass fantasy about donald duck because he does not wear pants.
have fun with that , but spare us the details plz.
perhaps neilist is so agressive from watching dragon ball z to much.
television can be bad for small children.
not to mention the anal dvd he secretly watched which resulted in an obsession over JSH's ass.
regards
tommy1729
Neilist
> Neilist - I'm shutting off my sci.math feed as soon as I send this ... so
> feel free to piss in the wind without an audience from me. Have at it. Yawn.
>
> Others - sorry about the recent noise. Only so much I could take of this
> nitwit.
Ha ha! Hide with your ego in your "personal space" between your ears!
"closed list" "closed list" "closed list"
"personal space" "personal space" "personal space"
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Neilist
> neilist wrote :
<snip>
> > Oh, stop lying to everyone, Quinn. I wasn't bashing
> > you "for over a
> > year".
>
> no , it has to be at least 2 years of course.
Tommy1729 is talking out of his ass again, as usual.
C'mon, show a post in 2006 from me bashing Quinn. Tommy1729, you're
an idiot.
> > And nope, no progress for you. You weakened and
> > eventually responded
> > to me. Assuming you were above me (which I don't
> > concede) you stooped
> > down to my level!
>
> yes be carefull not to lower yourself to the lowest level of neilist.
>
> and here neilist faces his "doom" ; he admitted his level is lower than Quinn.
Tommy1729 doesn't understand that I didn't concede Quinn being "above"
me (as per my parenthetical qualification and the word "Assuming"), so
I didn't admit anything. Tommy1729 is an idiot.
Tommy1729 doesn't understand clear English and/or is purposely
distorting what I said. Typical of Tommy1729.
<snip>
> neilist once said he consideres himself polite.
Cite a post, Tommy1729. Or are you YET AGAIN talking out of your ass?
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
>
> those points should have been math, but since its a neilist post , no math can be found.
>
> not even a mathematical word.
None of Tommy1729 post here has any math either. Tommy1729 is a
hypocrite - he insults people for not posting math, when he is at the
same time not posting math in his insulting post.
Since Tommy1729 chooses to not post math in EVERY post, I won't be
held to a double standard that I have to post math while he doesn't
have to either.
Ha ha, Tommy1729 didn't post math in his post to me. Hypocrite
Tommy1729.
<snip>
>
> go learn more from your cartoons neilist.
>
> your such a child.
<snip>
Frisky Dingo is a hilarious silly cartoon.
Anime are cartoons, enjoyed by many adults. The movies "Waking Life"
and "A Scanner Darkly" were very erudite.
So, the media of cartoons does not make the viewer childish.
The poor spelling of Tommy1729 ("your" in "your such a child") was an
unintentional and typical misspelling of dumb Tommy1729.
And Tommy1729's distortions and insults make HIM childish, too.
Anyone calling me a child should call Tommy1729 a child.
And if no one besides me corrects Tommy1729's wrong definition of the
noun "integral" and his childish evasion and refusal to admit his
error, then YOU ARE ALL CHILDISH AND COWARDLY.
You all should correct Tommy1729 when he said:
On August 28, 2007, 2:35 PM, Tommy1729 wrote:
"integers ...-2,-1,0,1,2,...
integrals 1,2,3,4,...
natural numbers 0,1,2,3,... "
Sci.math refuses to correct Tommy1729?
Sci.math, meet you're "doom"!
Neilist
Quinn is threatening a libel/defamation lawsuit against me! Help!
But now he's trying to hide his own posts with such threats.
In DLtruth.com, on March 21, 2008
Quinn (as jackson) wrote, and then later erased:
"Neilist:
You are an extortionist. You have promised to continue muddying Google
index space with nonsense attached to my name unless I give in to your
demand that I start a thread on sci.math that denounces Harris as a
crank. I already said that he's a crank, but not in a thread that I
started.
I don't bow to extortion.
Without prejudice, I am willing to let your libel against me slide,
despite your clear malice aforethought. But you have to stop, and stop
now. Many in the DL world will attest to my willingness to be patient
with some of the most multifarious of yahoos. But my patience with you
is wearing very, very thin. Do not pretend to yourself that becauase
you're not using the US postal service or the telephone in your
attacks that you are immune to recourse. Moreover, do not pretend that
I have to prove actual damages, since your attacks have been per se
from the beginning. Malice + libel per se ... this is not a good
combination. By your own public words you have made your intent clear.
Govern yourself accordingly."