Recent quotes from James Harris
epili...@my-deja.com
From: "James Harris" <js...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Stating the obvious
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000
<snip>
Yes, my simple proof of FLT will soon be verified
by the mathematical establishment.
<snip>
--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Harris" <js...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Ok, you can stop this whenever
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000
<snip>
Some of you don't yet realize that the powers that be,
that is the people you all look up to and admire as
"the authorities" already know that my arguments are
correct.
They are now debating what they are going to do.
<snip>
--------------------------------------------------
From: jas...@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: questions about JSH FLT
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000
epili...@my-deja.com wrote:
> And suppose, for example, x is pi and y is e.
> Which specific ring would you be using then?
I'm glad you asked that.
pi and e are transcendental numbers, of course.
So, they're actually "higher" than irrationals.
However, they're still below reals.
Which is a good thing, since you can consider
them "factors", and use them accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Lord
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "James Harris" <js...@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Stating the obvious
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000
>
> <snip>
>
> Yes, my simple proof of FLT will soon be verified
> by the mathematical establishment.
>
> <snip>
What exactly is James's definition of "the mathematical establishment"?
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "James Harris" <js...@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Ok, you can stop this whenever
> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000
>
> <snip>
>
> Some of you don't yet realize that the powers that be,
> that is the people you all look up to and admire as
> "the authorities" already know that my arguments are
> correct.
>
> They are now debating what they are going to do.
>
> <snip>
Which "authorities"? The title of a journal or names of people would be
nice.
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: jas...@my-deja.com
> Subject: Re: questions about JSH FLT
> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000
>
> epili...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > And suppose, for example, x is pi and y is e.
> > Which specific ring would you be using then?
>
> I'm glad you asked that.
>
> pi and e are transcendental numbers, of course.
>
> So, they're actually "higher" than irrationals.
>
> However, they're still below reals.
>
> Which is a good thing, since you can consider
> them "factors", and use them accordingly.
I know which definition of 'factors' _we_ use, and I know that this
definition is consistent ... I wonder what definition James is using.
Pi and e have a factor in common according to James's definition -- all
reals, in fact. Of course, that makes that definition pretty much
completely useless.
Steve L
James Harris
"Steve Lord" wrote in message
>
> I know which definition of 'factors' _we_ use, and I know that this
> definition is consistent ... I wonder what definition James is using.
>
> Pi and e have a factor in common according to James's definition -- all
> reals, in fact. Of course, that makes that definition pretty much
> completely useless.
>
Well, arrogant until the end I see.
I was trained as a physicist.
And in physics, we use the sqr(pi) all the time.
pi = sqr(pi) sqr(pi).
In my book, the sqr(pi) is a "factor" of pi.
Now, I see that all of that is way too complex for mathematicians.
Or maybe it's too simple?
LOL...you don't realize that I'm making some of these posts for the people
who will follow with a different perspective.
They will wonder if we were in cahoots.
No people, I did not tell them what to say.
They managed to do it all by themselves.
And get this, right now, they're *proud* of their comments.
ROFLOL
Erik Max Francis
> pi = sqr(pi) sqr(pi).
>
> In my book, the sqr(pi) is a "factor" of pi.
>
> Now, I see that all of that is way too complex for mathematicians.
>
> Or maybe it's too simple?
What you don't seem to understand is that if you consider pi^(1/2) a
factor of pi, then not only are you using the term _factor_ contrary to
everyone else in the world, but you are using in such a way that it uses
all meaning. If pi^(1/2) is a factor of pi, then _every_ real number is
a factor of every other real number. Since
pi^(1/2) pi^(1/2) = pi
then why not note that
[2 pi^(1/2)] [(1/2) pi^(1/2)] = pi
and say that 2 pi^(1/2) and (1/2) pi^(1/2) are both factors of pi? Or
why not just
[2 pi] [(1/2) pi] = pi
and so both 2 pi and pi/2 are factors of pi?
If you think that there's some rationalization as to why _your_
assertion makes sense but these others don't, then you're deluding
yourself.
This is why your proof is useless; in addition to you not having the
slightest idea what you're talking about (and having failed about a
thousand times before), you are using such poor reasoning skills that at
best your proof is "not even wrong" -- it's incoherent and meaningless.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ The price of eternal vigilance is indifference.
\__/ Marshall McLuhan
Physics reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/physics/
A physics reference.
Steve Lord
> "Steve Lord" wrote in message
> >
> > I know which definition of 'factors' _we_ use, and I know that this
> > definition is consistent ... I wonder what definition James is using.
> >
> > Pi and e have a factor in common according to James's definition -- all
> > reals, in fact. Of course, that makes that definition pretty much
> > completely useless.
> >
>
> Well, arrogant until the end I see.
No. I just realize that a definition of a property which applies to
_everything_ isn't very useful.
> I was trained as a physicist.
>
> And in physics, we use the sqr(pi) all the time.
>
> pi = sqr(pi) sqr(pi).
I will agree with that.
> In my book, the sqr(pi) is a "factor" of pi.
Uh-huh ... and that helps us exactly _how_? Then 1, 2, 1/e, in fact _any_
real is a "factor" of pi ... and therefore saying is not a "factor" of pi
doesn't make any sense, except for 0.
So basically if you say 'x is a "factor" of pi' then you're just saying x
is a real number (or a complex number, if you want to use complex
numbers.) Other than the fact that it tells us that x is real or complex,
it's not very useful.
> Now, I see that all of that is way too complex for mathematicians.
>
> Or maybe it's too simple?
You're using a strange definition that doesn't give you anything useful.
> LOL...you don't realize that I'm making some of these posts for the people
> who will follow with a different perspective.
>
> They will wonder if we were in cahoots.
Fine. For the record, I will say we are not in cahoots.
> No people, I did not tell them what to say.
>
> They managed to do it all by themselves.
>
> And get this, right now, they're *proud* of their comments.
And you are apparently proud of your comments, for some reason.
Tell me ... is there any number other than 0 which, according to your
definition of "factor", is _not_ a factor of a complex number a+b*i where
a and b are real numbers? If not (which from what I gather your
definition says is correct) then your definition just says that we have a
nonzero number.
Steve L
Nico Benschop
Don't you see that a simple solution of x^p + y^p = z^p exists
if you consider reals...
(and if you like: complex nrs, or residues for instance mod p^k).
Namely z = p_root (x^p + y^p). Maybe James' proof in fact is about
_solutions_ of the FLT eqn, NOT their impossibility ??? ;-)
Because _then_ it's really quite simple ... (a graceful way-out;-(
--
Ciao, Nico Benschop -- http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/ferm.htm
jas...@my-deja.com
Steve Lord wrote:
>
> No. I just realize that a definition of a property which applies to
> _everything_ isn't very useful.
Duh.
>
> > I was trained as a physicist.
> >
> > And in physics, we use the sqr(pi) all the time.
> >
> > pi = sqr(pi) sqr(pi).
>
> I will agree with that.
>
Your previous post was involved in ridiculing that statement.
I wonder why you folks don't check on what you're replying to.
My conclusion has been that you just don't care about the truth.
Possibly you can give another explanation?
> > In my book, the sqr(pi) is a "factor" of pi.
>
> Uh-huh ... and that helps us exactly _how_? Then 1, 2, 1/e, in fact
_any_
> real is a "factor" of pi ... and therefore saying is not a "factor"
of pi
> doesn't make any sense, except for 0.
You're wrong.
A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
have "factors".
Transcendentals can still be said to have factors, as I've demonstrated.
And to help you out, I mentioned a practical application.
That is, the sqr(pi) is scattered all through physics.
Still, I suspect that you'd rather chatter endlessly than just admit
you made a mistake.
I'd rather not.
>
> So basically if you say 'x is a "factor" of pi' then you're just
saying x
> is a real number (or a complex number, if you want to use complex
> numbers.) Other than the fact that it tells us that x is real or
complex,
> it's not very useful.
Not so.
I guess if you say the sqr(2) then you're just saying it's a real
number as well?
<sigh>
Nicolas Bray
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
> have "factors".
An integer is neither irrational nor transcendental. So 6 has no factors?
Of course, you can't even define the word "transcendental".
> Transcendentals can still be said to have factors, as I've demonstrated.
First you must define what a "factor" is, something you repeatedly fail to
do. Why is that?
> And to help you out, I mentioned a practical application.
>
> That is, the sqr(pi) is scattered all through physics.
Please show somewhere in physics where sqr(pi) is considered a factor of
pi.
> Still, I suspect that you'd rather chatter endlessly than just admit
> you made a mistake.
>
> I'd rather not.
Ha.
Nicolas Bray
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, James Harris wrote:
> I was trained as a physicist.
How you were trained is entirely irrelevant. There is only one question
here:
What is your definition of "x is a factor of y"?
Iain Davidson
<jas...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8msgiv$9rb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
> have "factors".
>
Do transcendentals have prime factors too ?
Is 5 a prime factor of 20 ?
Is 5 a factor ?
Jonathan Hoyle
>>
>> In my book, the sqr(pi) is a "factor" of pi.
By that definition, every non-zero real number x is a factor of any real
number y since y = x * r, for some real number r (which happens to be
y/x).
Pretty useless a definition, don't you think?
Jonathan Hoyle
>>
>> A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
>> have "factors".
>>
>> Transcendentals can still be said to have factors, as I've
>> demonstrated.
Why not. If by your definition pi can have sqrt(pi) as a factor because
sqrt(pi) * sqrt(pi) = pi, then why can't 1/2 have as a factor
sqrt(1/2)? Isn't sqrt(1/2) * sqrt(1/2) = 1/2?
Nico Benschop
>
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, James Harris wrote:
>
> > I was trained as a physicist.
>
> How you were trained is entirely irrelevant.
> There is only one question here:
>
No answer yet, to this often asked & burning question?
Let me help: x is a factor of y when there is a z such that y = x.z ;-)
And to exclude trivial cases (like y or 1 is factor of y): z \neq {1,y}
That should yield a homerun... -- NFB
jas...@my-deja.com
> > have "factors".
>
factors?
> Of course, you can't even define the word "transcendental".
>
An integer is an irrational.
jas...@my-deja.com
Jonatha...@kodak.com wrote:
>
> Why not. If by your definition pi can have sqrt(pi) as a factor
because
> sqrt(pi) * sqrt(pi) = pi, then why can't 1/2 have as a factor
> sqrt(1/2)? Isn't sqrt(1/2) * sqrt(1/2) = 1/2?
>
Why do you continue to get fields and rings mixed up?
1/2 is a fraction
jas...@my-deja.com
real
> number y since y = x * r, for some real number r (which happens to be
> y/x).
>
> Pretty useless a definition, don't you think?
>
Like others you seem to be confused about the distinction between a
ring and a field.
The term "factor" is for use with rings.
Your example is in a field.
epili...@my-deja.com
jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Nicolas Bray wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
> > > have "factors".
> >
> > An integer is neither irrational nor transcendental. So 6 has no
> factors?
> > Of course, you can't even define the word "transcendental".
>
> An integer is an irrational.
James, the extent of your mathematical ignorance is truly breathtaking.
Dann Corbit
> In article ,
> Nicolas Bray wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
> > > have "factors".
> >
> > An integer is neither irrational nor transcendental. So 6 has no
> factors?
> > Of course, you can't even define the word "transcendental".
> >
>
> An integer is an irrational.
1).
This is just too delicious of a troll to resist.
An "irrational" number is a number which cannot be represented as the ratio
of two integers.
Let's consider the number 5.
5 = 5/1 = 10/2 = 15/3 = 20/4
etc.
Now, if you want to prove something that is even a teeny bit advanced, you
should at least understand the terms you are attempting to use.
2).
If sqrt(pi) is a factor of pi, could you be so kind as to provide a complete
factorization of pi?
I swore to myself I would not respond to any more JSH posts. But his
trolling skills have gotten better.
--
C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
"The C-FAQ Book" ISBN 0-201-84519-9
C.A.P. Newsgroup http://www.dejanews.com/~c_a_p
C.A.P. FAQ: ftp://38.168.214.175/pub/Chess%20Analysis%20Project%20FAQ.htm
Richard Carr
:Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:24:48 GMT
:From: jas...@my-deja.com
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
:
:In article ,
: Nicolas Bray wrote:
:>
:>
:> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
:>
:> > A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
:> > have "factors".
:>
:> An integer is neither irrational nor transcendental. So 6 has no
:factors?
:> Of course, you can't even define the word "transcendental".
:>
:
:An integer is an irrational.
:
You wrote in an earlier post that 2 is an integer. Are you saying that 2
is irrational or are you saying that there is at least one integer which
is irrational. If the latter, please give an example (or, if none is
known, a proof that such an integer exists).
:
:
:Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
:Before you buy.
:
Erik Max Francis
> An integer is an irrational.
Wow, James. You really don't have the slightest idea of what you're
talking about.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Courage is the fear of being thought a coward.
\__/ Horace Smith
Alcyone Systems' Daily Planet / http://www.alcyone.com/planet.html
A new, virtual planet, every day.
Erik Max Francis
> Like others you seem to be confused about the distinction between a
> ring and a field.
Then why don't you define the two terms for us, then, James, and then
give us examples of what the relevant rings and fields are here? What,
you can't? Thought so.
You are using the words, but they obviously have no meaning to you. "An
integer is an irrational," eh?
Nicolas Bray
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Nico Benschop wrote:
> > What is your definition of "x is a factor of y"?
>
> No answer yet, to this often asked & burning question?
> Let me help:[snip]
I don't think you can help. The question is what is JSH's definition and
that no one knows except possibly him(emphasis on "possibly"). As far as I
can tell, his definition is something like:
x is a factor of y if y/x has some cool form.
So sqrt(pi) is a factor of pi because pi/sqrt(pi) is sqrt(pi). Cool! And
3 - sqrt(2) is a factor of 7 because 7/(3 - sqrt(2)) is 3 + sqrt(2). Cool!
Maybe I should just make things quicker and ask him what his definition of
"cool" is.
Nicolas Bray
Rajarshi Ray
trying to tackle FLT, and that too with elementary techniques. Wiles
himself said that working on FLT can be unproductive for long periods.
Probably this is even more true for elementary methods. Maybe James can
find someone to help him along here. Maybe that's all he wants eh?
Cheers
Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> James Harris wrote:
>
> > pi = sqr(pi) sqr(pi).
> >
> > In my book, the sqr(pi) is a "factor" of pi.
> >
> > Now, I see that all of that is way too complex for mathematicians.
> >
> > Or maybe it's too simple?
>
> What you don't seem to understand is that if you consider pi^(1/2) a
> factor of pi, then not only are you using the term _factor_ contrary to
> everyone else in the world, but you are using in such a way that it uses
> all meaning. If pi^(1/2) is a factor of pi, then _every_ real number is
> a factor of every other real number. Since
>
> pi^(1/2) pi^(1/2) = pi
>
> then why not note that
>
> [2 pi^(1/2)] [(1/2) pi^(1/2)] = pi
>
> and say that 2 pi^(1/2) and (1/2) pi^(1/2) are both factors of pi? Or
> why not just
>
> [2 pi] [(1/2) pi] = pi
>
> and so both 2 pi and pi/2 are factors of pi?
>
> If you think that there's some rationalization as to why _your_
> assertion makes sense but these others don't, then you're deluding
> yourself.
>
> This is why your proof is useless; in addition to you not having the
> slightest idea what you're talking about (and having failed about a
> thousand times before), you are using such poor reasoning skills that at
> best your proof is "not even wrong" -- it's incoherent and meaningless.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> __ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
> / \ The price of eternal vigilance is indifference.
> \__/ Marshall McLuhan
> Physics reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/physics/
> A physics reference.
--
Some people see things that are and ask why?
Others see things that are not and ask why not?
Both lead to progress in society!
- George Bernard Shaw
epili...@my-deja.com
100...@soda.csua.Berkeley.edu>,
Yes. Thank you, James.
I think he should now be known as
James "an integer is an irrational" Harris
I wonder how James "an integer is an irrational" Harris will try to
wriggle out of this one. Perhaps he was thinking of the radical
integers or possibly the algebraic integers. Were you James?
David C. Ullrich
Rajarshi Ray <raja...@home.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we should all sympathize with James's efforts. After all, he's
> trying to tackle FLT, and that too with elementary techniques. Wiles
> himself said that working on FLT can be unproductive for long periods.
> Probably this is even more true for elementary methods. Maybe James can
> find someone to help him along here. Maybe that's all he wants eh?
Sounds like yoiu haven't read any of his posts.
--
Oh, dejanews lets you add a sig - that's useful...
Jan Kristian Haugland
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Richard Carr wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:24:48 GMT
> :From: jas...@my-deja.com
> :Newsgroups: sci.math
> :Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
> :
> :In article ,
> : Nicolas Bray wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> :>
> :> > A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
> :> > have "factors".
> :>
> :> An integer is neither irrational nor transcendental. So 6 has no
> :factors?
> :> Of course, you can't even define the word "transcendental".
> :>
> :
> :An integer is an irrational.
> :
>
> You wrote in an earlier post that 2 is an integer. Are you saying that 2
> is irrational or are you saying that there is at least one integer which
> is irrational. If the latter, please give an example (or, if none is
> known, a proof that such an integer exists).
But I already showed that his logic shows that 3 is irrational, in
"JSH-style proof that some integers are irrational". Why are you
guys surprised to see that he does think integers are irrational? :-))
Rob Pratt
wrote:
>Perhaps we should all sympathize with James's efforts. After all, he's
>trying to tackle FLT, and that too with elementary techniques. Wiles
>himself said that working on FLT can be unproductive for long periods.
>Probably this is even more true for elementary methods. Maybe James can
>find someone to help him along here. Maybe that's all he wants eh?
>
>Cheers
Do you honestly think that helping James, who doesn't know that
integers are rational, prove FLT is doing him a service?
jas...@my-deja.com
jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> An integer is an irrational.
>
Wow, do any of you call yourselves mathematicians?
I figured only the novices among you would find a problem with that
statement.
Integers are members of the class of rationals.
Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.
Irrationals are members of the class of reals.
2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational.
Many of you like to use the terms in different ways.
For instance, you will say that the sqr(2) is irrational.
Or, you'll say 345.4353456... is a real.
But, 2 is an irrational (notice the "an").
And 2 is a real.
Or do any of you deny that?
jas...@my-deja.com
Jan Kristian Haugland <haug...@fine318a.math.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> But I already showed that his logic shows that 3 is irrational, in
> "JSH-style proof that some integers are irrational". Why are you
> guys surprised to see that he does think integers are irrational? :-))
>
>
Well, I take this as evidence that your intellect has been compromised
by your emotions.
I figured only the novices would find a problem with that statement.
Integers are members of the class of rationals.
Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.
Irrationals are members of the class of reals.
2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational.
Many like to use the terms in different ways.
For instance, they will say that the sqr(2) is irrational.
Or, they'll say 345.4353456... is a real.
But, 2 is an irrational (notice the "an").
And 2 is a real.
Or do you deny that?
mycat...@my-deja.com
jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article ,
> Jan Kristian Haugland <haug...@fine318a.math.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>
> I figured only the novices would find a problem with that
> statement.
I guess that makes me a novice.
> Integers are members of the class of rationals.
OK
> Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.
Heck no!
The way I learned it the prefix "ir" means "not",
so irrational numbers are (by definition) not
rational; just like an ir-responsible person is
a person who is not responsible.
> Irrationals are members of the class of reals.
OK, but not the whole truth.
The way I learned it, the rationals and irrationals
are disjoint sets and their union is the reals.
By your definition, is are their reals that are
neither rational nor irrational? Can you give
some examples?
jonl
jas...@my-deja.com
mycat...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> The way I learned it, the rationals and irrationals
> are disjoint sets and their union is the reals.
Hey, maybe you're right.
If I made a mistake here, I'm not going to get excited about it.
But I was making my statement based on the belief that one was inside
the other.
That is, you have the set of integers in the set of rationals, which is
in the set of irrationals, which is in the set of reals.
But, hey if they're disjoint then I was wrong.
>
> By your definition, is are their reals that are
> neither rational nor irrational? Can you give
> some examples?
>
PI and e are transcendental
Transcendentals as a set came up after the definition irrational was
found to not include certain numbers.
Afterwards, the way I understand it, the real classification came about.
I wouldn't mind someone providing the correct history and current
classification scheme because I find it somewhat interesting.
Thanks for the post.
James Harris
Arturo Magidin
>
>>
>> An integer is an irrational.
>>
>
>Wow, do any of you call yourselves mathematicians?
>
>statement.
>
>Integers are members of the class of rationals.
>
No. Rationals and irrationals are disjoint sets, whose (disjoint)
union is the set of all real numbers.
At least, under the usual, accepted, and common meanings of the terms.
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu
Dann Corbit
> In article ,
> jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > An integer is an irrational.
> >
>
> Wow, do any of you call yourselves mathematicians?
>
> I figured only the novices among you would find a problem with that
> statement.
>
> Integers are members of the class of rationals.
>
> Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.
>
>
> 2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational.
>
>
> For instance, you will say that the sqr(2) is irrational.
>
> Or, you'll say 345.4353456... is a real.
>
> But, 2 is an irrational (notice the "an").
>
> And 2 is a real.
>
How deep a hole can you possibly dig?
2 is an integer number
See the proper definition here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integer.html
2 is a rational number
See the proper definition here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RationalNumber.html
2 is a real number
See the proper definition here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RealNumber.html
2 is an algebraic number
See the proper definition here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlgebraicNumber.html
2 is not a transcendental number
See the proper definition here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TranscendentalNumber.html
2 is not an irrational number
See the proper definition here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
JSH logic:
All men are mortal
All women are mortal
Therefore, all men are women.
You see, irrationals are a subset of the reals.
Integers are a subset of the reals.
The two subsets are not coincident. In fact, they are completely disparate.
You have no chance whatsoever to complete any sort of proof if you cannot
handle the most elementary mathematical logic. I doubt very much that you
will actually learn what these things mean, despite the fact that it would
require only microscopic effort on your part.
Rob Pratt
>In article ,
> jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>
>> An integer is an irrational.
>>
>
>Wow, do any of you call yourselves mathematicians?
>
>I figured only the novices among you would find a problem with that
>statement.
>
>Integers are members of the class of rationals.
>
>Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.
>
>Irrationals are members of the class of reals.
>
>2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational.
>
>Many of you like to use the terms in different ways.
>
>For instance, you will say that the sqr(2) is irrational.
>
>Or, you'll say 345.4353456... is a real.
>
>But, 2 is an irrational (notice the "an").
>
>And 2 is a real.
>
>Or do any of you deny that?
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Try again.
The rationals and irrationals are disjoint sets. They partition the
reals. The rationals are NOT a subset of the irrationals.
jas...@my-deja.com
"Dann Corbit" <dco...@solutionsiq.com> wrote:
>
> How deep a hole can you possibly dig?
>
> 2 is an integer number
> See the proper definition here:
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integer.html
>
> 2 is a rational number
> See the proper definition here:
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RationalNumber.html
>
> 2 is a real number
> See the proper definition here:
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RealNumber.html
>
> 2 is an algebraic number
> See the proper definition here:
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlgebraicNumber.html
>
> 2 is not a transcendental number
> See the proper definition here:
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TranscendentalNumber.html
>
> 2 is not an irrational number
> See the proper definition here:
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
>
Hey, thanks for the info.
Again, my historical understanding was off.
Now, unlike you guys, I don't get too excited at finding myself wrong.
I'd rather deal with the truth than keep on trucking with wrong
information.
jas...@my-deja.com
rob...@unx.sas.com wrote:
>
> Try again.
>
> The rationals and irrationals are disjoint sets. They partition the
> reals. The rationals are NOT a subset of the irrationals.
>
Now, this is what I like in a reply.
There's not a lot of extra, useless information.
It is direct and to the point.
Why can't more of you be like this guy?
So, after all that energy so many of you expended, guess what?
Hey, I guess I was wrong.
<yawn>
It's fun being me.
James Harris
Dann Corbit
> In article ,
> mycat...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > The way I learned it, the rationals and irrationals
> > are disjoint sets and their union is the reals.
>
> Hey, maybe you're right.
>
> If I made a mistake here, I'm not going to get excited about it.
>
> But I was making my statement based on the belief that one was inside
> the other.
>
> That is, you have the set of integers in the set of rationals, which is
> in the set of irrationals, which is in the set of reals.
>
> But, hey if they're disjoint then I was wrong.
It is a very good thing to recognize when you are mistaken and recant.
> >
> > By your definition, is are their reals that are
> > neither rational nor irrational? Can you give
> > some examples?
> >
> PI and e are transcendental
>
> Transcendentals as a set came up after the definition irrational was
> found to not include certain numbers.
Transcendentals are also irrationals. Otherwise, pi and e could be
expressed as a ratio of two integers.
> Afterwards, the way I understand it, the real classification came about.
I suspect the real classification is fairly ancient, probably (just a WAG)
the next thing discovered after whole numbers and rational numbers.
> I wouldn't mind someone providing the correct history and current
> classification scheme because I find it somewhat interesting.
Don't you have a public library nearby? On the other hand, most of this
stuff is so old, it probably predates history (yes, really).
jas...@my-deja.com
"Dann Corbit" wrote:
>
> It is a very good thing to recognize when you are mistaken and recant.
>
There's no point in doing otherwise.
If you're wrong then you're just wrong, and trying to avoid the fact
doesn't change that.
>
> Transcendentals are also irrationals. Otherwise, pi and e could be
> expressed as a ratio of two integers.
>
Yes, pi and e are not rational.
Transcendentals came up as a part of the classification scheme for some
interesting reasons that are worth reading about.
>
> I suspect the real classification is fairly ancient, probably (just a
WAG)
> the next thing discovered after whole numbers and rational numbers.
>
> > I wouldn't mind someone providing the correct history and current
> > classification scheme because I find it somewhat interesting.
>
> Don't you have a public library nearby? On the other hand, most of
this
> stuff is so old, it probably predates history (yes, really).
Someone posted some useful links that have all the definitions.
Thanks for a post that didn't have unnecessary and unpleasant extras.
Civility seems to me to be a lot more efficient.
epili...@my-deja.com
jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>rob...@unx.sas.com wrote:
> >
> > Try again.
> >
> > The rationals and irrationals are disjoint sets. They partition the
> > reals. The rationals are NOT a subset of the irrationals.
>
> Now, this is what I like in a reply.
>
> There's not a lot of extra, useless information.
>
> It is direct and to the point.
>
> Why can't more of you be like this guy?
>
> So, after all that energy so many of you expended, guess what?
>
> Hey, I guess I was wrong.
You recently said:
> Some of you don't yet realize that the powers that be,
> that is the people you all look up to an admire as
> "the authorities" already know that my arguments are correct.
Is it true that the powers that be already
know that your arguments are correct?
big dog
Its hard to resist.
Good post
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:04:50 -0700, "Dann Corbit"
<dco...@solutionsiq.com> wrote:
><jas...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8mva3b$c41$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article ,
>> Nicolas Bray wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > A number that is not irrational and is not transcendental does not
>> > > have "factors".
>> >
>> > An integer is neither irrational nor transcendental. So 6 has no
>> factors?
>> > Of course, you can't even define the word "transcendental".
>> >
>>
>> An integer is an irrational.
>
Erik Max Francis
> Integers are members of the class of rationals.
>
> Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.
>
> Irrationals are members of the class of reals.
>
> 2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational.
Wooooooow. You really are a total non-starter.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Sanity is a cozy lie.
\__/ Susan Sontag
Alcyone Systems' CatCam / http://www.catcam.com/
What do your pets do all day while you're at work? Find out.
Erik Max Francis
> Hey, maybe you're right.
>
> If I made a mistake here, I'm not going to get excited about it.
"Maybe I made a mistake, but I'll conveniently ignore it even though it
indicates clearly that I have no idea what I'm talking about here and
have no hope of proving water is wet, much less Fermat's Last Theorem."
> > By your definition, is are their reals that are
> > neither rational nor irrational? Can you give
> > some examples?
>
> PI and e are transcendental
>
> Transcendentals as a set came up after the definition irrational was
> found to not include certain numbers.
"Here is another example of me not having any idea what I am talking
about."
You really should have at least _some_ notion of the meanings of the
terms you are using. You have in the past few days repeatedly indicated
that you do not know what integers, rationals, irrationals, and reals
are. That would make it very hard for anyone to take your proof
seriously, given that you can't even speak the same language as
everybody else.
Erik Max Francis
> Yes, pi and e are not rational.
And so pi and e are irraitonal. Or are you unfamiliar with what the ir-
suffix means in English? It means "not."
Congratulations, you made another glaring mistake.
Randy Poe
>In article ,
> Jan Kristian Haugland <haug...@fine318a.math.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>
>> But I already showed that his logic shows that 3 is irrational, in
>> "JSH-style proof that some integers are irrational". Why are you
>> guys surprised to see that he does think integers are irrational? :-))
>>
>>
>
>Well, I take this as evidence that your intellect has been compromised
>by your emotions.
>
>I figured only the novices would find a problem with that statement.
>
>Integers are members of the class of rationals.
>
Yes.
>Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.
>
Nope.
>Irrationals are members of the class of reals.
>
Yes.
>2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational.
Yes it's real. No it's not irrational.
>
>Many like to use the terms in different ways.
>
>For instance, they will say that the sqr(2) is irrational.
>
>Or, they'll say 345.4353456... is a real.
>
>But, 2 is an irrational (notice the "an").
>
No
>And 2 is a real.
and yes.
>
>Or do you deny that?
You seem to have a concept of "irrational" as being a generalization
of rational, lying somewhere between rational and real.
I know you don't like the idea of defining terms, but in your view are
there real numbers that AREN'T irrational?
Or are you just using "irrational" as a synonym of "real". Every real
is irrational, every irrational is real. If so, why have a new word?
Also, do you believe there are real numbers that aren't rational?
If so, wouldn't it be nice to have a name for them?
- Randy
jmfb...@aol.com
David C. Ullrich <david_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <399351E0...@home.com>,
> Rajarshi Ray <raja...@home.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should all sympathize with James's efforts. After all, he's
>> trying to tackle FLT, and that too with elementary techniques. Wiles
>> himself said that working on FLT can be unproductive for long periods.
>> Probably this is even more true for elementary methods. Maybe James can
>> find someone to help him along here. Maybe that's all he wants eh?
>
>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Nicolas Bray
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Civility seems to me to be a lot more efficient.
Funny, I guess it didn't seem that way when you were calling me a
"mongrel" in email, huh?
David C. Ullrich
<Pine.BSF.4.10.100081...@soda.csua.Berkeley.edu>,
Not to worry. He's never been concerned with consistency -
if he's actually decided to be civil it won't last long.
--
Oh, dejanews lets you add a sig - that's useful...
Richard Carr
:Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 09:36:58 -0700
:From: Nicolas Bray <br...@soda.csua.Berkeley.edu>
:To: jas...@my-deja.com
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
:
:
:
:
:On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
:
:> Civility seems to me to be a lot more efficient.
:
:Funny, I guess it didn't seem that way when you were calling me a
:"mongrel" in email, huh?
:
or everyone here swine.
Rajarshi Ray
Yup. That's me. Never mind the fact that I've never claimed anything
about proving any theorem, let alone FLT. You got me all right.
--
Some people see things that are and ask why?
Others see things that are not and ask why not?
Both lead to progress in society!
- George Bernard Shaw
W. Dale Hall
>
> Again, my historical understanding was off.
>
Err, "historical"? How about mathematical understanding? Technical
understanding? "Level of a high-school graduate" understanding?
> Now, unlike you guys, I don't get too excited at finding myself wrong.
>
Right. That little outburst that ran like this:
> Wow, do any of you call yourselves mathematicians?
>
> I figured only the novices among you would find a problem with that
> statement.
was, in all truth, just a casual series of remarks ("Oh, well, guess I
can't hit 'em all out of the ball park"). I suppose we should be
thankful you didn't threaten to tell our Moms. Or our major professors.
Or, thinking a few months back, threaten us with legal action.
> I'd rather deal with the truth than keep on trucking with wrong
> information.
>
Yeah, well truck you, too. Your notion of truth gives physicists, even
BS physicists as yourself, a bad name.
Your pal,
Dale.
Erik Max Francis
> I suppose we should be
> thankful you didn't threaten to tell our Moms. Or our major
> professors. ...
He did threaten to inform employers about their employees' unwillingness
to accept his "obviously" correct proof. Strange how that guy thinks.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Golf is a good walk spoiled.
\__/ Mark Twain
Interstelen / http://www.interstelen.com/
A multiplayer, strategic, turn-based Web game on an interstellar scale.
Richard Carr
:Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:26:14 -0700
:From: Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
:
:"W. Dale Hall" wrote:
:
:> I suppose we should be
:> thankful you didn't threaten to tell our Moms. Or our major
:> professors. ...
:
:He did threaten to inform employers about their employees' unwillingness
:to accept his "obviously" correct proof. Strange how that guy thinks.
:
Really? I missed that one.
:--
:
Erik Max Francis
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> > He did threaten to inform employers about their employees'
> > unwillingness
> > to accept his "obviously" correct proof. Strange how that guy
> > thinks.
>
> Really? I missed that one.
Yeah, it happened quite recently; it was when Harris was warning about
the "gloves coming off" soon. Here's the thread in Deja:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=656054465.1
The longest chain is Mike Keith rather amusingly making fun of him, and
then James saying "the gloves come off now" and insisting that Keith
tell him what university he works at, ostensibly so that Harris could
complain to them. Needless to say, the feeble attempt at intimidation
didn't work very well.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Nothing is true -- all is permissible.
\__/ Hassan i Sabbah
Polly Wanna Cracka? / http://www.pollywannacracka.com/
The Internet resource for interracial relationships.
Richard Carr
:Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:16:44 GMT
:From: jas...@my-deja.com
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
:
:In article ,
: jas...@my-deja.com wrote:
:
:>
:> An integer is an irrational.
:>
:
:Wow, do any of you call yourselves mathematicians?
:
Any progress on the advert yet?
:I figured only the novices among you would find a problem with that
:statement.
:
:Integers are members of the class of rationals.
:
:Rationals are members of the class of irrationals.
:
:Irrationals are members of the class of reals.
:
:2 is a real number, in the same way that is an irrational.
:
:Many of you like to use the terms in different ways.
:
:For instance, you will say that the sqr(2) is irrational.
:
:Or, you'll say 345.4353456... is a real.
:
:But, 2 is an irrational (notice the "an").
:
:And 2 is a real.
:
:Or do any of you deny that?
:
:
:Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
:Before you buy.
:
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>Richard Carr wrote:
>
>> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>>
>> > He did threaten to inform employers about their employees'
>> > unwillingness
>> > to accept his "obviously" correct proof. Strange how that guy
>> > thinks.
>>
>> Really? I missed that one.
>
>Yeah, it happened quite recently; it was when Harris was warning about
>the "gloves coming off" soon. Here's the thread in Deja:
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=656054465.1
>
>The longest chain is Mike Keith rather amusingly making fun of him, and
>then James saying "the gloves come off now" and insisting that Keith
>tell him what university he works at, ostensibly so that Harris could
>complain to them. Needless to say, the feeble attempt at intimidation
>didn't work very well.
I've always been disappointed at the way James never carries
through on any of his threats. I'd like to see what happens when he
informs the world press how bad we are. (Or when he informs OSU
how bad I am specifically - I might get a raise out of it.)
Erik Max Francis
> I've always been disappointed at the way James never carries
> through on any of his threats. I'd like to see what happens when he
> informs the world press how bad we are. (Or when he informs OSU
> how bad I am specifically - I might get a raise out of it.)
It's a pretty common trait of cranks, actually; they can't win the
argument, so they turn to other means to one-up their opponent. In the
best case (well, best for the cranks, I guess), they make a feeble
attempt at trying to start up some real-world trouble, but never follow
through (not that they have anything to follow through _with_).
Emailing one's employer is a common ploy, probably simply because it
requires minimal effort.
During several occasions I've had Usenet cranks (that is, cranks I was
only interacting with on Usenet) contact my (now former) employer in an
attempt to get me in some sort of trouble. Each attempt failed, of
course; not only had I not done anything wrong whatsoever, but I have
never posted to Usenet using company resources or on company time (I
make a very stark distinction between work and play).
The most bizarre attempt was when Archimedes Plutonium started forging
posts by me where he tried to make it look like I was badmouthing
executives from the company (I don't know why; I think it was because he
was upset about being listed on crank.net), and then forwarded them to
my employer, along with incoherent ramblings that immediately made it
clear that _whatever_ was going on, this guy was off his rocker and so
shouldn't be taken seriously. The young lady at the company got the
email forward it to me (I think it was the administrative assistant of
the President or CEO) and was totally puzzled and asked for my help in
understand what the email was about -- another attempt at intimidation
failed.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ It is only the poor who are forbidden to beg.
\__/ Anatole France
REALpolitik / http://www.realpolitik.com/
Get your own customized newsfeed online in realtime ... for free!
Jonathan Hoyle
LOL! Oh, this has got to be one of your best, James. Whoever is
keeping track of JSH quotes must write this one down!
Too funny.
PS - You can make your statement true if you redefine "integer" to mean
"James Harris' mathematical statements".
Jonathan Hoyle
Funny stuff. I'm having a blast! :-)
(I can't wait to see the back-peddling that takes place now!)
Jonathan Hoyle
>
> Transcendentals as a set came up after the definition irrational was
>found to not include certain numbers.
>
LOL! Oh God, I can't take anymore! Please stop, I have tears in my
eyes! :-)
Jonathan Hoyle
Perhaps if you heeded your own advice, we would.
You reap what you sow.
Jonathan Hoyle
>> forging posts by me where he tried to make it look like I was
Wow. Archie did that? I knew he was weird, but I never knew he was
quite so unethical. At least JSH (after you've chased him down and
cornered him) paid up on his lost bets, showing some sign of ethics. He
may be rude, arrogant, and mathematically illiterate, but I don't
believe he would ever sink to such depths (or at least I hope not).
Richard Carr
:Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:53:17 -0400
:From: Jonathan Hoyle <Jonatha...@kodak.com>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
:
:>> The most bizarre attempt was when Archimedes Plutonium started
:>> forging posts by me where he tried to make it look like I was
:>> badmouthing executives from the company...
:
:Wow. Archie did that? I knew he was weird, but I never knew he was
:quite so unethical. At least JSH (after you've chased him down and
:cornered him) paid up on his lost bets, showing some sign of ethics. He
Really?
:may be rude, arrogant, and mathematically illiterate, but I don't
:
Jonathan Hoyle
Richard Carr
:Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:38:37 -0400
:From: Jonathan Hoyle <Jonatha...@kodak.com>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
:
:Unless you know something I don't, Richard. :-)
:
Since you snipped whatever you are referring to I have absolutely no idea
what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how many posts there have
been on this topic?
Jonathan Hoyle
>> :
>> Since you snipped whatever you are referring to I have absolutely
>> no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how many
>> posts there have been on this topic?
My apologies, Richard. These were the relevant posts I was referring
to:
>> :>> The most bizarre attempt was when Archimedes Plutonium started
>> :>> forging posts by me where he tried to make it look like I was
>> :>> badmouthing executives from the company...
>> :
>> :Wow. Archie did that? I knew he was weird, but I never knew he
>> :was quite so unethical. At least JSH (after you've chased him
>> :down and cornered him) paid up on his lost bets, showing some sign
>> :of ethics. He
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> :may be rude, arrogant, and mathematically illiterate, but I don't
>> :believe he would ever sink to such depths (or at least I hope
>> :not).
>>
Richard Carr
:Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:48:02 -0400
:From: Jonathan Hoyle <Jonatha...@kodak.com>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
:
:>> :Unless you know something I don't, Richard. :-)
:>> :
:>> Since you snipped whatever you are referring to I have absolutely
:>> no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how many
:>> posts there have been on this topic?
:
:
:My apologies, Richard. These were the relevant posts I was referring
:to:
:
:>> :>> The most bizarre attempt was when Archimedes Plutonium started
:>> :>> forging posts by me where he tried to make it look like I was
:>> :>> badmouthing executives from the company...
:>> :
:>> :Wow. Archie did that? I knew he was weird, but I never knew he
:>> :was quite so unethical. At least JSH (after you've chased him
:>> :down and cornered him) paid up on his lost bets, showing some sign
This is only partially true.
:>> :of ethics. He
:
Erik Max Francis
> Wow. Archie did that? I knew he was weird, but I never knew he was
> quite so unethical.
On numerous occasions he's done similar things with people he didn't
like. He's complained to peoples' places of employment, posted publicly
stating that they have sex with animals, that sort of childish stuff.
It would have been ultimately moot because he would have had no idea
where I worked, but an article of mine was published in one of Clifford
Pickover's books, and it happened to state where I was working as
background material. (I don't know work there anymore, so it's all
water under the bridge.)
> At least JSH (after you've chased him down and
> cornered him) paid up on his lost bets, showing some sign of ethics.
Well, one of them. He's explicitly acknowledged that he's balked on
another bet (the one where he agreed to take out an ad admitting he was
wrong about a certain long ago version of his proof).
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms.
\__/ George Wald
Crank Dot Net / http://www.crank.net/
Cranks, crackpots, kooks, & loons on the Net.
Richard Carr
:Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 11:11:22 -0700
:From: Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Recent quotes from James Harris
:
:Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
:
:> Wow. Archie did that? I knew he was weird, but I never knew he was
:> quite so unethical.
:
:On numerous occasions he's done similar things with people he didn't
:like. He's complained to peoples' places of employment, posted publicly
:stating that they have sex with animals, that sort of childish stuff.
:
:It would have been ultimately moot because he would have had no idea
:where I worked, but an article of mine was published in one of Clifford
:Pickover's books, and it happened to state where I was working as
:background material. (I don't know work there anymore, so it's all
:water under the bridge.)
:
:> At least JSH (after you've chased him down and
:> cornered him) paid up on his lost bets, showing some sign of ethics.
:
:Well, one of them. He's explicitly acknowledged that he's balked on
:another bet (the one where he agreed to take out an ad admitting he was
:wrong about a certain long ago version of his proof).
Indeed, if you read the original wording, he is to take out an ad for
every incorrect proof he makes, not just one.
:
:--
:
Erik Max Francis
> I know of a case of something like this which occurred in academia.
> One could argue that this shows such behavior isn't restricted to
> cranks, or on the other hand that sometimes cranks get respected
> academic positions.
Well, it's an example of not knowing how to play well with others, which
is a common symptom of crankitis, but can also be caused by other
things.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.
\__/ Charles Schultz
Computer science / http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/compsci/
A computer science reference.
Keith Ramsay
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
|The young lady at the company got the
|email forward it to me (I think it was the administrative assistant of
|the President or CEO) and was totally puzzled and asked for my help in
|understand what the email was about -- another attempt at intimidation
|failed.
I know of a case of something like this which occurred in academia.
One could argue that this shows such behavior isn't restricted to
cranks, or on the other hand that sometimes cranks get respected
academic positions.
Keith Ramsay
Jonathan Hoyle
>> for every incorrect proof he makes, not just one.
Actually, that would be just desserts for him. I think that is perfect.
Perhaps the hassle and expense of taking out an ad would prevent him
from mouthing off at each iteration. With this penalty for each
go-around, he might finally put a little more time in his sloppy work
before making his boasts. Each boast costs him an advertisement.
Putting his money where his mouth is might make people more inclined to
believe him. But it's hard to take seriously the 200th empty claim when
he is clearly shameless about his claim.
I don't think even he believes in his claims anymore. He is just going
through the motions, perhaps because he has nothing better to live for.
How sad.
Erik Max Francis
> Perhaps the hassle and expense of taking out an ad would prevent him
> from mouthing off at each iteration. With this penalty for each
> go-around, he might finally put a little more time in his sloppy work
> before making his boasts. Each boast costs him an advertisement.
>
> Putting his money where his mouth is might make people more inclined
> to
> believe him. But it's hard to take seriously the 200th empty claim
> when
> he is clearly shameless about his claim.
Perhaps, but considering 1. he's refused to take any more monetary bets
and 2. has explicitly stated that he has no intention of following
through on his bet about the ad indicates that one should not expect
reputability from such a person.
On the contrary, one should expect him to backpedal and weasel out of
any uncomfortable situation. In fact, we see it all the time; he
_still_ refuses to specify which ring he's talking about in his proof,
after dozens and dozens of explicit requests of the form, "No one can
understand your proof unless you tell us what you're talking about."
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ What is now prov'd was once only imagin'd.
\__/ William Blake