"Musatov"...
mike3
MeAmI.org
mike3 wrote:
> Is he the next JSH?
Please. No one is the next "JSH".
The question is: "Who is the next 'Musatov'?
http://MeAmI.org
"The Best Search Engine on The Net."
rossum
wrote:
>Is he the next JSH?
No. JSH was much better entertainment.
rossum
David Bernier
> Is he the next JSH?
He (and possibly Mr. MeAmI) appears/appear to me
quite illucid, possible alt.usenet.kooks candidate/candidates.
Or maybe he/they are super-trolls. Or else a bit of both ...
David
Denis Feldmann
> Is he the next JSH?
Musatov
My website is http://MeAmI.org.
It is the best search technology on the web currently.
Yes, I take mathematics seriously.
I am not here to have my character commented upon or speculated and
one who does so is a child.
This type of child is best not heard, for even in his cadence his lack
of focus to the mathematics reeks of his ignorance.
So you will stick to the math or be taken as the idiot! Got it
"David"?
Your lack of ability to define speaks greatly of your limitation at
evaluating a problem.
Musatov
http://MeAmI.org
Christopher Henrich
rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote:
You say "was," not "is". And I just noticed that JSH is apparently gone.
Is he just taking a break or <gasp> did something permanent happen?
Oh, I can't stand this; first Michael Jackson, and now...
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Joshua Cranmer
> In article <35b945l2rhe1v1ts7...@4ax.com>,
> rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <mike...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is he the next JSH?
>> No. JSH was much better entertainment.
>>
>> rossum
>
> You say "was," not "is". And I just noticed that JSH is apparently gone.
> Is he just taking a break or <gasp> did something permanent happen?
He seems to take a few months off on a regular basis.
I too am missing his shenanigans... Musatov just can't compare.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Musatov
wrote:
> In article <35b945l2rhe1v1ts7k5mgds29ff2d24...@4ax.com>,
>
> rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Is he the next JSH?
> > No. JSH was much better entertainment.
>
> > rossum
>
> You say "was," not "is". And I just noticed that JSH is apparently gone.
> Is he just taking a break or <gasp> did something permanent happen?
> Oh, I can't stand this; first Michael Jackson, and now...
>
> --
> Christopher J. Henrich
> "A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
The King of Pop lives as does Elvis, just ask the leaky screwdriver.
And yes, JSH is absent. NP-Complete problems, too.
Here is an example, I want all of mathematics to be aware of:
It is a system of carrying unknown variables. It is sort of like Mad
Libs, but much cooler with lots of potential real world implication
and advances in technology possible with its implementation.
Ladies and Gentleman, the "Musatov Method" of Inference...==unknown
variables
aka, "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Sci.Math"
Example narrative and logic thread:
(Consider the following story, afterwards, I will relate a number of
observations from both observer and participant roles in the scenario
and comment upon their logical inferences and implications --
Shakespeare it is not as I wrote it in my head twenty minutes ago
while walking down Hollywood Boulevard to visit Michael Jackson's star
on the Walk of Fame.)
BEGIN STORY:
"So, I came home from school late one day, and I decided to make a
cake. I picked up a [...] and opened the box when-- CRASH! The window
to the front room SHATTERS and glass sprays across the floor.
I was so strartled I dropped the [...]. "Mind you it's 9 o'clock and
I'm home alone."
I picked the [...] up and walked towards the window to see outside. I
suddenly became aware I had a [...] in my hand.
END STORY.
Now we can say given the above string of [...] a logical thread exists
for all four [...] to be the same object. Though in any instance this
does not have to be the case in this case this possibility makes
sense. There may be other instances where all of the [...] are
completely unrelated as arbitrary objects, but when combined in
context we see a relationship. This can be extremely useful in logic
when deducing and inferring scenarios and solutions. Mathematics, an
extension of logic, is similarly the case in this respect.
Now, in classic Hollywood form, please consider the addition of a
single line at the end of the narrative above.
What if the story ended with[...]
\[...What was I going to do with a [...}? (Condition P)
or
\[...}'s are dangerous. (Condition NP)
(please, I am having fun, call it X or Y, or A and B... I am reaching
yes, but this is what we do in theory)
Now if Condition P it seems more logical [...]=a spatula
And if Condition NP is found it seems more logical [...]=knife
The point is Condition P and NP are comparable. NP is a variable we
arrive it in time if we allow ourselves the construct to carry unknown
very relevant unknowns to NP-Complete problems.
It is a stretch of the imagination. It is as simple as Mad Libs. It
does have implications on Einstein's "God doesn't play dice." However,
as simple as it appears it's beauty is its range.
The system should be applicable as a scalar logic with implications
across programming to logistics and all research. It is speculative in
nature. It is "greedy" as an algorithm, but not overly so, as it
sloughs off ruling out possibilities and only complicates variables to
align logical possbilities.
It is the basis of "inclusion" rather than "disclusion". It's focus is
on what is possible and not what is not possible.
And now I am going on at lenghth, and sense this writing should end,
before I lose my polynomial time rhythm, but let's just leave it at
this statement.
The above theory, call it what you will (Musatov's Double-Edged Sword
Theory, I suggest ;)) it is the antithesis to Occam's razor.
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor, is the principle that "entities
should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It is apocryphally attributed
to 14th-century ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
If we observe Occam's basic modality of thought, we can state the
principle "entities may be multiplied neccesarily to address local
relationships between unknowns."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musatov's_Riser (just a thought ;))
If life is a cup[of milk] the cream [floats] to the top is truth.
(Okay, yes, reaching again, but playing on sentence structure to
deduce a logical condition/convention, I have been thinking about how
we might apply it in search/perhaps in an algorithm)
My best to sci.math.
I still don't get why Inverse19 called me a leper and compared me and
your "beating Teddy", but perhaps I will someday. (Consider this last
statement a hypothetical wondering aloud and not an invitation to
address me with a sentence containing, "Because you're an idiot!
Because you're a crank. Because you make no sense. (note: this last
one is the same thing as an egotistical person saying, "I don't
understand you.")
Exit. Stage Right.
--
Musatov
Musatov
> Christopher Henrich wrote:
> > rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Is he the next JSH?
> >> No. JSH was much better entertainment.
>
> >> rossum
>
> > You say "was," not "is". And I just noticed that JSH is apparently gone.
> > Is he just taking a break or <gasp> did something permanent happen?
>
> He seems to take a few months off on a regular basis.
>
> I too am missing his shenanigans... Musatov just can't compare.
>
> --
> Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
> tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Well, I hope this ends any and all comparisions between me and the
unfortunate soul you belittled and verbally (written) abused, and
signals an end to this entire chapter of amoral behavior (read "poor
taste" or "uninteresting" if you are picky) on Sci.Math and
Sci.Logic.
--
Musatov
Mensanator
> On Jun 26, 10:46 am, Christopher Henrich <chenr...@monmouth.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <35b945l2rhe1v1ts7k5mgds29ff2d24...@4ax.com>,
>
> > rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >Is he the next JSH?
> > > No. JSH was much better entertainment.
>
> > > rossum
>
> > You say "was," not "is". And I just noticed that JSH is apparently gone.
> > Is he just taking a break or <gasp> did something permanent happen?
> > Oh, I can't stand this; first Michael Jackson, and now...
>
> > --
> > Christopher J. Henrich
> > chenr...@monmouth.comhttp://www.mathinteract.com
> > "A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
>
> The King of Pop lives as does Elvis, just ask the leaky screwdriver.
Spooky! How is Michael Jackson's death like Elvis's death?
They both died pushing a stool, only in MJ's case, it wasn't
his own.
Musatov
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mensanator, why would you say this? It is not only in very poor taste,
it is rather unclever and uninteresting, not to mention
disrespectful.
Truth correlated with good taste. Learn it. Let it lead you. Use the
force, Mensanator.
It is not appropriate to comment on someone's sexuality in an open
mathematics forum (IMO). Especially, to do so the day following their
death.
Show some respect!
Elvis and Michael Jackson shared this in common:
"Elvis is the King, Michael is the King of Pop."
Unfortunately, if you keep at it at this rate "Mensanator may
eventually equal poor taste/(inverse Intelligence)."
--
Musatov
Mensanator
True, but funny nevertheless.
>
> Truth correlated with good taste. Learn it. Let it lead you. Use the
> force, Mensanator.
>
> It is not appropriate to comment on someone's sexuality in an open
> mathematics forum (IMO). Especially, to do so the day following their
> death.
Yeah, they'll never get to hear it.
>
> Show some respect!
Like the DJ on the oldies radio station this morning
who followed the MJ song "Beat It" which "Rock & Roll
Part 2" by Gary (the pedophile) Glitter. Now THAT was
subtle. Or a whopping great coincidence!
>
> Elvis and Michael Jackson shared this in common:
>
What does Michael Jackson have in common with caviar?
Both come on small white crackers.
Fishcake
I was under the impression that MeAmI = Musatov = Inverse19.
David Bernier
----
Subject: Re: "Musatov"...
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.183.31.242
----
Subject: Re: US$100 prize for expression of electromagnetism in polysign
format
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "MeAmI.org" <Me...@vzw.blackberry.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.183.31.242
Musatov and MeAmI.org posted one hour apart from the same
IP adress.
Chances they are the same are excellent ...
David Bernier
rossum
<chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>In article <35b945l2rhe1v1ts7...@4ax.com>,
> rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <mike...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Is he the next JSH?
>> No. JSH was much better entertainment.
>>
>> rossum
>
>You say "was," not "is". And I just noticed that JSH is apparently gone.
>Is he just taking a break or <gasp> did something permanent happen?
>Oh, I can't stand this; first Michael Jackson, and now...
Nothing permanent I think, the latest post to his blog is dated 26
June: see http://mymath.blogspot.com/ He is still going on about the
error in the ring of the algebraic numbers.
He seems to take breaks from sci,maths from time to time, until he
comes up with a new idea that will *really* show us this time that he
is as great as he thinks he is.
rossum
A N Niel
<12971642.37078.1246085...@nitrogen.mathforum.org>,
Fishcake <kiwis...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
No, Inverse19 is quite different.
Mensanator
Some of the posts by MeAmI are signed "Musatov".
Kind of an oh-what-a-give-away.
>
> David Bernier
Mark Murray
> Some of the posts by MeAmI are signed "Musatov".
> Kind of an oh-what-a-give-away.
Marty/Musatov/MeAmI has already admitted several times that MeAmI.org
is his net.location. Nothing momentous here.
M
mike3
There's also "Q Delphi" who posted a post signed with
"Team Musatov".
KMF
> David Bernier wrote:
> > mike3 wrote:
> > > Is he the next JSH?
> >
> > He (and possibly Mr. MeAmI) appears/appear to me
> > quite illucid, possible alt.usenet.kooks
> candidate/candidates.
> >
> > Or maybe he/they are super-trolls. Or else a bit of
> both ...
> >
> > David
>
> My website is http://MeAmI.org.
>
> It is the best search technology on the web
> currently.
>
> Yes, I take mathematics seriously.
> I am not here to have my character commented upon or
> speculated and
> one who does so is a child.
You mean like the assholes that trash others' posts
with garbage because they are not the center of attention? Oh, wait, that is you!.
>
> This type of child is best not heard, for even in his
> cadence his lack
> of focus to the mathematics reeks of his ignorance.
>
I think that could also be said of assholes who
repeatedly post irrelevant garbage on others' threads,
wouldn't you?.
> So you will stick to the math or be taken as the
> idiot! Got it
> "David"?
>
You may even be consider dumberer than those who
keep posting P=NP without knowing what they are talking
about, David, so beware!
> Your lack of ability to define speaks greatly of your
> limitation at
> evaluating a problem.
>
Right. Just like that idiot who defines P=Prime
and NP=Not Prime.
What that buffoon should do, if (s)he ever wanted
to do something useful is learn basic math before
posting here.
> Musatov
> http://MeAmI.org
Hypocritical buffoon.
KMF
post senseless, irrelevant garbage to others' posts.
This is the way to show respect.
And let me assure you, MeAmImbecil.org : your
posts are neither clever nor funny.
> Truth correlated with good taste. Learn it. Let it
> lead you. Use the
> force, Mensanator.
>
Yes, follow buffoon's example and post irrelevant,
inane garbage in others' posts. This is definitely in
good taste. Or throw conjectures for all n that
can be easily disproven for n=3 or n=5, but you
wont bother to spend 10 seconds of your time
checking. And then, after proven wrong, repost
many times over, with notation no one understands:
<&e><e+'2>-1=P .(NP) , without bothering to explain
what you mean by e, etc.
Now _that_ is classy.
> It is not appropriate to comment on someone's
> sexuality in an open
> mathematics forum (IMO). Especially, to do so the day
> following their
> death.
>
Right!. Instead, post inane nonsense on others' threads. Because all threads should be about MeAmIdiot.org. And then post your private religious
views that no one cares about.
> Show some respect!
Stop being a hypocrite for at least one day in
your life.
>
> Elvis and Michael Jackson shared this in common:
>
> "Elvis is the King, Michael is the King of Pop."
>
Joke setups :
i) JSH and Musatov share this: .....
(your ideas here)
ii)Musatov, JSH and Archimedes Zirconium Walk
into a bar....
iii)Musatov, at age 85, finally understands what a
prime is, and then runs into Dr. Kevorkian.......
> Unfortunately, if you keep at it at this rate
> "Mensanator may
> eventually equal poor taste/(inverse Intelligence)."
>
> --
P=Pendejo=Musatov.
>
> Musatov
>
Musatov
>
> - Show quoted text -
Truth is good taste. You are false.
qed
Musatov
Musatov here, MeAmI.org is my search engine. I have no idea who
Inverse 19 is. She contacted me and came to my defense when ignorant
people on Sci.Math were swearing at me.
Musatov
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:46:31 -0400, Christopher Henrich
>
>
> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Is he the next JSH?
> >> No. JSH was much better entertainment.
>
> >> rossum
>
> >You say "was," not "is". And I just noticed that JSH is apparently gone.
> >Is he just taking a break or <gasp> did something permanent happen?
> >Oh, I can't stand this; first Michael Jackson, and now...
>
> Nothing permanent I think, the latest post to his blog is dated 26
> error in the ring of the algebraic numbers.
>
> He seems to take breaks from sci,maths from time to time, until he
> comes up with a new idea that will *really* show us this time that he
> is as great as he thinks he is.
>
> rossum
I do not understand. Would you mind speaking in clear plain English?
Musatov
> > Musatov wrote:
> > David Bernier wrote:
> > > mike3 wrote:
> > > > Is he the next JSH?
>
> > > He (and possibly Mr. MeAmI) appears/appear to me
> > > quite illucid, possible alt.usenet.kooks
> > candidate/candidates.
>
> > > Or maybe he/they are super-trolls. Or else a bit of
> > both ...
>
> > > David
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have learned basic math and decency. Have you?
Answer: (no)
Proof above:qed
Musatov
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do not speak Spanish.
Bacle
How convenient that you ignored all the valid points
here.
>
> I do not speak Spanish.
Then use your third-rate engine to look it up,
you psychotic fuck. So:
Go to:
MeAmImbecil.org (i.e., declare the variable:
I:=Imbecil:=musatov)
And then search: P=Pendejo=musatov.
MeAmI.org
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd rather not. Free will is beauty.
Why do you say third rate? I am always looking for means to improve my
product to serve people.
Right now it is better than Google search. I'll take the Pepsi
challenge.
Back up your words, tough guy.
MeAmI.org
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well not really. I am afraid I simply arbitrarily chose them.
The universe is perhaps cruel (to you) but not me.
Bacle
> > > Musatov wrote:
> > > David Bernier wrote:
> > > > mike3 wrote:
> > > > > Is he the next JSH?
> >
> > > > He (and possibly Mr. MeAmI) appears/appear to
> me
> > > > quite illucid, possible alt.usenet.kooks
> > > candidate/candidates.
> >
> > > > Or maybe he/they are super-trolls. Or else a
> bit of
> > > both ...
> >
> > > > David
> >
> > > My website ishttp://MeAmI.org.
> >
> > > It is the best search technology on the web
> > > currently.
> >
> > > Yes, I take mathematics seriously.
> > > I am not here to have my character commented upon
> or
> > > speculated and
> > > one who does so is a child.
> >
> > You mean like the assholes that trash others'
> posts with garbage because they are not the center of
> attention? Oh, wait, that is you!.
> >
Is this O.K for you, loser?. Trashing others' posts.
Is that part of your definition of decency?.
> >
> >
> > > This type of child is best not heard, for even in
> his
> > > cadence his lack
> > > of focus to the mathematics reeks of his
> ignorance.
> >
Ignorance can be cured, but you reek of psychosis and stupidity, and that cannot be cured.
> > I think that could also be said of assholes who
> > repeatedly post irrelevant garbage on others'
> threads,
> > wouldn't you?.
> >
> > > So you will stick to the math or be taken as the
> > > idiot! Got it
> > > "David"?
> >
So in your little world you believe you order people
around, psycho?
> > You may even be consider dumberer than those who
> > keep posting P=NP without knowing what they are
> talking about, David, so beware!
> >
> > > Your lack of ability to define speaks greatly of
> your limitation at evaluating a problem.
> >
Your inability to use very basic english grammar
shows you for the idiot that you are.
> > Right. Just like that idiot who defines P=Prime
> > and NP=Not Prime.
> >
> > What that buffoon should do, if (s)he ever
> wanted to do something useful is learn basic math before posting here.
> >
> > > Musatov
> > >http://MeAmI.org
> >
> > Hypocritical buffoon.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I have learned basic math and decency. Have you?
> Answer: (no)
> Proof above:qed
Yes, decency of posting your unwanted garbage in
others' threads. And your knowledge of math consists
in making 'conjectures' that even an idiot like
you could disprove in a few minutes.
Go fuck off, loser.
> MeAmPsychotic.org
rossum
Certainly:
Abguvat creznarag V guvax, gur yngrfg cbfg gb uvf oybt vf qngrq 26
Whar: frruggc://zlzngu.oybtfcbg.pbz/ Ur vf fgvyy tbvat ba nobhg gur
reebe va gur evat bs gur nytroenvp ahzoref.
Ur frrzf gb gnxr oernxf sebz fpv,znguf sebz gvzr gb gvzr, hagvy ur
pbzrf hc jvgu n arj vqrn gung jvyy *ernyyl* fubj hf guvf gvzr gung
ur vf nf terng nf ur guvaxf ur vf.
HTH
rossum
Musatov
The Lord is There
Musatov
Musatov wrote:
Do not swear "Bacle". Those who swear during mathematics are fools. By
this definition "Bacle" recently is a fool.
Have you not hear it is said the Babylonians banish demons by saying
their names "David" and "Bacle".
I command you, "David" and "Bacle" by the blood of the lamb.
Musatov
The Lord said:
Musatov Says: Comment #48 March 2nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm . ..... God bless
Israel and all my brothers and sisters in Yeshua! ...http://
www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx%3Ftabid%3D178%26nid%3D15098 - 198k
- Cached - Similar pagesTop40-Charts.com - 40 Top 20 & Top 40 Music
Charts from 25 CountriesIlan Yeshua · Ilana Rovner · Ilana Sod ·
Ilango Adigal ...... Ivan Moskvitin · Ivan Murray Johnston · Ivan
Murrell · Ivan Musatov · Ivan Mykolaychuk ...http://top40-charts.com/
pedia.php%3Ftitle%3DWikipedia:WikiProject_Persondata/
List_of_biographies/24 - 977k - Cached - Similar
pagesWikipedia:WikiProject Persondata/List of biographies/24 ...Ilan
Yeshua · Ilana Rovner · Ilana Sod · Ilango Adigal · A. V.
Ilango ...... Ivan Murray Johnston · Ivan Murrell · Ivan Musatov ·
Ivan Mykolaychuk ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Persondata/List_of_biographies/24 - 937k -
Cached - Similar pagesNico Holmes History - SportsUltra.comIlan
Yeshua; Ilana Rovner; Ilana Sod; Ilango Adigal; AV Ilango; Ilari
Filppula; Ilaria Alpi; Ilario Aloe; Ilario Zannino; Ilario di Buo;
Ilary Blasi ...http://www.sportsultra.com/collegefootball/ncaa/players/
Nico-Holmes/0/24296/references/ - 250k - Cached - Similar pages
Bacle
And you will never understand what a prime is, and
you will never understand , even after having it
explained to you in the simplest of ways, why your
idiotic conjectures fail, even when they fail for
n=3 or n=5.
You are too lazy and too stupid to understand why
2n(2n/2)-1 is composite for _infinitely many_ n,
the formula you claim produces only primes.
You had this explained to you _many_ times. You
had many people , including myself, giving you
counterexamples. But you are just too fucking
stupid to understand, and you don't have the
decency to check at least the first 10 values
of n when you make your conjectures.
And then you go on to repost the same conjecture
that has been proven false by many examples, and you
go on to claim that it proves that P=NP.
Only thing it proves is that P=Pendejo=Musatov.
Bacle
Just curious: how do you call someone who cannot
understand that 2n(2n+1)-1 is _not_ always a prime
even after having it explained to him 60 times?.
Do you even know what a prime is, imbecil?
Second of all, psycho: you do _not_ give orders
around here. You do not tell me what I can and
cannot do. Got it, loser?. I will swear or do what
I feel like. Your wishes do not matter to me,
because you are an imbecil and a hypocrit.
>
> Have you not hear it is said the Babylonians banish
> demons by saying
> their names "David" and "Bacle".
>
There are no babylonians left, idiot, you are a few
years late.
> I command you, "David" and "Bacle" by the blood of
> the lamb.
I command you to take two Haldol and wear your
straight jacket, loser.
mike3
Could you tell _me_ though what is wrong with it (or tell
me where these other people's explanation are), so _I_
(as I want to really learn something here) can find out
why and how it fails for _infinitely many n_ (I make no
claims about what it does or doesn't do)?
mike3
Then why insult him for it, if there is no cure, as though
he is somehow to blame for it?
mike3
> Musatov wrote:
> David Bernier wrote:
> > mike3 wrote:
> > > Is he the next JSH?
>
> > He (and possibly Mr. MeAmI) appears/appear to me
> > quite illucid, possible alt.usenet.kooks candidate/candidates.
>
> > Or maybe he/they are super-trolls. Or else a bit of both ...
>
> > David
>
> My website ishttp://MeAmI.org.
>
> It is the best search technology on the web currently.
>
I'll bet it just links to Google.
> Yes, I take mathematics seriously.
Then you can't just put "P" = "prime", "N=number" and write
some equation "P = <something involving N and P>" and because
it contains "N" and "P" that means it's the same as "NP" so
"P=NP"!!!!
Bacle
> wrote:
> > Musatov wrote:
> > David Bernier wrote:
> > > mike3 wrote:
> > > > Is he the next JSH?
> >
> > > He (and possibly Mr. MeAmI) appears/appear to me
> > > quite illucid, possible alt.usenet.kooks
> candidate/candidates.
> >
> > > Or maybe he/they are super-trolls. Or else a bit
> of both ...
> >
> > > David
> >
> > My website ishttp://MeAmI.org.
> >
> > It is the best search technology on the web
> currently.
> >
>
> I'll bet it just links to Google.
It is pretty likely, since "Alex' Lemonade" links
to some guy called Alex taking a leak.
Bacle
O.K: his claim came down basically to 2^(2n-1)-1
is a prime. First let me give you some counter
examples with n<20:
2^9-1=511= 7*73
2^11-1=2047=23*89
So this guy could not write a simple routine and
check for n<20
Anyway, the actual proof of infinitely many composite
comes from the factorization:
a^n-b^n=(a-b)(a^(n-1)-a^(n-2)b+...+ab^(n-1)+b^n) (**)
of course, you take a=2^k , k>1 , otherwise a-b=1
Then: there are infinitely many odd numbers 2n-1
that are composite (take, e.g., all factors of 5)
so let m=2n-1 composite, with m=pq
Then 2^(2n-1)-1=2^m-1=2^(pq)-1
Then apply (**) to 2^(pq)-1:
2^(pq)-1 =(2^p-1)(2^(pq-p)+2^(pq-2p)+...+2^p+1)
So check the examples:
1) m=9 =3*3:
2^9-1. 2^9-1=2^(3*3)-1 = (2^3-1)(2^6+2^3+2+1)=73*7
2)m=15=3*5:
For 2^15-1 =2^(3*5)-1:
2^15-1= (2^3-1)(2^12+2^9+2^6+2^3+1)
3)m=21=3*7:
2^21-1= (2^3-1)(2^18+2^15+2^12+...+2^3+1)
etc.
So when n is composite, 2^m-1 is composite.
Bacle
just wanted to add that there is nothing wrong with
making conjectures. But it seems that out of respect,
you would test your conjectures for small values, and
even if you don't, once you are presented with many
counterexamples that you stop claiming your conjecture
is true, and keep posting that it is, etc.
Anyway, see my next post for the proof.
Mark Murray
> just wanted to add that there is nothing wrong with
> making conjectures. But it seems that out of respect,
> you would test your conjectures for small values, and
> even if you don't, once you are presented with many
> counterexamples that you stop claiming your conjecture
> is true, and keep posting that it is, etc.
>
> Anyway, see my next post for the proof.
Cool.
Now please trim your responses, like I just did.
M
Denis Feldmann
number of values : hint n^2+1 mod 43, says, can have at most 43 values,
so ...
mike3
<snip>
> > Could you tell _me_ though what is wrong with it (or
> > tell
> > me where these other people's explanation are), so
> > _I_
> > (as I want to really learn something here) can find
> > out
> > why and how it fails for _infinitely many n_ (I make
> > no
> > claims about what it does or doesn't do)?
>
> O.K: his claim came down basically to 2^(2n-1)-1
> is a prime. First let me give you some counter
> examples with n<20:
>
2^(2n-1)-1? I thought it was 2n(2n/2)-1 (which is just 2n^2 - 1)?
> 2^9-1=511= 7*73
> 2^11-1=2047=23*89
>
> So this guy could not write a simple routine and
> check for n<20
>
> Anyway, the actual proof of infinitely many composite
> comes from the factorization:
>
> a^n-b^n=(a-b)(a^(n-1)-a^(n-2)b+...+ab^(n-1)+b^n) (**)
>
> of course, you take a=2^k , k>1 , otherwise a-b=1
>
I'm curious about this little bit: you haven't chosen "b"
yet so why is a-b = 1 is so for all other possible choices of a?
But the rest seems good:
Bacle
> <snip>
> > > Could you tell _me_ though what is wrong with it
> (or
> > > tell
> > > me where these other people's explanation are),
> so
> > > _I_
> > > (as I want to really learn something here) can
> find
> > > out
> > > why and how it fails for _infinitely many n_ (I
> make
> > > no
> > > claims about what it does or doesn't do)?
> >
> > O.K: his claim came down basically to 2^(2n-1)-1
> > is a prime. First let me give you some counter
> > examples with n<20:
> >
>
> 2^(2n-1)-1? I thought it was 2n(2n/2)-1 (which is
> just 2n^2 - 1)?
My bad in my post in this thread ( the one you quoted)
musatov's claim was not 2n(2n/2)-1, but 2^(2n-1)-1 .
>
> > 2^9-1=511= 7*73
> > 2^11-1=2047=23*89
> >
> > So this guy could not write a simple routine
> and
> > check for n<20
> >
> > Anyway, the actual proof of infinitely many
> composite
> > comes from the factorization:
> >
> > a^n-b^n=(a-b)(a^(n-1)-a^(n-2)b+...+ab^(n-1)+b^n)
> (**)
> >
> > of course, you take a=2^k , k>1 , otherwise
> a-b=1
> >
>
> I'm curious about this little bit: you haven't chosen
> "b"
> yet so why is a-b = 1 is so for all other possible
> choices of a?
O.K: I was assuming b=1, but I forgot to say it.
It simplifies things a lot. Then , if you choose
b=1, then you should not ( if you want to use this
argument) choose a=2, since otherwise a-b=1,
and one of the factors is 1.
So you choose , for m=2n-1= pq , a=2^p , or
a=2^q , and b=1 . The rest is identical.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Do you even know what a prime is, imbecil?
I don't know what an imbecil is.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Bacle
>
> > Do you even know what a prime is, imbecil?
>
> I don't know what an imbecil is.
Apparently you don't know what a clever joke/
comentary is either.
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man
> schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
> s Logico-Philosophicus
mike3
Thank you for clearing it all up.
Musatov
> > Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > Do you even know what a prime is, imbecil?
>
> > I don't know what an imbecil is.
>
> Apparently you don't know what a clever joke/
> comentary is either.
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man
> > schweigen"
> > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
> > s Logico-Philosophicus
>
>
Apparently you did not spell "commentary"/"comentary" correctly. I
believe I have shown it is the case.
Bacle
Wow, you really got me on that one. Great point
you make, specially considering this is a _math_
website, and I can use Spell Check any time.
My issue with you is that you deface this site,
constantly show disrespect for it, post non-mathematics-related material regularly, posting irrelevant material in others' threads, and you show no
interest in learning: you repeatedly ignore corrections
made to you and counterexamples to your conjectures.
You have posted either conjectures that can be shown
to be false for even small values of n --which , out of
courtesy, you should check yourself. Once, twice, can
happen, but when you do it so often, it is insulting.
In addition, even after being repeatedly shown counter-
examples to your conjectures, you make these conjectures
again. Many times. There is nothing wrong in not knowing, but it is disrespectful to act as if you do
and repeatedly spout nonsense like you have been doing.
This is a site for people who want to have serious
discussions of math ( of course, an occassional fun
post is perfectly fine), and you are making a mockery
of it, turning it into a personal playground for your
bizarreness.
I don't have many sites to learn and practice my math;
sci.math is one of the few I have. You have plenty of sites where you can do whatever it is your
doing, and leave this site for people who are into math.
But you chose to make this into your math playground.
And I find that offensive.
Now convince me that my misspelling a word is as
bad as what you are doing.
Bacle
my argument with someone else. Please ignore my
snippy response.
Bacle
No problem, glad to help.
Musatov
I see subterfuge. I see dishonesty. I see more immorality then I do
honest academic exchange. I see cruelty without apparent cause and
this is most disturbing.
There is simply more than what is obviously apparent to some of the
exchanges I see on Sci.Math and the fact remains there exists a large
portion of the community who seem to guard or protect intellectual
property or claims by their absolute insistence of a possibility
something is impossible. It is like they are trying to limit
themselves by insisting certain things can never be understood and
this frightens me. It seems to me an awful like the suppression of
free speech and open exchange of ideas has fallen second so far it is
hardly seen.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not enjoy accusations. I have an
utter distaste for bitter debate with those of less maturity or
decency.
The misspelling is not worse. Your attitude and demeanor and motives
are what I call into frame.
I am simply looking for some answers. If you have not read it, please
read below my open letter. It may shed some light on the case.
Friday, April 3, 2009
An Open Letter to the Moral and Scientific Community:
A Quote:
"If smart people all had Ph.D.'s we would not have light bulbs." --
Martin Musatov speaking on American Entrepreneur and Innovator Thomas
Edison
Preface: "Computational Complexity"
So much of what I have seen since I have began studying computational
complexity simply amazes me. I have come from an outsiders perspective
peering into this vast new world where obvious things hide themselves
and complex things take center stage to be studied like pellets of
sand beneath a microscope. I will say this one thing: I have never
been treated with more disdain in an academic setting. I have had
M.I.T. Assistant Professor Scott Aaronson publicly threaten to contact
my Internet Service Provider and call me a "goon" for disproving his
theorem publicly and by some means yet unexplained motivating him to
apologize to all his readers for allowing my actions as though he
should have been guarding against them. I have been called a "troll",
a "crank", and "couch boy" the last of these I have no idea what the
colloquial means. I have had my I.P. address blocked from contributing
to Wikipedia and have been sent threatening emails from Wikipedia
administrators saying, "Wikipedia doesn't need you." Since I began
pursuing my proof of computational complexity my Wikipedia profile for
my work as a screenwriter (which had remained untouched for the better
part of three years) was immediately flagged as "non-notable" and
deleted. And all because the mathematics and code I was inputting was
too advanced for wiki language to swallow without causing system
problems and offending apparently some very sensitive people. And all
over a tiny little problem in theoretical computer science called
P=NP.
Basically, as the case may certainly be there seem to be a lot of
people out there absolutely insistent that "P" does not equal "NP".
But I have to wonder, if it is only theory we are debating here, what
is so vested by this people that they defend an insistent of an
impossibility as if it were the holy grail? It just does not make
sense to me. I will say this, especially, it does not make sense to
argue that something such as P equals NP has to be impossible. If it
were true there are well documented published articles such as this
one in the Boston Globe which explicitly list all the potential
benefits we might experience if the scientific community acknowledges
P=NP. The list includes advances in "Protein Folding" which could spur
unprecedented growth and advances in biological research which may
well include cures for diseases like cancer and H.I.V. So dare I say,
why are noted professors at top universities such as Scott Aaronson at
M.I.T. and Stephen Arthur Cook at the University of Toronto so
insistent of its impossibility? What could be so motivating as one
would defend such a contrary position to which being contrariety holds
no obvious benefit for society at large. The elephant in the room
seems to be that this argument has been raging and churning for years
ever since Stephen Cook invented the class "NP-Complete" back in 1970.
My goal, my dream, in pursuing a proof that P=NP was not to win a
million dollars and notoriety, but to help the people in the world use
the technology to better take care of themselves and their families.
My goals personally are to help my young niece who just had an implant
put in her ear so she could hear better and to spur advances in cancer
research as my uncle and Godfather Michael Schultz was in the last
month diagnosed with kidney and bone cancer. So still, I continue on,
every morning pursuing the solution despite the animosity and
ignorance.
My dreams are simply bigger than theirs. My dreams are not to predict
the S&P 500 and compromise the security of banks by collapsing known
elements of cryptography. My dreams are that a young researcher in
Tibet working by himself may uncover a cure for cancer that no one had
seen. My goal is that a hobby mechanic in rural Russia with access to
the Internet will invent a hybrid computer driven engine which will
best all the struggling automakers who we continue to float
financially like giant sick whales out to sea. My dream is that the
academic community would allow open access to citizens at large and
not simply the ones who can afford the prestigious school tuition. The
basis of my plea: history has shown it to be the best path.
With only three months of formal education he became one of the
greatest inventors and industrial leaders in history. Edison obtained
1,093 United States patents, the most issued to any individual.
Call this my prayer or call it my plea it is my cry to the scientific
community and to God in heaven can we please work together here and
accomplish some good in the world instead of warbled disagreement? My
last thought is to ask yourself why would anyone insist on the
absolute impossibility of something that could bring so much good to
the world?
Quotes by Thomas Edison:
"Hell, there are no rules here we're trying to accomplish something."
"I didn't fail ten thousand times. I successfully eliminated, ten
thousand times, materials and combination which wouldn't work."
"I never perfected an invention that I did not think about in terms of
the service it might give others."
"I am more of a sponge than an inventor. I absorb ideas from every
source. My principal business is giving commercial value to the
brilliant but misdirected ideas of others."
"Time is really the only capital that any human being has, and the one
thing that he can't afford to lose."
"I find out what the world needs. Then I go ahead and try to invent
it."
"I have more respect for the fellow with a single idea who gets there
than for the fellow with a thousand ideas who does nothing."
Thank you for reading this letter. If you have any comments or
suggestions please feel free to contact me through the publisher.
Warmest regards,
Martin Musatov
P.S. You have to wonder with stories like these, could there be
something more to this whole element that as to yet remains unseen.
VAST SPY SYSTEM LOOTS COMPUTERS IN 103 COUNTRIES... (N.Y. Times, Front
Page)
Canadians find network... (AP News)
Bacle
> > > On Jun 29, 3:58 pm, Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 29, 12:00 pm, Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Could you tell _me_ though what is wrong
> with
> > > it
> > > > > (or
>
> conjectures again. Many times. There is nothing wrong in not knowing, but it is disrespectful to act as if you do and repeatedly spout nonsense like you have been
> doing.
> >
> > This is a site for people who want to have
> serious discussions of math ( of course, an occassional
> fun post is perfectly fine), and you are making a
> mockery of it, turning it into a personal playground for your bizarreness.
> >
> > I don't have many sites to learn and practice my
> math; sci.math is one of the few I have. You have plenty of sites where you can do whatever it is your
> > doing, and leave this site for people who are into
> math.
> > But you chose to make this into your math
> playground. And I find that offensive.
> >
> > Now convince me that my misspelling a word is
> as bad as what you are doing.
>
> I see subterfuge. I see dishonesty. I see more
> immorality then I do honest academic exchange. I see cruelty without apparent cause and
> this is most disturbing.
Yes, of course. You are above all and you are with
no fault and no responsibility whatsoever for how
you are treated.
>
> There is simply more than what is obviously apparent
> to some of the
> exchanges I see on Sci.Math and the fact remains
> there exists a large
> portion of the community who seem to guard or protect
> intellectual
> property or claims by their absolute insistence of a
> possibility
> something is impossible. It is like they are trying
> to limit
> themselves by insisting certain things can never be
> understood and
> this frightens me. It seems to me an awful like the
> suppression of
> free speech and open exchange of ideas has fallen
> second so far it is
> hardly seen.
I am sure that as usual, you will not listen.
I tried to spell out as clearly and as explicitly as possible what it is that you do that many find to be
irritating. But you just do not listen and you make
yourself out to be the paragon of justice and all that
is good. So you repeatedly ignore what others tell
you that you do and that they find irritating. You
are just endlessly self-righteous.
Listen: you were given disproofs of your inane
conjectures MANY times. And yet you go back to
posting _the same conjectures_. That is irritating.
On top of that, it is clear that you know _nothing_
about primes, yet you throw around inane conjectures.
THAT is irritating.
>
> I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not enjoy
> accusations. I have an utter distaste for bitter debate with those of less maturity or
> decency.
Condescending and self-righteous, as usual.
Posting half-baked garbage like you do is NOT
decent. Is that too hard for you to understand?
>
> The misspelling is not worse. Your attitude and
> demeanor and motives are what I call into frame.
>
I explained myself very explicitly. You had
a chance to address what I said. you didn't.
You are too self-righteous and vain.
> I am simply looking for some answers. If you have not
> read it, please read below my open letter. It may shed some light on the case.
>
Holier than thou, as I expected.
> Friday, April 3, 2009
> An Open Letter to the Moral and Scientific Community:
> A Quote:
>
> "If smart people all had Ph.D.'s we would not have
> light bulbs." --
> Martin Musatov speaking on American Entrepreneur and
> Innovator Thomas
> Edison
>
> Preface: "Computational Complexity"
>
> So much of what I have seen since I have began
> studying computational complexity simply amazes me. I have come from an
> outsiders perspective
> peering into this vast new world where obvious things
> hide themselves
> and complex things take center stage to be studied
> like pellets of
> sand beneath a microscope. I will say this one thing:
> I have never
> been treated with more disdain in an academic
> setting.
And, of course, you ignore the possibility that you
may have at least some fault in this. No, you automatically make yourself out to be the victim.
Because you believe yourself to be so pure.
This itself is irritating. Self-righteousness
is irritating. And you are self-righteous and
seem to lack any self-awareness. This is annoying too.
I have had
> M.I.T. Assistant Professor Scott Aaronson publicly
> threaten to contact
> my Internet Service Provider and call me a "goon" for
> disproving his
> theorem publicly and by some means yet unexplained
> motivating him to
> apologize to all his readers for allowing my actions
> as though he
> should have been guarding against them.
And , of course, you will not quote Aaronson's
version of the incident, which basic ethics would
require you to do. This is unfair and dishonest on your part. So much for your questioning me and my motives when you are so dishonest yourself.
I have been
> called a "troll",
> a "crank", and "couch boy" the last of these I have
> no idea what the colloquial means. I have had my I.P. address blocked from contributing
> to Wikipedia and have been sent threatening emails
> from Wikipedia
> administrators saying, "Wikipedia doesn't need you."
And , of course, as usual, you are just a victim, and
you will not look into yourself to see if you may have
played _at least_ a role on being treated this way.
And, again, you are being dishonest and unfair in here: you should attempt to describe the position of
Wikipedia, and not your conveniently distorted version
of it that makes you look good. You are very harsh on others but very easy on yourself.
> Since I began
> pursuing my proof of computational complexity my
> Wikipedia profile for
> my work as a screenwriter (which had remained
> untouched for the better
> part of three years) was immediately flagged as
> "non-notable" and
> deleted. And all because the mathematics and code I
> was inputting was
> too advanced for wiki language to swallow without
> causing system
> problems and offending apparently some very sensitive
> people.
This is _your_ version of things. Again, you fail
to describe and/or you are oversimplifyng the
opposing position.
And all
> over a tiny little problem in theoretical computer
> science called
> P=NP.
>
It is not by _any means_ a tiny little problem.
> Basically, as the case may certainly be there seem to
> be a lot of
> people out there absolutely insistent that "P" does
> not equal "NP".
Right. And you are not _repeatedly_ pushing your
P=NP position in just-about every post of yours?.
You are being a hypocrite.
> But I have to wonder, if it is only theory we are
> debating here, what is so vested by this people that they defend an insistent of an
> impossibility as if it were the holy grail?
The same thing that is vested in your repeatedly
pushing that P=NP. And again, you are oversimplifying
others' position.
It just
> does not make
> sense to me.
This does not mean that it does not make sense.
Have you considered the possibility that you are
being shallow?. I think you are not. You seem to
be unable to put yourself in anyone else's place.
You are unsufferably self-righteous.
I will say this, especially, it does not
> make sense to
> argue that something such as P equals NP has to be
> impossible.
Is this _really_ what they are saying, or just
your convenient version of their position?
If it
> were true there are well documented published
> articles such as this one in the Boston Globe which explicitly list all the
> potential
> benefits we might experience if the scientific
> community acknowledges
> P=NP.
This is dishonest on your part. There are many
proofs both of P=NP as well as of P=/NP. The proofs
on both sides are incredibly difficult to evaluate.
So don't distor the situation as just an unwillingness
of others. If you want to be minimally honest here,
go thru some of the serious proofs that P=/NP and
show _clearly_ what it is that is wrong with them.
Have you ever tried this?. Or do you prefer to fool
yourself that all of those who claim that P=/NP
just choose to ignore your arguments. This just
seems like a convenient distortion on your part.
The list includes advances in "Protein Folding"
> which could spur unprecedented growth and advances in biological research which may
> well include cures for diseases like cancer and
> H.I.V. So dare I say,
> why are noted professors at top universities such as
> Scott Aaronson at
> M.I.T. and Stephen Arthur Cook at the University of
> Toronto so
> insistent of its impossibility?
Give me some refs. and convince me that this is
what they are actually saying. It is the least you
could do , out of basic fairness: describe their
position accurately, and not just the fantasy position
that makes you seem like a victim.
What could be so
> motivating as one
> would defend such a contrary position to which being
> contrariety holds
> no obvious benefit for society at large.
Some may legitimately disagree with you.
The elephant
> in the room
> seems to be that this argument has been raging and
> churning for years
> ever since Stephen Cook invented the class
> "NP-Complete" back in 1970.
>
> My goal, my dream, in pursuing a proof that P=NP was
> not to win a million dollars and notoriety, but to help the people in the world use
> the technology to better take care of themselves and
> their families.
> My goals personally are to help my young niece who
> just had an implant
> put in her ear so she could hear better and to spur
> advances in cancer
> research as my uncle and Godfather Michael Schultz
> was in the last
> month diagnosed with kidney and bone cancer. So
> still, I continue on,
> every morning pursuing the solution despite the
> animosity and
> ignorance.
>
You are so good and pure that I want to cry.(sob!)
> My dreams are simply bigger than theirs.
What makes you think that you know what their
dreams are?. You make all sorts of unfounded assumptions
that conveniently make you look as the good one, and
others as the bad ones. Are you really that simple-
minded?.
<snip>
>
>
> With only three months of formal education he became
> one of the greatest inventors and industrial leaders in history.
> Edison obtained 1,093 United States patents, the most issued to any individual.
Again, showing just the side that helps you make
your case. Why not show Tesla's perspective here?
Why not state that Edison had money. Still, what
_is_ your point on Edison?
>
> Call this my prayer or call it my plea it is my cry
> to the scientific community and to God in heaven can we please work together here and
> accomplish some good in the world instead of warbled
> disagreement?
In which, of course, you play absolutely no role
whatsoever.
My
> last thought is to ask yourself why would anyone
> insist on the
> absolute impossibility of something that could bring
> so much good to
> the world?
I think it would be great if _you_ asked yourself
questions about your own role on how you are treated.
But I doubt that you will.
.
>
> Quotes by Thomas Edison:
>
> "Hell, there are no rules here we're trying to
> accomplish something."
>
> "I didn't fail ten thousand times. I successfully
> eliminated, ten thousand times, materials and combination which wouldn't work."
>
Good if you have enough time and funding.
My comment:
While admit that I don't know the details of your
case, I nonetheless think you are uncurably superficial and are lacking the most basic skills in self-analysis.
As a result of this, you refuse to consider any responsibility , any role you may be playing in
how you are treated.
Musatov
Musatov
Bacle wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 12:40 pm, Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 29, 3:58 pm, Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 12:00 pm, Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > Could you tell _me_ though what is wrong
> > with
> > > > it
> > > > > > (or
> >
> > On Jun 30, 12:35 pm, Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 30, 8:12 am, Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > > > > Do you even know what a prime is, imbecil?
Yes, a number divisible only by 1 and itself. Sometimes 1 is not
included in the set.
> > >
> > > > > > I don't know what an imbecil is.
I understand what an imbecile is.
> > >
> > > > > Apparently you don't know what a clever joke/
> > > > > comentary is either.
I do but there is not a clear cut mathematical formula to comedy.
I am however clever enough to cite this fact clowning on you.
> > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi)
> > >
> > > > > > "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss
> > man
> > > > > > schweigen"
> > > > > > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
> > > > > > s Logico-Philosophicus
> > >
> > > > Apparently you did not spell
> > "commentary"/"comentary"
> > > > correctly. I
> > > > believe I have shown it is the case.
> > >
> > > Wow, you really got me on that one. Great point
> > > you make, specially considering this is a _math_
> > > website, and I can use Spell Check any time.
> > >
> > > My issue with you is that you deface this site,
> > > constantly show disrespect for it, post
> > non-mathematics-related material regularly, posting
> > irrelevant material in others' threads, and you show
> > no
> > > interest in learning: you repeatedly ignore
> > corrections made to you and counterexamples to your
> > conjectures.
Have you considered I post not for the reactions of others or the
appearance of my learning or display of my knowledge?
> > >
> > > You have posted either conjectures that can be
> > shown to be false for even small values of n --which ,
> > out of courtesy, you should check yourself. Once, twice, can happen, but when you do it so often, it is
> > insulting.
When there is truth withstanding I will sometimes take a means justify
the end approach within reason. The truth I see potentially obscured
here I'm sure far outweights the value of a few posts to bother people
so much you would think there was more at stake than just a few
seconds glancing over text you do not approve of.
> > > In addition, even after being repeatedly shown
> > counter-examples to your conjectures, you make these
> > conjectures again. Many times.
Have you heard of the concept of Quantum Entanglement? Is it possible
this may be a result?
There is nothing wrong in not knowing, but it is disrespectful to act
as if you do and repeatedly spout nonsense like you have been
> > doing.
Again all I can say is I do not post for your approval.
I will not apologize until the knowledge I see potentiated in
obscurity is revealed.
> > >
> > > This is a site for people who want to have
> > serious discussions of math ( of course, an occassional
> > fun post is perfectly fine), and you are making a
> > mockery of it, turning it into a personal playground for your bizarreness.
> > >
This from a person who constantly among many cusses and acts how they
never would in person in a serious mathematical discussion. You have
lost your claim.
> > > I don't have many sites to learn and practice my
> > math; sci.math is one of the few I have.
This we agree.
You have plenty of sites where you can do whatever it is your
> > > doing, and leave this site for people who are into
> > math.
I am into mathematics but just not the way you see it.
> > > But you chose to make this into your math
> > playground. And I find that offensive.
> > >
I experiment but I keep track and consider at each step within reason.
I find it offensive and cruel the masses condone the abusive behavior
en masse of theory they do not agree with. Each one comes from a
person (I think) who is necessarily abused and pushed out for their
effort by the type of bullying I have not seen since before 6th grade.
It is unacceptable.
The keepers of great truths do not behave this way.
This means there is greater truth than what those who abuse hold and
protect by their cruelty.
> > > Now convince me that my misspelling a word is
> > as bad as what you are doing.
What I am doing is not bad in my eyes. It is in fact good.
I do not engage in activities I see as unprofitable or unproductive
when it comes the free exchange of ideas or the producing of a
project.
At 20 years old I was an intern for Jerry Bruckheimer, MTV Films,
Village Roadshow Pictures and International Creative Management.
At 22 I had my Bachelor's degree in Screenwriting and moved to Los
Angeles.
By the time I was 24 I had been through a Fellowship for Television
Writes at Twentieth Century Fox, had a feature film in development
with a large Hollywood Studio, and was represented by The Endeavor
Agency.
I have been a paid writer since I was 24. I am now 30.
I continue to work as a writer though oddly enough through exposure in
Digital Media positions (having been a part of the team which began
the Digital Media Business at Creative Artists Agency--(Ray Kurzweil?)
and working for eBay former CEO and President Jeff Skoll, I became
interested in digital media as an entity, particularly its potential
to impact the world through a mixture of social media marketing and
storytelling. I researched algorithms and code in my spare time as I
wrote. In 2008 I had a feature film released at 10,000 Blockbuster
stores worldwide and theatrical Global release.
In mathematics if I choose a persona it is my choice. But do not judge
me. You do not know me. I judge behaviors as right as wrong only when
patently so. I do not judge people.
> >
> > I see subterfuge. I see dishonesty. I see more
> > immorality then I do honest academic exchange. I see cruelty without apparent cause and
> > this is most disturbing.
>
> Yes, of course. You are above all and you are with
> no fault and no responsibility whatsoever for how
> you are treated.
Abusive language is in an academic setting the analogue of domestic
violence.
There is never a good excuse. If I allow myself to be the whooping boy
trust it is not my feelings at stake or my conviction but rather your
position as abuser.
> >
> > There is simply more than what is obviously apparent
> > to some of the
> > exchanges I see on Sci.Math and the fact remains
> > there exists a large
> > portion of the community who seem to guard or protect
> > intellectual
> > property or claims by their absolute insistence of a
> > possibility
> > something is impossible. It is like they are trying
> > to limit
> > themselves by insisting certain things can never be
> > understood and
> > this frightens me. It seems to me an awful like the
> > suppression of
> > free speech and open exchange of ideas has fallen
> > second so far it is
> > hardly seen.
>
> I am sure that as usual, you will not listen.
Be positive. You may meet an improvement.
> I tried to spell out as clearly and as explicitly as possible what it is that you do that many find to be
> irritating. But you just do not listen and you make
> yourself out to be the paragon of justice and all that
> is good. So you repeatedly ignore what others tell
> you that you do and that they find irritating. You
> are just endlessly self-righteous.
If I am self-righteousness to you then I am righteous to more than
myself.
> Listen: you were given disproofs of your inane
> conjectures MANY times. And yet you go back to
> posting _the same conjectures_. That is irritating.
Listen, I am sorry you are annoyed. I am never cruel.
> On top of that, it is clear that you know _nothing_
> about primes,
SEE DEFINITION ABOVE. Attention to detail. Group like ideas together
to guide streamlined logic through a narrative thread.
yet you throw around inane conjectures.
> THAT is irritating.
>
Franky, I find the word "that" irritating and entirely unnecessary as
a participle of speech 95% of the time it is used. I do not (or have
not to this point until now) expressed this. I do not go around
attacking users of the phrase nor will I as it is (for the most part
unrelated academically to mathematics), however the more it is used
generally the less command the individual has over language.
> >
> > I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not enjoy
> > accusations. I have an utter distaste for bitter debate with those of less maturity or
> > decency.
>
> Condescending and self-righteous, as usual.
Truth. Most on Sci.Math are less mature than me and I have an utter
distaste for their behavior.
I do not judge, but if I do it is righteous. I make no divisions about
it.
> Posting half-baked garbage like you do is NOT
> decent. Is that too hard for you to understand?
>
It is not decent to you. I will apologize to you if it annoys you but
something larger is at stake.
> >
> > The misspelling is not worse. Your attitude and
> > demeanor and motives are what I call into frame.
> >
> I explained myself very explicitly.
This does not equate justification.
You had
> a chance to address what I said. you didn't.
By your measure of time. Who is self-revolving, one who measures the
actions of others by their own time or one who does so with patience
and careful method considering all eventualitie and causal
relationships?
> You are too self-righteous and vain.
I am righteous. I am not vain. I am intelligent. There is not a cruel
abusive hair on my head. This puts me at least shoulder's lenghth
above in wisdom of those who cuss and act like demonic children
delighting in the ridicule of others.
>
>
> > I am simply looking for some answers. If you have not
> > read it, please read below my open letter. It may shed some light on the case.
> >
>
> Holier than thou, as I expected.
>
You spoke it.
> > Friday, April 3, 2009
> > An Open Letter to the Moral and Scientific Community:
> > A Quote:
> >
> > "If smart people all had Ph.D.'s we would not have
> > light bulbs." --
> > Martin Musatov speaking on American Entrepreneur and
> > Innovator Thomas
> > Edison
> >
> > Preface: "Computational Complexity"
> >
> > So much of what I have seen since I have began
> > studying computational complexity simply amazes me. I have come from an
> > outsiders perspective
> > peering into this vast new world where obvious things
> > hide themselves
> > and complex things take center stage to be studied
> > like pellets of
> > sand beneath a microscope. I will say this one thing:
> > I have never
> > been treated with more disdain in an academic
> > setting.
>
> And, of course, you ignore the possibility that you
> may have at least some fault in this. No, you automatically make yourself out to be the victim.
> Because you believe yourself to be so pure.
I am pure. I do not compare.
>
> This itself is irritating. Self-righteousness
> is irritating. And you are self-righteous and
> seem to lack any self-awareness. This is annoying too.
>
Things are not always what they seem.
>
> I have had
> > M.I.T. Assistant Professor Scott Aaronson publicly
> > threaten to contact
> > my Internet Service Provider and call me a "goon" for
> > disproving his
> > theorem publicly and by some means yet unexplained
> > motivating him to
> > apologize to all his readers for allowing my actions
> > as though he
> > should have been guarding against them.
>
> And , of course, you will not quote Aaronson's
> version of the incident, which basic ethics would
> require you to do.
I did. I cited what he said and also his reaction.
This is unfair and dishonest on your part. So much for your
questioning me and my motives when you are so dishonest yourself.
>
Not a word I spoke was untrue.
> I have been
> > called a "troll",
> > a "crank", and "couch boy" the last of these I have
> > no idea what the colloquial means. I have had my I.P. address blocked from contributing
> > to Wikipedia and have been sent threatening emails
> > from Wikipedia
> > administrators saying, "Wikipedia doesn't need you."
>
> And , of course, as usual, you are just a victim, and
> you will not look into yourself to see if you may have
> played _at least_ a role on being treated this way.
A victim is a victim. There is never an excuse for this behavior in
academia.
Ethics 101: If person 'A' slashes person 'B's' tires and person 'B'
shoots him, who is wrong?
Both. This is why actions need be addressed separately as in a
standard of ethics.
> And, again, you are being dishonest and unfair in here: you should attempt to describe the position of
> Wikipedia, and not your conveniently distorted version
> of it that makes you look good. You are very harsh on others but very easy on yourself.
>
This are your words. I do not agree.
>
>
> > Since I began
> > pursuing my proof of computational complexity my
> > Wikipedia profile for
> > my work as a screenwriter (which had remained
> > untouched for the better
> > part of three years) was immediately flagged as
> > "non-notable" and
> > deleted. And all because the mathematics and code I
> > was inputting was
> > too advanced for wiki language to swallow without
> > causing system
> > problems and offending apparently some very sensitive
> > people.
>
> This is _your_ version of things. Again, you fail
> to describe and/or you are oversimplifyng the
> opposing position.
>
Done in brevity. Explain the good reason to discredit my work as a
screenwriter following this. It is punishment or attempt to discredit
for non-related matter.
> And all
> > over a tiny little problem in theoretical computer
> > science called
> > P=NP.
> >
>
> It is not by _any means_ a tiny little problem.
>
As the language suggests, it must not be given the reaction. I will
try to be less subtle with you and more direct.
> > Basically, as the case may certainly be there seem to
> > be a lot of
> > people out there absolutely insistent that "P" does
> > not equal "NP".
>
> Right. And you are not _repeatedly_ pushing your
> P=NP position in just-about every post of yours?.
I stated a fact. No judgment.
> You are being a hypocrite.
Stating facts does not a hypocrite make.
>
> > But I have to wonder, if it is only theory we are
> > debating here, what is so vested by this people that they defend an insistent of an
> > impossibility as if it were the holy grail?
>
> The same thing that is vested in your repeatedly
> pushing that P=NP.
Explain this. I am arguing my case to give a million dollars to cure
childhood cancer.
How is it similar?
And again, you are oversimplifying
> others' position.
Explain, please.
>
> It just
> > does not make
> > sense to me.
>
> This does not mean that it does not make sense.
> Have you considered the possibility that you are
> being shallow?. I think you are not.
I am glad we both agree I am not being shallow. Though in complete
honesty this may have been a mistyped sentence on your part I thank
you.
You seem to
> be unable to put yourself in anyone else's place.
I put myself in the place of every person who is abused and bullied
and cussed at on Sci.Math, not because I enjoy being the victime, but
because I can take it and it needs to be stood up to for it to change.
> You are unsufferably self-righteous.
>
There is suffering for a righteous man.
> I will say this, especially, it does not
> > make sense to
> > argue that something such as P equals NP has to be
> > impossible.
>
> Is this _really_ what they are saying, or just
> your convenient version of their position?
This is my position. I wrote it. It simply does not make sense to
insist in the impossibility of it. I do not understand this behavior
except to maybe protect cryptography and in this case I have a strong
moral stance on the matter. Cryptography is not worth a single life.
>
> If it
> > were true there are well documented published
> > articles such as this one in the Boston Globe which explicitly list all the
> > potential
> > benefits we might experience if the scientific
> > community acknowledges
> > P=NP.
>
> This is dishonest on your part.
How so? Look up the article. Is the statement I made true? A true
statement is honest. A false statement is dishonest.
There are many
> proofs both of P=NP as well as of P=/NP.
Yes, a stalemate.
The proofs
> on both sides are incredibly difficult to evaluate.
> So don't distor the situation as just an unwillingness
> of others.
There is obviously unwillingness on both sides. I never states it was
not the case.
If you want to be minimally honest here,
> go thru some of the serious proofs that P=/NP and
> show _clearly_ what it is that is wrong with them.
I have studies some of them. I have tries this to some extent, but
thank you for the guidance. I think you are right and this is good
advice.
DaVinci said, "There is no such thing as a disproof, only disproof by
another proof."
Have you ever tried this?. Or do you prefer to fool
> yourself that all of those who claim that P=/NP
> just choose to ignore your arguments.
See above. I got a little ahead on this answer anticipating.
This just
> seems like a convenient distortion on your part.
>
Again "seems".
>
> The list includes advances in "Protein Folding"
> > which could spur unprecedented growth and advances in biological research which may
> > well include cures for diseases like cancer and
> > H.I.V. So dare I say,
> > why are noted professors at top universities such as
> > Scott Aaronson at
> > M.I.T. and Stephen Arthur Cook at the University of
> > Toronto so
> > insistent of its impossibility?
>
> Give me some refs. and convince me that this is
> what they are actually saying.
Okay, will do.
It is the least you
> could do , out of basic fairness: describe their
> position accurately, and not just the fantasy position
> that makes you seem like a victim.
>
It is not fantasy if it is truth. I will present evidence, per your
advice.
> What could be so
> > motivating as one
> > would defend such a contrary position to which being
> > contrariety holds
> > no obvious benefit for society at large.
>
I did not include a question mark at the end of the prior sentence but
there should have been one. I am asking, rhetorically or literally.
What could be so motivating?
> Some may legitimately disagree with you.
>
I do not understand what you are disagreeing with here. I did not make
a claim in context to this comment.
> The elephant
> > in the room
> > seems to be that this argument has been raging and
> > churning for years
> > ever since Stephen Cook invented the class
> > "NP-Complete" back in 1970.
> >
> > My goal, my dream, in pursuing a proof that P=NP was
> > not to win a million dollars and notoriety, but to help the people in the world use
> > the technology to better take care of themselves and
> > their families.
> > My goals personally are to help my young niece who
> > just had an implant
> > put in her ear so she could hear better and to spur
> > advances in cancer
> > research as my uncle and Godfather Michael Schultz
> > was in the last
> > month diagnosed with kidney and bone cancer. So
> > still, I continue on,
> > every morning pursuing the solution despite the
> > animosity and
> > ignorance.
> >
> You are so good and pure that I want to cry.(sob!)
>
The truth is. We do not choose our realities to the full extent they
exist.
> > My dreams are simply bigger than theirs.
>
> What makes you think that you know what their
> dreams are?.
There is no greater dream than truth and all it represents.
You make all sorts of unfounded assumptions
> that conveniently make you look as the good one, and
> others as the bad ones. Are you really that simple-
> minded?.
What is simple minded about your claim of me?
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > With only three months of formal education he became
> > one of the greatest inventors and industrial leaders in history.
> > Edison obtained 1,093 United States patents, the most issued to any individual.
>
> Again, showing just the side that helps you make
> your case. Why not show Tesla's perspective here?
I am unfamiliar with the case of "Tesla". I am interested.
> Why not state that Edison had money. Still, what
> _is_ your point on Edison?
> >
My point is great ideas come from all people from all walks of life.
> > Call this my prayer or call it my plea it is my cry
> > to the scientific community and to God in heaven can we please work together here and
> > accomplish some good in the world instead of warbled
> > disagreement?
>
> In which, of course, you play absolutely no role
> whatsoever.
>
Okay, this is just spiteful and I am holding back anger here.
> My
> > last thought is to ask yourself why would anyone
> > insist on the
> > absolute impossibility of something that could bring
> > so much good to
> > the world?
>
> I think it would be great if _you_ asked yourself
> questions about your own role on how you are treated.
Your thoughts about my motives do not change the facts addressed in
this letter.
> But I doubt that you will.
> .
Good, it is positive you see my conviction. My methods may change as
the situation evolves but my motives remain constant.
> >
> > Quotes by Thomas Edison:
> >
> > "Hell, there are no rules here we're trying to
> > accomplish something."
> >
> > "I didn't fail ten thousand times. I successfully
> > eliminated, ten thousand times, materials and combination which wouldn't work."
> >
> Good if you have enough time and funding.
>
Funding is great. It is nearly impossible to obtain outside of
academia in technology and medicine (in the current economic state)
but good ideas I have faith there is always possibility.
Why you so focus on me I do not understand. If the issue received as
much scrutiny it may change.
> As a result of this, you refuse to consider any responsibility , any role you may be playing in
> how you are treated.
>
I acknowledge my behavior annoys some people. This is no excuse for
abusive behavior and personal character attacks. There is no
exception.
> >
> > VAST SPY SYSTEM LOOTS COMPUTERS IN 103 COUNTRIES...
> > (N.Y. Times, Front
> > Page)
> > Canadians find network... (AP News)
Thanks for taking the time to read and address the points I have
raised.
I am hopeful to bridge a more constructive relationship in all
respects.
--
M.M.Musatov
"Now with a growing user base in 49 countries."
"Come see why Google is better with no ads, and support your favorite
charity for free."
"Rated best new search engine."
http://MeAmI.org
"Search for the people!"
Musatov
"Bacle" here is the Boston Globe Article.
http://MeAmI.org searches on Aaronson and Cook will quickly clarify
their knowledge limiting positions.
Thanks,
Martin
MeAmI.org
1> "Musatov"<...> - sci.math | Google Groups
just 2n^2 - 1)? My bad in my post in this thread ( the one you quoted)
musatov's claim was not 2n(2n/2)-1, but 2^(2n-1)-1 . > > 2^9-1=511=
7*73 <...>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/7a6f65fa4df8177b
2> Re: "Musatov"<...>
musatov's claim was not 2n(2n/2)-1, but 2^(2n-1)-1 . 2^9-1=511= 7*73
2^11-1=2047=23*89. So this guy could not write a simple. routine. and.
check for n<20 <..>.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.math/2009<...>/msg03748.html -
11 hours ago
3> Ivašev mustov in many dimensions
I .2 but if the reader reflects for a bit, he will see that this is
not <...> of Lemma 3.1 fe" We claim that if e(j) + 0 fast enough, then
the <....> make the proof work, we need something deeper. In Ivasev
Musatov's proof <.....> study r of the form 2 n, between 2 n-1 and 2n
+I) . This, together with <...>
http://www.springerlink.com/index/23m0318667138lr5.pdf
4> Korner: On the theorem of Ivasev-Musatov. I
We give a new version of Ivasev-Musatov's construction of a measure
whose <....> of the theorem of Ivasev-Musatov, it is necessary not
merely to know but also to <...> 1/2 , we have the stated result. D In
exactly the same spirit we prove the <....> Note that In > u and so,
using (b) and (c^ , 2LV/(^) > 2\^(2n) > 2(2A? <...>
http://www.numdam.org/item?id=AIF_1977__27_3_97_0
by TW Korner - 1977 - Cited by 1 - Related articles - All 5 versions
5> ON THE THEOREM OF IVA$EV-MUSATOV III
Indeed I would claim that the methods of IvaSev-Musatov enable us to
draw <.....> as L—>oo and so we can find an N(2) >N(1) with <.....>
easy proof are not important but the reader should consider carefully
why Lemma <......> along these lines we would recover IvaSev-Musatov's
result on sets of multiplicity <...>
http://plms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/s3-53/1/143.pdf
by TW Korner - 1986 - Cited by 7
Respectfully,
++
Martin Musatov
Los Angeles, California
mike3
> While admit that I don't know the details of your
> case, I nonetheless think you are uncurably superficial and are lacking the most basic skills in self-analysis.
> As a result of this, you refuse to consider any responsibility , any role you may be playing in
> how you are treated.
>
If it is "uncurable" then why fault him for it like he could somehow
"cure"
it?
It is 100% curable. It is just that he is the one who has to make the
choice
to do the "curing".
Bacle
But you did not know that a prime p>2 must be an
odd number?. And you made a conjecture that it must
be so?. This tells me , and I would say to most
people, that you do not, as you do not know the
very basic properties of a prime number.
In addition, even after you had it explained to you
_many_ times, you still did not get it, and kept
up with your conjecture. Hardly a sign of your
knowing what you are talking about.
> > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know what an imbecil is.
>
> I understand what an imbecile is.
> > > >
> > > > > > Apparently you don't know what a clever
> joke/
> > > > > > comentary is either.
>
> I do but there is not a clear cut mathematical
> formula to comedy.
This comment of mine was not addressed to you.
>
> I am however clever enough to cite this fact clowning
> on you.
> > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > <snip> part by Aatu Koskensilta
> , > > > > > Apparently you did not spell
> > > "commentary"/"comentary"
> > > > > correctly. I
> > > > > believe I have shown it is the case.
> > > >
> > > > Wow, you really got me on that one. Great
> point you make, specially considering this is a
> _math_ website, and I can use Spell Check any time.
> > > >
> > > > My issue with you is that you deface this
> site, constantly show disrespect for it, post
> > > non-mathematics-related material regularly,
> posting irrelevant material in others' threads, and you
> show no interest in learning: you repeatedly ignore
> > > corrections made to you and counterexamples to
> your conjectures.
>
> Have you considered I post not for the reactions of
> others or the
> appearance of my learning or display of my knowledge?
> > > >
This is nonresponsive: if you are given an explanation, by people who _do_ know that a prime
>2 cannot be odd, you should at least read it and
try to understand it. I doubt that you did, as
you kept making the same false assertion many times
over.
You want to make this site into your personal play
pen, experimenting and playing around. Guess what:
this is a communal website and not your personal
playpen. If everyone goes around repeating things
they don't understand 10 times like you did, the site
will become useless.
Do whatever you need to do to understand, just don't
deface this site while you are doing it. You dilute
the quality of this site by doing that.
You seem to be believe that just because you
(claim) your motives are pure, that this entitles
you to come to a site which has a certain way of
doing things, and do here whatever you feel like
doing, without considering the impact of what you
do on others, nor on the quality of the site.
Again: do what you need in order to learn, just
don't use this site as your playpen in order to do
it, as you damage the quality of the site; you are
_expected_ by most people here to be reasonably
well-informed, and to do your "scrap-paper" thinking
and experimenting _ on your own scrap paper_ , and not
use this site for your personal doodling and experimentation. You are expected to listen to the
explanations and ask well-informed questions. People
take time and energy to give you careful answers
which you ignore. You want the benefits of this site
without contributing to it.
Ultimately, if you do not like this rule, create
your own website and invite everyone to throw in
whatever helps them learn and ignore each other's
comments. But your actions are offensive to many here,
and, guess what: we --tons of people-- do not have to adapt to you and your needs, as we do not work for you;
if you join a community, as in sci.math, you are
expected to act in certain ways; specifically, not post irrelevant posts in others' threads. I don't care if this
works for you; it does not work for most people, it dilutes the quality of the site. If you don't want to
be bound by this, create your own site. But we will not
all change what we are doing just to please you, which
is what you seem to want here. I don't care what your
motives may be: don't trash this site.
> > > > You have posted either conjectures that can
> be
> > > shown to be false for even small values of n
> --which ,
> > > out of courtesy, you should check yourself. Once,
> twice, can happen, but when you do it so often, it is
> > > insulting.
> When there is truth withstanding I will sometimes
> take a means justify the end approach within reason. The truth I see
> potentially obscured
> here I'm sure far outweights the value of a few posts
> to bother people
> so much you would think there was more at stake than
> just a few
> seconds glancing over text you do not approve of.
This is _not_ your personal playpen. I don't care
what your goals or motives are: we are not here to
adapt to your tastes and your M.O. at the expense
of the quality of this site.
Garbage: if everyione did what you do, this place
would be chaos. Do your experimentation in your own
time, and do not deface this site while at it. If
everyone reposted 7-10 times after having something
explain something to you, this site would be completely useless. Guess what: your method may work for you--
at this site and at others' expense. And we do not
have to drop our way of doing things to fit _you_.
Out of courtesy, since someone
devoted their time and energy --for free -- to
explain something to you, read carefully what they
said, and do your best effort to understand, and
_then_ ask a well-informed followup questions.
Or, out of basic fairness, tell people in advance:
"I will not carefully read what you tell me, and
I will go on to splatter electornic graffiti in
this site until I get the material. I will keep
posting and ignoring your corrections until I
get the material ". See what reaction you get.
There are other people out here, and this is not
just about what works for you. Your benefit is
done at the expense of others, including myself.
> > > > In addition, even after being repeatedly shown
> > > counter-examples to your conjectures, you make
> these
> > > conjectures again. Many times.
>
> Have you heard of the concept of Quantum
> Entanglement? Is it possible
> this may be a result?
>
No. This is a result of you refusing to sit down
quietly and read carefully what others took pain
to explain to you-- for free . It is disrespectful
on your part. Others devote time and energy to
explain things to you, and you ignore what they
post. It is just a sign of your disrespect for
people here.
> There is nothing wrong in not knowing, but it is
> disrespectful to act
> as if you do and repeatedly spout nonsense like you
> have been
> > > doing.
>
> Again all I can say is I do not post for your
> approval.
>
Missing the point again. You dilute the quality of
the site by repeating nonsense. You are pursuing
your benefit _ at our expense_ , and this is what
bothers me. Say: if my plastering graffiti all over
the walls of your house allows me to improve my
creativity: does that justify my doing it?. My
motives are pure, so I should get to trash your
place, right?. What if I am walking by your house and
I need to go to the bathroom: should I take a shit
in your garden?. It would save me time from going
back home, and it would allow me to feel more creative
after releasing my intestines. I guess I will do it,
since I am not seeking your approval.
You sincerely come off as either completely naive
and unaware, or as completely selfish, wanting to
use this site for your needs at others' expense,
and ignoring the impact on others of what you do
_this_ is my point and _not_ that I disaprove of
what you do; I frankly don't give a shit about what
you do as long as you don't do it _ at my expense_.
I don't give a shit what you do, as long as you do not deface the site, which is what you are doing. If everyone did what you do, this site would be a wasteland of undigested garbage. This is not yours nor anyone else's personal playpen for experimentation.
Experiment on your own time with your own resources, and not at everybody else's expense. Then do whatever the hell works for you and pleases you, I really don't
care what it is.
Just stop depicting yourself as the rebel being persecuted for being different. The point is that
you are acting like a parasite.
> I will not apologize until the knowledge I see
> potentiated in
> obscurity is revealed.
> > > >
Why not do that in _your own_ time, with _your own_
resources. No need to inflict and plaster your search for enlightnment on the general public. Do it --and
whatever the hell else you feel like doing -- in _your
own_ time and with _your own_ resources.
I also have my needs, but I understand that the
world must not come to a complete halt in order for
me to satisfy them. Do _you_ get that?. Or should we
be subject to and cater to all your whims in order
for you to pursue your search, damn whatever we need?
( given the fact that many have posted complaints similar to mine, I do believe I am talking for more
than just myself.)
Do _whatever the hell you want to do_ , as long as
you don't do it at someone else's expense.
> > > > This is a site for people who want to have
> > > serious discussions of math ( of course, an
> occassional
> > > fun post is perfectly fine), and you are making a
> > > mockery of it, turning it into a personal
> playground for your bizarreness.
> > > >
> This from a person who constantly among many cusses
> and acts how they never would in person in a serious mathematical discussion. You have
> lost your claim.
You may notice that I do not
gratuitously attack posters; and I do not do it "constantly" . I have done it with people whom
I think are acting like assholes, specially after,
like you, _they don't listen_. Find a post of mine
that is aggressive towards someone other than you
or inverse 19.Can you? It is _not_ a "constant thing".
I do it because I view
your and inverse 19's _actions_ as insulting.
There is such a thing
as insulting with actions and not with words, which
is what I perceive people like you and inverse 19 are
doing. Still, I grant you that I am too agresive at times
and I need to address this, and find better ways to
deal with my own frustration.
But that does not make it right for you to use this as your playpen; to use the cliche', two wrongs don't make a right.
> > > > I don't have many sites to learn and practice
> my
> > > math; sci.math is one of the few I have.
>
> This we agree.
>
> You have plenty of sites where you can do whatever
> r it is your
> > > > doing, and leave this site for people who are
> into
> > > math.
>
> I am into mathematics but just not the way you see
> it.
Do whatever you want to do as long as you do not
deface this site and turn it into your own playpen,
otherwise I don't care what you do in any way whatsoever. Just don't do it at my expense.
Have you ever stopped for a second to wonder why
others have been upset at you?. Do you think that the
end (your goal of learning) justifies the means?.
Do you think we should be exposed to whatever you
feel like doing just because it works for you, even
if it does so at others' expense ?. Should it all
be about what you want?
So don't give me that story about how you are
a misunderstood creative genius and others disaprove
of you, as that is not what I ( and many others)am(are) upset about.
> > > > But you chose to make this into your math
> > > playground. And I find that offensive.
> > > >
>
> I experiment but I keep track and consider at each
> step within reason.
>
> I find it offensive and cruel the masses condone the
> abusive behavior
> en masse of theory they do not agree with.
You are missing the point of why people treat you
the way they do (not that this is necessarily justified)
While some may be gratuitously cruel at times, many find your _actions_ insulting too. Insults are
not just done explicitely in words, but also in actions
like your random splattering of nonsense in others'
threads.
_Your actions_ are considered abusive by others.
It is not what you do, but how you do it. Try
to at least listen to my advice and get your view
that you are the misunderstood genius out of your
head for a second , being chided for being different
(superior, in your view). Again, do whatever the
hell works for you, just not at others' expense.
Believe it or not, others have feelings that you
should consider, and it is not just about having
_your_ needs met.
Each one
> comes from a
> person (I think) who is necessarily abused and pushed
> out for their
> effort by the type of bullying I have not seen since
> before 6th grade.
> It is unacceptable.
So is your splattering of garbage in others' posts
and your repeated posts of the same nonsense. Guess
what, others consider your actions unacceptable. Try
putting youself in _others'_ position. Your actions
are disrespectful in that you only care about what
works for you and not on whether this hurts others.
Think about this and spare me the self-righteousness
of how you want to heal the world.
>
> The keepers of great truths do not behave this way.
>
Nor do they trash others' places and disrespect them
in order to find a truth, like you do, doing what works
for you at others' expense.
You do sound like you are playing a Hollywood
character and are disconnected from the way people
really are.
> This means there is greater truth than what those who
> abuse hold and protect by their cruelty.
>
It is a (arguably overblown) reaction to your actions
together with some bad-faith cruelty.
> > > > Now convince me that my misspelling a word
> is
> > > as bad as what you are doing.
>
> What I am doing is not bad in my eyes. It is in fact
> good.
>
Yes, good for you, not so for others.
> I do not engage in activities I see as unprofitable
> or unproductive when it comes the free exchange of ideas or the producing of a
> project.
>
Yes, your actions are productive. At other people's
expense. How rich.
> At 20 years old I was an intern for Jerry
> Bruckheimer, MTV Films,
> Village Roadshow Pictures and International Creative
> Management.
>
> At 22 I had my Bachelor's degree in Screenwriting and
> moved to Los
> Angeles.
>
> By the time I was 24 I had been through a Fellowship
> for Television
> Writes at Twentieth Century Fox, had a feature film
> in development
> with a large Hollywood Studio, and was represented by
> The Endeavor
> Agency.
>
And ??
> I have been a paid writer since I was 24. I am now
> 30.
>
> I continue to work as a writer though oddly enough
> through exposure in
> Digital Media positions (having been a part of the
> team which began
> the Digital Media Business at Creative Artists
> Agency--(Ray Kurzweil?)
> and working for eBay former CEO and President Jeff
> Skoll, I became
> interested in digital media as an entity,
> particularly its potential
> to impact the world through a mixture of social media
> marketing and
> storytelling. I researched algorithms and code in my
> spare time as I
> wrote. In 2008 I had a feature film released at
> 10,000 Blockbuster
> stores worldwide and theatrical Global release.
>
And ??
> In mathematics if I choose a persona it is my choice.
> But do not judge
> me. You do not know me. I judge behaviors as right as
> wrong only when patently so. I do not judge people.
>
So do we. And we consider your actions to be wrong
and hurtful to our goals.
> > >
> > > I see subterfuge. I see dishonesty. I see more
> > > immorality then I do honest academic exchange. I
> see cruelty without apparent cause and
> > > this is most disturbing.
> >
I gave you an explanation.
> > Yes, of course. You are above all and you are
> with
> > no fault and no responsibility whatsoever for how
> > you are treated.
>
>
> Abusive language is in an academic setting the
> analogue of domestic violence.
>
But your abusive actions are any better?
> There is never a good excuse. If I allow myself to be
> the whooping boy
> trust it is not my feelings at stake or my conviction
> but rather your
> position as abuser.
I am responding to what I consider to be abuse on
_your_ part.
> > >
> > > There is simply more than what is obviously
> apparent
> > > to some of the
> > > exchanges I see on Sci.Math and the fact remains
> > > there exists a large
> > > portion of the community who seem to guard or
> protect intellectual
> > > property or claims by their absolute insistence
> of a possibility
> > > something is impossible. It is like they are
> trying to limit
> > > themselves by insisting certain things can never
> be
> > > understood and
> > > this frightens me.
Don't judge them. You don't know them.
It seems to me an awful like
> the
> > > suppression of
> > > free speech and open exchange of ideas has fallen
> > > second so far it is
> > > hardly seen.
> >
I personally don't care, as long as you don't
do it at my expense and do not deface this site
and make it much more difficult for me to benefit
from it. If everyone did what you do, this site
would turn to garbage.
> > I am sure that as usual, you will not listen.
>
> Be positive. You may meet an improvement.
>
> > I tried to spell out as clearly and as
> explicitly as possible what it is that you do that
> many find to be
> > irritating. But you just do not listen and you make
> > yourself out to be the paragon of justice and all
> that
> > is good. So you repeatedly ignore what others tell
> > you that you do and that they find irritating. You
> > are just endlessly self-righteous.
>
> If I am self-righteousness to you then I am righteous
> to more than myself.
Non-sequitur. Look up the meaning of self-righteous.
> > Listen: you were given disproofs of your inane
> > conjectures MANY times. And yet you go back to
> > posting _the same conjectures_. That is
> irritating.
>
> Listen, I am sorry you are annoyed. I am never cruel.
>
You are defacing this site. I am sorry if it
annoys you, but I will take a shit in your garden
if I need to. I am not cruel, I just want to feel
better with my intestines cleared up. I don't
care if the community disaproves of this, but
it works for me. I am sorry if you do not like
this.
> > On top of that, it is clear that you know
> _nothing_
> > about primes,
>
> SEE DEFINITION ABOVE.
SEE 6+ posts of you not knowing that a prime>2
must be odd. This is as basic as it gets about
primes, and it is a big mystery to you.
You know nothing but the definition, so spare
me the empty technicalities.
Attention to detail. Group like
> ideas together
> to guide streamlined logic through a narrative
> thread.
>
??
> yet you throw around inane conjectures.
> > THAT is irritating.
> >
> Franky, I find the word "that" irritating and
> entirely unnecessary as
> a participle of speech 95% of the time it is used. I
> do not (or have
> not to this point until now) expressed this.
But you use "this" instead, in an unclear way?
I do not
> go around
> attacking users of the phrase nor will I as it is
> (for the most part
> unrelated academically to mathematics), however the
> more it is used generally the less command the individual has over language.
I can only be so explicit. I would think it is clear
from the context what I mean by it.
> > >
> > > I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not enjoy
> > > accusations. I have an utter distaste for bitter
> debate with those of less maturity or
> > > decency.
Of course you are the mature and decent one here,
lenient on yourself and harsh on others.
Guess what: your actions seem neither mature nor
decent to us, but you seem to have way too much trouble seeing our perspective. You don't even try
to, and repeatedly make yourself out to be a victim.
That is not mature, not decent.
> >
> > Condescending and self-righteous, as usual.
>
> Truth. Most on Sci.Math are less mature than me and I
> have an utter distaste for their behavior.
>
We are not seeking your approval.
> I do not judge, but if I do it is righteous. I make
> no divisions about
> it.
>
Of course not. Because you are perfectly impartial.
> > Posting half-baked garbage like you do is NOT
> > decent. Is that too hard for you to understand?
> >
>
> It is not decent to you. I will apologize to you if
> it annoys you but
> something larger is at stake.
> > >
Yes,we all have to eat shit so that you look for
the truth that matters to you. No one appointed you
official truth-seeker to be done at everyone's expense.
You tread on us and trash our site, you get trashed
in return. This is how it works outside of your Hollywood self-involved and superficial ,script view of the world.
I will take a shit in your garden and apologize if
it annoys you, but I too, am on a search for truth,
so there is something larger than your feelings at
stake
> > > The misspelling is not worse. Your attitude and
> > > demeanor and motives are what I call into frame.
> > >
> > I explained myself very explicitly.
>
> This does not equate justification.
Your trashing is hardly justified by anything you
have said.
>
> You had a chance to address what I said. you didn't.
>
> By your measure of time. Who is self-revolving, one
> who measures the actions of others by their own time or one who does so with patience
> and careful method considering all eventualitie and
> causal relationships?
>
You repeatedly ignored me when I said it was wrong
to repeatedly post the same conjecture after it was
repeatedly proven wrong. And I doubt you are
considering anything other than your own perspective
here.
> > You are too self-righteous and vain.
>
> I am righteous. I am not vain. I am intelligent.
> There is not a cruel
> abusive hair on my head.
Right. Trashing others to satisfy your needs
is not abusive. As long as you are on your
search for truth, we should allow you to do
whatever pleases you and ignore our needs, o master,
o king of thy self-involved and self-adoring.
Enjoy your self-delusions and your circular
self-righteous view where you are the pure
and always a victim, never responsible for
what you get.
This puts me at least
> shoulder's lenghth
> above in wisdom of those who cuss and act like
> demonic children
You may not like my cussing, but I am not looking
for your approval. And I am not a believer, so
your "demonic" is nonsense superstitious garbage
to me. And your actions speak louder than your
words, specially your condescenscion. Spare me
your lectures and remember that it is just you
that adolizes yourself and consider yourself
to be all good and pure.
> delighting in the ridicule of others.
> >
Yes, for no reason whatsover, right?
This puts you at length with all the religious
hypocrites who burnt others at the stake too.
> >
> > > I am simply looking for some answers. If you have
> not
> > > read it, please read below my open letter. It may
> shed some light on the case.
> > >
> >
End does not justify the means. You trash my site
I trash you back. That simple.
> > Holier than thou, as I expected.
> >
> You spoke it.
And I meant it. And I still believe so.
Yes you do.
> > This itself is irritating. Self-righteousness
> > is irritating. And you are self-righteous and
> > seem to lack any self-awareness. This is annoying
> too.
> >
> Things are not always what they seem.
> >
> > I have had
> > > M.I.T. Assistant Professor Scott Aaronson
> publicly
> > > threaten to contact
> > > my Internet Service Provider and call me a "goon"
> for
> > > disproving his
> > > theorem publicly and by some means yet
> unexplained
> > > motivating him to
> > > apologize to all his readers for allowing my
> actions
> > > as though he
> > > should have been guarding against them.
> >
> > And , of course, you will not quote Aaronson's
> > version of the incident, which basic ethics would
> > require you to do.
>
> I did. I cited what he said and also his reaction.
No. You cited your version of what he said, and
_your_ description of his reaction. Would he
agree with you on your depiction ?
>
> This is unfair and dishonest on your part. So much
> h for your
> questioning me and my motives when you are so
> dishonest yourself.
> >
When have I been dishonest?. Prove it or retract.
I backed up my proof that you called yourself
a prodigy. Back this up or retract it.
> Not a word I spoke was untrue.
>
Different people have different versions of events.
> > I have been
> > > called a "troll",
> > > a "crank", and "couch boy" the last of these I
> have
> > > no idea what the colloquial means. I have had my
> I.P. address blocked from contributing
> > > to Wikipedia and have been sent threatening
> emails
> > > from Wikipedia
> > > administrators saying, "Wikipedia doesn't need
> you."
> >
> > And , of course, as usual, you are just a victim,
> and
> > you will not look into yourself to see if you may
> have
> > played _at least_ a role on being treated this
> way.
>
> A victim is a victim. There is never an excuse for
> this behavior in academia.
>
Nor, in our view, there is an excuse for your
behavior, your trashing.
> Ethics 101: If person 'A' slashes person 'B's' tires
> and person 'B'
> shoots him, who is wrong?
>
> Both. This is why actions need be addressed
> separately as in a standard of ethics.
>
> > And, again, you are being dishonest and unfair
> in here: you should attempt to describe the position
> of
> > Wikipedia, and not your conveniently distorted
> version
> > of it that makes you look good. You are very harsh
> on others but very easy on yourself.
> >
> This are your words. I do not agree.
> >
> >
Then give a reference to their position _as stated
by them_ , and not by you.
> > > Since I began
> > > pursuing my proof of computational complexity my
> > > Wikipedia profile for
> > > my work as a screenwriter (which had remained
> > > untouched for the better
> > > part of three years) was immediately flagged as
> > > "non-notable" and
> > > deleted. And all because the mathematics and code
> I
> > > was inputting was
> > > too advanced for wiki language to swallow without
> > > causing system
> > > problems and offending apparently some very
> sensitive
> > > people.
> >
Correlation is not causation.
> > This is _your_ version of things. Again, you fail
> > to describe and/or you are oversimplifyng the
> > opposing position.
> >
>
> Done in brevity. Explain the good reason to discredit
> my work as a screenwriter following this. It is punishment or attempt to discredit
> for non-related matter.
I would have to know _their_ position in _their_
words, and not just your version of events.
> > And all
> > > over a tiny little problem in theoretical
> computer
> > > science called
> > > P=NP.
> > >
> >
> > It is not by _any means_ a tiny little problem.
> >
> As the language suggests, it must not be given the
> reaction. I will
> try to be less subtle with you and more direct.
>
Do not condescend me. I do not consider you in
anyway to be my superior, and I will not be talked
down to by you. So much for your decency. Hypocrite.
> > > Basically, as the case may certainly be there
> seem to
> > > be a lot of
> > > people out there absolutely insistent that "P"
> does
> > > not equal "NP".
> >
> > Right. And you are not _repeatedly_ pushing your
> > P=NP position in just-about every post of yours?.
>
> I stated a fact. No judgment.
>
> > You are being a hypocrite.
>
> Stating facts does not a hypocrite make.
> >
> > > But I have to wonder, if it is only theory we are
> > > debating here, what is so vested by this people
> that they defend an insistent of an
> > > impossibility as if it were the holy grail?
> >
> > The same thing that is vested in your repeatedly
> > pushing that P=NP.
>
> Explain this. I am arguing my case to give a million
> dollars to cure childhood cancer.
>
So they should ignore their genuine belief that
P=/NP so you can do this?. They should ignore
their lives' work and agree with you even if they
are not convinced by it?
> How is it similar?
How about _their_ motives.?
>
> And again, you are oversimplifying
> > others' position.
>
> Explain, please.
I am too exhausted. Potaito, Potato. Too many
barriers to communication, too many different
assumptions and perspectives to be able to communicate
effectively.
> >
> > It just
> > > does not make
> > > sense to me.
> >
> > This does not mean that it does not make sense.
> > Have you considered the possibility that you are
> > being shallow?. I think you are not.
>
>
> I am glad we both agree I am not being shallow.
I never said that.
> Though in complete
> honesty this may have been a mistyped sentence on
> your part I thank
> you.
>
> You seem to
> > be unable to put yourself in anyone else's place.
>
> I put myself in the place of every person who is
> abused and bullied
> and cussed at on Sci.Math, not because I enjoy being
> the victime, but
> because I can take it and it needs to be stood up to
> for it to change.
> > You are unsufferably self-righteous.
> >
> There is suffering for a righteous man.
Look up 'self-righteous'
Bacle
In reading your post, I may have missed that
the "Alex" in "Alex's Lemonade" , was your niece,
who is sick and needs a transplant. If this is
the case, i.e., if Alex is actually your sick
niece, then I apologize for the joke I made about
"Alex's Lemonade". I did not mean to belittle her
suffering, I just did not know.
Aatu Koskensilta
>> Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > Do you even know what a prime is, imbecil?
>>
>> I don't know what an imbecil is.
>
> Apparently you don't know what a clever joke/comentary is either.
I don't know the first thing about "clever joke/comentary". Does it
involve shouting "imbecil" at people?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Bacle
>
> >> Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Do you even know what a prime is, imbecil?
> >>
> >> I don't know what an imbecil is.
> >
> > Apparently you don't know what a clever
> joke/comentary is either.
>
> I don't know the first thing about "clever
> joke/comentary". Does it
> involve shouting "imbecil" at people?
I think you are being unfair: I took back what I said to you, apologized for it, and you did not include this.
Yes, I lost
my cool. I don't have other good options for
learning math, not much money, and I get upset
when others trash this place. I try communicating
this, but some people don't listen. I understand
I don't make the rules here, but it would seem
that since there are hundreds of other sites to
B.S around, and only a few sites to learn math,
and exchange ideas,that those who are not interested
in doing math, or who want to deface sites should go
somewhere else. They have hundreds of options to do whatever they do. I don't.
When they take and trash the little bit that
you have left and communication fails, then insults
are thrown. If you can suggest a better option,
I will gladly listen.
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man
> schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
> s Logico-Philosophicus
Bacle
They may speak, but I have no idea what your
point is.
Bacle
>"Bacle" here is the Boston Globe Article.
>http://MeAmI.org searches on Aaronson and Cook will >quickly clarify
>their knowledge limiting positions.
>Thanks,
>Martin
My whole point is that when there is a disagreement
between _any_ two parties, each party in the disagreement tends to make itself look as the good guy
and the other as the bad guy. I am not saying this is
just you.
Musatov
I have a niece named Alexandra. She is hearing impaired and one of the
reasons I am interested in mathematics is to get a better
understanding of how to use acoustic technologies and the functional
biology of hearing.
http://AlexsLemonade.org is a charity I support. Alexandra Scott is an
amazing little girl and her story is inspirational.
If I am ever able to claim resolution to P vs. NP I pledge to give the
entire $1MM dollar prize to http://AlexsLemonade.org. This little girl
had so much life in her, she literally learned to walk crying in pain,
but persisted. It is this kind of heart and determination I admire. I
also support http://AlexsLemonade.org as the only current piece of
messaging on my new search engine at http://MeAmI.org. I am hopeful to
use mathematics to develop better Internet search and use it to bring
attention to worthy causes like http://Alexslemonade.org. I believe in
http://MeAmI.org 100%. It is better than Google plus no ads. If I did
not believe this and if it was for anything but a good cause I would
not even mention it once, let alone 100 times.
--
Martin Musatov
Musatov
Musatov wrote: My point is jackass:
1 and is partitioned to the following scheme:
0<1/(2^n)<1/(2^n-1)<...<1/8<1/4<1/2<1.
Clearly the largesy subinterval in the partition has width 1/2, and
its width remains 1/2 no matter how n is increased.
Capisce? Or is my mathematics to advanced for your brain?
--
Much love,
Musatov
Musatov
And Baclofin,
Don't even think about trying to correct my spelling. Do you have any
idea how tiny these Blackberry keypads are nowadays? Full QWERTY my
ass.
The point is Zeno fucked himself inserting impossibility into a
clearly practical task and so do you with your P does not equal NP
bologna.
--
Musatov
Bacle
Nothing you could even conceive off would be too much for my brain.
>
> --
> Much love,
No worry. The name 'jackass' implies it all.
>
> Musatov
Musatov
Musatov wrote:
Bacle wrote:
> >
> > Musatov wrote: My point is jackass:
> > Bacle wrote:
> > > > The arguments speak:
> > >
> > > They may speak, but I have no idea what your
> > > point is.
> >
> > brain?
>
> Nothing you could even conceive off would be too much for my brain.
> >
> > --
> > Much love,
>
> No worry. The name 'jackass' implies it all.
> >
> > Musatov
Luckily my point and the argument remains:
^Suppose, for example, the interval in the arguments
is between 0 and
1 and is partitioned to the following scheme:
0<1/(2^n)<1/(2^n-1)<...<1/8<1/4<1/2<1.
Clearly the largesy subinterval in the partition has
width 1/2, and
its width remains 1/2 no matter how n is increased.
--
Musatov
Musatov
The >
> > > > Cheers & hth.,
>
> > > > - Alf
Martin Michael Musatov wrote from here:
Regarding my prime generalization and my claim to resolution of [P
Versus NP] please add the below to consideration:
Suppose, for example, the interval in the arguments above between 0
and
1 and is partitioned to the following scheme:
0 < 1/2^n < 1/2^n-1 < [...] < 1/8 < 1/4 <1/2 <1.[finite tree]
Clearly the largesy subinterval in the partition has width 1/2, and
its width remains 1/2 no matter how n is increased.
:etorw votasuM leahciM nitraM
Bacle
MeAmI.org
> Clearly the largest subinterval in the partition has width 1/2, and
> its width remains 1/2 no matter how n is increased.
>
> :etorw votasuM leahciM nitraM
Musatov Prime Generalization Conjecture - sci.math | Google
GroupsUnless P = NP, NPC does not contain any sparse problems: that
is, ..... NP. I vow to donate the entire $1MM to charity. M.M.
Musatov ...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/
thread/0aac4741dda49ac3/7a93991661bafad8%3Flnk%3Draot - Similar
pagesMusatov Prime Generalization Conjecture - sci.math | Google
GroupsMessage from discussion Musatov Prime Generalization
Conjecture .... Unless P = NP, NPC does not contain any sparse
problems: that is, ...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/
cc75d3f740e6bdb6 - 36k - Cached - Similar pagesMusatov Prime
Generalization Conjecture - sci.math | Google GroupsUnless P = NP, NPC
does not contain any sparse problems: that is, ... "Musatov's Prime
Generalization Conjecture": Every prime greater than ...http://
groups.google.co.in/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/
0aac4741dda49ac3/123209e7b3112b20%3Flnk%3Draot - Similar pagesHamas to
keep attacking Israel, even if Gaza embargo liftedproof p=np musatov,
Google, Page 1. p equals np, Google, Page 2 . ... If it is known that
if any NP-complete language is sparse (contains no more than
a ...http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx%3Ftabid%3D178%26nid
%3D15098 - 198k - Cached - Similar pageswww.news2mail.com:
comp.programming -- Programming issues that ...Note that the problem
is NP complete when the (sparse) polynomial is ... 1=NP 2=P 3=P 4=NP
5=P 6=NP 7=P 8=NP 9=NP 10=NP Per Musatov's conjecture and
trivial ...http://www.news2mail.com/msg/today/comp/programming.html -
17k - Cached - Similar pagesDate: May 13, 2009 6:41 PM Author: Martin
Michael Musatov Subject ...that the solver, Martin M. Musatov, has
pursued the .... Unless P = NP, NPC does not contain any sparse
problems: that is, problems such that the ...http://mathforum.org/kb/
plaintext.jspa%3FmessageID%3D6709097 - 13k - Cached - Similar
pagesCADIE, Google, Pandas, & April Fools' << The Ranting Welshman1 Apr
2009 ... + np n. = A n. - p n. A n. + (1 + p + p. 2. + . ... the
possibility of existence of sets in NP-coNP which are $ \leqq _m^P $
reducible to sparse sets. ... Thanks:Cadie...for always having my back...
Martin Musatov%P== ...http://scottie2hottie.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/
cadie-google-pandas-april-fools/ - 35k - Cached - Similar pageswhere
is that pdf file about how to write mathematical...Musatov's
"Pioneer" (USENET+wide) proof NP=P or (6P=NP proper!) ... Corollary
13: If NP is sparse reducible, then P = NP. . Discussion . ...http://
www.groupsrv.com/science/about423125.html - 30k - Cached - Similar
pagesPhysics Contains Multitudes : Uncertain Principles... of sets in
NP-coNP which are $ \leqq _m^P $ reducible to sparse sets. ... to
sparse sets. ... Posted by: Martin Musatov | May 3, 2009 12:18
AM . ...http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/01/
physics_contains_multitudes_1.php - 71k - Cached - Similar pagesP
Versus NPFrom: Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@xxxxxxxxx>; Date:
Fri, ...... If it is known that if any NP-complete language is sparse
(contains no . ...http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.math/2009-06/
msg00752.html
MeAmI.org
Musatov wrote;
Q.E.D.
MeAmI.org
> On Jun 28, 6:58 pm, Bacle <ba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Jun 26, 4:37 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 26, 6:21 pm, Musatov
> > > <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 26, 4:17 pm, Mensanator
> > > <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 26, 6:00 pm, Musatov
> > > <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 26, 10:46 am, Christopher Henrich
> > > <chenr...@monmouth.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > <35b945l2rhe1v1ts7k5mgds29ff2d24...@4ax.com>,
>
> > > > > > > > rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT),
> > > mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >Is he the next JSH?
> > > > > > > > > No. JSH was much better entertainment.
>
> > > > > > > > > rossum
>
> > > > > > > > You say "was," not "is". And I just noticed
> > > that JSH is apparently gone.
> > > > > > > > Is he just taking a break or <gasp> did
> > > something permanent happen?
> > > > > > > > Oh, I can't stand this; first Michael
> > > Jackson, and now...
>
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Christopher J. Henrich
>
> > > chenr...@monmouth.comhttp://www.mathinteract.com
> > > > > > > > "A bad analogy is like a leaky
> > > screwdriver." -- Boon
>
> > > > > > > The King of Pop lives as does Elvis, just ask
> > > the leaky screwdriver.
>
> > > > > > Spooky! How is Michael Jackson's death like
> > > Elvis's death?
>
> > > > > > They both died pushing a stool, only in MJ's
> > > case, it wasn't
> > > > > > his own.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Mensanator, why would you say this? It is not
> > > only in very poor taste,
> > > > > it is rather unclever and uninteresting, not to
> > > mention
> > > > > disrespectful.
>
> > > > True, but funny nevertheless.
>
> > > > > Truth correlated with good taste. Learn it. Let
> > > it lead you. Use the
> > > > > force, Mensanator.
>
> > > > > It is not appropriate to comment on someone's
> > > sexuality in an open
> > > > > mathematics forum (IMO). Especially, to do so the
> > > day following their
> > > > > death.
>
> > > > Yeah, they'll never get to hear it.
>
> > > > > Show some respect!
>
> > > > Like the DJ on the oldies radio station this
> > > morning
> > > > who followed the MJ song "Beat It" which "Rock &
> > > Roll
> > > > Part 2" by Gary (the pedophile) Glitter. Now THAT
> > > was
> > > > subtle. Or a whopping great coincidence!
>
> > > > > Elvis and Michael Jackson shared this in common:
>
> > > > What does Michael Jackson have in common with
> > > caviar?
>
> > > > Both come on small white crackers.- Hide quoted
> > > text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Truth is good taste. You are false.
> > > qed
>
> > You are and always will be, a hypocrite and a fraud.
> > And you will never understand what a prime is, and
> > you will never understand , even after having it
> > explained to you in the simplest of ways, why your
> > idiotic conjectures fail, even when they fail for
> > n=3 or n=5.
>
> > You are too lazy and too stupid to understand why
> > 2n(2n/2)-1 is composite for _infinitely many_ n,
> > the formula you claim produces only primes.
>
> > You had this explained to you _many_ times. You
> > had many people , including myself, giving you
> > counterexamples. But you are just too fucking
> > stupid to understand, and you don't have the
> > decency to check at least the first 10 values
> > of n when you make your conjectures.
>
> Could you tell _me_ though what is wrong with it (or tell
> me where these other people's explanation are), so _I_
> (as I want to really learn something here) can find out
> why and how it fails for _infinitely many n_ (I make no
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you Mike3, for being a voice of reason.
--Musatov
MeAmI.org
> On Jun 26, 5:51 am, Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Musatov wrote:
> > David Bernier wrote:
> > > mike3 wrote:
> > > > Is he the next JSH?
>
> > > quite illucid, possible alt.usenet.kooks candidate/candidates.
>
> > > Or maybe he/they are super-trolls. Or else a bit of both ...
>
> > > David
>
> > My website ishttp://MeAmI.org.
>
> > It is the best search technology on the web currently.
>
> I'll bet it just links to Google.
>
> > Yes, I take mathematics seriously.
>
> Then you can't just put "P" = "prime", "N=number" and write
> some equation "P = <something involving N and P>" and because
> it contains "N" and "P" that means it's the same as "NP" so
> "P=NP"!!!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It does, but the method produces a results proven improvement:
http://MeAmI.org/blog/?page_id=2 (shows how)
http://MeAmI.org
Musatov
"Musatov"... - comp.theory | Google Groups
1> "Musatov"<...> - sci.math | Google Groups just 2n^2 - 1)? My bad in
my post in this thread ( the one you quoted) musatov's claim was not 2n
(2n/2)-1, ...
groups.google.com/group/comp.theory/browse.../feeb9a0ab0322181
