JSH: Bad educations?
jst...@msn.com
with bad mathematical educations where many of you don't know what a
sieve is, or what a partial difference equation is, or properly
understand the concept of proof?
Is it really that simple?
Could I simply be arguing with a badly educated crowd of people?
That could explain a lot.
James Harris
jshs...@yahoo.com
Except it is your lack of education James. What was your GPA in college
James? What was your class rank. You keep talking about your Physics
degree, but you can get one of those with a 2.0 GPA.
If you would have actually learned some math beyond basic algebra( and
your grasp of that isn't what you think), you might have been able to
come up with a real mathematical discovery. But all you have done for
the past 7 years or so is make a fool of yourself time and time again.
jst...@msn.com
Sadly, it does. And what you say next shows how people like you dodge
the real issues.
> Except it is your lack of education James. What was your GPA in college
> James? What was your class rank. You keep talking about your Physics
> degree, but you can get one of those with a 2.0 GPA.
>
Oh, like just anybody gets a physics degree?
Now even a physics degree is just a commonality as you dodge the
pointed questions about the knowledge of the group.
Do you know the difference between a sieve equation and a difference
equation?
And yes, I'll dodge personal questions that are irrelevant, like what
my grades were at Vanderbilt University.
> If you would have actually learned some math beyond basic algebra( and
> your grasp of that isn't what you think), you might have been able to
> come up with a real mathematical discovery. But all you have done for
> the past 7 years or so is make a fool of yourself time and time again.
What amazes me is how effective it has been over the years for people
to call me names, repeatedly question my mathematical ability, while
their comments are on the level of teenagers.
Who talks like that in the adult world and gets away with it?
I have a degree in physics. I demonstrate my mathematical knowledge
with my discoveries themselves.
Those curious about what I can do need only check an article I wrote
that is now found in the history pages of the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
I am now gripped by the question of, why are such juvenile techniques
and denials of obvious evidence like my encyclopedia article, so
effective?
You can't all be pulled in, can you?
How do people get away with lying about my research and my demonstrated
mathematical abilities, even when they do bizarre things like put down
having a physics degree?
Like everybody has one?
James Harris
jshs...@yahoo.com
Ok James, explain why it is so hard to get a degree in physics. I took
3 semesters of physics in college on my way to a degree in Comp. Sci. I
thought they were some of my easier classes.
>And yes, I'll dodge personal questions that are irrelevant, like what
my grades were at Vanderbilt University.
Translation: You didn't do very well and barely graduated. I got ya. I
wouldn't want to mention my grades either if I was you.
>I have a degree in physics. I demonstrate my mathematical knowledge
>with my discoveries themselves.
You have demostrated your mathematical knowledge. It is sorely lacking,
and has been pointed out to you and shown to be true time and time
again.
>How do people get away with lying about my research and my demonstrated
>mathematical abilities, even when they do bizarre things like put down
>having a physics degree?
>Like everybody has one?
Not everyone has a B.Sc. in physics. That is true. Some have a PH.D. in
Physics, or in some mathematical discipline. Some have a B.Sc. in
Computer Science, or a Masters or a PH.D.
I fail to see why you think that having a B.Sc. in Physics makes you
special.
Your proven ability as a crank makes you special James.
Your inability to make a discovery in the field of mathematics just
shows that you don't have the abilities in math that you think you
have(wish you had).
kobu...@hotmail.com
jshsu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Oh, like just anybody gets a physics degree?
>
> Ok James, explain why it is so hard to get a degree in physics. I took
> 3 semesters of physics in college on my way to a degree in Comp. Sci. I
> thought they were some of my easier classes.
>
Why don't you two start a correspondence via email?
fishfry
jst...@msn.com wrote:
1) Define a ring.
2) Define an ideal in a ring.
3) Prove that a ring with unit modulo an ideal is a field if and only if
the ideal is maximal.
For someone who claims to have disproven Galois theory, those should be
child's play.
jst...@msn.com
The problem I face is that posters get away with lying.
Later I read replies from people who clearly believe posters who lie
about the stupidest things.
Their problem is that the real story isn't convenient to them, so since
I have a degree in physics, now a physics degree is supposedly easy.
It's stupid. But it works.
I know it works as I'm sitting here dealing with the consequences,
reading the posts and replies on the web where people repeat the
dumbest things that come off the sci.math newsgroup because they
believe you people.
What's bizarre about the stupidity is that it works!
Year after year I read replies from people who are clearly convinced,
clearly think that I don't prove things, and clearly don't think I have
mathematical results, when the facts are the opposite.
So I'm stating things a little harder this time, and seeing if any of
you give a damn about the truth, but I suspect the answer will still be
the same as it has been for years.
You people don't care about facts.
James Harris
jst...@msn.com
Why? I can define a ring. It's not hard. I've shot down ideal
theory. And don't give a damn about the details of flawed ideas.
So what?
Is your education really that bad?
What makes you think my ability to define this or that according to
what you think is correct (and you'd probably reference some text
mindlessly to check any answers) is relevant to the issue of whether or
not you know what a partial difference equation is?
Any damn fool can ask me questions seeing if I'll dance. I don't care
to dance.
Here's an example of my work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
Can you dance? Who was Chebyshev? What did Euler himself do with his
zeta function that is relevant to prime counting? What is analytic
continuation?
Anybody with the arrogance to reply to me with your tone and lack of
respect should find those questions child's play.
James Harris
mensa...@aol.com
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> fishfry wrote:
> > In article <1145124717....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > jst...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > > Can the continual arguments over trivial mathematics have a lot to do
> > > with bad mathematical educations where many of you don't know what a
> > > sieve is, or what a partial difference equation is, or properly
> > > understand the concept of proof?
> > >
> > > Is it really that simple?
> > >
> > > Could I simply be arguing with a badly educated crowd of people?
> > >
> > > That could explain a lot.
> > >
> >
> > 1) Define a ring.
> >
> > 2) Define an ideal in a ring.
> >
> > 3) Prove that a ring with unit modulo an ideal is a field if and only if
> > the ideal is maximal.
> >
> > For someone who claims to have disproven Galois theory, those should be
> > child's play.
>
> Why? I can define a ring. It's not hard. I've shot down ideal
> theory. And don't give a damn about the details of flawed ideas.
Won't means can't.
>
> So what?
>
> Is your education really that bad?
>
> What makes you think my ability to define this or that according to
> what you think is correct (and you'd probably reference some text
> mindlessly to check any answers) is relevant to the issue of whether or
> not you know what a partial difference equation is?
>
> Any damn fool can ask me questions seeing if I'll dance. I don't care
> to dance.
What about rap? Can you do rap?
>
> Here's an example of my work:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
>
> Can you dance? Who was Chebyshev? What did Euler himself do with his
> zeta function that is relevant to prime counting? What is analytic
> continuation?
>
> Anybody with the arrogance to reply to me with your tone and lack of
> respect should find those questions child's play.
So, do you prefer crunchy or smooth peanut butter?
>
>
> James Harris
fishfry
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> Who was Chebyshev?
Lead juggler in the Tsar's circus.
> What did Euler himself do with his
> zeta function that is relevant to prime counting?
Used to play for the old Houston Eulers.
> What is analytic
> continuation?
>
Related to anal continuation of a pointless thread.
Go learn some math.
willo_...@hotmail.com
jst...@msn.com wrote:
>
> I have a degree in physics. I demonstrate my mathematical knowledge
> with my discoveries themselves.
>
James makes me giggle.
Rupert
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> jshs...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > A lack of education does help alot with an explanation.
> >
>
> Sadly, it does. And what you say next shows how people like you dodge
> the real issues.
>
> > Except it is your lack of education James. What was your GPA in college
> > James? What was your class rank. You keep talking about your Physics
> > degree, but you can get one of those with a 2.0 GPA.
> >
>
> Oh, like just anybody gets a physics degree?
>
> Now even a physics degree is just a commonality as you dodge the
> pointed questions about the knowledge of the group.
>
> Do you know the difference between a sieve equation and a difference
> equation?
>
I must admit I don't know what a sieve equation is, and I've almost
completed a PhD in maths.
Kono imo!
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1145134762.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> kobu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> jshsu...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > >Oh, like just anybody gets a physics degree?
>> >
>> > Ok James, explain why it is so hard to get a degree in physics. I took
>> > 3 semesters of physics in college on my way to a degree in Comp. Sci. I
>> > thought they were some of my easier classes.
>> >
>>
>> Why don't you two start a correspondence via email?
>
> The problem I face is that posters get away with lying.
>
> Later I read replies from people who clearly believe posters who lie
> about the stupidest things.
>
> Their problem is that the real story isn't convenient to them, so since
> I have a degree in physics, now a physics degree is supposedly easy.
I searched Vanderbilt University and no one named James S Harris ever got a
degree in Physics there.
So, Why do you Lie to us, James Harris ?
Kono imo!
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1145135000.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> fishfry wrote:
>> In article <1145124717....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> jst...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>> > Can the continual arguments over trivial mathematics have a lot to do
>> > with bad mathematical educations where many of you don't know what a
>> > sieve is, or what a partial difference equation is, or properly
>> > understand the concept of proof?
>> >
>> > Is it really that simple?
>> >
>> > Could I simply be arguing with a badly educated crowd of people?
>> >
>> > That could explain a lot.
>> >
>>
>> 1) Define a ring.
>>
>> 2) Define an ideal in a ring.
>>
>> 3) Prove that a ring with unit modulo an ideal is a field if and only if
>> the ideal is maximal.
>>
>> For someone who claims to have disproven Galois theory, those should be
>> child's play.
>
> Why? I can define a ring. It's not hard.
So do it, or you prove to everybody you are a lying troll.
> I've shot down ideal
> theory. And don't give a damn about the details of flawed ideas.
you damn your own work when posting them. Figures, troll.
>
> So what?
>
> Is your education really that bad?
You suffer from a weak mind, just do not have the horsepower to get the job
done.
Don't blame anybody here, you just have that type of mind that is weak.
You were born with it, or not trained well in mathamatics, or were hit in
the head in highschool, or were abused by drugs and alchol too, It is not
your fault your weak mind, cannot solved problems.
> What makes you think my ability to define this or that according to
> what you think is correct (and you'd probably reference some text
> mindlessly to check any answers) is relevant to the issue of whether or
> not you know what a partial difference equation is?
a pde ? what order ? or is this a red herring to get of the end of the
lance, sucker ?
>
> Any damn fool can ask me questions seeing if I'll dance. I don't care
> to dance.
you do the dance with a lame show and tell "mulltiply through by 7" Smoke
and mirrors, snake oil,
you have nothing, cant even look up HOW TO DO A MATH PROOF in a stinking
book, TROLL
Colleyville Alan
news:1145151933.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> jst...@msn.com wrote:
>> jshs...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > A lack of education does help alot with an explanation.
>>
>> Sadly, it does. And what you say next shows how people like you dodge
>> the real issues.
>>
>> > Except it is your lack of education James. What was your GPA in college
>> > James? What was your class rank. You keep talking about your Physics
>> > degree, but you can get one of those with a 2.0 GPA.
>>
>> Oh, like just anybody gets a physics degree?
>>
>> Now even a physics degree is just a commonality as you dodge the
>> pointed questions about the knowledge of the group.
>>
>> Do you know the difference between a sieve equation and a difference
>> equation?
>>
>
> I must admit I don't know what a sieve equation is, and I've almost
> completed a PhD in maths.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sieve.html
José Carlos Santos
>>> Do you know the difference between a sieve equation and a difference
>>> equation?
>>>
>> I must admit I don't know what a sieve equation is, and I've almost
>> completed a PhD in maths.
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sieve.html
This page doesn't have the expression "sieve equation". Actually, the
word "equation" doesn't occur there.
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos
David Moran
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1145124717....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
No, we're just dealing an ineducable crank. It's apparent to me you don't
care about math. If you did, you'd learn something about it.
Dave
David C. Ullrich
Yup, that's the most likely explanation. Those of us
with PhD's in math who have been professors for decades,
it must be that our math education was much worse than
yours.
Got it.
Some day you'll learn which approaches don't work.
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
David C. Ullrich
>[...]
>
>The problem I face is that posters get away with lying.
You're confusing me again. Just the other day you _said_
that you _intended_ to lie in your posts! Message
<1145073863.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
is gone from google but it's still out there in lots of
places.
>[...]
>
>So I'm stating things a little harder this time, and seeing if any of
>you give a damn about the truth, but I suspect the answer will still be
>the same as it has been for years.
>
>You people don't care about facts.
>
>
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
Richard Henry
"Colleyville Alan" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:_rCdnTwQAZ-IStzZ...@comcast.com...
That link describes an algorithm ("process"), not an equation.
porky_...@my-deja.com
>with my discoveries themselves.
Your discoveries are certainly the most telling demonstration of your
level of mathematical knowledge. Hard to argue here.
jst...@msn.com
Common usage. Sieves are often called equations or formulas though
they are methods.
José Carlos Santos
>> That link describes an algorithm ("process"), not an equation.
>
> Common usage. Sieves are often called equations or formulas though
> they are methods.
>
> See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SieveFormula.html
Give me *one* example of someone (besides you, of course) who uses the
expression "partial sieve equation".
Colleyville Alan
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:OLu0g.12929$zf6.4703@fed1read08...
True, but that is what I thought the learned Mr. Harris meant and his
follow-up post confirms my suspicion. That he is mistaken is not
surprising.
W. Dale Hall
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> fishfry wrote:
>
>> In article <1145124717....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> jst...@msn.com wrote:
... stuff deleted ...
>>>
>>> Could I simply be arguing with a badly educated crowd of people?
>>>
>>> That could explain a lot.
>>>
>>
>> 1) Define a ring.
>>
>> 2) Define an ideal in a ring.
>>
>> 3) Prove that a ring with unit modulo an ideal is a field if and
>> only if the ideal is maximal.
>>
>> For someone who claims to have disproven Galois theory, those
>> should be child's play.
>
>
> Why? I can define a ring. It's not hard. I've shot down ideal
> theory. And don't give a damn about the details of flawed ideas.
>
Your definition of a ring is world-famous:
FlatRings : A ring, R, is a set of numbers w/2
operations, addition and subtraction
which exhibit the following properties:
1. closure under addtion - for a and b
in R a+b is in R 2. associative addition
3. commutative addition 4. each elt has
an additive identity
While perfectly serviceable as a joke, it is positively laughable
as a description of rings, let alone as a definition. Shall I list
the groaners?
1. A ring is a set of numbers.
2. Two operations, addition and subtraction.
3. Each element has an additive identity.
And with this pea-shooter, you claim to have "shot down" ideal
theory? What you have here doesn't suffice to *define* what an
ideal is! *Of course* you don't give a damn about what you refer
to as "the details of flawed ideas", since you can't muster the
intelligence to understand what the ideas really are!
> So what?
>
The questions that fishfry go right to the point of how
ludicrous your claims are. What's more to the point is your
continuing refusal to take even the slightest steps to show
that you aren't an absolute incompetent in the very area you
have made claims to have expertise in. Here's your claim:
You people don't realize I'm one of the top
number theorists in the world. (Aug 27 2002)
Of course, later you lied and claimed you had never said any
such thing:
Now I've never claimed to be a skilled mathematician.
So I'm NOT skilled as an expert in mathematics and
have never claimed otherwise. (Aug 14 2004)
> Is your education really that bad?
>
How about yours?
> What makes you think my ability to define this or that according to
> what you think is correct (and you'd probably reference some text
> mindlessly to check any answers) is relevant to the issue of whether
> or not you know what a partial difference equation is?
>
Whether fishfry would need to use a text and "mindlessly .. check"
any answers is again *beside* the point. What was that point? Here:
I'll spell it out: the consensus of opinion on sci.math is that you
are full of bluster and bile and baloney, your notions of mathematics
didn't mature past your adolescence (and they weren't particularly
sophisticated then, as compared to those of a normal twelve year-old),
and in particular, it is silly to use the term "competent" in any
sentence connecting you to mathematics. Bluntly: you don't know any
bit of ring theory, couldn't prove your way out of a wet paper
bag, and your alleged refutations of any result of standard algebra
are totally without merit.
Any words you say to the contrary will no doubt fall on deaf ears,
blank monitors, and /dev/null, unless and until you provide at least
one tiny bit of evidence such as fishfry is requesting.
You may cringe at the notion of providing evidence of competence
(seeing as how you've gotten away for upwards of 10 years without
having done as much in all your articles), but look at it this way:
he (she?) is simply saying,
"Give me just *one* reason not to
ignore every single thing you say."
It's your golden opportunity! Win influence! Be a mensch!
> Any damn fool can ask me questions seeing if I'll dance. I don't
> care to dance.
>
> Here's an example of my work:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
>
Yes, but so is your above definition of ring an example.
Wouldn't you have to agree?
>
> Can you dance? Who was Chebyshev? What did Euler himself do with
> his zeta function that is relevant to prime counting? What is
> analytic continuation?
>
I see. We have two history questions, that you happen to have boned
up on in your little book report to Wikipedia, and one term that has
you baffled, because you stumbled across it in trying to sound
knowledgeable about the Riemann hypothesis. Anyone can look up
basic facts; that's not a test of knowledge, or skill.
I strongly suspect that you don't really know what analytic
continuation is.
Here's a little question:
Since every analytic function can be expressed locally as
a convergent power series, why is analytic continuation ever
necessary?
Hint: the function f(z) = 1/(z^2 + 1) is analytic wherever it's
defined, and one has the power series expansion
1/(z^2 + 1) = 1 - z^2 + z^4 - z^6 + ... + (-1)^k z^(2k) + ...
why doesn't this power series express the function for all z?
... or *does it*?
Here's a little power series problem:
Give a power series for the above function f(z) that works over
a strictly larger domain than the above power series.
Here's an analytic continuation question:
The power series
sum(a_n (z-1)^n, n = 0, 1, ..., infinity)
with these coefficients:
a_0 = 1
a_1 = 1/2
a_2 = -1/8
a_3 = 1/16
a_4 = -5/128
...
for n > 0:
a_n = (-1)^(n-1) (2n - 2)!/(2^(2n-1) (n-1)! n!)
defines an analytic function s(z) within its region of
convergence, the disc |z - 1| < 1.
The function is not especially complex (haha).
Perform successive analytic continuations to extend the domain
of s to discs tracing a path counterclockwise around the
origin z=0.
When this sequence of discs reaches z=1 again, what is the
value obtained by the extended function S(z)?
If you don't like that (after all, it's the Taylor's series for
the function z^(1/2), expanded about z = 1), try this simpler one:
The power series
sum(1/n (1-z)^n, n = 1, ..., infinity)
defines a function L(z) on its region of convergence (again
that region is |z - 1| < 1).
Do the same analytic continuation for this function L(z) as
described for the function s(z) (i.e., continue successively on
discs in a path that passes around the origin z=0, in the counter-
clockwise direction). What value will be obtained for the continued
function when you finally loop back around to z = 1? Would there
be any difference if you performed the analytic continuation in
a sequence of discs encircling the origin in a clockwise direction,
rather than counterclockwise?
> Anybody with the arrogance to reply to me with your tone and lack of
> respect should find those questions child's play.
>
Imagine that, JSH using the terms "arrogance", "tone", "lack of respect"
as though he knew what they meant!
Let's see whether you have any of that mathematical mojo. The whole
world is yawning.
>
> James Harris
>
Dale.