JSH: Ever talk to a mathematician?
jst...@msn.com
conversation with a mathematician at a university.
I have had a few such conversations, like maybe half a dozen or so over
the years.
If you have not, then to you mathematicians may just be something out
of a novel, or a movie, but I assure you they are just people.
And they are mostly safe from consequences in a very protected world.
This story would not have played out like it has if they were not so
safe.
My research is so obviously important that the supporting evidence is
overwhelming, but we all here know the rules, and the rules say that
what the mathematicians at universities say is important about
mathematics is what the world says is important.
So they know they can sit quietly, and they know the impact of sitting
quietly.
I've TALKED to some of these people in person. They are protected in a
way that most of you aren't.
Remember the story with Wiles? How he worked for over seven years with
no one knowing exactly what he was doing? He spent a lot of that time
at home with his family.
Can you do the same? Can you comprehend that world?
No one knows what you're really doing, but you have a good salary,
respect and admiration, to go off and do what you want for over seven
years.
To them this whole thing may be kind of a puzzle, and it might not feel
real to them that by leaving me out here arguing with fringe people
they are doing a bad thing.
In their world, you protect YOUR research. Academics work to further
their OWN CAREERS.
Tellingly a leading math professor at my own alma mater Vanderbilt
University told me when I sat down to explain my work on factoring
polynomials into non-polynomial factors--worked it all out on the
chalkboard in a discussion that covered all the major issues over a
couple of hours--that I lacked "polish".
Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell
"polish" matters when the result is so dramatic, and you know, sitting
here now I think that professor was just doing things by the rules of
his society. My polish means so much in an academic world where polish
is part of the rules, like the social rules that govern human behavior
in many other areas.
But here and now with my research those rules are shown to be
out-dated, but that society is safe. Those mathematicians do not have
to acknowledge my research no matter how important it is easily shown
to be because world society does not make them, and by the rules they
know, there are no consequences.
Ever talk to a mathematician? Doing so might open your eyes to how
their world works, so that you understand that this drama is not about
arguments on Usenet, as Usenet has no real impact on their world.
It's about the society of mathematicians in universities around the
world, and the rules they play by.
James Harris
mensa...@aol.com
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> I wonder how many of you actually have sat down and had any kind of
> conversation with a mathematician at a university.
>
> I have had a few such conversations, like maybe half a dozen or so over
> the years.
>
> If you have not, then to you mathematicians may just be something out
> of a novel, or a movie, but I assure you they are just people.
Duh.
>
> And they are mostly safe from consequences in a very protected world.
>
> This story would not have played out like it has if they were not so
> safe.
Really?
>
> My research is so obviously important
Ha.
> that the supporting evidence is overwhelming,
Pull the other one.
> but we all here know the rules, and the rules say that
> what the mathematicians at universities say is important about
> mathematics is what the world says is important.
>
> So they know they can sit quietly, and they know the impact of sitting
> quietly.
>
> I've TALKED to some of these people in person. They are protected in a
> way that most of you aren't.
>
> Remember the story with Wiles? How he worked for over seven years with
> no one knowing exactly what he was doing? He spent a lot of that time
> at home with his family.
>
> Can you do the same?
Of course not, I've got a real job.
> Can you comprehend that world?
Speaking of jobs, what exactly do _you_ do?
Do you just sit around at home posting to Usenet?
>
> No one knows what you're really doing, but you have a good salary,
> respect and admiration, to go off and do what you want for over seven
> years.
Jealous?
>
> To them this whole thing may be kind of a puzzle, and it might not feel
> real to them that by leaving me out here arguing with fringe people
> they are doing a bad thing.
>
> In their world, you protect YOUR research. Academics work to further
> their OWN CAREERS.
Duh.
>
> Tellingly a leading math professor at my own alma mater Vanderbilt
> University told me when I sat down to explain my work on factoring
> polynomials into non-polynomial factors--worked it all out on the
> chalkboard in a discussion that covered all the major issues over a
> couple of hours--that I lacked "polish".
I lack an "italian beef".
>
> Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell
> "polish" matters when the result is so dramatic,
If you had gone on to get a PhD, maybe you would have
learned why "polish" matters. And you would have learned
how to brush off annoying cranks.
> and you know, sitting
> here now I think that professor was just doing things by the rules of
> his society.
No, he was just politely asking you to get the fuck
out of his office.
> My polish means so much in an academic world where polish
> is part of the rules, like the social rules that govern human behavior
> in many other areas.
>
> But here and now with my research those rules are shown to be
> out-dated, but that society is safe. Those mathematicians do not have
> to acknowledge my research no matter how important it is easily shown
> to be because world society does not make them, and by the rules they
> know, there are no consequences.
>
> Ever talk to a mathematician? Doing so might open your eyes to how
> their world works, so that you understand that this drama is not about
> arguments on Usenet, as Usenet has no real impact on their world.
>
> It's about the society of mathematicians in universities around the
> world, and the rules they play by.
Are you crying?
>
>
> James Harris
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
> I wonder how many of you actually have sat down and had any kind of
> conversation with a mathematician at a university.
Most of us, I expect.
> My research is so obviously important that the supporting evidence is
> overwhelming,
No it isn't.
> but we all here know the rules, and the rules say that
> what the mathematicians at universities say is important about
> mathematics is what the world says is important.
Yes, much like every other academic discipline[1]. If the world wants
to know about mathematics, they ask people who have proven their
ability at the subject, and spent years of their lives studying that
subject. As well they should.
[1] Except biology. Elements of your government are quite happy to let
school syllabi in that subject be dictated by people who don't know a
damn thing about it, much to the amusement of the rest of the Western
world. Perhaps you think that they should be taking a similar approach
to mathematics education? Maybe, in the interest of balance, they
should give equal time in lessons to the view that 2+2=5, or that an
integer is irrational?
> Remember the story with Wiles? How he worked for over seven years with
> no one knowing exactly what he was doing? He spent a lot of that time
> at home with his family.
And proved Fermat's Last Theorem. The system works!
> Can you do the same?
Sadly not. But then I'm not as clever as Wiles, and therefore it's a
good job that I can't.
> In their world, you protect YOUR research.
Then why don't mathematicians ignore other mathematicians' work, the
same way they ignore yours? Mathematicians read other people's work all
the time, so that they may build on that work. They don't read yours
because it's worthless.
> Academics work to further their OWN CAREERS.
Academics work because they love their subject. I have two first class
degrees from Oxbridge. How hard do you think it would be for me to
become a chartered accountant or investment banker with those
qualifications, and start earning many times what I get as a PhD
student?
> Tellingly a leading math professor at my own alma mater Vanderbilt
> University told me when I sat down to explain my work on factoring
> polynomials into non-polynomial factors--worked it all out on the
> chalkboard in a discussion that covered all the major issues over a
> couple of hours--that I lacked "polish".
You really should learn to recognise a polite brush-off when you see
one.
> Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell
> "polish" matters when the result is so dramatic,
Because this is maths, not physics. Proofs must be rigorous, or they
are not proofs. Your work is characterised by missing definitions,
missing logic and fuzzy thinking. It says nothing; the results are not
"dramatic", they usually don't exist.
> and you know, sitting
> here now I think that professor was just doing things by the rules of
> his society. My polish means so much in an academic world where polish
> is part of the rules, like the social rules that govern human behavior
> in many other areas.
If you were to go to the trouble of actually learning the rules that
mathematicians follow, you would see why they are necessary. For
example, they prevent mathematicians from spending their time believing
stupid shit like how all rings must be closed under infinite convergent
sums, or arguing about the existence of "coverage problems" without
being able to say what a coverage problem actually is.
> But here and now with my research those rules are shown to be
> out-dated,
Right. Were it not for those rules, we'd all start believing that p mod
3 generates a random sequence. What a great step forward that would be
for academia.
> Ever talk to a mathematician?
Yes, many times. I have consistently found them to be friendly and
helpful. More importantly though, I have consistently found that they
know more about mathematics than I do, and am therefore grateful that
they are willing to spend time sharing their expertise with me.
-Rotwang
lits...@hotmail.com
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell
> "polish" matters when the result is so dramatic, and you know, sitting
> here now I think that professor was just doing things by the rules of
> his society. My polish means so much in an academic world where polish
> is part of the rules, like the social rules that govern human behavior
> in many other areas.
Polish? Are you playing the race card?
Dr Mackeroy
<lits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164238236.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
JSH does not have a degree, he only took some courses, he admitted that
about 6 months ago.
He does hate Polish people by his racist statement, and any other race that
is good at math.
He is also is not black, like he has insinuated, and "he" is frustrated
librarian girly, knows nothing about physics either.
Proginoskes
Dr Mackeroy wrote:
> <lits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164238236.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jst...@msn.com wrote:
> >> Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell
> >> "polish" matters when the result is so dramatic, and you know, sitting
> >> here now I think that professor was just doing things by the rules of
> >> his society. My polish means so much in an academic world where polish
> >> is part of the rules, like the social rules that govern human behavior
> >> in many other areas.
> >
> > Polish? Are you playing the race card?
> >
>
> JSH does not have a degree, he only took some courses, he admitted that
> about 6 months ago.
> He does hate Polish people by his racist statement, and any other race that
> is good at math.
Oh, really? Well, my grandfather was Polish, and he helped a lot of the
Polish people from concentration camps find work in Nebraska (his part
of the country), and that certainly beats anything JSH has done.
> He is also is not black, like he has insinuated, and "he" is frustrated
> librarian girly, knows nothing about physics either.
I thought he was a frustrated English teacher?
Someone needs to put together all this stuff on a webpage, so I can see
how things are going without weeding through all these threads.
--- Christopher Heckman
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Proginoskes" <CCHe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr Mackeroy wrote:
> > <lits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164238236.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > jst...@msn.com wrote:
> > >> Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell
> > >> "polish" matters when the result is so dramatic, and you know, sitting
> > >> here now I think that professor was just doing things by the rules of
> > >> his society. My polish means so much in an academic world where polish
> > >> is part of the rules, like the social rules that govern human behavior
> > >> in many other areas.
> > >
> > > Polish? Are you playing the race card?
> > >
> >
> > JSH does not have a degree, he only took some courses, he admitted that
> > about 6 months ago.
> > He does hate Polish people by his racist statement, and any other race that
> > is good at math.
>
> Oh, really? Well, my grandfather was Polish, and he helped a lot of the
> Polish people from concentration camps find work in Nebraska (his part
> of the country), and that certainly beats anything JSH has done.
in logic there was a flowerinig in germany and poland 1920 through 1930
in a book there are footnotes
died on the eastern front
disappeared during the seige of warsaw
died in a concentration camp
died in an air riad
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo
Jeremy Watts
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1164228647.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> I wonder how many of you actually have sat down and had any kind of
> conversation with a mathematician at a university.
if you have studied maths at university level that would be kinda
unavoidable...
David Ames
Might be Polish notation ... you know, like parsing the arguments and
operands in a statement.
(This statement, obviously, is for his benefit, not yours.)
David Ames
jst...@msn.com
Jeremy Watts wrote:
> <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1164228647.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > I wonder how many of you actually have sat down and had any kind of
> > conversation with a mathematician at a university.
>
> if you have studied maths at university level that would be kinda
> unavoidable...
>
And those of you invested in the current system are the least
reasonable when it comes to the evidence against your heroes--math
professors.
But other readers need to understand you come from a world that is
different from what they may realize where you feel safe to do what you
want, and mathematicians feel no fear from consequences if they avoid
results that don't help their own academic careers.
The point of this thread goes to those who naively think mathematicians
feel a pressure to report on any major findings in their field, when in
reality, mathematicians feel a need to help their own career or that of
their own students, and without fear they can sit by and let research
that doesn't make them feel good go by, without worrying about
consequences.
Otherwise they're left puzzling how they themselves can easily verify
many of my claims about my research, like how my prime counting
function is the first multi-variable one, and how for the first time
you have a partial difference equation leading to a partial
differential equation with prime counting--with implications for the
Riemann Hypothesis--and mainstream mathematicians do nothing, leaving
me with arguments with fringe people on Usenet.
Without explanation they may think there is just some information they
don't have that mathematicians do.
My answer to them is, yes, the hidden information is that these people
feel no fear of consequences, and for years now they have been right.
They live in a protected and insulated world, and feel safe making
decisions that people who do not live in that world can't understand as
they think the mathematicians should be concerned about getting caught
not doing their jobs.
But you see, they are not afraid as there is no sense that there is any
way they can be held accountable.
They have no fear of consequences.
James Harris
Dr Mackeroy
"David Ames" <world...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1164291722.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Reverse Polish was promoted by HP in the 1980s. It still continues in
FORTH, (ugh!)
Jeremy Watts
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1164304303....@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jeremy Watts wrote:
> > <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164228647.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > > I wonder how many of you actually have sat down and had any kind of
> > > conversation with a mathematician at a university.
> >
> > if you have studied maths at university level that would be kinda
> > unavoidable...
> >
>
> And those of you invested in the current system are the least
> reasonable when it comes to the evidence against your heroes--math
> professors.
>
> But other readers need to understand you come from a world that is
> different from what they may realize where you feel safe to do what you
> want, and mathematicians feel no fear from consequences if they avoid
> results that don't help their own academic careers.
>
> The point of this thread goes to those who naively think mathematicians
> feel a pressure to report on any major findings in their field, when in
> reality, mathematicians feel a need to help their own career or that of
> their own students, and without fear they can sit by and let research
> that doesn't make them feel good go by, without worrying about
> consequences.
wow really have it in for the education system eh? did you flunk out of
high scgool or something? :)
>
> Otherwise they're left puzzling how they themselves can easily verify
> many of my claims about my research, like how my prime counting
> function is the first multi-variable one, and how for the first time
> you have a partial difference equation leading to a partial
> differential equation with prime counting--with implications for the
> Riemann Hypothesis--and mainstream mathematicians do nothing, leaving
> me with arguments with fringe people on Usenet.
have you heard of peer review? if you have any new ideas you subject them
to scrutiny. if they have validity they are published and then you dont
need to argue the toss with fellow crackpots on usenet...
jst...@msn.com
Been there done that, as I had a paper published in a peer reviewed
mathematical journal.
See: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/
and
http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html
Members of the sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against the
paper when they heard it had been published. The journal editors caved
and yanked my paper, putting in that note you can see at the second
link.
That journal managed one more edition before quietly shutting down.
The original paper is at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/2.pdf
and is important because the methods shown introduce important new
techniques for analysis in number theory, which also show that
unfortunately error crept into the modern math field over a hundred
years ago--a charge Usenet members have fought to discredit, through
any means possible, and against the mathematical proof of it.
So you see, this situation is extremely complicated.
Hope now sits with a new paper uniting the discrete count of the prime
distribution to a continuous function, through a partial differential
equation, which I have submitted to Princeton for review for
publication in the Annals of Mathematics.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/MultiPrime.pdf
On Usenet, sci.math posters have already threatened an email assault
against this paper as well, as they also disparage the research.
The real world is complicated and in it, even publication can be
useless against people with a will to try and destroy knowledge that
threatens them.
This situation could not exist without the complicity of math
professors at universities around the world as world society looks to
them to do their jobs in protecting and reporting on original and
important research.
Yet even the dissolution of a math journal has not been enough in terms
of the drama wrapping itself around this incredibly important
mathematics, as math professors clearly do not feel fear and are not
afraid yet that they can be held accountable.
James Harris
Tim Peters
...
> Been there done that, as I had a paper published in a peer reviewed
> mathematical journal.
>
> See: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/
>
> and
>
> http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html
>
> Members of the sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against the
> paper when they heard it had been published.
For the benefit of readers who may be new to this rant (ah, blessed
innocence), sci.math contributor W. Dale Hall sent the editors a
counterexample to the paper's stated conclusion. God only knows which msgs
James reads, but similar counterexamples had been posted to sci.math at
least a year earlier.
> The journal editors caved and yanked my paper, putting in that note
> you can see at the second link.
They certainly should not have left the impression that you withdrew it.
Would you really be happier if they had said instead "this paper was removed
by the editors after receipt of a counterexample"? One way or another,
after learning that the paper was wrong, they couldn't leave it appearing
that SWJPAM endorsed it. But too little too late, as it turned out:
> That journal managed one more edition before quietly shutting down.
Do you know the /standard/ meaning of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? Not to
deny that its mistakes in handling your paper may well have been "the last
straw" for that journal.
> ...
jst...@msn.com
> [added "JSH:" to subject]
>
> ...
>
> [jst...@msn.com]
> > Been there done that, as I had a paper published in a peer reviewed
> > mathematical journal.
> >
> > See: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html
> >
> > Members of the sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against the
> > paper when they heard it had been published.
>
> For the benefit of readers who may be new to this rant (ah, blessed
> innocence), sci.math contributor W. Dale Hall sent the editors a
> counterexample to the paper's stated conclusion. God only knows which msgs
> James reads, but similar counterexamples had been posted to sci.math at
> least a year earlier.
Of course sci.math'ers will defend themselves, but the poster is just
lying at this point, as W. Dale Hall sent an attack based on a very
narrow interpretation that if you declare the ring to be the ring of
algebraic integers then every result MUST be true in that ring.
But the point of the paper is that through valid algebraic steps
starting in the ring of algebraic integers you find the conclusion
which is in the paper, while outside methods--that is if you now work
to test that conclusion using a new argument--show that you are NOT in
the ring of algebraic integers, which is why the result then challenges
old views in mathematics.
In response to the charge of the sci.math'ers in my re-write of the
paper I addressed these issues in a different way:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/ExtFactoring.pdf
Now if the sci.math'ers were honest researchers or honestly concerned
with the validity of the mathematics, then the answer to their charge
would have been acknowledged, and it would have been clear at that
point that they were wrong in sabotaging publication of my paper, but
instead they just lie.
I mean, they just actually lie versus acknowledging that they do not
have a counterexample, and in fact their claims of counterexample rest
on the very reason the paper is so important!!!
Again, this drama could not continue without the complicity of math
professors at universities around the world, who are not protecting
the discipline and not doing their jobs of reporting important
mathematical research.
Also note the role that Usenet has played in censoring important
research, where a small electronic math journal was killed by
sci.math'ers misleading the editors, and members of that same newsgroup
are now threatening to mount yet another email assault against my
research linking the prime distribution to continuous functions.
While one of them came here to lie to you about the details of the
previous drama with SWJPAM.
THEY could not get away with such blatantly dishonest behavior hostile
to the truth if mathematicians at universities lifted a finger to stop
this.
James Harris
Tim Peters
>>> Been there done that, as I had a paper published in a peer reviewed
>>> mathematical journal.
>>>
>>> See: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html
>>>
>>> Members of the sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against
>>> the paper when they heard it had been published.
[Tim Peters]
>> For the benefit of readers who may be new to this rant (ah, blessed
>> innocence), sci.math contributor W. Dale Hall sent the editors a
>> counterexample to the paper's stated conclusion. God only knows
>> which msgs James reads, but similar counterexamples had been posted
>> to sci.math at least a year earlier.
> Of course sci.math'ers will defend themselves,
You might try remembering that /before/ trying to sell a gross distortion of
history.
> but the poster is just lying at this point,
Nope, not even the tiniest of fibs. And, for bonus points, I'm not
obviously trying to sell a load of BS.
> as W. Dale Hall sent an attack
Well, unlike you, I'm happy to let readers judge for themselves. Here's the
Message ID of Dale's first post to sci.math reproducing the email he sent to
SWJPAM (e.g., stick this in the "message ID" box of the Google Groups
"Advanced Search" page, then click "Lookup Message"):
"Attack"? Please, James -- nobody is stupid enough to fall for that
distortion, /unless/ they're gullible enough to swallow it without bothering
to check for themselves. He didn't even /suggest/ the editors yank your
paper:
My sole intent in this note is one of information. I have no
expectations one way or the other regarding how you treat this
information, but you are certainly welcome to determine its
correctness.
They did check. Oops.
> based on a very narrow interpretation that if you declare the ring
> to be the ring of algebraic integers then every result MUST be true
> in that ring.
>
> But the point of the paper is that through valid algebraic steps
> starting in the ring of algebraic integers you find the conclusion
> which is in the paper, while outside methods--that is if you now work
> to test that conclusion using a new argument--show that you are NOT in
> the ring of algebraic integers, which is why the result then
> challenges old views in mathematics.
Uh huh. The ring of algebraic integers is the /only/ ring you ever
mentioned in that paper, and it's bananas to try to sell the idea that you
actually had some other ring in mind, but somehow forgot to mention that.
BTW, as has been explained to you dozens of times since, your argument is
wrong regardless; or, more accurately, is so deeply confused it's more in
the "not even wrong" category.
And you forgot to mention that the Annals rejected your later, "improved"
attempt to make the same kind of argument. No sci.math scapegoats for that
one, so you'd rather people didn't know of it?
Oops. Guess I just "lied" again.
> ... [the usual] ...
Proginoskes
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
> > [added "JSH:" to subject]
> >
> > ...
> >
> > [jst...@msn.com]
> > > Been there done that, as I had a paper published in a peer reviewed
> > > mathematical journal.
> > >
> > > See: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html
> > >
> > > Members of the sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against the
> > > paper when they heard it had been published.
> >
> > For the benefit of readers who may be new to this rant (ah, blessed
> > innocence), sci.math contributor W. Dale Hall sent the editors a
> > counterexample to the paper's stated conclusion. God only knows which msgs
> > James reads, but similar counterexamples had been posted to sci.math at
> > least a year earlier.
>
And of course, JSH will declare there's a conspiracy. He'll then make
up a term like "object ring" and claim that the result only works
there, but he will never state exactly what that ring _is_. He'll make
vague threats like "the mob of angry people will burn down every
university in the world, and kill all of you", etc. Anyone who is
interested can search a Usenet archive like Google Groups.
One more thing: JSH deletes his posts, so all you see are his
responses. Further "evidence" of the conspiracy, of course.
--- Christopher Heckman
jpaw...@gmail.com
Dr Mackeroy wrote:
> <lits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164238236.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jst...@msn.com wrote:
> >> Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell
> >> "polish" matters when the result is so dramatic, and you know, sitting
> >> here now I think that professor was just doing things by the rules of
> >> his society. My polish means so much in an academic world where polish
> >> is part of the rules, like the social rules that govern human behavior
> >> in many other areas.
> >
> > Polish? Are you playing the race card?
> >
>
> JSH does not have a degree, he only took some courses, he admitted that
> about 6 months ago.
> He does hate Polish people by his racist statement, and any other race that
> is good at math.
I am going to contact his employers and get him fired. Then I'm going
to contact Princeton. Then I'm going to go to Kinkos, make a giant
banner that says "James Harris Hates Polish People" and glue it outside
of his apartment.
Haven't we Polish people suffered enough!?!!?
bill
Now I know why R(everse) P(olish) N(otation) is not used in all pocket
calculators. It suggests that Polish people are backwards!
Regards,
Bill J.
jasen
LOL!
With a little "p", "polish" is a word meaning a shiny surface,
(or related concepts)
Bye.
Jasen
Proginoskes
Yes, that was the joke.
BTW, this is the only word in the English language whose pronunciation
changes when you capitalize it.
--- Christopher Heckman
Gerard Schildberger
|> jasen wrote:
|>> jpawloski wrote:
|>> Dr Mackeroy wrote:
|>>> <litsohate wrote:
|>>>> jstevh wrote:
|>>>>> Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell
|>>>>> "polish" matters when the result is so dramatic, and you know, sitting
|>>>>> here now I think that professor was just doing things by the rules of
|>>>>> his society. My polish means so much in an academic world where polish
|>>>>> is part of the rules, like the social rules that govern human behavior
|>>>>> in many other areas.
|>>>> Polish? Are you playing the race card?
|>>> JSH does not have a degree, he only took some courses, he admitted that
|>>> about 6 months ago.
|>>> He does hate Polish people by his racist statement, and any other race that
|>>> is good at math.
|>> I am going to contact his employers and get him fired. Then I'm going
|>> to contact Princeton. Then I'm going to go to Kinkos, make a giant
|>> banner that says "James Harris Hates Polish People" and glue it outside
|>> of his apartment.
|>>
|>> Haven't we Polish people suffered enough!?!!?
|> LOL!
|>
|> With a little "p", "polish" is a word meaning a shiny surface,
|> (or related concepts)
| Yes, that was the joke.
|
| BTW, this is the only word in the English language whose pronunciation
| changes when you capitalize it.
How about "reading" & "Reading" ? ____________________Gerard S.
Proginoskes
Only in England.
--- Christopher Heckman
Gerard Schildberger
| Only in England.
--- and in America (whoever has played Monopoly:
"take a ride on the Reading Railroad".
And also residents of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and I'm
sure, other states as well. _______________________________Gerard S.
Proginoskes
I've always pronounced it the same as "reading".
> And also residents of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and I'm
> sure, other states as well.
Yes, but only YANKEES!
--- Christopher Heckman
Christopher J. Henrich
Schildberger <Gera...@rrt.net> wrote:
Alos "job" and "Job".
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
Proginoskes
If we're going to delve into mythology, we may as well use Cthulhu, the
only word that changes pronunciation when you look at it.
(Clearly I need to amend my statement, which had taken on urban legend
proportions. Alas, I don't remember what the original statement was;
outlawing proper names clearly doesn't work.)
--- Christopher Heckman
Pubkeybreaker
mensa...@aol.com wrote:
> jst...@msn.com wrote:
> > Tellingly a leading math professor at my own alma mater Vanderbilt
> > University
May I ask: In what year did you get your degree?
Pubkeybreaker
Tim Peters wrote:
> >
> > Members of the sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against the
> > paper when they heard it had been published.
>
> For the benefit of readers who may be new to this rant (ah, blessed
> innocence), sci.math contributor W. Dale Hall sent the editors a
> counterexample to the paper's stated conclusion. God only knows which msgs
> James reads, but similar counterexamples had been posted to sci.math at
> least a year earlier.
Indeed. Mr. Harris had been told by more than one source that his
paper
was incorrect *BEFORE* he submitted it. Yet he went ahead and
submitted
it anyway. His attempt to have it published constituted fraud.
jst...@msn.com
There was no major error in the paper, and readers who want a bigger
picture can check for themselves by looking it over as well as the
follow up paper where I directly addressed the area where there is
supposedly a counterexample:
Original published paper:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/2.pdf
Follow-up revision:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/ExtFactoring.pdf
What sci.math'ers did was commit fraud, which lead to the death of the
journal.
But that is a matter for another time when they may be held
accountable.
This story is not over by any means, and sci.math'ers who were part of
a deliberate conspiracy shouldn't get too complacent because a few
years have passed.
Read the papers and then come back to claims of counterexample and see
exactly how they mislead by taking the VERY point that makes the
original paper crucial to claim it is in error, where in the first
paper I didn't point things out in the same way, but I do so in the
revised paper--yet sci.math'ers keep lying about the details.
I hope to God that they are held accountable.
James Harris
mensa...@aol.com
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> Pubkeybreaker wrote:
> > Tim Peters wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Members of the sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against the
> > > > paper when they heard it had been published.
> > >
> > > For the benefit of readers who may be new to this rant (ah, blessed
> > > innocence), sci.math contributor W. Dale Hall sent the editors a
> > > counterexample to the paper's stated conclusion. God only knows which msgs
> > > James reads, but similar counterexamples had been posted to sci.math at
> > > least a year earlier.
> >
> > Indeed. Mr. Harris had been told by more than one source that his
> > paper
> > was incorrect *BEFORE* he submitted it. Yet he went ahead and
> > submitted
> > it anyway. His attempt to have it published constituted fraud.
>
> There was no major error in the paper,
Yeah, sure.
> and readers who want a bigger
> picture can check for themselves by looking it over as well as the
> follow up paper where I directly addressed the area where there is
> supposedly a counterexample:
>
> Original published paper:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/2.pdf
>
> Follow-up revision:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/ExtFactoring.pdf
>
> What sci.math'ers did was commit fraud,
Yeah, sure.
> which lead to the death of the
> journal.
>
> But that is a matter for another time when they may be held
> accountable.
Yeah, sure.
>
> This story is not over by any means,
Yeah, sure.
> and sci.math'ers who were part of
> a deliberate conspiracy shouldn't get too complacent because a few
> years have passed.
Ooo...scary!
>
> Read the papers and then come back to claims of counterexample and see
> exactly how they mislead by taking the VERY point that makes the
> original paper crucial to claim it is in error, where in the first
> paper I didn't point things out in the same way, but I do so in the
> revised paper--yet sci.math'ers keep lying about the details.
>
> I hope to God that they are held accountable.
Are you crying?
>
> James Harris
David C. Ullrich
>
>Pubkeybreaker wrote:
>> Tim Peters wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > Members of the sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against the
>> > > paper when they heard it had been published.
>> >
>> > For the benefit of readers who may be new to this rant (ah, blessed
>> > innocence), sci.math contributor W. Dale Hall sent the editors a
>> > counterexample to the paper's stated conclusion. God only knows which msgs
>> > James reads, but similar counterexamples had been posted to sci.math at
>> > least a year earlier.
>>
>> Indeed. Mr. Harris had been told by more than one source that his
>> paper
>> was incorrect *BEFORE* he submitted it. Yet he went ahead and
>> submitted
>> it anyway. His attempt to have it published constituted fraud.
>
>There was no major error in the paper, and readers who want a bigger
>picture can check for themselves by looking it over as well as the
>follow up paper where I directly addressed the area where there is
>supposedly a counterexample:
>
>Original published paper:
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/2.pdf
>
>Follow-up revision:
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/ExtFactoring.pdf
Very curious that you bothered with a revision, seeing that there was
no major error in the published version.
Funny thing. I've published lots of papers. None have ever been
retracted by the journal. I've never had any need to revise any
of them.
>What sci.math'ers did was commit fraud, which lead to the death of the
>journal.
>
>But that is a matter for another time when they may be held
>accountable.
>
>This story is not over by any means, and sci.math'ers who were part of
>a deliberate conspiracy shouldn't get too complacent because a few
>years have passed.
>
>Read the papers and then come back to claims of counterexample and see
>exactly how they mislead by taking the VERY point that makes the
>original paper crucial to claim it is in error, where in the first
>paper I didn't point things out in the same way, but I do so in the
>revised paper--yet sci.math'ers keep lying about the details.
>
>I hope to God that they are held accountable.
>
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
Pubkeybreaker
Will an answer be forthcoming? Anyone willing to take bets?
Jesse F. Hughes
Why does it matter to you? He's about my age, so he probably
graduated in 1990, give a year or two.
Are you insinuating that he didn't graduate?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"All information is subject to change without notice."
-- California Alternative High School