JSH: The mathematical mind
jst...@msn.com
points like--the distributive property works for functions too--it
occurs to me that part of the problem I am facing is that too many of
you rely on your intuition or your gut feeling.
These results are like quantum mechanics in physics, where your
intuition is not your friend, but logic is.
So logically given
a*(f(x) + b) = a*f(x) + a*b
there is NO way that the value of f(x) is relevant, but when you see
something like
7(A'(x) + 1)(B'(x) + 1) = (A(x) + 7)(B(x) + 1)
where A'(0) = B'(0) = A(0) = B(0) = 0, where now you need those
conditions for the result to hold, it can seem in your gut that
somehow, someway that's not the distributive property.
But logically, it's easy to prove that it must be, just presenting in a
slightly more complex form.
What's happening here is that some simple ideas used over a hundred
years ago turned out to be flawed in a special way which can be hard to
understand, which is how they could stand for over a hundred years!
Today the challenge to the mathematical community is similar to the one
that the physics community faced in the early part of last century with
the emergence of quantum mechanics.
And for many today quantum mechanics is still something that they just
don't get. It instinctively FEELS wrong.
With my research you have to follow logic and not your gut instincts.
The full explanation of the problem is now in front of you, as the
definition of algebraic integers as roots of monic polynomials means
that some numbers don't factor in the ring of algebraic integers in
certain ways, because the results are not roots of any monic polynomial
with integer coefficients!
You can see an easy analogy if you consider evens as a ring, as then 2
and 6 are coprime, when of course they are not in the ring of integers,
because 3 is NOT EVEN.
My results, when you don't know the full consequences, are easy enough
that a paper was published on them, and the furor that erupted to get
it pulled should have been a warning to those editors, but it seems
they simply focused on social aspects versus the very real likelihood
that they were dealing with revolutionary research.
After all, it's jut not every day that a simple and short paper using
mostly basic algebra causes an eruption on a newsgroup when it gets
published, or that a journal abruptly yanks a paper after publication,
or that any journal then just shuts down.
There are more than enough dramatic elements in this story to show that
the results I have are of historic proportion but the social crap as I
like to call it, is not what matters to the mathematical mind.
What matters to the mathematical mind is what is proven mathematically.
And the mathematical mind does NOT question the distributive property,
even if it seems from the gut instinct, the human feeling relying on
what you think you know, that somehow, someway there is something else
happening.
In physics students get training to learn to stop relying on their
intuition as quantum mechanics has been around for a while. Maybe a
lot of the problem here is that math students don't get that kind of
training, and turn to other people and their gut instincts when they
find troubling research that doesn't fit with what they've been TOLD is
true.
James Harris
Dirk Van de moortel
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1141503213....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Considering the continuing discussions where I continue to emphasize
You are delusional.
These aren't discussions.
These are punches on your nose.
Some people seem to be impervious to pain.
Dirk Vdm
willo_...@hotmail.com
The Last Danish Pastry
news:1141505004.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> This goes against the distributive property.
Ah yes... but how does that relate to peanut butter?
--
Clive Tooth
www.clivetooth.dk
Chip Eastham
Hi, Clive:
This is just to say I hope you are feeling okay, I worry
from the tenor of your recent posts that, well, maybe
the burden of trying to comprehend ten years of... well,
I just hope everything is going well, alright? Remember
none of us needs to tackle this Hammer thing alone.
But you did put in my head to try those triply tasty
new Reeses treats... gotta go to the store now, bye.
yum, chip
jst...@msn.com
Pain? What are you talking about? You think you are delivering pain
when you insult someone in posts?
Why?
And if so, why would you do it?
Why try to hurt people?
James Harris
William Hughes
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> Considering the continuing discussions where I continue to emphasize
> points like--the distributive property works for functions too--it
> occurs to me that part of the problem I am facing is that too many of
> you rely on your intuition or your gut feeling.
>
> These results are like quantum mechanics in physics, where your
> intuition is not your friend, but logic is.
>
> So logically given
>
> a*(f(x) + b) = a*f(x) + a*b
>
> there is NO way that the value of f(x) is relevant, but when you see
> something like
>
> 7(A'(x) + 1)(B'(x) + 1) = (A(x) + 7)(B(x) + 1)
>
> where A'(0) = B'(0) = A(0) = B(0) = 0, where now you need those
> conditions for the result to hold, it can seem in your gut that
> somehow, someway that's not the distributive property.
>
There are an infinite number of pair of functions, D(x) and E(x)
such that D(0)=E(0) =0, D(x) != A(x), E(x) != B(x) such
that
7(A'(x) + 1)(B'(x) + 1) = (A(x) + 7)(B(x) + 1)
= (D(x) + 7)(E(x) + 1)
It is not possible to have both 7A'(x) = A(x) and 7A'(x)=D(x).
For which case does the distributive law fail?
-William Hughes
Mick Elger
> points like--the distributive property works for functions too--it
> occurs to me that part of the problem I am facing is that too many of
> you rely on your intuition or your gut feeling.
>
> These results are like quantum mechanics in physics, where your
> intuition is not your friend, but logic is.
you did a mind-fart with that statement.
>
> So logically given
>
> a*(f(x) + b) = a*f(x) + a*b
>
> there is NO way that the value of f(x) is relevant,
of course it is relevant, it is in the equation.
>but when you see
> something like
>
> 7(A'(x) + 1)(B'(x) + 1) = (A(x) + 7)(B(x) + 1)
>
What does the ' mean to you ?
To mathematicians it means A'(x) = d(A(x))/dt
I'll stop here, till you fix your equations.
The Last Danish Pastry
news:1141521442.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi Chip,
Things are going well for me. I have been computing some pretty
pictures...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thelastdanishpastry/sets/1137719/
Hope you got those Triple Tasty Treats!
--
Clive Tooth
www.clivetooth.dk
Dirk Van de moortel
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1141521760.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1141503213....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > > Considering the continuing discussions where I continue to emphasize
> >
> > You are delusional.
> > These aren't discussions.
> > These are punches on your nose.
> > Some people seem to be impervious to pain.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Pain? What are you talking about?
I'll rest my case then :-)
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WhatPain.html
Dirk Vdm
jst...@msn.com
> <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1141521760.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1141503213....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Considering the continuing discussions where I continue to emphasize
> > >
> > > You are delusional.
> > > These aren't discussions.
> > > These are punches on your nose.
> > > Some people seem to be impervious to pain.
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Pain? What are you talking about?
>
> I'll rest my case then :-)
<link deleted>
>
> Dirk Vdm
Oh yuck, should have guessed you'd just try to advertise your hostile
point of view.
Let's just say that for most people acting out aggressively against
others is not something they brag about, or condone.
Most people live their lives without going around trying to hurt
others, thankfully, or our world would be worse than it is, as it is.
It's that hostile minority that decides to go after others that causes
so much trouble.
And then someone has to come in and clean up the mess.
James Harris
José Carlos Santos
> Oh yuck, should have guessed you'd just try to advertise your hostile
> point of view.
>
> Let's just say that for most people acting out aggressively against
> others is not something they brag about, or condone.
>
> Most people live their lives without going around trying to hurt
> others, thankfully, or our world would be worse than it is, as it is.
>
> It's that hostile minority that decides to go after others that causes
> so much trouble.
It's a pity that you belong to that minority.
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos
jst...@msn.com
I don't agree. I've often explained what I do, which is brainstorm
mathematical ideas, trying to keep them simple, and talk about them as
part of the process, inviting critiques.
In response though, some have taken it upon themselves to try and force
me off Usenet, with direct orders, and more often with insults, which
clearly, like Dirk, they think are hurtful.
They wish to control by inflicting pain.
Now yes, often I am highly critical of the mathematical community, but
hey, I had a PAPER PUBLISHED AND RETRACTED because the mathematical
community doesn't follow its own rules.
And that's just one thing among others.
My criticisms are right on point.
In contrast, people who make it their job to try and control on Usenet
by attempting to inflict pain are like some hoodlums cruising a public
park enforcing their law and trying to decide who can and cannot use a
public space.
Those of you who think you have the right to control Usenet, or try to
control it, are no different from any number of people who try to
control public spaces in other venues.
But I'm sure most of you would take offense if you tried to go to a
public park and some person there told you to beat it as you weren't
wanted.
But you will go online and tell someone not to post, or try to insult
them into not posting as if there is a difference.
James Harris
Dirk Van de moortel
<jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1141589499.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1141521760.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > > <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1141503213....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Considering the continuing discussions where I continue to emphasize
> > > >
> > > > You are delusional.
> > > > These aren't discussions.
> > > > These are punches on your nose.
> > > > Some people seem to be impervious to pain.
> > > >
> > > > Dirk Vdm
> > >
> > > Pain? What are you talking about?
> >
> > I'll rest my case then :-)
> >
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Oh yuck, should have guessed you'd just try to advertise your hostile
> point of view.
>
> Let's just say that for most people acting out aggressively against
> others is not something they brag about, or condone.
>
> Most people live their lives without going around trying to hurt
> others, thankfully, or our world would be worse than it is, as it is.
>
> It's that hostile minority that decides to go after others that causes
> so much trouble.
>
> And then someone has to come in and clean up the mess.
Yes indeed, it's *high* time you finally
"turn to the Army to help me with mathematicians."
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ArmyMath.html
Dirk Vdm
jst...@msn.com
I'll leave the link, though I don't like helping this person advertise
though it looks like that's all I'm doing by reply!
But somehow he seems to think he has a grasp on immortality, as if he
or his website will last forever...
Immortal fumble?
As if it were that easy to attain immortality.
Some people lack a proper grasp of infinity.
James Harris
mensa...@aol.com
So WHEN the army decides to help you, it will become a finite fumble.
So WHEN is the army going to start helping you?
Do the generals still like you after the treasonous remarks you
posted at the start of the Iraq war? During WWI, people were
put in prison for saying those kind of things. And don't think for
a minute that the army STILL doesn't feel that way about traitors
even though the law now protects scum like you.
>
>
> James Harris
Dirk Van de moortel
<mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141598301.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But the army can and, in Harris' case, eventually WILL change
any law it doesn't like. It just needs a little push to get in action.
Shall we?
Dirk Vdm
mensa...@aol.com
Sure. What do we need to do?
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
<mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141599302....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Let's keep that private - we don't want *him* to know, do we?
Dirk Vdm
mensa...@aol.com
I wouldn't think that would be a problem given how long it
takes for the truth to penetrate that thick skull of his.
Ut-bay e-way ouldn't-shay ake-tay ances-chay.
>
> Dirk Vdm
CMath
> points like--the distributive property works for functions too--it
> occurs to me that part of the problem I am facing is that too many of
> you rely on your intuition or your gut feeling.
>
> These results are like quantum mechanics in physics, where your
> intuition is not your friend, but logic is.
>
> So logically given
>
> a*(f(x) + b) = a*f(x) + a*b
>
> there is NO way that the value of f(x) is relevant, but when you see
> something like
first simplify;
f(x) + b = f(x) + b so you have done nothing.
>
> 7(A'(x) + 1)(B'(x) + 1) = (A(x) + 7)(B(x) + 1)
call a'(x) = C and B'(x) = D, then
7*(C+1)*(D+1) =
Now what ?
((A+7)*(B+1))/((C+1)*(D+1)) = 7
Is that what your after?
>
> where A'(0) = B'(0) = A(0) = B(0) = 0, where now you need those
> conditions for the result to hold, it can seem in your gut that
> somehow, someway that's not the distributive property.
Sorry, has nothing to do with it.
<snip rest of irrelevant poop>
José Carlos Santos
>>> Oh yuck, should have guessed you'd just try to advertise your hostile
>>> point of view.
>>>
>>> Let's just say that for most people acting out aggressively against
>>> others is not something they brag about, or condone.
>>>
>>> Most people live their lives without going around trying to hurt
>>> others, thankfully, or our world would be worse than it is, as it is.
>>>
>>> It's that hostile minority that decides to go after others that causes
>>> so much trouble.
>> It's a pity that you belong to that minority.
>
> I don't agree. I've often explained what I do, which is brainstorm
> mathematical ideas, trying to keep them simple, and talk about them as
> part of the process, inviting critiques.
And also saying that mathematicians are "liars" and "the scum of the
Earth". No to mention posts such as this one:
-------------------------- I WILL GET MY MONEY ----------------------
If you fucking morons think that I will let you get away with not
giving me credit for my fucking math discoveries then you have another
fucking thing coming.
What the fuck??!!!
Where's "pure math" now, huh? Where's loving math for the fucking
beauty of it now you fucking shits??!!!
LOOK AT IT!!!
Here is the partial difference equation and instructions for
integrating.
dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
sqrt(y-1))],
S(x,1) = 0.
And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, and you get S as the sum of dS
from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/>
You fucking shits. I will get credit for my discovery and get fucking
paid, and you best believe that I will not fucking let you stupid
fucks get away with your fucking stupid bullshit--"pure math" my
ass--without me coming at you fuckers with some fucking PURE fucking
PURE AS FUCK math that you stupid shits have been shitting on for over
a fucking YEAR!!!
You goddamn FUCKS!!!
What the fuck is wrong with you shits??!!! Don't you even believe in
your own stupid shit? Where's "pure math" now?
Where is it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention that you tried to create catastrophic events around the
world publishing your algorithm to factor integers.
By the way, when are those events due to happen?
> Now yes, often I am highly critical of the mathematical community, but
> hey, I had a PAPER PUBLISHED AND RETRACTED because the mathematical
> community doesn't follow its own rules.
No. It was because an editor didn't follow the rules.
> My criticisms are right on point.
Like when you call us liars for not agreeing with you even if later you
admit that you were wrong?
> But you will go online and tell someone not to post, or try to insult
> them into not posting as if there is a difference.
You are the *only* sci.math poster who ever tried to stopo another
poster from posting here by complaining to his employer.
José Carlos Santos
> As if it were that easy to attain immortality.
>
> Some people lack a proper grasp of infinity.
Aren't you the one who wrote once, "We are the greatest warriors for
Good, of all time, through all time, through all worlds and realities
where sentient beings live"?
Indeed, some people lack a proper grasp of infinity.
Dirk Van de moortel
<mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141603390.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141599302....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > > <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141598301.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> > > > > Do the generals still like you after the treasonous remarks you
> > > > > posted at the start of the Iraq war? During WWI, people were
> > > > > put in prison for saying those kind of things. And don't think for
> > > > > a minute that the army STILL doesn't feel that way about traitors
> > > > > even though the law now protects scum like you.
> > > >
> > > > But the army can and, in Harris' case, eventually WILL change
> > > > any law it doesn't like. It just needs a little push to get in action.
> > > > Shall we?
> > >
> > > Sure. What do we need to do?
> >
> > Let's keep that private - we don't want *him* to know, do we?
>
> I wouldn't think that would be a problem given how long it
> takes for the truth to penetrate that thick skull of his.
>
> Ut-bay e-way ouldn't-shay ake-tay ances-chay.
Opo nopo, wepe depefipinipitepelypy shoupould nopot.
Dirk Vdm