JSH: What puzzles me on twin primes issue
JSH
when twin primes should occur, but it was easy over three years ago as
well.
But I don't get how math people behave on this or other issues. It's
like, they have no intellectual curiosity, at all.
But how it that possible?
Sure I can see how competition for grants and a need to write papers
could be a big deal, but to get an absolute denial? How?
I try to imagine some mathematician who has said for years he or she
wants answers on twin primes and their distribution, who might swear
up and down that the answer was what they wanted who could just go
weirdly blank if you gave them the solution.
And for those of you who wonder how you can be right, and it not
matter, that's how: the people in the field have long since quit
caring any more. They've lost that spark. That human curiosity.
I kind of think of them as soulless.
People who have long since quit believing in the search for truth. To
them those are just words. They have bills to pay. Status to
maintain. There is power in a position. Being a professor is not a
bad gig you know. Why should it require that you actually give a damn
about your field?
James Harris
Baron
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0784a43b-f145-4d9f...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> To me the math is easy when it comes to this issue of figuring out
> when twin primes should occur, but it was easy over three years ago as
> well.
>
> But I don't get how math people behave on this or other issues. It's
> like, they have no intellectual curiosity, at all.
>
> But how it that possible?
>
> Sure I can see how competition for grants and a need to write papers
> could be a big deal, but to get an absolute denial? How?
from "I don't get how math people behave..." => "...get an absolute denial"
Do you any of that on paper?
> I try to imagine some mathematician who has said for years he or she
> wants answers on twin primes and their distribution, who might swear
> up and down that the answer was what they wanted who could just go
> weirdly blank if you gave them the solution.
your imagination remains flawed, tainted from you past failures.
>
> And for those of you who wonder how you can be right, and it not
> matter, that's how: the people in the field have long since quit
> caring any more. They've lost that spark. That human curiosity.
BS, you are still angry at your Algebra teacher for flunking you.
>
> I kind of think of them as soulless.
yep, you still pissed at her.
>
> People who have long since quit believing in the search for truth. To
> them those are just words. They have bills to pay. Status to
> maintain. There is power in a position. Being a professor is not a
> bad gig you know. Why should it require that you actually give a damn
> about your field?
Do you remember her name?
>
>
> James Harris
Dr Math
news:0784a43b-f145-4d9f...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Derp.
Uncle Al
>
> To me the math is easy when it comes to this issue of
Factor an RSA product, idiot.
> James Harris
"Saepe errans, numquam dubitans"
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Generalzod
JSH DECODED, above post characters are counted and frequency is shown below.
Analysis shows that JSH posts display random with primes 2, 3,5,17,13,etc
with letter frequency. Obviously JSH is encoding prime gaps into his posts
random.
Freq. Letter
1 A
3 B
2 H
5 I
1 J
1 P
2 S
6 T
1 W
75 a
14 b
17 c
25 d
97 e
13 f
20 g
60 h
68 i
2 j
6 k
34 l
21 m
54 n
82 o
17 p
3 q
47 r
64 s
92 t
38 u
10 v
31 w
22 y
JSH
Funny. I made this thread because it does puzzle me. When I saw this
result over 3 years ago, and saw posters bending over backwards to
talk down a result where you could even see the freaking twin primes
probability equation in the twin primes constant, I realized that it
was time to ponder.
Wandering off, I did other things including providing a way to
generally simplify binary quadratic Diophantine equations and they did
the same thing, but it was less of a puzzle to me by then.
As the years have gone by I've watched behavior that is more religious
than anything else. Then it makes sense.
These people are in a math religion. That's all. Their denial is
like that seen in people in any religion when their faith is
challenged.
So how do you "beat" people who pretend to be mathematicians when they
can't be swayed with math?
You don't.
They'll never be convinced.
You simply operate around them. Teach the next generation.
I've written them off. They're a lost generation. There is no hope
for them. They will die in their ignorance.
James Harris
spudnik
thuis quoth:
Simultaneously, EU Commission advisor Alberto Giovannini, who led the
group that set up the technical transition from national currencies to
the euro, is quoted in today's Italian daily Il Sole 24 Ore stating
unabashedly: "History teaches us that empires are more efficient and
achieve great prosperity, because the imperial model is successful
with an extended geography."
Although much attention has been mis-focused on Greece, LaRouche has
emphasized that the epicenter of the European crisis is not Greece but
Spain, and its Banco Santander. For example, of total German bank
exposure in the eurozone of some 540 billion euros, Greek debt
accounts for only 43 billion, or 8% of the total. Spain, by contrast,
amounts to 240 billion euros, or 44% of the total.
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100210lar_no_banco_bailout.html
thus:
yeah, massless rocks o'light,
built a hugely impenetrable bosonic wall around EinsteinoNewtonianism!
thus:
the photographic record that I saw,
in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania,
seemed to show quite an effect, I must say;
not that the usual interpretation is correct, though.
Nude Scientist said:
> > "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
> > bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
--Stop the Rice-ists & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice
Generalzod
<snip>
>As the years have gone by I've watched behavior that is more religious
>than anything else. Then it makes sense.
>These people are in a math religion. That's all. Their denial is
>like that seen in people in any religion when their faith is
>challenged.
>
>So how do you "beat" people who pretend to be mathematicians when they
>can't be swayed with math?
>
>You don't.
>
>They'll never be convinced.
>
>You simply operate around them. Teach the next generation.
>
>I've written them off. They're a lost generation. There is no hope
>for them. They will die in their ignorance.
>
>
>James Harris
that is not it at all.
You cannot blame the entire world.
You simply need to greatly improve your skills as a communicator.
You need to present a persuasive and undeniable case.
You simply toss out some meat and flies land on it.
Show the equations, show all the steps, take time and effort to thoroughly
explain it.
You tend to just throw it on the wall to see if it sticks, like speggettie.
and "it" is extremly small, hardly any math at all.
Some intuition, no proof, no justifications, hardly any data
JSH, you simply lack effective communication skills.
JSH
I got published in a formally peer reviewed mathematical journal.
They killed the journal.
There are two essential problems here:
1. There are people who know that the world supports them as
mathematicians and trusts them, who are paid for their work so they
know that they have the world's support, without regard to whether or
not they are actually correct. The world doesn't care. It doesn't
even check that issue.
2. If they accept what I can prove then their lives get harder as my
results greatly simplify, and by simplifying they make it harder, not
easier. So they may realize that the truth is too costly as with it,
they can't move further on their own.
Being able to greatly simplify regions of complexity is something that
people don't understand as a threat unless they face it, and where you
thought decades of research was to be had, there suddenly is no more
time at all.
Being an academic means you are paid for complexity. Paid not for
simple answers but to write papers.
And that is what the world wants you to do!
Truth can be an expensive proposition.
My own estimates are that roughly a dozen or so real mathematicians
could move forward from the simplifications I've done assuming good
things about the human race. There may be fewer.
James Harris
Generalzod
On Feb 15, 8:05 pm, "Generalzod" <noth...@spamless.com> wrote:
> "JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a3fa2c6c-9a51-46f5...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 2:48 pm, "Generalzod" <noth...@spamless.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >James Harris
>
>> that is not it at all.
>> You cannot blame the entire world.
>> You simply need to greatly improve your skills as a communicator.
>> You need to present a persuasive and undeniable case.
><deleted>
>I got published in a formally peer reviewed mathematical journal.
They killed the journal.
>There are two essential problems here:
>1. There are people who know that the world supports them as
>mathematicians and trusts them, who are paid for their work so they
>know that they have the world's support, without regard to whether or
>not they are actually correct. The world doesn't care. It doesn't
>even check that issue.
So, when and where did this happen?
Provide names, institutions and specific details of any that you know about.
Or else i will think that you may just be making all of that up.
>2. If they accept what I can prove then their lives get harder as my
>results greatly simplify, and by simplifying they make it harder, not
>easier. So they may realize that the truth is too costly as with it,
>they can't move further on their own.
Most are working on other problems.
A simplification would be published, perhaps used by someone in solving
another problem.
But it would not cause any difficulties with anyone.
Simplifications are discovered all the time, iit is an accepted process.
<snip>
>My own estimates are that roughly a dozen or so real mathematicians
>could move forward from the simplifications I've done assuming good
>things about the human race. There may be fewer.
Where did you get that from?
>James Harris
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
>
> I got published in a formally peer reviewed mathematical journal.
> They killed the journal.
>
Sounds very interesting. I will make sure to go to the library and
read your publication. What journal is it? And what issue?
>
> There are two essential problems here:
>
> 1. There are people who know that the world supports them as
> mathematicians and trusts them, who are paid for their work so they
> know that they have the world's support, without regard to whether or
> not they are actually correct. The world doesn't care. It doesn't
> even check that issue.
>
> 2. If they accept what I can prove then their lives get harder as my
> results greatly simplify, and by simplifying they make it harder, not
> easier. So they may realize that the truth is too costly as with it,
> they can't move further on their own.
>
Do you already have results? If so - what are they? I'd love to read
them.
>
> The world doesn't care.
>
> And that is what the world wants you to do!
>
How do you know? Did you interview the world?
>
> Truth can be an expensive proposition.
>
> My own estimates are that roughly a dozen or so real mathematicians
> could move forward from the simplifications I've done assuming good
> things about the human race. There may be fewer.
>
I am in the same position. There are only 4 or 5 people that can
appreciate my brilliance. Do you think we can help each other gain the
recognition and funding?
JSH
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 5:49 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I got published in a formally peer reviewed mathematical journal.
> > They killed the journal.
>
> Sounds very interesting. I will make sure to go to the library and
> read your publication. What journal is it? And what issue?
The defunct journal SWJPAM:
http://www.emis.de/journals/Annals/SWJPAM/Vol2_2003/2.ps.gz
The editors tried to pull AFTER publication, and after one more
edition, shut down the journal. EMIS preserved their archives--about
ten years of math papers!--and also put my paper back up.
I've since greatly simplified the argument moving to quadratics versus
cubics and showing directly that the ring of algebraic integers
CONTRADICTS the field of complex numbers, one of the most fascinating
results in mathematical history.
Nothing like it has ever been shown before.
More than enough reason to kill a mathematical journal. After all,
what is just one freaking math journal?
Readers curious to find that paper can just Google search:
algebraic integers vs complex numbers
The real story is far more interesting that Usenet posters are willing
to allow.
So yes, I'm a published mathematical author. Check MathSciNet.
James Harris
Baron
On Feb 18, 2:20 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 5:49 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> > I got published in a formally peer reviewed mathematical journal.
>> > They killed the journal.
>>
>> Sounds very interesting. I will make sure to go to the library and
>> read your publication. What journal is it? And what issue?
>The defunct journal SWJPAM:
>
>http://www.emis.de/journals/Annals/SWJPAM/Vol2_2003/2.ps.gz
>
>The editors tried to pull AFTER publication, and after one more
>edition, shut down the journal.
Liar. Your paper was never in print.
> EMIS preserved their archives--about
>ten years of math papers!--and also put my paper back up.
The paper is complete troll garage, read it yourself.
Same stuff JSH *poops* in here.
That is why his paper was withdrawn and never published.
2 pages of crap.
disgusting
>I've since greatly simplified the argument moving to quadratics versus
>cubics and showing directly that the ring of algebraic integers
>CONTRADICTS the field of complex numbers, one of the most fascinating
>results in mathematical history.
More Monkey-Math from Liar Troll-Boy
>
>Nothing like it has ever been shown before.
Liar, Dogs do it every day.
http://www.raant.ca/ajbabble/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dog-taking-a-shit.jpg
>More than enough reason to kill a mathematical journal. After all,
>what is just one freaking math journal?
>
>Readers curious to find that paper can just Google search:
>algebraic integers vs complex numbers
>
>The real story is far more interesting that Usenet posters are willing
>to allow.
>
>So yes, I'm a published mathematical author. Check MathSciNet.
Liar, check this you stinking troll;
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/home-garden/images/2008-11/dog-poop.jpg
>
>
>James Harris
Frederick Williams
>
> [...] showing directly that the ring of algebraic integers
> CONTRADICTS the field of complex numbers, one of the most fascinating
> results in mathematical history.
I don't think that can be literally true: that a ring contradicts a
field. I take it that what you mean is: some formula true of the ring
of algebraic integers contradicts some formula true of the field of
complex numbers. If so, which two formulae do you have in mind?
[One might say "i/2 doesn't exist" is true in the ring of algebraic
integers but "i/2 does exist" is true in the field of complex numbers.
Contradiction! But clearly that is silly so some explanation of my
requirement is required. I suggest:
"phi_1 is true of S_1 and phi_2 is true of S_2 and phi_1 and phi_2
contradict one another" means something like "S_1 and S_2 are
substructures of a structure S and phi_1 and phi_2 are formulae in the
language L of S; furthermore phi_1 is true in S_1 and phi_2 is true in
S_2 and (phi_1 & phi_2) entail F where F is some standard falsehood in
L."
Come up with something like that and I'd be impressed.]
--
.... A lamprophyre containing small phenocrysts of olivine and
augite, and usually also biotite or an amphibole, in a glassy
groundmass containing analcime.
Jim Ferry
> As the years have gone by I've watched behavior that is more religious
> than anything else. Then it makes sense.
>
> These people are in a math religion. That's all. Their denial is
> like that seen in people in any religion when their faith is
> challenged.
>
> So how do you "beat" people who pretend to be mathematicians when they
> can't be swayed with math?
>
> You don't.
>
> They'll never be convinced.
Something to bear in mind is that mathematicians can tell how good
other mathematicians are. Not precisely, as in "2.939 nG on that
skull", but well enough that a focused, fairly brief conversation can
establish that someone is clearly better than you, or in about the
same league, or clearly worse. If two people are clearly better than
you, it's often difficult to tell which is better than the other, even
if it is clear to them. On the other hand, it is not too difficult to
sort people worse than you into various strata. Someone who has
trouble doing simple addition problems and refuses to consider
multiplication is clearly not at the level of someone who can multiply
three-digit numbers and can do long division with a little help.
However, neither one is going to be able to bluff his way through an
interview for a postdoc position at MSRI. These candidates may not
know it, and may be fairly optimistic about their chances, but what is
obscure to them is blatantly, blazing-forth-like-a-supernova obvious
to the interviewer: that their level of expertise does not suffice.
To repeat, when someone knows very little mathematics, this fact is
extremely obvious to someone who knows a fair amount. When someone
who knows little tries to pretend that he is top notch, his dreams of
glory are akin to those of the man who tapes ears and a tail to
himself and heads off to win the Westminster Dog Show. "Yes, I was
thrown out the last three years, but that's because of the cabal of
top breeders protecting their interests by excluding me. If only I
can get to a gatekeeper who hasn't been bought off..." If only this
dog impersonator could see out of the eyes of someone else for five
seconds he would be staggered by the extent to which he was barking up
the wrong tree -- it is simply very, very obvious to everyone else
that he is a person dressed up as a dog rather than a proper dog (let
alone a prizewinning dog).
It is just so obvious. There is no reason to analyze and dissect just
why it is so obvious. To get into a discussion like, "look, if you
haven't mastered long division, I mean the gulf between that and the
kind of expertise in topoi that we're looking for is just..." "No,
I've totally mastered long division. I know fractions too! And
decimals!" is absurd. To respond to, "but I am a dog! See my floppy
ears! See my waggy tail! Woof woof!" is absurd. It is simply obvious
in a way that needs no further elucidation. The block tower you made
in your bedroom is very nice, but no, it's not 12 miles high, and no I
didn't measure it, that's not necessary, it's obvious. There is no
need for debate, no need for you to claim that the matter has not been
established to your satisfaction.
It is as obvious as any of the obvious, mundane facts which the sane
person notes throughout his day. There's a tree, now a car is coming,
I'd better wait, now I'm walking across the street.
It is as obvious as the idées fixes of the insane are to themselves.
I am the reincarnation of Spinoza, but Lyndon LaRouche is trying to
kill me, and if I took off my tinfoil hat they'd find me within
minutes.
But the difference is that the insane are alone in their assessments
of what is obvious.
MichaelW
>
> - Show quoted text -
I nominate Jim Ferry's post for the (sadly non-existent) "Best Post in
a JSH Thread This Month" award.
Mensanator
Woof!
Frederick Williams
> Something to bear in mind is that mathematicians can tell how good
> other mathematicians are. Not precisely, as in "2.939 nG on that
Eh? What?
rossum
<corkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>These candidates may not
>know it, and may be fairly optimistic about their chances, but what is
>obscure to them is blatantly, blazing-forth-like-a-supernova obvious
>to the interviewer: that their level of expertise does not suffice.
Google Dunning-Kruger effect.
rossum
junoexpress
> than anything else. Then it makes sense.
> These people are in a math religion. That's all. Their denial is
> like that seen in people in any religion when their faith is
> challenged.
>
have such strong convictions. The only "denial" is that of false
claims such as yours. In fact, one of the nice affirmations about my
faith in math is that it beats down false purveyors of the truth.
> You simply operate around them. Teach the next generation.
> I've written them off. They're a lost generation. There is no hope
> for them. They will die in their ignorance.
>
> James Harris
The greatest good you could do for future generations is to turn
yourself into a mental institution. By studying a perfect example of
such a flawed brain as yours, perhaps psychologists could get some new
insights into fundamental problems like abnormal personality
development, narcissism, NPD, and other dysfunctions of the brain.
HTH,
M
Jim Ferry
wrote:
> Jim Ferry wrote:
> > Something to bear in mind is that mathematicians can tell how good
> > other mathematicians are. Not precisely, as in "2.939 nG on that
> > skull", [...]
>
> Eh? What?
2.939 nG = 2.939 nanogauss = 2.939 x 10^-9 times as smart as Gauss,
or, alternatively, a magnetic flux density in the range that is
typical for the human brain (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_(unit)).
Oh, and MichaelW, thank you -- it's an honor just to be nominated.
Rotwang
> [...]
>
> I nominate Jim Ferry's post for the (sadly non-existent) "Best Post in
> a JSH Thread This Month" award.
If such an award existed then Jim would have run out of space on his
mantelpiece years ago.
JSH
<frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote:
> JSH wrote:
>
> > [...] showing directly that the ring of algebraic integers
> > CONTRADICTS the field of complex numbers, one of the most fascinating
> > results in mathematical history.
>
> I don't think that can be literally true: that a ring contradicts a
> field. I take it that what you mean is: some formula true of the ring
> of algebraic integers contradicts some formula true of the field of
> complex numbers. If so, which two formulae do you have in mind?
No, it's kind of subtle, but it has to be: it has stood for over a
century.
And I remind that I'm the one person in this thread with a formally
peer reviewed and published result in this area, though yeah, the
editors pulled my paper after publication, managed one more edition
and the entire journal shut down, but I am nonetheless formally peer
reviewed and published.
What I did was figure out a clever way by factoring a polynomial into
non-polynomial factors to show that the ring of algebraic integers
directly contradicts the field of complex numbers. IN a phrase, they
fight.
Trouble is, that fight blows up a lot of established ideas in number
theory, hence the dead math journal and lots of math people calling me
names, and insisting I should be put in an insane asylum.
> [One might say "i/2 doesn't exist" is true in the ring of algebraic
> integers but "i/2 does exist" is true in the field of complex numbers.
> Contradiction! But clearly that is silly so some explanation of my
> requirement is required. I suggest:
>
> "phi_1 is true of S_1 and phi_2 is true of S_2 and phi_1 and phi_2
> contradict one another" means something like "S_1 and S_2 are
> substructures of a structure S and phi_1 and phi_2 are formulae in the
> language L of S; furthermore phi_1 is true in S_1 and phi_2 is true in
> S_2 and (phi_1 & phi_2) entail F where F is some standard falsehood in
> L."
You think you can ad hoc figure out a way that the field of complex
numbers fights with the ring of algebraic integers on the fly in a
Usenet post? When the result eluded (one would hope or they lied) the
BEST minds in mathematics for over a hundred years?
Are you nuts? Or do you have an incredibly high delusion about your
natural ability?
They KILLED AN ENTIRE MATH JOURNAL over this result.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell you can just figure it out by
the seat of your funny little pants.
No matter how brilliant you think you are.
That level of brilliant does not exist on this planet.
Do the search in Google: algebraic integers vs complex numbers
It's the biggest throw down in idea space since, maybe since human
beings wandered out of the trees and eventually managed to do more
than mutter "ungh". Or "ug ug".
Seriously dude, there is no way anyone would figure such a thing out
just by being told that it exists.
That's wishing for godlike intelligence, and clearly based on how we
behave, human beings that ain't got.
James Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
> It's the biggest throw down in idea space since, maybe since human
> beings wandered out of the trees and eventually managed to do more
> than mutter "ungh". Or "ug ug".
The biggest throw down in idea space. Poetry, that is!
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"The way that she did what she did
when she did what she did to me
made me think of you." --- Delbert McClinton
Baron
<snip crap>
>It's the biggest throw down in idea space since, maybe since human
>beings wandered out of the trees and eventually managed to do more
>than mutter "ungh". Or "ug ug".
you mean a "Hoedown", not throwdown
http://www.hoedown.com/main.site?action=siteupdate/view&id=2
<snip>
>James Harris
JSH, inventer of Monkey-Math
Michael Press
<c68c0739-2fae-4b01...@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trouble is, that fight blows up a lot of established ideas in number
> theory, hence the dead math journal and lots of math people calling me
> names, and insisting I should be put in an insane asylum.
Ridiculous. You are as sane as the day is long.
--
Michael Press
spudnik
he might have some critiique of Spinoza ...
that might even go on & on.
http://wlym.com/~animations/ceres/index.html
> or, alternatively, a magnetic flux density in the range that is
> typical for the human brain (according
--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
--Stop Cheeny, Rice and the ICC's ne British quagmire!
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice-ists_sudan.html
William Hughes
> What I did was figure out a clever way by factoring a polynomial into
> non-polynomial factors to show that the ring of algebraic integers
> directly contradicts the field of complex numbers.
The problem with JSH factoring results is that
he has decided that if there are problems, then
this is due to some algebraic integer being multiplied
by something that is not a unit in the algebraic
integers but "should" be. Since this leads
to any factoring result you want (with the appropriate
definition of "should") the problem reduces
to how one can tell something "should" be a unit
in the algebraic integers (not everything is a unit;
e.g. 3). Perhaps you will be successful is getting
a definition of "should". Many have tried and
failed.
- William Hughes
Marshall
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > It's the biggest throw down in idea space since, maybe since human
> > beings wandered out of the trees and eventually managed to do more
> > than mutter "ungh". Or "ug ug".
>
> The biggest throw down in idea space. Poetry, that is!
Although I am nowhere near the level of JSH scholar that
you are, please allow me to say that I also liked "There is
not a snowball's chance in hell you can just figure it out by
the seat of your funny little pants."
Marshall
Jim Ferry
It would be wonderful if there truly were a serious JSH scholar. At
the very least, a talented archivist is needed to impose some kind of
cross-indexed order on his voluminous output. Were this accomplished,
it would be much easier for someone to write a dissertation on the
life and work of James S. Harris. I wouldn't be surprised if such a
dissertation generated a modest amount of buzz, enough, say, to
attract a talented writer who is moved by the human story. As the
book climbs the charts, Hollywood realizes that it's box-office gold,
and a fight for the rights ensues. At the Academy Awards ceremony,
there are just so many people to thank, but the director brings them
all on stage, "... and of course, the man without whom none of this
would have been possible, James S. Harris!" The crowd goes wild.
James steps to the mike and says ___
Any takers?
Marshall
"I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!"
Marshall
Mark Murray
> James steps to the mike and says ___
"At last! You dumb f***s see that I'm right! I have my recognition! Google (must be Google) for ... <Ten minutes of gratitude-free ranting cut short by the microphone going dead>"
Pissed-off-looking JSH steered unwillingly towards chair. Clumsy cut to commercial. Final shot later revealed by lip-readers to be incoherent yelling with only the word "censorship" discernible.
M
Frederick Williams
>
> On Feb 18, 6:17 pm, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net>
> wrote:
> > Jim Ferry wrote:
> > > Something to bear in mind is that mathematicians can tell how good
> > > other mathematicians are. Not precisely, as in "2.939 nG on that
> > > skull", [...]
> >
> > Eh? What?
>
> 2.939 nG = 2.939 nanogauss = 2.939 x 10^-9 times as smart as Gauss,
Oh! Very good.
> or, alternatively, a magnetic flux density in the range that is
> typical for the human brain (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_(unit)).
>
> Oh, and MichaelW, thank you -- it's an honor just to be nominated.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
You gotta be kidding. I discovered this result of yours when I was 14
and went on to much bigger and more interesting things.
So, you've re-discovered something that I discovered as a child. Big
deal. I can do these things in my sleep.
Don't you have anything better to impress me with?
Nu chto, spreagiruesch' na zhivtsa?
>
> There is not a snowball's chance in hell you can just figure it out by
> the seat of your funny little pants.
>
I did as a child in 2 hours. No big deal.
>
> No matter how brilliant you think you are.
>
> That level of brilliant does not exist on this planet.
>
LOL. You are not smart enough to sharpen my pencils.
Show me something more impressive.
>
> Do the search in Google: algebraic integers vs complex numbers
>
I did. I didn't find your name there:
http://www.google.com/search?q=algebraic+integers+vs+complex+numbers
I didn't know that this result was worthy mentioning. But now that you
tell me it is, I am going to patent it with the Australian Patent
Office. I still have my notebooks from childhoods with proofs of this
and many other, more important results. I will just send it to the
Patent Office.
>
> It's the biggest throw down in idea space since, maybe since human
> beings wandered out of the trees and eventually managed to do more
> than mutter "ungh". Or "ug ug".
>
Thanks for appreciating my result. But I have much bigger ones.
>
> Seriously dude, there is no way anyone would figure such a thing out
> just by being told that it exists.
>
> That's wishing for godlike intelligence, and clearly based on how we
> behave, human beings that ain't got.
>
Thanks for appreciating my intelligence.
W. Dale Hall
> On Feb 18, 12:47 pm, Frederick Williams
> <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> JSH wrote:
>>
>>> [...] showing directly that the ring of algebraic integers
>>> CONTRADICTS the field of complex numbers, one of the most fascinating
>>> results in mathematical history.
>>
>> I don't think that can be literally true: that a ring contradicts a
>> field. I take it that what you mean is: some formula true of the ring
>> of algebraic integers contradicts some formula true of the field of
>> complex numbers. If so, which two formulae do you have in mind?
>
> No, it's kind of subtle, but it has to be: it has stood for over a
> century.
>
> And I remind that I'm the one person in this thread with a formally
> peer reviewed and published result in this area, though yeah, the
> editors pulled my paper after publication, managed one more edition
> and the entire journal shut down, but I am nonetheless formally peer
> reviewed and published.
It is abundantly evident that neither you nor the editors of SWJPAM
acted entirely in good faith. You, in submitting an article which you
knew to contain a significant error, and the editors' double failures of
(a) failing to review your paper, and (b) pulling it from publication
after initially publishing it.
Your paper's role in the disappearing of SWJPAM is that of the last
straw, in my opinion.
>
> What I did was figure out a clever way by factoring a polynomial into
> non-polynomial factors to show that the ring of algebraic integers
> directly contradicts the field of complex numbers. IN a phrase, they
> fight.
Your factorization idea was somewhat clever, but not entirely original
with you. I've pointed you to Puiseux series on several occasions, but
you seem not to be interested.
This is utter nonsense. Either there is a subset of the complex numbers,
definable as the roots of monic polynomials over the integers, or there
isn't. If such a set exists, then it is either a subring of the complex
numbers, or it isn't. This subset (presuming it exists at all) satisfies
the same algebra as the set of complex numbers. If the subset "directly
contradicts the field of complex numbers" as you say,
then the field of complex numbers "directly contradicts" itself, since
every flaw that you suppose is held by the ring of algebraic integers
must be a flaw in the field of complex numbers.
So, which is it: is there no subset of the complex numbers that can be
defined as I specified above, or does that subset fail to be a ring
contained in the field of complex numbers?
You fail to realize that a mere definition, provided it is suitably
formed, cannot introduce a contradiction that was not already present. A
definition is a mere label, a more compact way of saying something that
already could be said another way.
>
> Trouble is, that fight blows up a lot of established ideas in number
> theory, hence the dead math journal and lots of math people calling me
> names, and insisting I should be put in an insane asylum.
>
There has been intemperate language going each way, as you know. Many
people avoid it, by the way.
>> [One might say "i/2 doesn't exist" is true in the ring of algebraic
>> integers but "i/2 does exist" is true in the field of complex numbers.
>> Contradiction! But clearly that is silly so some explanation of my
>> requirement is required. I suggest:
>>
>> "phi_1 is true of S_1 and phi_2 is true of S_2 and phi_1 and phi_2
>> contradict one another" means something like "S_1 and S_2 are
>> substructures of a structure S and phi_1 and phi_2 are formulae in the
>> language L of S; furthermore phi_1 is true in S_1 and phi_2 is true in
>> S_2 and (phi_1& phi_2) entail F where F is some standard falsehood in
>> L."
>
> You think you can ad hoc figure out a way that the field of complex
> numbers fights with the ring of algebraic integers on the fly in a
> Usenet post? When the result eluded (one would hope or they lied) the
> BEST minds in mathematics for over a hundred years?
Yeah, who do you think you are, dude?
You ain't the man, 'cause I'm the man.
>
> Are you nuts? Or do you have an incredibly high delusion about your
> natural ability?
Are you speaking into a mirror? It might do you some good.
>
> They KILLED AN ENTIRE MATH JOURNAL over this result.
>
> There is not a snowball's chance in hell you can just figure it out by
> the seat of your funny little pants.
TMI, JSH. How you dress is of no concern to us.
>
> No matter how brilliant you think you are.
>
> That level of brilliant does not exist on this planet.
>
> Do the search in Google: algebraic integers vs complex numbers
>
> It's the biggest throw down in idea space since, maybe since human
> beings wandered out of the trees and eventually managed to do more
> than mutter "ungh". Or "ug ug".
>
> Seriously dude, there is no way anyone would figure such a thing out
> just by being told that it exists.
>
> That's wishing for godlike intelligence, and clearly based on how we
> behave, human beings that ain't got.
>
Big talk.
>
> James Harris
Mark Murray
>> What I did was figure out a clever way by factoring a polynomial into
>> non-polynomial factors to show that the ring of algebraic integers
>> directly contradicts the field of complex numbers. IN a phrase, they
>> fight.
>
> Your factorization idea was somewhat clever, but not entirely original
> with you. I've pointed you to Puiseux series on several occasions, but
> you seem not to be interested.
This is an oft-repeated pattern with James; inconvenient facts are
ignored with an intensity that is impressive.
M
--