Why knowledge is NOT power
David C. Ullrich
>It's not knowledge itself that has power as *social* forces rule, and
>I have a simple example to show you what I mean.
>
>A little while back I found a nifty way to *find* and count prime
>numbers that you can't find in any math textbook:
>
>With p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where S(x,1) = 0, and you get
>S(x,y) when y doesn;'t equal one by summing
>
>dS(x,j) = [p(x/j, j-1) - p(j-1, sqrt(j-1))][ p(j, sqrt(j)) - p(j-1,
>sqrt(j-1))],
>
>incrementing j from 2 to y in steps of 1.
>
>That little bit of math not only counts prime numbers, but finds
>individual prime numbers along the way--a first in recorded human
>history for a discrete closed function.
>
>That's *pure* knowledge which has run into a *social* block, which is
>a hatred between me and mathematicians.
>
>Mathematicians hate me for many reasons,
You think so? If they hate you it's for exactly one reason.
You illustrated the reason in another thread just now, when
you said
>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?
>
>
>James Harris
You've got that prime counting thing down pat. Time to start working
on the problem of counting reasons mathematicians hate you - there
are still a few bugs in whatever routine returned the estimate
"many" above.
David C. Ullrich
Neil W Rickert
>It's not knowledge itself that has power as *social* forces rule, and
>I have a simple example to show you what I mean.
>A little while back I found a nifty way to *find* and count prime
>numbers that you can't find in any math textbook:
>With p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where S(x,1) = 0, and you get
>S(x,y) when y doesn;'t equal one by summing
>dS(x,j) = [p(x/j, j-1) - p(j-1, sqrt(j-1))][ p(j, sqrt(j)) - p(j-1,
>sqrt(j-1))],
>incrementing j from 2 to y in steps of 1.
>That little bit of math not only counts prime numbers, but finds
>individual prime numbers along the way--a first in recorded human
>history for a discrete closed function.
Put it to the test.
Demonstrate the usefulness of your formula, by using it to break RSA
encryption.
If you succeed in doing that, I guarantee that people will start
taking notice.
C. Bond
> It's not knowledge itself that has power as *social* forces rule, and
> I have a simple example to show you what I mean.
If knowledge *did* have power, it would have crushed you long ago. You've
been clobbered by the "2x4-of-truth" often enough to leave dents in cast
iron. But social forces don't seem to affect you, either. I suppose you
should be treated like petrified stump -- umoved by truth and as smart as
a box of hammers.
> A little while back I found a nifty way to *find* and count prime
> numbers that you can't find in any math textbook:
>
> With p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where S(x,1) = 0, and you get
> S(x,y) when y doesn;'t equal one by summing
>
> dS(x,j) = [p(x/j, j-1) - p(j-1, sqrt(j-1))][ p(j, sqrt(j)) - p(j-1,
> sqrt(j-1))],
>
> incrementing j from 2 to y in steps of 1.
>
> That little bit of math not only counts prime numbers, but finds
> individual prime numbers along the way--a first in recorded human
> history for a discrete closed function.
No it isn't. A simple sieve can do that.
> That's *pure* knowledge which has run into a *social* block, which is
> a hatred between me and mathematicians.
You are a hateful person. What do you expect?
> Mathematicians hate me for many reasons, and they have the social
> power to ignore or attack knowledge because I discovered it.
>
> I hate mathematicians because they are capable of attacking knowledge
> for social reasons.
The record shows that you hate them for finding your errors.
> However, *society* gives power, so the knowledge is held hostage
> between mathematicians and me. Many of you, pawns to society, are
> incapable of appreciating the pure knowledge if you're told that it's
> not important, so mathematicians tell you that it's not, though it's
> powerful in ways that no one has *ever* seen before.
>
> Human beings are social creatures. You need society to feel safe, and
> to tell you what is important.
I assume you are *not* a human being, from that last paragraph. (I had
some clues from your past behavior, but this seems like an admission.)
> So you see, knowledge is NOT power. Society is.
This is a math newsgroup, not a power group. If you want power, seek a
political office.
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --
and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
Corporal Doug H. Bartman
> It's not knowledge itself that has power as *social* forces rule, and
> I have a simple example to show you what I mean.
>
> numbers that you can't find in any math textbook:
>
> With p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where S(x,1) = 0, and you get
> S(x,y) when y doesn;'t equal one by summing
>
> dS(x,j) = [p(x/j, j-1) - p(j-1, sqrt(j-1))][ p(j, sqrt(j)) - p(j-1,
> sqrt(j-1))],
>
> incrementing j from 2 to y in steps of 1.
>
> That little bit of math not only counts prime numbers, but finds
> individual prime numbers along the way--a first in recorded human
> history for a discrete closed function.
>
> a hatred between me and mathematicians.
>
> power to ignore or attack knowledge because I discovered it.
>
> I hate mathematicians because they are capable of attacking knowledge
> for social reasons.
>
> between mathematicians and me. Many of you, pawns to society, are
> incapable of appreciating the pure knowledge if you're told that it's
> not important, so mathematicians tell you that it's not, though it's
> powerful in ways that no one has *ever* seen before.
>
> Human beings are social creatures. You need society to feel safe, and
> to tell you what is important.
>
>
>
>
> "My math discoveries, found for profit"
> http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/
Dude, if youd gone to college all this time youve been pestering
sci.*, by now youd have your Ph.D. and people would take you seriously
bartmanbartmanbartmanbartmanbartmanbartmanbartmanbartman
David Moran
"Corporal Doug H. Bartman" <doug_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7d40e2ea.03112...@posting.google.com...
We've been telling him that for so long, but he says he's not interested in
getting a Ph.D. in Math. In his case, we really shouldn't feel sorry for his
ignorance because he refuses to learn.
David Moran
Mark Burlingame
"C. Bond" <cb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3FC126BE...@ix.netcom.com...
> James Harris wrote:
>
> > It's not knowledge itself that has power as *social* forces rule, and
> > I have a simple example to show you what I mean.
>
> If knowledge *did* have power, it would have crushed you long ago. You've
> been clobbered by the "2x4-of-truth" often enough to leave dents in cast
> iron. But social forces don't seem to affect you, either. I suppose you
> should be treated like petrified stump -- umoved by truth and as smart as
> a box of hammers.
LOL. Somehow, your anaology reminds me of the old bumper-sticker "Forget the
ugly stick . You was beat by an ugly FOREST!" In Jim's case you'd replace
"ugly" with "stupid".
MB
John C. Randolph
> Mathematicians hate me for many reasons,
No, no, no.
Mathematicians don't *hate* you at all! You're simply not significant
enough to cause such a strong emotional reaction in anyone.
-jcr
Virgil
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> Mathematicians hate me for many reasons, and they have the social
> power to ignore or attack knowledge because I discovered it.
If mathematicians are such powerful and effective conspirators, why
ain't we rich?
Wolf Kirchmeir
>Mathematicians hate me for many reasons
No, no, no, James, I don't _hate_ you. I _like_ you. If I see a post by you
or a thread started by you, I know I'm in for some first class nonsense, and
there's nothing like first class nonsense for entertainment value.
Thanks, James. Keep it up.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)
Mark Burlingame
> >
> > Dude, if youd gone to college all this time youve been pestering
> > sci.*, by now youd have your Ph.D. and people would take you seriously
>
> No they wouldn't. Look at Halton Arp, a distinguished scientist with
> a PH.D, and besides, why isn't *knowledge* important?
>
As always, the stupifying illogical mind of JSH strikes again, this time
inferring the nature of a population from a rare event.
This is the mathematical equivalent of estimating the mean from an outlier.
Do you ever read your own posts over and realize how stupid and illogical
the diarrhea spouting from you really is?
MB
Christopher J. Henrich
<j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote:
Ahem.
He elicits lots of emotional reactions, some of them quite vehement,
right here on sci.math, which is where I read him.
Yeah, I guess I'm sortof addicted to JSH myself. But I can quit any
time I want to! Really I can!
--
Chris Henrich
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
-- H. G. Wells
Virgil
> > Dude, if youd gone to college all this time youve been pestering
> > sci.*, by now youd have your Ph.D. and people would take you seriously
>
> No they wouldn't. Look at Halton Arp, a distinguished scientist with
> a PH.D, and besides, why isn't *knowledge* important?
Harlan Arp IS taken seriously. Knowlwdge is importqant, but people
who do not have the knowlegde they claim to have, are not.
>
> Why should I kiss mathematician's butts to get a Ph.D when I have PURE
> KNOWLEDGE itself in the form of the discovery?
You may have "pure knowledge" of some arcane sort, but as you are
totally incapable of explaining what you say you have to anyone
else, it does you no more good than if you did not have it.
>
> You make my point. Knowledge isn't power. Society is power.
The ability to communicate one's knowledge or to apply knowledge
one's knowledge is what gives that knowledge value and JSH has
neither ability.
>
> To many of you, the result doesn't matter. It's what someone else
> tells you about it that does.
In mathematics, it is results that one can verify for ones self that
matter. And JSH does not present any results that one can verify for
oneself, except for those he takes from others.
>
> Yet mathematicians CLAIM to care about math for math's sake, and call
> it "pure math" but I present a wonderful pure math result and they
> attack me and the result.
All such "attacks" are counterattacks, only after JSH has attacked
the mathematical community wholesale. Mathematical questions about
mathematical derivations are not attacks, except to the paranoid.
>
> Mathematicians are liars. And all their talk about beauty and purity
> in mathematics is just a con game.
Then the have certainly conned you into making an ass of yourself
publicly and repeatedly.
>
>
> James Harris
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> My point is that my discovery is PURE MATH, and PURE KNOWLEDGE,
> representing a previously unknown formula for both finding and
> counting primes.
Why should I believe you? Here's a previously unknown formula:
283490823481290348 + 1987234817239472345 = 2270725640720762693
Is it very interesting? No.
Mine is certainly previously unknown: I'll bet anyone $100 that nobody
has ever before published that addition. But it's not very
interesting, for two reasons:
1) Knowing that addition isn't very important, and
2) Anyone could reproduce the formula very easily if they needed it.
Similarly, methods of creating finite difference equations are very
well known. What is missing in your "previously unknown formula" is:
1) An explanation of why it is important--for example, does it enable
faster computation of primes? (no); does it make for faster
factorizations? (no). Did you know there is a diophantine equation
whose roots are exactly the set of primes? I could tweak that
equation in a million ways and produce a "previously unknown
formula" for primes, but that's hardly very interesting.
2) Your methods: where did your equation come from? How can we apply
the techniques you used in other cases for other problems?
Thomas
Virgil
> I found a way to count prime numbers using a partial difference
> equation which has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE in recorded human history.
A close look shows that JSH has 12 fingers and 12 toes, so he is
doing it in base 12.
But one can't be sure that no one has ever done it that way before,
they may just not have recorded it.
C. Bond
> However, people are *lying* about the importance of the formula, and
> lying screws with your brain so that to tell the truth with something
> like my partial difference equation--like how it works--and then lie
> about its value, should be difficult.
Value? To whom? If a reader judges your formula to be unimportant, he may well be expressing his earnest
opinion as passionately as you arrogantly express yours. You claim the formula is important. Hence it is
clearly important *to you*. Others are entitled to judge otherwise. They have as much right to downplay or
even condemn your formula as you have to praise it.
> It's an experiment to see if anyone out there can manage the attempted
> deception of both telling the truth about how my discovery works, and
> then lying about its important.
Puleez! Will you stop with this penchant of yours to "experiment" on others? You posted your formula,
others found it trivial, useless or unimportant. Live with it! The issue of its importance will certainly
be resolved by a preponderance in the number of individuals who concur with you or with your critics. So
far, the preponderance seems to favor the conclusion that it is trivial, useless, or unimportant.
Eray Ozkural exa
prime numbers, your following criticism is off the mark by a wide
margin.
tb+u...@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote in message news:<87y8u4j...@becket.becket.net>...
> 1) An explanation of why it is important--for example, does it enable
> faster computation of primes? (no); does it make for faster
> factorizations? (no). Did you know there is a diophantine equation
> whose roots are exactly the set of primes? I could tweak that
> equation in a million ways and produce a "previously unknown
> formula" for primes, but that's hardly very interesting.
The existence of such a diophantine equation is an interesting
mathematical fact. The existence of an exponential diophantine
equation for any recursively enumerable set is a more interesting
fact.
Indeed, if these are not interesting mathematical facts, I can hardly
think of any mathematical fact worth deeming valuable.
Let us leave the value of a mathematical proposition to mathematicians
in proper and free them of philosophical obscurity about what is
interesting or valuable. Such arguments can achieve no better than
clouding their vision.
Encoding computation in diophantine equations will be enormously
interesting to a theoretical computer scientist and a number theorist,
and a proof of Poincare conjecture will be of interest to a
topologist. I believe the specialists have a much better idea of what
is of interest to them!
Sincerely,
--
Eray Ozkural
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> tb+u...@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote in message news:<87y8u4j...@becket.becket.net>...
> > 1) An explanation of why it is important--for example, does it enable
> > faster computation of primes? (no); does it make for faster
> > factorizations? (no). Did you know there is a diophantine equation
> > whose roots are exactly the set of primes? I could tweak that
> > equation in a million ways and produce a "previously unknown
> > formula" for primes, but that's hardly very interesting.
>
> The existence of such a diophantine equation is an interesting
> mathematical fact. The existence of an exponential diophantine
> equation for any recursively enumerable set is a more interesting
> fact.
You have misunderstood the criterion you quote. What is necessary is
"an explanation of why it is important". Harris provided none.
That paragraph was not some attempt to dictate to mathematicians what
they ought to find interesting; I'm happy to leave that to them.
Thomas
Virgil
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> My problem is that the mathematicians aren't behaving as socially
> expected.
James Harris' social expectations are as unreal as his mathematical
skills. JSH's problem is with reality.
Christopher J. Henrich
<vmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
Problem?... In the sense of "situation that makes him unhappy," JSH
does not have any problem with the discussion of him on sci.math (or, I
presume, on the other groups). He enjoys it. It's a big game of
"Uproar."
The rest of us enjoy it too. Let's face it, one one (admittedly low)
level it's the hottest thing on sci.math.
--
Chris Henrich
Drag people to events to invite them. -- A tool tip in Apple's iCal program.
Eray Ozkural exa
> Thanks. The odd thing here is that there's any fight at all from
> mathematicians. Simply putting yet one more math result into math
> references would hardly seem to be the end of the mathematicians'
> world, so why go against their own stated values in such an area as
> prime numbers?
You shouldn't be really thanking me. I said nothing in support of your claims!
Eray Ozkural exa
> er...@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) writes:
>
> > tb+u...@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote in message news:<87y8u4j...@becket.becket.net>...
> > > 1) An explanation of why it is important--for example, does it enable
> > > faster computation of primes? (no); does it make for faster
> > > factorizations? (no). Did you know there is a diophantine equation
> > > whose roots are exactly the set of primes? I could tweak that
> > > equation in a million ways and produce a "previously unknown
> > > formula" for primes, but that's hardly very interesting.
> >
> > The existence of such a diophantine equation is an interesting
> > mathematical fact. The existence of an exponential diophantine
> > equation for any recursively enumerable set is a more interesting
> > fact.
>
> You have misunderstood the criterion you quote. What is necessary is
> "an explanation of why it is important". Harris provided none.
Correct, he didn't.
>
> That paragraph was not some attempt to dictate to mathematicians what
> they ought to find interesting; I'm happy to leave that to them.
Thanks for the clarification. The last sentence ending with "hardly
very interesting" had forced me to reply. I've been taught a lot of
mathematics and I try to read and understand graduate level stuff
recreationally in my free time, and given the diversity in mathematics
I feel that it's impossible for any single person to dictate what is
interesting including Harris. I might think fractals are an
uninteresting subject but the mathematician next door might dedicate
decades to finding a strong theorem about fractals!
BTW, it was quite wrong when Harris claimed mathematicians should be
interested in his claims.
Regards,
--
Eray Ozkural
John
> It's not knowledge itself that has power as *social* forces rule, and
> I have a simple example to show you what I mean.
Knowledge must be certified as such by the relevant gatekeepers.
Without that certification, all is in vain.
MI6 U2
methods but no scientific basis (much like an animal learned a few tricks
[dog, chimp etc]and I don't mean to lend credence to an "idealist"
perception (and method) as I'm also strongly opposed to a so-called (I enjoy
reading Alfred Ayers but oppose his and Rusell's) "empiricist" conclusions
(though if the word "epiricist is equated with science and scientific
I would consider myself an Empiricist [but not a Rusell/Ayers "Empiricist"
thank you]).
What you say is completely unrelated to your stated question as to weither
or not "knowledge is NOT power"!!!!
as you start from no where and ramble on without seeming purpose (merely
exhibiting your thrill with your own abilities [gee here is this "unique"
math formula I've developed]) when in actuality you have not presented any
givens in your formulation and there fore your conclusions can not be
anything but false as they can then be construed as to mean anything (for
entertainment you presented us with the presentation of an okey doke hokum
snake oil remedy [fraud] but that was not science) it was venom.
Alternatively if it can be equated that (ultimate power [A]) (can be derived
from) (ultimate knowledge [B]) then it can be safely concluded that the
result of those elements harnessed by an individual would allow said
individual (A)(X)(B)(A)+(X)+(B) and as perhaps the components of (A),(X),
and (B) can be derived also
for which use one can do what ever they want regardless of what society
thought. Unfortunately (or perphaps fortunately) this to the best of my
knowledge never occurs in and absolute sense (but at times in a close to
absolute sense which expotentially makes a great difference as the closer to
an absolute element we get the more difficult the next and final step
becomes).
In any case you may a times be right at times but not really in any absolute
sense and for such lack of consistency your example fails to present any
value for deciphering/discerning the issue/question.
S>O>S>F>
"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.03112...@posting.google.com...
> It's not knowledge itself that has power as *social* forces rule, and
> I have a simple example to show you what I mean.
>
> A little while back I found a nifty way to *find* and count prime
> numbers that you can't find in any math textbook:
>
> With p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where S(x,1) = 0, and you get
> S(x,y) when y doesn;'t equal one by summing
>
> dS(x,j) = [p(x/j, j-1) - p(j-1, sqrt(j-1))][ p(j, sqrt(j)) - p(j-1,
> sqrt(j-1))],
>
> incrementing j from 2 to y in steps of 1.
>
> That little bit of math not only counts prime numbers, but finds
> individual prime numbers along the way--a first in recorded human
> history for a discrete closed function.
>
> That's *pure* knowledge which has run into a *social* block, which is
> a hatred between me and mathematicians.
>
> Mathematicians hate me for many reasons, and they have the social
> power to ignore or attack knowledge because I discovered it.
>
MI6 U2
news:<bpr5l5$9mc$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>...
> > jst...@msn.com (James Harris) writes:
Aren't you a mathematician by claiming to develop mathematical formula and
methods?