JSH: Not just about libel
jst...@gmail.com
experienced with what you may perceive as a threat of a libel lawsuit.
While I think libel is definitely a potential area for consideration of
a civil action it is not the only one.
I am not a legal expert but I have read that the law recognizes various
duties and responsibilities that all citizens have in actions towards
each other and also can give people designated "expert" special
responsibilities.
In talking with mathematicians I have sensed a belief that a
mathematician need not concern himself with mathematical research that
does not promote that particular person's career, which may be an
attitude at odds with the law.
That means that civil actions may take more complex forms than a simple
libel suit and may, though this post is not meant to declare they will,
include a wider array of potential tortfeasors, which can include
universities.
I will say though that I would not think it likely that a civil action
could be made attractive to attorneys without the potential of bringing
in defendants like universities, and it is my belief that legal
precedent can be set on the basis of common law, specifically good
faith.
That is, there is an expectation that mathematicians are bound by
social contracts that would expect that in acting with good faith they
would report on mathematical research that is important WITHOUT REGARD
to its value to their own research or careers and that failure to do so
is a BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, and more specifically is an act of bad
faith, which can be seen as a tort against an individual who is harmed
by such behavior, where such harm can be specific and/or general.
Under that legal principle both the mathematicians and their
universities could be brought into a civil action, which asserts there
is a great social good to be had from holding such institutions and
their members responsible at a level commensurate with the great trust
and prestige which is accorded to them in good faith by a society that
expects the same in return.
In short, I am talking about a case I'd guess is unlike anything you
have heard of before.
I read a lot so I can mention some legal stuff without asserting
expertise or claiming necessarily that the principles mentioned would
actually hold in any courts of law. But I suggest that those of you
who think you know about threats of libel suits and how difficult those
are, re-think and possibly send a copy of this post to an actual legal
expert.
In my view our academic world has clear flaws which have been shown by
this situation, and it may take court action which could impact how
academics is done.
That is not just a case about libel.
James Harris
gjed...@gmail.com
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, you'll win and be famous. Either that, or this time next year
you'll be posting the same old crap. I wonder which.
mensa...@aol.com
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think that a problem many of you have is that you think you are very
> experienced with what you may perceive as a threat of a libel lawsuit.
> While I think libel is definitely a potential area for consideration of
> a civil action it is not the only one.
>
> I am not a legal expert
What a surprise. Goes hand in hand with not being a math expert.
> but I have read that the law recognizes various
> duties and responsibilities that all citizens have in actions towards
> each other and also can give people designated "expert" special
> responsibilities.
And when the judge calls this argument hogwash, be sure and
call him a liar to his face. You'll get plenty of action that way.
Better check to see if Al Sharpton's calendar is free.
Rupert
The trouble is, there's pretty much no criterion for whether a piece of
mathematical research is important other than whether the mathematical
community perceives it to be important. If the mathematical community
doesn't think your research is important it would be very hard for you
to prove otherwise. There's only one piece of research you have which
is actually correct, in all other cases the question doesn't arise
because what you say is rubbish.
It would be an interesting world if courts felt themselves obliged or
able to rule on whether mathematical research was correct or
interesting. It's generally agreed that that has to be left to the
qualified mathematicians.
Larry Hammick
Liviu
news:1167540521.2...@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>[...] In talking with mathematicians I have sensed a belief that a
> mathematician need not concern himself with mathematical research that
> does not promote that particular person's career, which may be an
> attitude at odds with the law.
If you want them to listen, learn the language and speak it. Until then,
don't be surprised that none finds your babble worthy of even a response.
other than maybe the polite "sorry, this is not my area of expertise"
translation of "you are clueless, please go bug someone else now".
>[...] That is, there is an expectation that mathematicians are bound by
> social contracts that would expect that in acting with good faith they
> would report on mathematical research that is important
I'd call that ethics, rather than social contract. Anyway, by the same
token, they are also expected to reject and denounce garbage when they
see it. Would you agree?
> WITHOUT REGARD
> to its value to their own research or careers and that failure to do so
> is a BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, and more specifically is an act of bad
> faith, which can be seen as a tort against an individual who is harmed
> by such behavior, where such harm can be specific and/or general.
Right ;-) Improbable as it may be, a google newsgroup search for "knuth
dracula hermite" returns one hit, where your post claiming that
[x] + [x + 1/k] = [2x], with k>1 and x>=1
still shows. Quite funny, considering that you since deleted your other
rants in that thread against fellows who pointed that your original claim of
[x] + [x + 1/2] = [2x] was true, but ancient and trivial. Do you still
consider that as part of "mathematical research that is important"?
> Under that legal principle both the mathematicians and their
> universities could be brought into a civil action, which asserts there
> is a great social good to be had from holding such institutions and
> their members responsible at a level commensurate with the great trust
> and prestige which is accorded to them in good faith by a society that
> expects the same in return.
You are the same one who said sometime ago that... "My taxes help pay the
salaries of mathematicians. You work for me. Not the other way around."
...right? Compare to "my taxes pay the local police, therefore they have no
right to press DUI charges against me" ;-)
>[...] In short, I am talking about a case I'd guess is unlike anything you
> have heard of before.
I think you surprise people less than you imagine lately.
> James Harris
Happy New Year, with emphasis on New.
Or, else, another Sad Old Year. Your choice.
Liviu
Proginoskes
Rupert wrote:
> [...]
> The trouble is, there's pretty much no criterion for whether a piece of
> mathematical research is important other than whether the mathematical
> community perceives it to be important.
Until the start of the 20th century, non-Euclidean geometry was not
considered important.
Then along came a scientist named Bert who showed that the universe IS
non-Euclidean.
And "pure math" becomes "applied math".
> [...]
> It would be an interesting world if courts felt themselves obliged or
> able to rule on whether mathematical research was correct or
> interesting. It's generally agreed that that has to be left to the
> qualified mathematicians.
NSF has started hiring scientists to act as liasons between NSF and
Congress.
About freakin' time.
--- Christopher Heckman
David Bernier
> I think that a problem many of you have is that you think you are very
> experienced with what you may perceive as a threat of a libel lawsuit.
As I write, I'm not worried about libel lawsuits being brought
against me.
David Bernier
David C. Ullrich
>I think that a problem many of you have is that you think you are very
>experienced with what you may perceive as a threat of a libel lawsuit.
>While I think libel is definitely a potential area for consideration of
>a civil action it is not the only one.
>
>I am not a legal expert but I have read that the law recognizes various
>duties and responsibilities that all citizens have in actions towards
>each other and also can give people designated "expert" special
>responsibilities.
Huh. Do you recall where you read that?
Interesting theory.
>In short, I am talking about a case I'd guess is unlike anything you
>have heard of before.
Too easy.
>I read a lot so I can mention some legal stuff without asserting
>expertise or claiming necessarily that the principles mentioned would
>actually hold in any courts of law. But I suggest that those of you
>who think you know about threats of libel suits and how difficult those
>are, re-think and possibly send a copy of this post to an actual legal
>expert.
I don't see why you'd worry about what legal experts have to
say about all this! After all, why should they be any more
reliable than mathematical experts, who are well-known to be
wrong almost all the time about almost everything?
To heck with the experts, let's get started with the trial!
>In my view our academic world has clear flaws which have been shown by
>this situation, and it may take court action which could impact how
>academics is done.
>
>That is not just a case about libel.
>
>
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
jst...@gmail.com
Yup and I argue that mathematicians clearly feel confident that because
of that they can ignore provably important research.
So the legal challenge would be proving that my research is important
and that mathematicians are ignoring it because it does not help their
own careers, possibly relying on their knowledge that the system trusts
them to not do so.
That is the breach of the public trust which would allow me to not only
pursue civil actions against mathematicians but against their
universities as well, and pursue mathematicians who have made no public
statements about my research.
If I won those cases which would be the big ones, where the heavy
fighting would be done, I'd come back to the libel cases AFTERWARDS,
and quickly mop those up, internationally pursuing certain Usenet
posters and others who made libelous public statements, like on web
pages.
May be some fights there like even with civil liberties groups but I
think I could convince them that this is a special situation with a
huge abuse of the public trust by people who felt certain they could
not be held accountable because of the past difficulty in punishing
abuses on Usenet and the web.
It'd change the landscape by creating a way to make it worthwhile for
attorneys to pursue such cases.
So yes, I'd think libel would come up, but later. First I'd be going
after universities.
And yes, if I succeed it'd change the system, opening up for the courts
an area that has previously been left alone--and fraud has festered as
society's dubious reward--which is why it is crucial that I pursue
every other option first so that the egregious nature of the situation
makes it clear that going to court is the only option left.
Four years plus have gone by since my computer screen filled up with
prime numbers--the situation is clearly egregious.
James Harris
José Carlos Santos
> That is the breach of the public trust which would allow me to not only
> pursue civil actions against mathematicians but against their
> universities as well, and pursue mathematicians who have made no public
> statements about my research.
In other words, every single mathematician in the world, except for
those few who actually had a word to say about your research. The word
was "crap", of course.
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos
Jon Slaughter
<jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167583049.8...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Your a fucking nut case and that has been the only thing you have proven.
jst...@gmail.com
To make a legal case I'd need to show they had every opportunity so
that would mean mathematicians who could be proven to have known, for
instance, because I contacted them.
Making the case could involve a paid expert on the stand testifying
about my research versus what was previously known.
If you were someone who was of interest you could be called to the
stand and forced to testify under oath about specific features of my
research.
So no, you wouldn't be able to make a global statement against it, but
like you'd face a question like, was anything like this previously
known?
Or you could be asked, is there any other known multi-dimensional prime
counting function?
Is there any other known prime counting function that recursively calls
itself?
Can any other known prime counting function lead to a partial
differential equation?
Under oath and before a judge or jury, all the childish replies that
work on Usenet would just be shut down, and if you lied, you could face
perjury charges and that's just you.
You're just one person as I'd have a gamut of people that could be
called to the stand or deposed and forced to testify under oath.
Since no one would be able to claim my research is not of major
interest without being impeached and maybe even facing perjury charges
that aspect of a legal case is the easy part.
To interest attorneys I have to convince that someone could pay
penalties, and that someone would be universities.
For instance, Harvard University alone has an over $2 billion US
endowment.
James Harris
James Waldby
...
> That is, there is an expectation that mathematicians are bound by
> social contracts that would expect that in acting with good faith they
> would report on mathematical research that is important WITHOUT REGARD
No such expectation exists. On the contrary, the usual expectation
is that people will pay attention to, and communicate about, only
what is important to themselves.
Many people who respond to your posts do so to mitigate the harm
that you cause. You have wilfully posted thousands of erroneous
claims and have done little or nothing in the way of actual research.
You've made it clear, frequently and vehemently, that you don't
know how to make mathematical claims or how to prove them.
...
> In my view our academic world has clear flaws which have been shown by
> this situation, [...]
Of course the "academic world" is flawed; can you name a human
institution that isn't? But in your own case, the flaw is the
reverse of what you seem to think it is. Rather than paying
more attention to your error-filled posts, people should actively
shun them. You will become a much more popular person if you
stop posting in sci.math.
-jiw
junoexpress
> I am not a legal expert
Hey, don't let that stop you. I mean you came into math without being
an expert, and look at the results.
>
> That means that civil actions may take more complex forms ...which can include
> universities.
> I will say though that I would not think it likely that a civil action
> could be made attractive to attorneys without the potential of bringing
> in defendants like universities, and it is my belief that legal
> precedent can be set on the basis of common law, specifically good
> faith.
>
> That is, there is an expectation that mathematicians are bound by
> social contracts that would expect that in acting with good faith they
> would report on mathematical research that is important WITHOUT REGARD
> to its value to their own research or careers and that failure to do so
> is a BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, and more specifically is an act of bad
> faith, which can be seen as a tort against an individual who is harmed
> by such behavior, where such harm can be specific and/or general.
>
Sounds very legal (just like your papers seem very mathematical). But,
wouldn't you have to show that the universities knowingly allowed this
to occur? That WITH WILLFUL DISREGARD they allowed the professors to
BREACH PUBLIC TRUST with knowledge OF AFORESAID CONDUCT (unbecoming a
mathematician). My suggestion then is to contact every university of
these individuals (the universities are so scared of lawsuits that you
probably do not even need an attorney to scare them) and inform them of
the situation. If they are not affiliated with a university, then you
need to contact their internet providors, and if they are overseas
contact their embassy.
>
> In short, I am talking about a case I'd guess is unlike anything you
> have heard of before.
>
Hey, EXTREME MATHEMATICS surely requires EXTREME LAW. Besides what do
you have to lose? I mean maybe you get a jury full of people who
sucked at high school algebra, and hate mathematics. (I know this is
pretty much the reaction I get when I go to parties and tell people I
do math).
>But I suggest that those of you
> who think you know about threats of libel suits and how difficult those
> are, re-think and possibly send a copy of this post to an actual legal
> expert.
>
I am sure they all are. All this talk of how nobody is afraid is surely
a bluff. (You know the old "methinks thy doth protest too much...").
One thing you might want to think about that hasn't come up however. A
while back (I think it was one of the posts you didn't delete!), you
seemed to be of the opinion that the top math journals were above being
affected by Usenet people. At that point, you gave the impression that
*you* believed in thier integrity. Praytell, how can you explain to a
jury how you later came to a different conclusion? What proof would you
have that the editors willfully ignored your work (here you'd need the
experts again that you lack) or you would have to prove collusion with
Usenet posters (good luck with *that*).
Looks like you got some BRAINSTORMING to do (but I'm sure you'll come
up with another brilliant solution).
HTH,
Matt
gjed...@gmail.com
What exactly do you get out of these fantasies? I *could* this, it
*might* that, etc, etc.
Richard Henry
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think that a problem many of you have is that you think you are very
> experienced with what you may perceive as a threat of a libel lawsuit.
> While I think libel is definitely a potential area for consideration of
> a civil action it is not the only one.
>
James -
When I posted those links to articles about libel, it was a warning,
not a suggestion.
José Carlos Santos
>>> That is the breach of the public trust which would allow me to not only
>>> pursue civil actions against mathematicians but against their
>>> universities as well, and pursue mathematicians who have made no public
>>> statements about my research.
>> In other words, every single mathematician in the world, except for
>> those few who actually had a word to say about your research. The word
>> was "crap", of course.
>
> To make a legal case I'd need to show they had every opportunity so
> that would mean mathematicians who could be proven to have known, for
> instance, because I contacted them.
>
> Making the case could involve a paid expert on the stand testifying
> about my research versus what was previously known.
>
> If you were someone who was of interest you could be called to the
> stand and forced to testify under oath about specific features of my
> research.
Prime counting has nothing to do with my area of research. Therefore,
I would no be an expert as far as such a case is concerned.
> So no, you wouldn't be able to make a global statement against it, but
> like you'd face a question like, was anything like this previously
> known?
Even not being an expert, that's an easy one: the answer is "yes".
> Or you could be asked, is there any other known multi-dimensional prime
> counting function?
Another easy one. My answer would be "I have no idea what a
'multi-dimensional prime counting function' is".
> Is there any other known prime counting function that recursively calls
> itself?
A third easy question. The answer is "yes".
> Can any other known prime counting function lead to a partial
> differential equation?
As much as yours.
> Under oath and before a judge or jury, all the childish replies that
> work on Usenet would just be shut down, and if you lied, you could face
> perjury charges and that's just you.
I would love to see you presenting your case before a judge or a jury
(which you will never ever do, of course). And if I were an expert in
such a trial (a silly thought, of course, since I am not American) I
certainly would not use (or even feel the need of using) childish
replies. They would actually help you, obviously.
> You're just one person as I'd have a gamut of people that could be
> called to the stand or deposed and forced to testify under oath.
Why would you want to do that, anyway? Aren't you James Harris? Aren't
you "the most powerful person on the planet, quite capable of bringing
nations to their knees--any nation"?
> Since no one would be able to claim my research is not of major
> interest without being impeached and maybe even facing perjury charges
> that aspect of a legal case is the easy part.
>
> To interest attorneys I have to convince that someone could pay
> penalties, and that someone would be universities.
>
> For instance, Harvard University alone has an over $2 billion US
> endowment.
Go ahead James! Really! Make a fool of yourself, once again!
David C. Ullrich
Oh my god I can't stand it. I confess.
Yes, James, your curious theories about how experts are legally
responsible for everything they say or don't say, regardless of
the context, is exactly right. People have been pretending that
it's the wackiest thing they ever heard of because they're
terrified - they're desperately trying to talk you out of this
through ridicule.
***********
Damm. Ok, I confess again, my confession above was only
half honest. The part about your legal notions being correct
is right, of course. But someone needs to tell you: that's
exactly why everyone here laughs at your work!
See, we have this duty to the public, as you point out. If
you posted something here and we didn't all rise as one and
point out the idiocies we could be thrown in jail for
exactly that reason.
>Since no one would be able to claim my research is not of major
>interest without being impeached and maybe even facing perjury charges
>that aspect of a legal case is the easy part.
>
>To interest attorneys I have to convince that someone could pay
>penalties, and that someone would be universities.
Aw come on. I have I think almost a hundred dollars in the bank!
Sue me! Sue me! Come on, sue me, it's my turn!
>For instance, Harvard University alone has an over $2 billion US
>endowment.
>
>
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
junoexpress
> Oh my god I can't stand it. I confess.
>
> Yes, James, your curious theories about how experts are legally
> responsible for everything they say or don't say, regardless of
> the context, is exactly right. People have been pretending that
> it's the wackiest thing they ever heard of because they're
> terrified - they're desperately trying to talk you out of this
> through ridicule.
> Damm. Ok, I confess again, my confession above was only
> half honest. The part about your legal notions being correct
> is right, of course. But someone needs to tell you: that's
> exactly why everyone here laughs at your work!
>
> See, we have this duty to the public, as you point out. If
> you posted something here and we didn't all rise as one and
> point out the idiocies we could be thrown in jail for
> exactly that reason.
>
>
> David C. Ullrich
You _are_ in a tough spot. Damned if you do or damned if you do not say
things or not say things that may or may not have had an impact upon
the fate of the world.
The real tragic figure in all of this though is James, because he may
never get what he really wants: total power and control. James really
has to have total power and control: that's why he has his own ng (he's
not just the only poster, he's the president too). Sure, the $2 billion
he wins from Harvard will be some measure of vindication, and gaining
national fame will be of some consolation to him, but he will want
major changes to the SYSTEM. When he wins the court case, (which he
will because he has posters giving him ideas for a strategy, just like
they helped him write his proofs), he will want mathematical texts
rewritten, along with the history of math. He wil probably claim you
are a traitor to your country because you stood in the way of an
important national security issue, and will work to have your head on a
freaking pike that he can look at each morning as he rises. OTOH, since
you *did* the smart thing and confessed up front, he may go easier on
you.
MTB
jst...@gmail.com
Yet, have you seen my prime counting function? Do you understand that
it is a prime counting function? Is it or is it not,
multi-dimensional?
Has another multi-dimensional prime counting function been known
previously, or not?
Get some sense of now of how I could show you are lying, and lying
badly?
And then a judge or jury could see you as the liar you are.
It's not like Usenet where you can just go on about your business no
matter how obvious it is you lied, as in court, it's a different story.
That's just with two questions and with me not being an attorney and
without testimony from an expert or expert witnesses.
I am brainstorming a legal solution using extreme problem solving
techniques, and at this point I think the question of how easily people
like you'd be handled on the stand is answered, so it's no longer of
interest.
James Harris
N. Silver
> To make a legal case I'd need to show they had every
> opportunity so that would mean mathematicians who
> could be proven to have known, for instance, because
> I contacted them.
Wow! You are the Walter Mitty of mathematics research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty
> Making the case could involve a paid expert on the stand
> testifying about my research versus what was previously
> known.
The other side could rebut your witnesses, if there were any, by
calling distinguished professors you have harrised and editors
of defunct journals you have hoodwinked.
> If you were someone who was of interest you could be called
> to the stand and forced to testify under oath about specific
> features of my research.
The other side might actually be able to show that not only have
you have not done any original research but also are incapable of
it. They might call to the stand your former teachers, professors,
employers, and mental health professionals.
> So no, you wouldn't be able to make a global statement against it,
> but like you'd face a question like, was anything like this previously
> known?
Dream on.
> Or you could be asked, is there any other known multi-dimensional
> prime counting function?
or one-dimensional personality disorder
> Is there any other known prime counting function that recursively
> calls itself?
But is it recursively enumerable?
> Can any other known prime counting function lead to a partial
> differential equation?
If you mean the way yours does, then it's all of them.
> Under oath and before a judge or jury, all the childish replies that
> work on Usenet would just be shut down, and if you lied, you could
> face perjury charges and that's just you.
...either ten years of hard labor or a ticket to the JSH Follies.
> You're just one person as I'd have a gamut of people that could be
> called to the stand or deposed and forced to testify under oath.
> Since no one would be able to claim my research is not of major
> interest without being impeached and maybe even facing perjury charges
> that aspect of a legal case is the easy part.
In one minute, an attorney, using a stack of affidavits, would stipulate
that
your claims are without merit, false, and your "case" would be summarily
dismissed.
> To interest attorneys I have to convince that someone could pay
> penalties, and that someone would be universities.
The irony, of course, is that someone could initiate a real frivolous
lawsuit
against Vanderbilt University for granting you a degree, but it would
have more merit than the one you are pretending to consider.
> For instance, Harvard University alone has an over $2 billion US
> endowment.
With you, it's almost always about bottom line. Well, everybody knows
you're bluffing. In the poker world, they would call you a donkey or a fish.
You never learned how to play the game.
N. Silver
David Bernier
In a criminal trial, a defendant can "take the Fifth".
This means that the defendant may refuse to give
self-incriminating testimony.
In a civil procedure trial (a tort lawsuit, for example),
I don't know whether or not there may be cross-examinations
during trial and under oath.
> Since no one would be able to claim my research is not of major
> interest without being impeached and maybe even facing perjury charges
> that aspect of a legal case is the easy part.
If a mathematician, under oath, stated that
"Mr Harris's algorithm to count primes is
similar in many respects to previously
known methods and is not highly original." ,
How would you prove perjury?
> To interest attorneys I have to convince that someone could pay
> penalties, and that someone would be universities.
>
> For instance, Harvard University alone has an over $2 billion US
> endowment.
So the Harvard trial could last from a day to fifty years...
There are statutes of limitation in libel cases.
In California, it is one year from publication.
cf.:
< http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/ >
>
> James Harris
>
marcus_b
Libel?
You're living in a glass house.
Disagreeing with a mathematical argument is not libel.
Calling someone a liar when they're not, that's libel.
You of course haven't done that ... have you?
Here's a (partial!) list of people you have accused of lying,
cheating, being dishonest, etc., about mathematics:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ullrich
Arturo Magidin
Nora Baron
Dik Winter
Rupert McCallum
Tim Peters
W. Dale Hall
Keith Ramsay
William Hughes
Christian Bau
-------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the people above, to my knowledge, ever lied
to James Harris about math.
There are lots of others. Anyone who would like to
add other names, feel free.
Here's an example from Feb 8, 2005 in the
sci.crypt thread 'Factoring problem: my assertion
revisited':
---------------------------------------------------------
[begin quote]
[Rupert wrote:]
>> What I wanted to know is what *you* mean when you say you think
>>you've
>> solved the factoring problem. Do you claim you've found an algorithm
>> and proved it can factor arbitrary positive integers in polynomial
>> time?
[Harris]
> Yup. It's an easy proof but you people are not only arrogant, you're
> rude, and unwilling to actually listen to the facts, so I presented a
> simplified version which seemed to get your attention.
>
> But now I see you are back to your usual.
>
> The math is at a high school level.
>
> If you wish to act like you don't understand it, fine.
>
> But later, don't try to act like you should be believed when I say you
> should be tossed into jail or sued till you're penniless, as it's one
> thing to question, or to challenge, but it's another to mislead.
>
> If people lose billions they can come to some of you posting here to
> try and get some of it back.
>
> If you have little, they can still take that anyway, and feel a little
> better about what happened to them.
>
> And make no mistake, laws won't even protect you as they'll re-write
> the laws if they have to, as people will be PISSED, to think that you
> people sat around twiddling your thumbs, making dumb assertions, or
> lying and ignoring some easy math, when you pretend to be people that
> are to be admired for your intelligence.
>
> When you could have done something.
>
> Imagine, a LOT of people coming to you for some kind of satisfaction,
> just anything to make them feel a little better, after their world has
> come to an end.
>
> James Harris
>>
>> James Harris
[end quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were arguing with Rupert regarding your claim to
have solved the factoring problem. You explicitly accuse
Rupert of misleading people and lying, apparently in
this case because he dared to ask a question. You
claimed to have shown that you had a polynomial-time
solution to the factoring problem. Of course you
never delivered on that claim. You accused Rupert
of lying, but in the end, it was you who was claiming
a falsehood.
This has happened dozens of times. You accuse people
of lying because they dare to criticize your "math",
then later it emerges that they were right and you
were wrong.
There is a ton of evidence of this kind in the
Google groups archives. There is more elsewhere that
you have deleted from Google groups. But it's out
there, traceable back to you.
This evidence wouldn't look very good if you were
suing, say, Rupert for libel. Or cheating, or fraud.
You're living in a glass house.
You're threatening to throw rocks.
Bad idea.
Marcus.
nospam
<jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167540521.2...@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I think that a problem many of you have is that you think you are very
> experienced with what you may perceive as a threat of a libel lawsuit.
> While I think libel is definitely a potential area for consideration of
> a civil action it is not the only one.
>
> I am not a legal expert
nor a mathematician
> but I have read
you said you do not read books
> that the law recognizes various
> duties and responsibilities that all citizens have in actions towards
> each other and also can give people designated "expert" special
> responsibilities.
>
> In talking with mathematicians I have sensed
your senses are lying to you,
>a belief that a
> mathematician need not concern himself with mathematical research that
<snip dorkathon drivial>
> In short, I am talking about a case I'd guess is unlike anything you
> have heard of before.
.......like your math,
>
> I read a lot
not math, as you have said so often before
> so I can mention some legal stuff without asserting
> expertise or claiming necessarily that the principles mentioned would
> actually hold in any courts of law. But I suggest that those of you
> who think you know about threats of libel suits and how difficult those
> are, re-think and possibly send a copy of this post to an actual legal
> expert.
Great, they will review it and then publish it. (or they will reject it)
>
> In my view our academic world has clear flaws which have been shown by
> this situation, and it may take court action which could impact how
> academics is done.
>
> That is not just a case about libel.
you are right, it is a mental case
>
>
> James Harris
>
Larry Hammick
> If you were someone who was of interest you could be called to the
stand and forced to testify under oath about specific features of my
research.
[etc. etc.]
Moron. You can force nothing from anyone. The only person on earth who gives
a shit about your false and worthless claims is you yourself. Your daily
wallowing in narcissism, for years on end, has rendered you brainless.
nospam
<jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167594345....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
José Carlos Santos wrote:
<snip>
>Yet, have you seen my prime counting function? Do you understand that
>it is a prime counting function? Is it or is it not,
>multi-dimensional?
>Has another multi-dimensional prime counting function been known
>previously, or not?
>Get some sense of now of how I could show you are lying, and lying
>badly?
>And then a judge or jury could see you as the liar you are.
Your problem is you must show the jury first that your PCF was real, was
your orgional work, and that you suffered finantially from what happened.
...and you can't do any of that now can you?
Rupert
You're not listening. If there's no criterion except whether the
mathematical community thinks it's important, then you can't prove it's
important - it's not important.
> So the legal challenge would be proving that my research is important
> and that mathematicians are ignoring it because it does not help their
> own careers, possibly relying on their knowledge that the system trusts
> them to not do so.
>
That's like someone trying to prove in court that he's written a great
novel when everyone else thinks it's junk.
> That is the breach of the public trust which would allow me to not only
> pursue civil actions against mathematicians but against their
> universities as well, and pursue mathematicians who have made no public
> statements about my research.
>
If you think mathematicians have some sort of legal obligation to make
public statements about your research then you're insane.
> If I won those cases which would be the big ones, where the heavy
> fighting would be done, I'd come back to the libel cases AFTERWARDS,
> and quickly mop those up, internationally pursuing certain Usenet
> posters and others who made libelous public statements, like on web
> pages.
>
> May be some fights there like even with civil liberties groups but I
> think I could convince them that this is a special situation with a
> huge abuse of the public trust by people who felt certain they could
> not be held accountable because of the past difficulty in punishing
> abuses on Usenet and the web.
>
> It'd change the landscape by creating a way to make it worthwhile for
> attorneys to pursue such cases.
>
> So yes, I'd think libel would come up, but later. First I'd be going
> after universities.
>
> And yes, if I succeed it'd change the system, opening up for the courts
> an area that has previously been left alone--and fraud has festered as
> society's dubious reward--which is why it is crucial that I pursue
> every other option first so that the egregious nature of the situation
> makes it clear that going to court is the only option left.
>
> Four years plus have gone by since my computer screen filled up with
> prime numbers--the situation is clearly egregious.
>
No, it's not. Your prime counting program has gotten every bit of the
attention it deserved and much more besides.
>
> James Harris
Proginoskes
And if empty beer cans were airplanes, my brother's apartment would be
the Denver International Airport.
> and quickly mop those up, internationally pursuing certain Usenet
> posters and others who made libelous public statements, like on web
> pages.
>
> May be some fights there like even with civil liberties groups but I
> think I could convince them that this is a special situation with a
> huge abuse of the public trust by people who felt certain they could
> not be held accountable because of the past difficulty in punishing
> abuses on Usenet and the web.
>
> It'd change the landscape by creating a way to make it worthwhile for
> attorneys to pursue such cases.
>
> So yes, I'd think libel would come up, but later. First I'd be going
> after universities.
>
> And yes, if I succeed it'd change the system, opening up for the courts
> an area that has previously been left alone--and fraud has festered as
> society's dubious reward--which is why it is crucial that I pursue
> every other option first so that the egregious nature of the situation
> makes it clear that going to court is the only option left.
>
> Four years plus have gone by since my computer screen filled up with
> prime numbers--the situation is clearly egregious.
Only four years ago? Mine began filling up with prime numbers 20 years
ago. Get with it.
--- Christopher Heckman
Proginoskes
> > > Or you could be asked, is there any other known multi-dimensional prime
> > > counting function?
> >
> > Another easy one. My answer would be "I have no idea what a
> > 'multi-dimensional prime counting function' is".
> >
>
> Yet, have you seen my prime counting function? Do you understand that
> it is a prime counting function?
There is only one prime-counting function. There are different
FORMULAS, however.
> Is it or is it not, multi-dimensional?
To the best of my knowledge, a multi-dimensional prime-counting
function would count multi-dimensional primes, i.e., objects of the
form (x(1),x(2),...,x(n)) which are prime.
Maybe JSH means a multi-VARIATE prime-counting FORMULA.
> Has another multi-dimensional prime counting function been known
> previously, or not?
Multi-variate, yes; Lagrange's Method.
> Get some sense of now of how I could show you are lying, and lying
> badly?
He11, JSH couldn't even hold a programming job at AllTel. I doubt JSH
could reason his way out of a paper bag.
> And then a judge or jury could see you as the liar you are.
>
> It's not like Usenet where you can just go on about your business no
> matter how obvious it is you lied, as in court, it's a different story.
>
> That's just with two questions and with me not being an attorney and
> without testimony from an expert or expert witnesses.
That's right, JSH is not an attorney, and he can't even find expert
witnesses. One of the e-mail contacts he brags about is with someone
who said, "That's not my area."
If JSH is too lazy to Google for "prime-counting" and research, it
won't look too good.
> I am brainstorming a legal solution using extreme problem solving
> techniques,
If JSH makes a suggestion, and a lawyer says it won't work, will JSH
call HIM/HER a liar?
> and at this point I think the question of how easily people
> like you'd be handled on the stand is answered, so it's no longer of
> interest.
I think so, too, but my conclusions are different.
--- Christopher Heckman
Proginoskes
... which clearly has no relationship to reality, since JSH has never
_been_ in the academic world ...
> > has clear flaws which have been shown by
> > this situation, and it may take court action which could impact how
> > academics is done.
> >
> > That is not just a case about libel.
> >
>
> Libel?
>
> You're living in a glass house.
>
> Disagreeing with a mathematical argument is not libel.
>
> Calling someone a liar when they're not, that's libel.
>
> You of course haven't done that ... have you?
>
> Here's a (partial!) list of people you have accused of lying,
> cheating, being dishonest, etc., about mathematics:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> David Ullrich
> Arturo Magidin
> Nora Baron
> Dik Winter
> Rupert McCallum
> Tim Peters
> W. Dale Hall
> Keith Ramsay
> William Hughes
> Christian Bau
Christopher Heckman
José Carlos Santos
>>> Making the case could involve a paid expert on the stand testifying
>>> about my research versus what was previously known.
>>>
>>> If you were someone who was of interest you could be called to the
>>> stand and forced to testify under oath about specific features of my
>>> research.
>> Prime counting has nothing to do with my area of research. Therefore,
>> I would no be an expert as far as such a case is concerned.
>>
>>> So no, you wouldn't be able to make a global statement against it, but
>>> like you'd face a question like, was anything like this previously
>>> known?
>> Even not being an expert, that's an easy one: the answer is "yes".
>>
>>> Or you could be asked, is there any other known multi-dimensional prime
>>> counting function?
>> Another easy one. My answer would be "I have no idea what a
>> 'multi-dimensional prime counting function' is".
>
> Yet, have you seen my prime counting function?
Yes, I saw the algorithm which you describe stupidly as your prime
counting function.
> Do you understand that it is a prime counting function?
I understand that your algorithm actually counts primes.
> Is it or is it not, multi-dimensional?
Which part of "I have no idea what a 'multi-dimensional prime counting
function' is" did you fail to understand?
> Has another multi-dimensional prime counting function been known
> previously, or not?
Again, which part of "I have no idea what a 'multi-dimensional prime
counting function' is" did you fail to understand?
> Get some sense of now of how I could show you are lying, and lying
> badly?
Not at all. But thanks for asking.
> And then a judge or jury could see you as the liar you are.
In the immortal words of Eliza Doolittle: "Not Bl**dy Likely!"
> It's not like Usenet where you can just go on about your business no
> matter how obvious it is you lied, as in court, it's a different story.
Indeed. That's why you post a lot at Usenet, but you will never expose
your case before a court (as much as I would love it if you would do
that).
Just a question. If you would go to court, what would you answer the
judge if he asked you whether or not you claim to be "the most powerful
person on the planet, quite capable of bringing nations to their
knees--any nation"? And what do you think this will do to your case?
junoexpress
> Just a question. If you would go to court, what would you answer the
> judge if he asked you whether or not you claim to be "the most powerful
> person on the planet, quite capable of bringing nations to their
> knees--any nation"? And what do you think this will do to your case?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jose Carlos Santos
>
Good point. And remember also not to strut around with your one hand
inside the breast pocket of your coat.
Also probably not best to talk about how you think the govt is
following (and most likely acting) on your posts about the weird
connections you see in international events. The judge, you see, might
not be familar with just how great you are (although come on, let's
admit it, your intellect is so profound, so penetrating, so evidently
superior, that he'll probably be bowled over by your remarkable
intellect the first time he speaks to you), so just to play it on the
safe side, you might want to keep those things on the QT. (However, if
you feel, by some odd chance, that you are losing, then bring in the
big guns and let the judge know these important facts, as your case may
alter the Usenet, indeed history itself ! )
Whew,
Matt
jst...@gmail.com
Do you know what multi-dimensional is?
James Harris
mensa...@aol.com
You guys bring up a lot of good points, but you keep overlooking
the most important issue: the OJ jury.
Do you think your expert testimony will sway a bunch of grade-school
dropouts?
OJSH doesn't need any experts, he just needs a jury. If he were to
get that far, he wins automatically.
You guys are doomed unless the judge dismisses the case before
it gets to a jury.
>
> Matt
jst...@gmail.com
Do you know what "multi-dimensional" means?
If not, I can provide you with a definition.
<deleted>
>
> Just a question. If you would go to court, what would you answer the
> judge if he asked you whether or not you claim to be "the most powerful
> person on the planet, quite capable of bringing nations to their
> knees--any nation"? And what do you think this will do to your case?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jose Carlos Santos
If a miner found a diamond and took it to diamond dealers who thought
they could cheat him out of the value of that diamond, and he found out
and took them to court, do you think that part of their defense might
be what he said that had nothing to do with diamonds?
Like if he used to wander around muttering to himself weirdly, and
maybe HAD brought in a bunch of rocks before that weren't diamonds, so
the diamond experts who could just quickly look and tell a diamond from
a rock, thought they could cheat him that much more easily.
Do you think part of their defense would be saying that the guy was a
kook, so they thought his rock wasn't a diamond, when the judge and
jury would know that diamond experts can--just look at the diamond, and
NOT the person who dug it up.
Or do you disagree? Think that a diamond's value is about what people
think of the person who dug it up?
James Harris
Peter Bowditch
>Do you know what "multi-dimensional" means?
>
>If not, I can provide you with a definition.
Thanks. Do so.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
marcus_b
> José Carlos Santos wrote:
> > jst...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >>> That is the breach of the public trust which would allow me to not only
> > >>> pursue civil actions against mathematicians but against their
> > >>> universities as well, and pursue mathematicians who have made no public
> > >>> statements about my research.
[snip]
>
> Yet, have you seen my prime counting function? Do you understand that
> it is a prime counting function? Is it or is it not,
> multi-dimensional?
>
> Has another multi-dimensional prime counting function been known
> previously, or not?
>
> Get some sense of now of how I could show you are lying, and lying
> badly?
>
> And then a judge or jury could see you as the liar you are.
>
Saying that someone is lying when they are not is libel.
Here is an example from June 8 - June 15, 2006. You were arguing
with Rick Decker and Tim Peters about your 'surrogate factoring'
idea. There are 3 excerpts below:
1. June 8, 2006: You flatly state that Rick and Tim are lying.
You imply they will be killed by 2007 for what they have
done. (Rick, Tim? Are you still out there?)
2. June 10, 2006: You admit you were wrong.
3. June 15, 2006: You again warn Rick and Tim that at least some
people will be angry with them for opposing your ideas -
"you both have a history of arguing with me" - and they may
become pariahs for the rest of their lives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin excerpt 1: June 8, 2008:
Re: JSH: SF: Finally, surrogate factoring
Posted: Jun 8, 2006 3:37 AM
Rick Decker wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
> > [Rick Decker]
> >
>
> <snip>
[James Harris]
>
> >>>I wonder if you just lied.
> >
> >
[Rick Decker]
> >>You just can't resist, can you? Are you naturally boorish, or do
> >>you have to work at it?
> >
> >
[Tim Peters]
> > I strongly suspect that bit of gratuitous assholishness was deliberate. God
> > only knows why, but James got it into his head that he needs to _provoke_
> > people into replying when he thinks they know something he wants to find
> > out. That's just his despicable way of trying to goad you into doing his
> > work for him. It's especially idiotic in this case, since if he had any
> > memory he'd recall that you typically respond much better to polite requests
> > than to his stupid baiting tactics.
> >
> > But, in this case, I'm afraid what he'll take away is "ha! it worked again",
> > without a shadow of a clue that it was neither necessary nor helpful to
> > behave like an ass.
> >
[Rick Decker]
> Sadly, I predict you're right again.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick
[James Harris]
You're both lying.
I am going to warn you.
Neither of you will live to see 2007 because of this lie becaue there
will be angry people who will kill you, as there is so much money at
stake.
Billions will be lost.
It's not like you can reverse it now either.
You killed yourselves.
It might have seemed like a small lie to both of you, but your names
will live in infamy, while you will not live at all.
James Harris
End excerpt 1, June 8, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin excerpt 2, June 10, 2006
James Harris: Surrogate factoring, dead idea
Posted: Jun 10, 2006 5:52 PM
[James Harris]
Last postings on this subject I was in dumb denial about the failure of
my latest ideas with what I call surrogate factoring as I accused two
posters of lying about the calculation.
I was wrong, they were right.
[snip]
End excerpt 2, June 10, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin excerpt 3, June 15, 2006
JSH: To Decker and Peters
Posted: Jun 15, 2006 9:18 PM
[James Harris]
I think it will be very nice of me to point out to you both that
factoring is important in the big scheme of things, so if you even
inadvertently give the impression that valid ideas are not viable, and
it turns out they are, there are probably going to be at least some
people who will be very angry with you.
So be careful.
Hey, if this idea can't be made practical, like all my other flawed
ideas, it'll just sit out there like a dead duck.
But I think it can. And you both have a history of arguing with me
against my research, so malice can easily be tossed up, as a motive for
your behavior.
But TRILLIONS of dollars flow around the world based on ideas that I
may have shown are flawed, so the consequences for you both if these
ideas are correct, well, use your imaginations.
At best you could find yourselves pariahs for the rest of your lives,
infamous around the world, as the two people who stepped up to try and
block the information, when the factoring problem died.
James Harris
End excerpt 3, June 15, 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's not like Usenet where you can just go on about your business no
> matter how obvious it is you lied, as in court, it's a different story.
>
> That's just with two questions and with me not being an attorney and
> without testimony from an expert or expert witnesses.
>
See excerpts above. You're going to have a lot of fun explaining
your history to the judge and jury.
Marcus.
nospam
<jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167678128.8...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
James Harris
- it is the value of the diamond that is evaluated,
- personalities have nothing to do with it
- unfortunatly, you have only rocks so far
- what do you consider unique and valuable about
- "multi-dimentional" PCF ?
- Dr Jim Rudaford
Rick Decker
marcus_b wrote:
> jst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>José Carlos Santos wrote:
>>
>>>jst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>That is the breach of the public trust which would allow me to not only
>>>>>>pursue civil actions against mathematicians but against their
>>>>>>universities as well, and pursue mathematicians who have made no public
>>>>>>statements about my research.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Yet, have you seen my prime counting function? Do you understand that
>>it is a prime counting function? Is it or is it not,
>>multi-dimensional?
>>
>>Has another multi-dimensional prime counting function been known
>>previously, or not?
>>
>>Get some sense of now of how I could show you are lying, and lying
>>badly?
>>
>>And then a judge or jury could see you as the liar you are.
>>
>
>
> Saying that someone is lying when they are not is libel.
>
> Here is an example from June 8 - June 15, 2006. You were arguing
> with Rick Decker and Tim Peters about your 'surrogate factoring'
> idea. There are 3 excerpts below:
>
> 1. June 8, 2006: You flatly state that Rick and Tim are lying.
> You imply they will be killed by 2007 for what they have
> done. (Rick, Tim? Are you still out there?)
Yup. Happy new year.
Regards,
Rick
jst...@gmail.com
Actually my argument was that if I had found a solution to the
factoring problem and that posters were lying about that so that the
world didn't realize it until later, then if some people lost a lot of
money they might get very upset, and I said something about Decker and
Tim Peters possibly getting killed by an angry mob. At the time I
figured that it would take only a few months--if I had a solution to
the factoring problem--so they could find they didn't even survive
2006.
But today I know of no signs that RSA security has been broken, so no
people with lost money from it being broken, and no angry mob, so that
scenario did not come to pass.
I no longer pursue research on the factoring problem.
I am not a legal expert, but I have read some things on the subject.
Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice.
The real story is of course too inconvenient for Usenet posters like
you both to get right.
And, it would not be admissible in a court case that I'd bring as that
would be about the value of my research, so the post would not be
relevant, though if Decker or Peters tried to say it was libel then I
guess they could try to sue me and bring it into court for a case
they'd bring.
More and more it is becoming very clear that many of you not only don't
have even a passing knowledge of the legal system, but you have a weird
need to act like legal experts anyway.
It's like you have no clue that legal matters can actually be about
more than talk or what you think you know, but require actual expertise
and expert knowledge.
And again I remind that I am not a legal expert, but I have read some
things on the subject.
Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice.
James Harris
Tim Peters
[marcus_b]
> Saying that someone is lying when they are not is libel.
>
> Here is an example from June 8 - June 15, 2006. You were arguing
> with Rick Decker and Tim Peters about your 'surrogate factoring'
> idea. There are 3 excerpts below:
>
> 1. June 8, 2006: You flatly state that Rick and Tim are lying.
> You imply they will be killed by 2007 for what they have
> done.
Much stronger than mere implication. He said flat out that Rick and Tim
would be killed by "angry people" because of "this lie".
> (Rick, Tim? Are you still out there?)
I don't know about Rick, but I was in fact killed by angry people last
night for my lies about James's math, 5 seconds before midnight.
However, I'm far more powerful than James suspects, and managed to
resurrect myself 10 seconds later ;-)
> 2. June 10, 2006: You admit you were wrong.
>
> 3. June 15, 2006: You again warn Rick and Tim that at least some
> people will be angry with them for opposing your ideas -
> "you both have a history of arguing with me" - and they may
> become pariahs for the rest of their lives.
Of course there are many more you could add to this collection. James
accusing someone of lying is as common as James making a nonsensical
mathematical argument.
> [... moronic JSH rants ...]
> See excerpts above. You're going to have a lot of fun explaining
> your history to the judge and jury.
I'm afraid he'd love it -- center of attention, & all that.
> ...
jst...@gmail.com
Tim Peters wrote:
> ...
>
> [marcus_b]
> > Saying that someone is lying when they are not is libel.
> >
> > Here is an example from June 8 - June 15, 2006. You were arguing
> > with Rick Decker and Tim Peters about your 'surrogate factoring'
> > idea. There are 3 excerpts below:
> >
> > 1. June 8, 2006: You flatly state that Rick and Tim are lying.
> > You imply they will be killed by 2007 for what they have
> > done.
>
> Much stronger than mere implication. He said flat out that Rick and Tim
> would be killed by "angry people" because of "this lie".
>
And if I'd solved the factoring problem and that were known, and a lot
of people lost a lot of money as a result, you might have been killed
by an angry mob.
> > (Rick, Tim? Are you still out there?)
>
> I don't know about Rick, but I was in fact killed by angry people last
> night for my lies about James's math, 5 seconds before midnight.
> However, I'm far more powerful than James suspects, and managed to
> resurrect myself 10 seconds later ;-)
>
> > 2. June 10, 2006: You admit you were wrong.
> >
> > 3. June 15, 2006: You again warn Rick and Tim that at least some
> > people will be angry with them for opposing your ideas -
> > "you both have a history of arguing with me" - and they may
> > become pariahs for the rest of their lives.
>
> Of course there are many more you could add to this collection. James
> accusing someone of lying is as common as James making a nonsensical
> mathematical argument.
>
> > [... moronic JSH rants ...]
>
> > See excerpts above. You're going to have a lot of fun explaining
> > your history to the judge and jury.
>
> I'm afraid he'd love it -- center of attention, & all that.
>
> > ...
Not that I'm giving legal advice as I'm not an expert, but for a case
I'd bring, none of it would I think be admissible.
If you wanted to sue me, of course, I'd think that'd be a different
matter, but I believed I'd found a solution to the factoring problem
and that you and Decker were lying about it, and I was a afraid that
could lead to your deaths.
So I was putting a warning up, but luckily it turned out to be
unnecessary.
The world seems to be going just fine in this area last I checked with
no angry mobs upset about losing huge sums of money.
James Harris
hagman
jst...@gmail.com schrieb:
> I no longer pursue research on the factoring problem.
Thank you.
> More and more it is becoming very clear that many of you not only don't
> have even a passing knowledge of the legal system, but you have a weird
> need to act like legal experts anyway.
My expertise of US legal system is based on watching a few Matlock
episodes
and from newspaper trivia about (in my eyes) ridiculous cases won where
people get
gazillions of dollars because the fresh coffee they bought was as hot
as fresh
coffee is by definition.
Based on this I estimate that your case hardly has a chance as it is
far
beyond that level of ridiculosity.
> And again I remind that I am not a legal expert, but I have read some
> things on the subject.
So do consider an expert (legal, math, medical, whatever).
Jesse F. Hughes
> Do you know what "multi-dimensional" means?
>
> If not, I can provide you with a definition.
Cool! I want a definition!
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Such behaviour is exclusively confined to functions invented by
mathematicians for the sake of causing trouble."
-Albert Eagle's _A Practical Treatise on Fourier's Theorem_
Jesse F. Hughes
> Actually my argument was that if I had found a solution to the
> factoring problem and that posters were lying about that so that the
> world didn't realize it until later, then if some people lost a lot of
> money they might get very upset, and I said something about Decker and
> Tim Peters possibly getting killed by an angry mob. At the time I
> figured that it would take only a few months--if I had a solution to
> the factoring problem--so they could find they didn't even survive
> 2006.
Perhaps you should take a course in remedial writing then. Marcus
already quoted the text. Here it is:
,----
| You're both lying.
|
| I am going to warn you.
|
| Neither of you will live to see 2007 because of this lie becaue there
| will be angry people who will kill you, as there is so much money at
| stake.
|
| Billions will be lost.
|
| It's not like you can reverse it now either.
|
| You killed yourselves.
|
| It might have seemed like a small lie to both of you, but your names
| will live in infamy, while you will not live at all.
`----
Nothing there about *if* you found the solution. Nothing there about
*possibly* being killed. You were fairly explicit. Both of them were
lying. They would be killed because of the lie. Billions would be
lost (presumably because the factorization method works).
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Sir, if you won't say sorry for killing father and mother, then I'll
shoot you." -- Quincy P. Hughes, screenwriter
Tim Peters
> Actually my argument was that if I had found a solution to the
> factoring problem and that posters were lying about that so that the
> world didn't realize it until later, then if some people lost a lot of
> money they might get very upset, and I said something about Decker and
> Tim Peters possibly getting killed by an angry mob.
Liar. There was no "possibly" about it. You said flat out we'd be
killed before 2007. There was nothing conditional about it.
> ...
> And, it would not be admissible in a court case that I'd bring as that
> would be about the value of my research, so the post would not be
> relevant, though if Decker or Peters tried to say it was libel then I
> guess they could try to sue me and bring it into court for a case
> they'd bring.
To sue you for libel I'd have to demonstrate damage to me. But since
nobody takes you seriously, what possible damage could I have suffered?
The fact is that your insane behavior primarily injures you.
> More and more it is becoming very clear that many of you not only
> don't have even a passing knowledge of the legal system, but you have
> a weird need to act like legal experts anyway.
>
> It's like you have no clue that legal matters can actually be about
> more than talk or what you think you know, but require actual
> expertise and expert knowledge.
Both of which are 100% against you. Even if you had a tiny bit of
expert support, and you don't, your insane behavior would certainly be
an issue: suing someone over "your math" is part of a decade-long
/pattern/ making threats. It goes directly to your motivations and
sanity.
> And again I remind that I am not a legal expert, but I have read some
> things on the subject.
Try asking a real lawyer.
> Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice.
Just as nothing in your sci.math posts should be confused with
mathematics <0.5 wink>.
Lee Rudolph
>Nothing there about *if* you found the solution. Nothing there about
>*possibly* being killed. You were fairly explicit. Both of them were
>lying. They would be killed because of the lie. Billions would be
>lost (presumably because the factorization method works).
That was an extract from the soon-to-be-pulped-before-publication
bestseller _If I Proved It_.
Lee Rudolph
marcus_b
No, liar. You said:
"You're both lying."
That's a direct quote. There was nothing weaselly in your
post like " ... if I had found a solution ...", etc. There
were no implied conditionals, just the bald statement,
"You're both lying."
> then if some people lost a lot of
> money they might get very upset, and I said something about Decker and
> Tim Peters possibly getting killed by an angry mob.
No, liar. You went on to say:
"I am going to warn you.
"Neither of you will live to see 2007 because of
this lie becaue there will be angry people who will
kill you, as there is so much money at stake."
You did NOT say "... possibly getting killed ...". You
flatly said they would not live to see 2007.
> At the time I
> figured that it would take only a few months--if I had a solution to
> the factoring problem
No, liar. You didn't say "if I had a solution ...".
You said they were lying and they would be killed. Period.
No ifs, ands, or buts.
> --so they could find they didn't even survive
> 2006.
>
> But today I know of no signs that RSA security has been broken, so no
> people with lost money from it being broken, and no angry mob, so that
> scenario did not come to pass.
>
> I no longer pursue research on the factoring problem.
>
Good decision.
> I am not a legal expert, but I have read some things on the subject.
> Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice.
>
Why qualify your statements by saying you're not
an expert? That certainly has not held you back when
it comes to math.
> The real story is of course too inconvenient for Usenet posters like
> you both to get right.
>
> And, it would not be admissible in a court case that I'd bring as that
> would be about the value of my research, so the post would not be
> relevant, though if Decker or Peters tried to say it was libel then I
> guess they could try to sue me and bring it into court for a case
> they'd bring.
>
It would relate to your motivation and a judge's decision
regarding whether or not your suit was frivolous. It
would be very easy to document a pattern of attempted
intimidation by you toward your critics: intimidation
in the form of libellous and defamatory statements. There
is copious detailed evidence of this in the public record
and it can be traced directly back to you, even though
you have deleted much of it - including the "You're both
lying" post - from sci.math. In addition there are hundreds
if not thousands of witnesses.
A judge might go a little farther in his thinking. He
might conclude from your post quoted above, and from
a large number of similar posts (involving angry mobs,
perp walks, collapse of the world economy, etc) that you
were not just bringing a frivolous lawsuit. He might conclude
that you are mentally unbalanced. He might conclude
you are a classic case of a crank. If that happens, and
I don't think it's a long shot, you have no chance at all.
Peters and Decker are not going to sue you. It's not
worth the bother, although they might have a fair chance
of winning. You almost apologized to them in your June
10 post. But there are dozens of other people out there
that you have accused of lying to whom you did not even
almost-apologize, although they were proven to be telling
the truth. Someone someday may bring a lawsuit. I
doubt very much you will give up your nasty habit of calling
people liars.
> More and more it is becoming very clear that many of you not only don't
> have even a passing knowledge of the legal system, but you have a weird
> need to act like legal experts anyway.
>
Tell us about it.
> It's like you have no clue that legal matters can actually be about
> more than talk or what you think you know, but require actual expertise
> and expert knowledge.
>
Right. So go for it. Quit threatening and do it.
> And again I remind that I am not a legal expert, but I have read some
> things on the subject.
>
In much the same way you once read about "games theory"?
In the same way you read about Galois theory, but didn't
quite know the definition of 'automorphism'?
> Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice.
>
Oh, good.
How come you don't qualify you math posts in the same way?
Marcus.
>
> James Harris
mensa...@aol.com
"But, you Honor, the reason I shouted fire in that crowded
theater was because I saw someone smoking and was afraid
that could lead to the deaths of the patrons."
gjed...@gmail.com
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
And yet in the post below, you are certainly not 'afraid' that angry
mobs will kill people, you are actively inciting violence. Personally,
if I'd ever written something like this, I'd be *begging* for
psychological help. Then again, by definition, not being barking mad, I
wouldn't have written in the first place.
========Begin Quote=====
<begin quote>
I am still puzzled which is why this situation may
continue for a little while longer as I never, ever
thought that you people would sell out the United States,
put lives in jeopardy, and act like no one would care as
if no one would be bothered by dead soldiers or dead
civilians because some "mathematicians" decided they
couldn't be bothered with telling the truth.
But I am more and more less interested in figuring out
what brain dysfunction afflicts you people than in moving
forward to protecting my country and ending this bizarre
situation.
I am not ready to give up the United States.
This chess game moves to a new level.
I will move to protect the king, and I do not think the
Queen is yet in jeopardy.
Nukes don't bother me, but I will not stand for a certain
happening.
I need a demonstration of faith. There are some flies
and gnats that annoy me.
Permission is granted to remove them, with extreme
prejudice.
There are few limits, but those limits that are there
must be heeded.
An example is in order, but make it a big one, and make
it soon, as in 24 hours.
___JSH
<end quote>
Tom S
<snip>
>
>If a miner found a diamond and took it to diamond dealers who thought
>they could cheat him out of the value of that diamond, and he found out
>and took them to court,
The judge would throw the case out before it even got scheduled. the
diamond buyers are independent business men who are not obligated to
buy any thing, nor are they required to give fair market value for
what they choose to buy. They offer you a price for your diamond. you
can either accept their offer or go else where, or decide to not sell
it after all.
Tom S.
huangx...@yahoo.com
The Judge would probably beat him to death with his gavel.
If the Taser hits you in the right spot they can actually make you do
involuntary jumping jacks and pushups and other kinds of exercises. I
think this might be a weight loss ploy.
jst...@gmail.com
> [jst...@gmail.com]
> > Actually my argument was that if I had found a solution to the
> > factoring problem and that posters were lying about that so that the
> > world didn't realize it until later, then if some people lost a lot of
> > money they might get very upset, and I said something about Decker and
> > Tim Peters possibly getting killed by an angry mob.
>
> Liar. There was no "possibly" about it. You said flat out we'd be
> killed before 2007. There was nothing conditional about it.
>
The scenario given was conditional on me having solved the factoring
problem, that solution being one you and Decker were lying about--and
yes I accused you of lying about it as I felt very confident I HAD
solved the factoring problem--that solution and your lies about it
leading to a lot of money being lost by a LOT of people who'd be angry
enough to kill you once they found out your fault.
That's the scenario. Go back and read the thread if you need to
understand it.
> > ...
> > And, it would not be admissible in a court case that I'd bring as that
> > would be about the value of my research, so the post would not be
> > relevant, though if Decker or Peters tried to say it was libel then I
> > guess they could try to sue me and bring it into court for a case
> > they'd bring.
>
> To sue you for libel I'd have to demonstrate damage to me. But since
> nobody takes you seriously, what possible damage could I have suffered?
> The fact is that your insane behavior primarily injures you.
>
Sounds like a legal opinion to me.
I think part of you may also realize you'd be laughed out of court.
As you'd have to have had real concern that I had solved the factoring
problem, known you were lying about it, and realized that possibly you
could face an angry crowd of people who'd lost a ton of money as a
result.
So I think that legally you need a lot more like real belief that I
solved the factoring problem, with a knowledge that you were lying
about that solution, which could lead to your death because angry
people who lost money came after you.
That is just a guess of course as I don't pretend to be a legal expert
nor do I want you to think I am. That point seems obvious enough.
You needed to actually know you were lying about my factoring research,
and worry that an angry mob might kill you as a consequence. Common
sense says that must be true.
> > More and more it is becoming very clear that many of you not only
> > don't have even a passing knowledge of the legal system, but you have
> > a weird need to act like legal experts anyway.
> >
> > It's like you have no clue that legal matters can actually be about
> > more than talk or what you think you know, but require actual
> > expertise and expert knowledge.
>
> Both of which are 100% against you. Even if you had a tiny bit of
> expert support, and you don't, your insane behavior would certainly be
> an issue: suing someone over "your math" is part of a decade-long
> /pattern/ making threats. It goes directly to your motivations and
> sanity.
>
But my behavior is not insane as it makes great sense--if I was
concerned I'd solved the factoring problem.
> > And again I remind that I am not a legal expert, but I have read some
> > things on the subject.
>
> Try asking a real lawyer.
>
But of course that is only common sense.
> > Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice.
>
> Just as nothing in your sci.math posts should be confused with
> mathematics <0.5 wink>.
Well you are lying there.
I think some of you fail to understand that in the course of a normal
conversation some odd things can be said, but context is important to
most reasonable adults.
I see posts where many of you seem to think you can take a post
completely out of context and make a case out of something highly
specific as if none of the rest mattered, which is about the format of
Usenet only.
That is, yes, on Usenet you can impress people by pulling only a part
of a conversation, as again I see behavior that is consistent with a
belief by many of you that Usenet is the only place this matters, so
you follow Usenet rules.
But, of course, in a court case, you couldn't just rip out one part of
a conversation and context would be very important, so I see behavior
that shows a belief that there will never be a court case.
I, of course, am brainstorming about such a court case as I begin to
consider other options, and putting ideas out there to see how it might
proceed, including what public response it might gather.
And posters in reply are helping me to figure out the best solution as
talking this out is part of what I call extreme problem solving, where
you toss out ideas in brainstorming, but do so publicly so you can get
quick feedback, while working to a solution.
James Harris
Peter Bowditch
>jst...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Do you know what "multi-dimensional" means?
>>
>> If not, I can provide you with a definition.
>
>Cool! I want a definition!
I notice that JSH is now talking about "multi-variable" where he used
to say "multi-dimensional". Is the sand shifting?
Rupert
Hang on a moment. You said above you only thought they were lying
because you were convinced you had solved the factoring problem (on the
basis of evidence which no sane person would regard as adequate, I
might add). Now that you realize you hadn't solved the factoring
problem, you should also realize that they weren't lying. So decency
requires you to apologize for calling them liars, apologize for your
extremely unpleasant behaviour in suggesting to them that they wouldn't
live to see 2007, and acknowledge that you had been behaving in a
thoroughly foolish and ridiculous manner, and try to take steps not to
do it again.
Rupert
If that is a defence for your behaviour, then surely the fact that
we're convinced that you're a crackpot and that all your research is
nonsense is a defence for our behaviour. Particularly in the light of
the fact that the latter belief is much better-founded.
jst...@gmail.com
I have given the great analogy of a miner who finds a diamond and
diamond experts look at it.
No one cares about the miner, only the diamond.
So, for instance, with my prime counting function, it is the only known
multi-variable prime counting function.
If you can say a discoverer can invalidate their discovery with what
you think are nutty postings then mathematics is not about proof but
about personality, right?
Or maybe you think computers might not be useful if the inventor of the
computer were someone you didn't like?
Possibly you'd argue that if you hated Edison the light bulb would stop
working?
You can't bring into court evidence that has nothing to do with what is
important, and with mathematical research the value of the research
would be all that mattered, and posts you might think are so important
because on Usenet they seem important to you, wouldn't matter any more
than whether or not you liked Edison matters to the working of a light
bulb.
Get it, yet?
You people seem to be so wrapped up in what works on Usenet that you
think that the world is just about Usenet posting and strategies that
work here.
James Harris
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
> The scenario given was conditional on me having solved the factoring
> problem, that solution being one you and Decker were lying about--and
> yes I accused you of lying about it as I felt very confident I HAD
> solved the factoring problem--
Much like all the other things about which you have been, and in many
cases still are, confident. Like the flaws in ideal theory, for
example, or the importance your prime counting formula, over which
you're threatening to take universities to court. You were wrong then,
and you're wrong now. You have always been wrong; the only liar here is
you.
> > To sue you for libel I'd have to demonstrate damage to me. But since
> > nobody takes you seriously, what possible damage could I have suffered?
> > The fact is that your insane behavior primarily injures you.
> Sounds like a legal opinion to me.
> I think part of you may also realize you'd be laughed out of court.
Isn't that pretty much what he said?
> As you'd have to have had real concern that I had solved the factoring
> problem, known you were lying about it, and realized that possibly you
> could face an angry crowd of people who'd lost a ton of money as a
> result.
>
> So I think that legally you need a lot more like real belief that I
> solved the factoring problem, with a knowledge that you were lying
> about that solution, which could lead to your death because angry
> people who lost money came after you.
>
> That is just a guess of course as I don't pretend to be a legal expert
> nor do I want you to think I am. That point seems obvious enough.
>
> You needed to actually know you were lying about my factoring research,
> and worry that an angry mob might kill you as a consequence. Common
> sense says that must be true.
Sounds like a legal opinion to me.
> But my behavior is not insane as it makes great sense--if I was
> concerned I'd solved the factoring problem.
But your concern that you had solved the factoring problem is a large
part of what makes you insane, especially after the many patient
explanations of why you had done no such thing (the patient
explanations that you dismissed as lies and whose authors you "warned"
about their imminent deaths).
> > Just as nothing in your sci.math posts should be confused with
> > mathematics <0.5 wink>.
> Well you are lying there.
Just like he was lying about your solution to the factoring problem, no
doubt.
> I think some of you fail to understand that in the course of a normal
> conversation some odd things can be said,
Right. Why, just yesterday I informed my Mother that she wouldn't live
to see next week following a disagreement over the recipe for scones.
It turned out she was right in the end, but I didn't feel the need to
apologise; trash talking is all part of extreme bakery.
> but context is important to most reasonable adults.
The context in question being that several people were spending their
time realistically evaluating your 500th incorrect claim to have solved
the factoring problem.
> But, of course, in a court case, you couldn't just rip out one part of
> a conversation and context would be very important, so I see behavior
> that shows a belief that there will never be a court case.
Yes. Because there won't.
-Rotwang
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
> If you can say a discoverer can invalidate their discovery with what
> you think are nutty postings then mathematics is not about proof but
> about personality, right?
Nobody has said that. Stop using strawman arguments, it isn't going to
work.
-Rotwang
gjed...@gmail.com
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
The miners rights are not being violated just because people deny its a
diamond. It's only a problem if they actually take the diamond on a
false premise (ie. by claiming it is, and indeed convincing the seller
that it is, a rock).
When someone steals your formula and acheives fame and fortune with it,
you might have a case.
Astute readers will also be aware of the following, which you've
declined to comment on:
Tim Peters
>>> Actually my argument was that if I had found a solution to the
>>> factoring problem and that posters were lying about that so that the
>>> world didn't realize it until later, then if some people lost a lot
>>> of money they might get very upset, and I said something about
>>> Decker and Tim Peters possibly getting killed by an angry mob.
[Tim Peters]
>> Liar. There was no "possibly" about it. You said flat out we'd be
>> killed before 2007. There was nothing conditional about it.
> The scenario given was conditional on me having solved the factoring
> problem, that solution being one you and Decker were lying about--and
> yes I accused you of lying about it as I felt very confident I HAD
> solved the factoring problem--that solution and your lies about it
> leading to a lot of money being lost by a LOT of people who'd be angry
> enough to kill you once they found out your fault.
>
> That's the scenario. Go back and read the thread if you need to
> understand it.
Read the message yourself, liar. You deleted it from Google Groups, but
it's still easy to find. It's even been reproduced in full for you in
this very thread. I'm not bothering again.
BTW, good luck explaining to the judge and jury /why/ you delete your
crazier posts. You like to think about "reasonable people", guess what
reasonable people are most likely to think about that?
>>> And, it would not be admissible in a court case
And you're "accusing" me of giving legal opinions?
>>> that I'd bring as that would be about the value of my research, so
>>> the post would not be relevant, though if Decker or Peters tried to
>>> say it was libel then I guess they could try to sue me and bring it
>>> into court for a case they'd bring.
>> To sue you for libel I'd have to demonstrate damage to me. But since
>> nobody takes you seriously, what possible damage could I have
>> suffered? The fact is that your insane behavior primarily injures
>> you.
> Sounds like a legal opinion to me.
AFAIK, the law has nothing to say about whether your insane behavior
primarily injures you.
WRT libel and slander, yes, of course, "no real harm, no real foul" is a
basic rule in at least most US jurisdictions -- much as murder is
illegal in all US jurisdictions. You don't have to be a lawyer to know
that.
> I think part of you may also realize you'd be laughed out of court.
And for the same reason: I'd look like a stupid little crybaby taking
you to court for saying "mean things" to me, /because/ there's no actual
damage. You call people "liar" the way other people say "hello" --
nobody believes any of your crazy accusations.
Same way you'd look like a stupid little crybaby taking mathematicians
to court for saying "mean things" about your research.
> As you'd have to have had real concern that I had solved the factoring
> problem, known you were lying about it, and realized that possibly you
> could face an angry crowd of people who'd lost a ton of money as a
> result.
No, because there was no damage.
> ...
> But my behavior is not insane as it makes great sense--if I was
> concerned I'd solved the factoring problem.
Nope. It made no sense at all even then. Several years ago you even
knew that, correctly "explaining" to people (who didn't ask) on
sci.physics that it would be no big deal if you managed to factor RSA-
class composites. That was sane. Your later hysterical predictions of
worldwide economic collapse and mob executions were insane.
...
>>> And again I remind that I am not a legal expert, but I have read
>>> some things on the subject.
>> Try asking a real lawyer.
> But of course that is only common sense.
Ah, so that's why you're avoiding it ;-)
> ... [oh, who cares] ...
Tim Peters
> ...
> You people seem to be so wrapped up in what works on Usenet that you
> think that the world is just about Usenet posting and strategies that
> work here.
LOL! Just a few days ago you were ranting endlessly about how unsavory
characters were /studying/ our Usenet postings to learn highly effective
ways to get away with lying in the real world.
Don't you ever tire of being so thick?
mensa...@aol.com
I don't know about him, but _I_ never tire of OJSH being so thick.
jst...@gmail.com
Usenet tactic.
I am brainstorming how a legal option might proceed.
Repeatedly I've caught posters lying and shown a clear abuse of the
freedom of speech Usenet offers and a clear indication of a sense of
impunity.
Crucial in court would be proving the value of my research, yet it is a
fact that I had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical
journal and a fact that sci.math posters conspired online against the
journal and the paper and made false claims to the journal about that
paper which lead to its being retracted.
With my prime counting research it is a fact that there is no other
known multi-variable prime counting function, crucial in showing that
my research is in fact valuable, and posters have been repeatedly
caught lying about that detail as they show they know it proves that my
research is valuable.
But there is no way people would so publicly lie about such important
matters if they thought they'd get caught, so something must be making
these people so confident.
I say it's the Usenet format which allows people to get away with lying
even about things of extreme social importance, thinking they cannot be
ever held accountable.
So posters keep replying to me because they are certain they won't have
to tell the truth in court, as it is inconceivable that they would keep
replying giving evidence that could be used against them in court, if
they thought they'd actually get caught.
Otherwise they'd be some of the stupidest criminals in history.
James Harris
Tim Peters
> ...
> So posters keep replying to me because they are certain they won't have
> to tell the truth in court,
Na, it's just low-brow fun to keep pushing your buttons.
There will never be a court case, and you know it. You may or may not know
that nobody here (except perhaps you) has any fear of telling the truth --
they have, after all, been telling you the truth for a decade already.
> as it is inconceivable that they would keep replying giving evidence
> that could be used against them in court, if they thought they'd
> actually get caught.
Dear Lord, caught telling the truth! Yet another reason to be grateful
that you have no power in reality.
> Otherwise they'd be some of the stupidest criminals in history.
Get help, James.
Proginoskes
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>
> >jst...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >> Do you know what "multi-dimensional" means?
> >>
> >> If not, I can provide you with a definition.
> >
> >Cool! I want a definition!
>
> I notice that JSH is now talking about "multi-variable" where he used
> to say "multi-dimensional". Is the sand shifting?
It might mean he's been reading some of my posts. (It might be funny to
slip in some ... nonstandard ... terminology, and see whether he picks
it up and uses it.)
--- Christopher Heckman
Rupert
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
> > [jst...@gmail.com]
> > > ...
> > > You people seem to be so wrapped up in what works on Usenet that you
> > > think that the world is just about Usenet posting and strategies that
> > > work here.
> >
> > LOL! Just a few days ago you were ranting endlessly about how unsavory
> > characters were /studying/ our Usenet postings to learn highly effective
> > ways to get away with lying in the real world.
> >
> > Don't you ever tire of being so thick?
>
> Usenet tactic.
>
> I am brainstorming how a legal option might proceed.
>
> Repeatedly I've caught posters lying and shown a clear abuse of the
> freedom of speech Usenet offers and a clear indication of a sense of
> impunity.
>
You have never caught anyone lying in your life, any more than you have
ever made a mathematical discovery of the slightest importance.
The whole point of freedom of speech is that you don't get to decide
what counts as an "abuse" of it.
Rupert
The analogy is flawed. Diamonds are of value to a lot of people. Your
work has no value to anyone.
> No one cares about the miner, only the diamond.
>
> So, for instance, with my prime counting function, it is the only known
> multi-variable prime counting function.
>
No, it is not, and there is no rational reason why anyone except you
should be interested in it.
> If you can say a discoverer can invalidate their discovery with what
> you think are nutty postings then mathematics is not about proof but
> about personality, right?
>
No-one has ever said that. The suggestion has been made that the fact
that you are clearly insane would have some impact on your credibility
in court. But those who are qualified can evaluate your work on its own
merits.
> Or maybe you think computers might not be useful if the inventor of the
> computer were someone you didn't like?
>
> Possibly you'd argue that if you hated Edison the light bulb would stop
> working?
>
> You can't bring into court evidence that has nothing to do with what is
> important, and with mathematical research the value of the research
> would be all that mattered, and posts you might think are so important
> because on Usenet they seem important to you, wouldn't matter any more
> than whether or not you liked Edison matters to the working of a light
> bulb.
>
You're very naive to think that's how it works in court. The idea that
a case like this would go to court is a fantasy, but if it did then any
means of attacking your credibility would be fair game. That's how the
legal system works. Of course the interest and value of the mathematics
should be the real criterion. The point is moot, because you fail
dismally on that score too.
> Get it, yet?
>
You, my friend, are the one who has something they really should get.
Unfortunately you never will.
José Carlos Santos
>>>>> Or you could be asked, is there any other known multi-dimensional prime
>>>>> counting function?
>>>> Another easy one. My answer would be "I have no idea what a
>>>> 'multi-dimensional prime counting function' is".
>>> Yet, have you seen my prime counting function?
>> Yes, I saw the algorithm which you describe stupidly as your prime
>> counting function.
>>
>>> Do you understand that it is a prime counting function?
>> I understand that your algorithm actually counts primes.
>>
>>> Is it or is it not, multi-dimensional?
>> Which part of "I have no idea what a 'multi-dimensional prime counting
>> function' is" did you fail to understand?
>>
>
> Do you know what multi-dimensional is?
I have an idea about the meaning of "multi-dimensional". That doesn't
change the fact that I do not know what "multi-dimensional prime
counting function" means. One of the reasons for that is that there is
only one prime counting function. Yes, I know that it's too hard for
you to understand that.
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos
José Carlos Santos
>> Just a question. If you would go to court, what would you answer the
>> judge if he asked you whether or not you claim to be "the most powerful
>> person on the planet, quite capable of bringing nations to their
>> knees--any nation"? And what do you think this will do to your case?
>
> If a miner found a diamond and took it to diamond dealers who thought
> they could cheat him out of the value of that diamond, and he found out
> and took them to court, do you think that part of their defense might
> be what he said that had nothing to do with diamonds?
>
> Like if he used to wander around muttering to himself weirdly, and
> maybe HAD brought in a bunch of rocks before that weren't diamonds, so
> the diamond experts who could just quickly look and tell a diamond from
> a rock, thought they could cheat him that much more easily.
Not a bad analogy. Not at all. You have a better grasp of the way others
see you than what I would have supposed. :-)
> Do you think part of their defense would be saying that the guy was a
> kook, so they thought his rock wasn't a diamond, when the judge and
> jury would know that diamond experts can--just look at the diamond, and
> NOT the person who dug it up.
>
> Or do you disagree? Think that a diamond's value is about what people
> think of the person who dug it up?
No. But notice that you did no answer my question. And remember that the
judge will not be an expert, that *all* experts will say that your
"discovery" is not new, and that in a trial it is rather common to
assess the credibility of those who take the stand. What do you think
that the question that I mentioned will do to your credibility. And,
again, what will you answer?
dmor...@cox.net
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
> > [jst...@gmail.com]
> > > ...
> > > You people seem to be so wrapped up in what works on Usenet that you
> > > think that the world is just about Usenet posting and strategies that
> > > work here.
> >
> > LOL! Just a few days ago you were ranting endlessly about how unsavory
> > characters were /studying/ our Usenet postings to learn highly effective
> > ways to get away with lying in the real world.
> >
> > Don't you ever tire of being so thick?
>
> Usenet tactic.
>
> I am brainstorming how a legal option might proceed.
>
> Repeatedly I've caught posters lying and shown a clear abuse of the
> freedom of speech Usenet offers and a clear indication of a sense of
> impunity.
>
You only think they're lying because you're too stupid to LEARN SOME
MATH!
> Crucial in court would be proving the value of my research, yet it is a
> fact that I had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical
> journal and a fact that sci.math posters conspired online against the
> journal and the paper and made false claims to the journal about that
> paper which lead to its being retracted.
It never should've been published if the journal was worth anything.
>
> With my prime counting research it is a fact that there is no other
> known multi-variable prime counting function, crucial in showing that
> my research is in fact valuable, and posters have been repeatedly
> caught lying about that detail as they show they know it proves that my
> research is valuable.
LIAR. You've been given references many times. Go look at them.
>
> But there is no way people would so publicly lie about such important
> matters if they thought they'd get caught, so something must be making
> these people so confident.
Because nobody lied, except you.
>
> I say it's the Usenet format which allows people to get away with lying
> even about things of extreme social importance, thinking they cannot be
> ever held accountable.
>
> So posters keep replying to me because they are certain they won't have
> to tell the truth in court, as it is inconceivable that they would keep
> replying giving evidence that could be used against them in court, if
> they thought they'd actually get caught.
>
> Otherwise they'd be some of the stupidest criminals in history.
>
>
> James Harris
Dave
David C. Ullrich
>
>Tim Peters wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> [marcus_b]
>> > Saying that someone is lying when they are not is libel.
>> >
>> > Here is an example from June 8 - June 15, 2006. You were arguing
>> > with Rick Decker and Tim Peters about your 'surrogate factoring'
>> > idea. There are 3 excerpts below:
>> >
>> > 1. June 8, 2006: You flatly state that Rick and Tim are lying.
>> > You imply they will be killed by 2007 for what they have
>> > done.
>>
>> Much stronger than mere implication. He said flat out that Rick and Tim
>> would be killed by "angry people" because of "this lie".
>>
>
>And if I'd solved the factoring problem and that were known, and a lot
>of people lost a lot of money as a result, you might have been killed
>by an angry mob.
First, that's irrelevant to the point people are making today,
which is that you didn't _say_ "if", you simply said that they
_were_ going to be killed. Which was an extremely crazy thing
to say.
More to the point, here's a hint: You're _still_ sounding
insane, even today! Saying that a mathematician would be
killed by an angry mob _if_ you were right, he was wrong,
and people found out about it...
Probably before starting the court case you should
work a little harder at learning to sound like someone
with at least a moderate grasp on reality. Also delete
a lot more previous posts... wait, actually that's not
possible (even though it _looks_ to you like they
disappear when you delete them from Google).
>> > (Rick, Tim? Are you still out there?)
>>
>> I don't know about Rick, but I was in fact killed by angry people last
>> night for my lies about James's math, 5 seconds before midnight.
>> However, I'm far more powerful than James suspects, and managed to
>> resurrect myself 10 seconds later ;-)
>>
>> > 2. June 10, 2006: You admit you were wrong.
>> >
>> > 3. June 15, 2006: You again warn Rick and Tim that at least some
>> > people will be angry with them for opposing your ideas -
>> > "you both have a history of arguing with me" - and they may
>> > become pariahs for the rest of their lives.
>>
>> Of course there are many more you could add to this collection. James
>> accusing someone of lying is as common as James making a nonsensical
>> mathematical argument.
>>
>> > [... moronic JSH rants ...]
>>
>> > See excerpts above. You're going to have a lot of fun explaining
>> > your history to the judge and jury.
>>
>> I'm afraid he'd love it -- center of attention, & all that.
>>
>> > ...
>
>Not that I'm giving legal advice as I'm not an expert, but for a case
>I'd bring, none of it would I think be admissible.
>
>If you wanted to sue me, of course, I'd think that'd be a different
>matter, but I believed I'd found a solution to the factoring problem
>and that you and Decker were lying about it, and I was a afraid that
>could lead to your deaths.
>
>So I was putting a warning up, but luckily it turned out to be
>unnecessary.
>
>The world seems to be going just fine in this area last I checked with
>no angry mobs upset about losing huge sums of money.
>
>
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
junoexpress
> Crucial in court would be proving the value of my research, yet it is a
> fact that I had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical
> journal and a fact that sci.math posters conspired online against the
> journal and the paper and made false claims to the journal about that
> paper which lead to its being retracted.
It is interesting how people's personalities often mirror how they do
math research. I think that for the really good researchers, the two
things are actually the same. Unfortunately, it is also true for those
that are not good at mathematical research : the same sloppy type of
reasoning they use in real life, is the same type of sloppy reasoning
they apply in their math. And of course, how can it be any different?
They are what they are.
Although this has been so painfully obvious to most people on this ng,
your post above shows very clearly why you cannot ever win a court
case. You say that certain people conspired to get your article
retracted. Do you have any *real* proof, of any conspiracy? The
problem is that you don't even know the answer to this question because
you don't even know what a proof is. Unfortunately, you've fallen into
the pitfall of thinking that a proof is any argument that would
convince an ordinary person. A *mathematical* proof is any argument
that would convince a professional mathematician that it is correct,
not the common sense of an ordinary person. A proof is not
brainstorming (although how you get a storm in a vacuum will always be
a mystery to me), it is not about trying to find extreme new ways to
overcome what you perceive as limitations, and it is not about making
up examples to support your idea. While maybe physicists like to dream
up about what happened in the first 5 seconds of the universe,
mathematics is not like that: math is about proving well defined
propositions. For very good reasons, math limits itself in a very
restrictive sense. What you practice ("extreme mathematics") is
actually the antithesis of real math (and God forgive me, as I know you
will think that this is a good thing). Saying something like "Galois
theory is inadequate" is a stupid statement because it mathematically
means nothing. If I were you, I would definitely take some pure math
courses. I would also watch claims I make until I *knew* that I could
*really* prove them.
M
dmor...@cox.net
Seems reasonable, however, James is far from reasonable. He likes to,
from time to time, bring up the fact that he was gifted as a child. He
seems to use this as a tactic as to why he must be right.
Dave
Wayne Brown
Here's a free clue: Tossing out wacko ideas while everyone else ridicules
them and calls you an idiot isn't called "brainstorming." It's called
"making a fool of yourself."
--
Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> (HPCC #1104)
Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)
Wayne Brown
>
> And if I'd solved the factoring problem and that were known, and a lot
> of people lost a lot of money as a result, you might have been killed
> by an angry mob.
And if pigs could fly, you wouldn't need to buy bus tickets.
Richard Tobin
José Carlos Santos <jcsa...@fc.up.pt> wrote:
>I have an idea about the meaning of "multi-dimensional". That doesn't
>change the fact that I do not know what "multi-dimensional prime
>counting function" means. One of the reasons for that is that there is
>only one prime counting function.
I assume "multi-dimensional" refers to its taking more than one
argument.
Since a function is defined by the "input output" pairs, a prime
counting function that takes more than one argument must be a
different function from the one that takes only one argument. You
could dispute that it was still a prime counting function, but I think
that term can be reasonably extended.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
christian.bau
> No one cares about the miner, only the diamond.
>
> So, for instance, with my prime counting function, it is the only known
> multi-variable prime counting function.
That is flat-out wrong. In my highly original work about the prime
counting function, I introduced a three-dimensional prime counting
function.
(That's actually no joke; while Legendre (not Harris) defined phi (N,
k) = "Number of positive integers <= N which are not divisible by any
the k smallest prime numbers", I defined phi (N, k, M) = "Number of
positive integers <= N / M which are not divisible by any of the k
smallest prime numbers, multiplied by (-1)^m where m is the number of
distinct prime factors of M"; using this three-dimensional variant
makes analyzing the Lagarias-Odlyzko-Fischer algorithm slightly easier).
nospam
<dmor...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1167759657.8...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
JSH is just a troll with NPD, and trolls die horrible deaths by angry mobs
of mathematicians, especially if they will be sued in civil court.
jst...@gmail.com
> In article <4vuu73F...@mid.individual.net>,
> José Carlos Santos <jcsa...@fc.up.pt> wrote:
>
> >I have an idea about the meaning of "multi-dimensional". That doesn't
> >change the fact that I do not know what "multi-dimensional prime
> >counting function" means. One of the reasons for that is that there is
> >only one prime counting function.
>
> I assume "multi-dimensional" refers to its taking more than one
> argument.
Correct.
> Since a function is defined by the "input output" pairs, a prime
> counting function that takes more than one argument must be a
> different function from the one that takes only one argument. You
> could dispute that it was still a prime counting function, but I think
> that term can be reasonably extended.
>
> -- Richard
And you can't dispute that it is a prime counting function as, for
instance, with the sieve form you have P(100,4) = 25, the count of
primes up to 100.
So you can see, two variables, where if you graph the function it is
clear then that it is multi-dimensional, and it gives the count of
prime numbers in a way consistent with standard usage of the term
"prime counting function".
Now that may seem like a curiosity--two variables--but because of that
and the function calling itself recursively, you can go to a partial
difference equation, and there
P(100, 10) = 25
as P(x,floor(sqrt(x)) is equal to pi(x) the classical prime counting
function with the partial difference equation form.
So I found mathematics previously unknown, and it easily passes the
uniqueness test of having features never before seen in this area, and
by the rules most people follow that should be enough for me to get
credit for my find, and mathematicians as experts should acknowledge
its unique features and record it.
But they haven't where part of their argument seems to be they don't
like me.
Or, they feel that their personal interest or disinterest in a
subject--even if it can be shown to be completely selfish as the
research could diminish their own--is believed to be a reason to ignore
the research of others.
But that may be what is called a breach of the public trust as a
reasonable person might suppose that academics have a duty to report
unique and important mathematical finds whether it is in their selfish
interest or not.
If it can be proven to be a breach of the public trust and a violation
of the social contract that provide mathematicians with income then
someone who suffers as a consequence can pursue them for damages in a
court of law, and I argue can pursue their institutions.
The argument would be that for the public good, academics must be held
accountable if they breach public trust, and for the good of humanity,
selfish or simply negligent refusal to acknowledge important research
is not acceptable because of the potential detriment to the human
species as a whole.
After all, did the people in Euclid's time really understand how
valuable those ideas might be, or those who came up with the first
glimmerings of algebra or the calculus?
Yet, if that preliminary work had not taken place we would not have the
world we have today.
In this case the best explanation so far for the refusal to acknowledge
my research now over four years since I first saw my screen fill up
with prime numbers is just selfish short-sightedness on the part of
academics who feel unaccountable to society.
I am brainstorming the legal basis for other options than just begging
mathematicians to pay attention, and unfortunately, the problem solving
tools I use are more than adequate to the task so that the legal
environment for modern universities could be changed forever, and it
just seems like such a waste to me.
The extreme problem solving process continues though, as that's how it
works.
At the end of this though may be a legal environment universities
around the world never expected, where they may face litigation at any
department just because academics in those departments selfishly choose
to ignore some research that doesn't give them personal benefit, like
advancing their careers.
My first post in this thread gives some idea of the principles
involved.
James Harris
huangx...@yahoo.com
> But they haven't where part of their argument seems to be they don't
> like me.
I promise to like you if you change into a schoolgirl uniform.
> The argument would be that for the public good, academics must be held
> accountable if they breach public trust, and for the good of humanity,
> selfish or simply negligent refusal to acknowledge important research
> is not acceptable because of the potential detriment to the human
> species as a whole.
A much better argument would be how much potential damage could be done
by people who intentionally post bullshit.
> After all, did the people in Euclid's time really understand how
> valuable those ideas might be, or those who came up with the first
> glimmerings of algebra or the calculus?
>
> Yet, if that preliminary work had not taken place we would not have the
> world we have today.
If the world as it is today can be attributed to Euclid, then we'd all
probably be better off if he'd have shot himself in the head with a
trebuchet.
Rather, the world as it is today is probably much more attributable to
people like you, people who are full of shit that is.
> I am brainstorming the legal basis for other options than just begging
> mathematicians to pay attention, and unfortunately, the problem solving
> tools I use are more than adequate to the task so that the legal
> environment for modern universities could be changed forever, and it
> just seems like such a waste to me.
I hope for your sake that you are devoting some energy to the defense
you'll need to beat the fraud rap.
It would be most unfortunate if science gave in to the demands of
extortionists, accepting things as truth to avoid some unpleasant
consequence, whatever that consequence might be.
Even Galileo - having been tortured - and now this. Dear me Mr. Harris,
dear me oh my.
> The extreme problem solving process continues though, as that's how it
> works.
>
> James Harris
I hope that your therapist is better at solving problems than you are
dmor...@cox.net
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <4vuu73F...@mid.individual.net>,
> > José Carlos Santos <jcsa...@fc.up.pt> wrote:
> >
> > >I have an idea about the meaning of "multi-dimensional". That doesn't
> > >change the fact that I do not know what "multi-dimensional prime
> > >counting function" means. One of the reasons for that is that there is
> > >only one prime counting function.
> >
> > I assume "multi-dimensional" refers to its taking more than one
> > argument.
>
> Correct.
In that case, wouldn't the term "multivariate" be more appropriate?
I've never seen multi-dimensional used this way as far as I can
remember.
Dave
Michael Press
then deletes his archive copy.
In article
<1167719569.5...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
--
Michael Press
José Carlos Santos
> And you can't dispute that it is a prime counting function as, for
> instance, with the sieve form you have P(100,4) = 25, the count of
> primes up to 100.
>
> So you can see, two variables, where if you graph the function it is
> clear then that it is multi-dimensional, and it gives the count of
> prime numbers in a way consistent with standard usage of the term
> "prime counting function".
And you can see the same thing here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_counting_function#Algorithms_for_evaluating_.CF.80.28x.29
> Now that may seem like a curiosity--two variables--but because of that
> and the function calling itself recursively, you can go to a partial
> difference equation, and there
>
> P(100, 10) = 25
>
> as P(x,floor(sqrt(x)) is equal to pi(x) the classical prime counting
> function with the partial difference equation form.
Care to explain what do you mean by sqrt(x)? This question is
for James alone.
Baldin...@msn.com
jst...@gmail.com wrote:
> In my view our academic world has clear flaws which have been shown by
> this situation, and it may take court action which could impact how
> academics is done.
>
> That is not just a case about libel.
This could be the *greatest* court case in human history!
Baldin Lee Pramer