Prev: 911 and the Demo Truth
Next: Who is Androcles?
From: JSH on 7 Sep 2009 21:23
To understand that there really is something wrong here, you need only
reflect back now on a rather simple mathematical result that has been
known for centuries:

Given x^2 - Dy^2 = 1, in rationals:

y = 2t/(D - t^2)

and

x = (D + t^2)/(D - t^2)

and you get hyperbolas with D>0, the circle with D=-1, and ellipses
in
general with D<0.

You can see the D=-1 case from a well-known mainstream source at the
following link:
See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html eqns. 16 & 17

That allows you to, say, graph ellipses or hyperbolas adjusting a
single D number which is related of course to eccentricity.

That has been known for CENTURIES.

One would think that would be an undramatic thing, but the posting
assaults against me when I noted the result and questioned why it's
not more well-known should give you a clue.

These people killed an entire math journal. See: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/

If you think it's rational to just say I'm some crackpot, and I can
show you my re-discovery of a nifty little result known for centuries--
except mathematicians look at "Pell's Equation" as a Diophantine
equation so classified away from rational solutions--and know about a
DEAD math journal killed in a spectacular way, then you cannot escape
my assessment that your brain is screwed up.

Math journals don't just die. And physics people don't just ignore
nifty little simple equations that can draw ellipses and hyperbolas
where you just fiddle with one D number versus eccentricity, if their
brains are working properly.

Try to think through the special circuitry that gets you to do dumb
things.

It is the same circuitry that requires human misery, war and strife--
for the good of the species.

Our species can now do better. Try to transcend your programming. It
may be the biggest intellectual challenge most of you will ever face
in your lives--understanding that your own brain is tricking you, for
the good of your species.


James Harris
From: eric gisse on 7 Sep 2009 21:26
JSH wrote:
[...]

>
> One would think that would be an undramatic thing, but the posting
> assaults against me when I noted the result and questioned why it's
> not more well-known should give you a clue.

And the clue is "perhaps the issue isn't with the math, but the presentation
and the person delivering it".

[..]
From: JSH on 7 Sep 2009 22:18
On Sep 7, 6:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> JSH wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > One would think that would be an undramatic thing, but the posting
> > assaults against me when I noted the result and questioned why it's
> > not more well-known should give you a clue.
>
> And the clue is "perhaps the issue isn't with the math, but the presentation
> and the person delivering it".
>
> [..]

Don't hate the discoverer--hate the game.


___JSH
From: eric gisse on 8 Sep 2009 01:26
JSH wrote:

> On Sep 7, 6:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> JSH wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> > One would think that would be an undramatic thing, but the posting
>> > assaults against me when I noted the result and questioned why it's
>> > not more well-known should give you a clue.
>>
>> And the clue is "perhaps the issue isn't with the math, but the
>> presentation and the person delivering it".
>>
>> [..]
>
> Don't hate the discoverer--hate the game.

Remember how you prattled for years and years about having solved the
factoring problem, and how you still can't factor an RSA number?

The "discoverer" is fair game, especially when everything is prefaced with
"this result is centuries old..."

>
>
> ___JSH

From: Mark Murray on 8 Sep 2009 03:36
JSH wrote:
> Don't hate the discoverer--hate the game.

I do hate your game.

M
--
Mark Murray
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: 911 and the Demo Truth
Next: Who is Androcles?