JSH: Depressing reality, prime reality
in [Math]
|
Prev: Dissection puzzle
Next: PRIME NUMBER DIVISOR , CLEAR EXPLANATION , BY INVERSE 19 ( AT THE REQUEST OF PROFESSOR ESCULTURA PHD)
From: Frederick Williams on 7 Mar 2010 11:16 Arthur wrote: > What seems to have happened is that you were trying to prove some > theorem but couldn't. So, you declared it a "new axiom". That's a very > lazy way of approaching science. I'm reminded of Russell's remark about the advantages of theft over honest toil. -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Mike Terry on 7 Mar 2010 13:11 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in message news:877hpo7tim.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org... > junoexpress <mtbrenneman(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > 1) Prime number axiom > > 2) Tautalogical spaces > > 3) Soln of Pell's eqn > > 4) Soln to the Traveling salesman problem > > 5) Proof of Fermat's Last theorem > > 6) The flaw fatale in the ring of algebraic integers > > Defined mathematical proof? And don't forget: Non-polynomial factorisation The Object Ring
From: Frederick Williams on 7 Mar 2010 13:53 JSH wrote: > My own axiom. Is your axiom consistent with the other axioms of number theory? -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: junoexpress on 7 Mar 2010 14:54 On Mar 7, 5:03 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > As I see it, James _knows_ that he is great, special, exceptional etc. > He has decided that his greatness resides in his mathematical skills. > Unfortunately, either through ignorance or malice the world refuses to > acknowledge James' mathematical prowess. > > rossum I get it : another "axiom". M
From: junoexpress on 7 Mar 2010 15:18
On Mar 7, 10:50 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Oh yeah, other funny thing is that real major mathematical discoverers > never have just one thing. > > It's another reason to question Andrew Wiles. > > The best never stop at one. > There are no one-hit wonders in major mathematical discovery. > > None in history. > > James Harris None? Really? I guess they always come in 3's right? You have some strange notions of "the way things should be". The funny thing is (as you always say), is that you could be given 20 such examples, and yet you would choose to totally ignore reality. How can a person so big into the truth ignore facts? In response to your erroneous generalization, I'll throw out a couple of examples (although they abound): Bolyai, Lobachevsky, Sophus Lie, Sylow. All made basically one very important profound fundamental contribution to math. But there are no examples, right? In the whole history of math? Can you begin to get a slight clue why nobody takes you seriously? Why people have the perception of you as someone who gives little serious thought to what he's saying? HTH, M |