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: harry on 8 Mar 2010 00:13 "junoexpress" <mtbrenneman(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5fc1ca39-163f-4d20-8da9-a6d21fcdb044(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Mar 7, 6:04 pm, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:54:23 -0800 (PST), junoexpress > snip >> >> Axiom 1: JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician. > >BTW is your "Axiom 1" logically equivalent to the statement that "a >theorem is anything that James knows is true"? I believe it is >although I cannot prove it. there's the rub. "JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician" AT WHAT ? Axiom 1 is interpertaive, depending upon what "greatest" means or applies to. JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician in his own mind. JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician that has only published once, sort of. JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician who is unable to prove it. JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician hated by all other mathematicians. Since Axiom 1 above can be interperted, it cannot be true, therefore it is a self-disproving Axiom. Just like JSH's posts, the are self disproving
From: MichaelW on 8 Mar 2010 11:24 On Mar 7, 7:52 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 07/03/2010 01:43, MichaelW wrote: > > > There is a whole body of work from 18th and 19th century number theory > > which is all interrelated and for which James' work is a small part; > > Dirichlet, the zeta function, prime counting and so on are all in here. I > > have already pointed out some of the overlap to James but the depressing > > reality is that he is not able to understand the maths enough to follow > > the connection. > > > The worst part was when I demonstrated that his twin prime counting > > function asymptotically approached the number of twin primes times a > > constant and he claimed that this was a result of statistical variation > > rather than confirmation of his logic once it was corrected to allow for > > the constant. > > Therewith the rub. Your attempts to engage James in mathematical > discourse are admirable. However, I suspect that you are beginning to > notice that James isn't really in it for the maths. Notice how he > quickly bails out and either ignores you or becomes abusive when you get > too close to the incorrectness of his assertions? > > He's not in it for the maths - the maths is a tool to his personal goals > (GOK what they are; fame?). > > > At the moment we have James' probability function: > > > M(k=2 to n):(p(k)-2)/(p(k)-1) > > > where "M" is the cumulative multiplication function. From the work we > > have mentioned previously we know that > > > M:(p(k)-1)/p(k) > > > is related to 1/zeta(1). I am hoping to use this to get a value for the > > probability function. > > Cool; I watch with interest! > > M > -- First up apologies; I did not get the full meaning of your reference to Dirichlet's Theorem; I think I have a better grasp of what you mean. Secondly the probability function is (as I suspect you know full well) a Euler product. My reading continues... Actually this is all pretty interesting stuff. I had never read past the basics in the past so it has been a lot of fun. Too bad sci.math is (sadly) the wrong place to discuss it. Regards, Michael W.
From: Frederick Williams on 8 Mar 2010 12:15 harry wrote: > the "hidden negative square root of 4" Min: Where's it hidden then? Eh? Tell me that, where's it hidden? Hen: If I knew that it wouldn't be hidden, would it, you silly woman. -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: /dev/null on 8 Mar 2010 15:27 On Mar 5, 9:08 pm, James "Google SWJPAM" Harris wrote: > There is a lot of satisfaction with having my own axiom You're so adorable when you use words you don't understand.
From: JSH on 8 Mar 2010 19:43
On Mar 7, 6:54 pm, Jim Ferry <corkleb...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 5, 9:08 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > There is a lot of satisfaction with having my own axiom, which I had > > the honor of naming as I'm the discoverer, which is of course, the > > prime residue axiom, and yes, posters can reply in the negative or > > derisively, but there you see the difference between finding something > > and talk. > > Axiom 1: Axioms are never named by their formulators. > Axiom 2: Axioms are never named after their formulators. > > Does this axiomatic system model the practice of mathematics > accurately? Yes! I assert that it is so, willfully ignore any > counterexamples, and denounce those who disagree with me as corrupt > imbeciles. > > So now that that's settled, I hereby name the prime residue axiom, > "Musatov's Axiom #19". And it's too early to say, but it could be > Mustov's greatest legacy. You're deluded. Google your try, and then Google: prime residue axiom Or go to any web search engine. Here it does not have to be Google. The world listens to me. It does not listen to you. Doubt me? Try the searches then. I say you're deluded but I wonder if you'll acknowledge reality or continue to mouth off your defiance against it. The latter is a little more interesting. James Harris |