JSH: Importance of knowledge
in [Math]
|
Prev: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: [Combinatorics] Ball choosing problem
From: JSH on 6 Jun 2010 17:58 On Jun 6, 2:34 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 2:10 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > > On 06/06/2010 21:13, JSH wrote: > > > > There are possibly national security implications with a fundamental > > > result in modular arithmetic that involves factoring. It raises the > > > issue of the big unknown. And national security people not only hate > > > the "big unknown" they like to be informed of such things rapidly. > > > " ... possibly ... " > > > > Kind of beats your sister's thesis. > > > I'll believe that Joshua's sister's thesis exists WELL before I > > entertain the notion that your wild guesswork has any relevance > > to anything other than your own ego. > > Ok, as stock markets continue to reel around the world investors can > take comfort in your opinion. > > Looks like Monday will be a melt-down in the US. > > And when Britain is broken I want her to go look at one of her soon to > be more famous citizens and I will feel no pity. > > You Brits can be monstrously annoying. You deserve whatever you get. > > James Harris Second reply to note--I have no prior knowledge that current stock gyrations have ANYTHING to do with this result. But I will say that history should reflect that some human beings are turds, and "Mark Murray" is one of them. If I become a historical figure, you all should understand, what I say is what history will note first, and you can of course, defend yourselves to the best of your abilities! In fact, at that time, I'll welcome you to try. James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 6 Jun 2010 18:02 On 06/06/2010 22:34, JSH wrote: >> I'll believe that Joshua's sister's thesis exists WELL before I >> entertain the notion that your wild guesswork has any relevance >> to anything other than your own ego. > > Ok, as stock markets continue to reel around the world investors can > take comfort in your opinion. Nope. No chance. I have no standing in the world of economics. I have about the same credibility in stock markets as you do in mathematics, without the advertising advantage of having a crank fan-site in my honour. I do have the advantage of having made fewer utterly crazy predictions. than you. maybe I should take up the habit for kicks. > Looks like Monday will be a melt-down in the US. If you say so. > And when Britain is broken I want her to go look at one of her soon to > be more famous citizens and I will feel no pity. If that's a reference to me, you are gonna see need one helluva microscope to see the difference I'll make (either way). But if Britain isn't broken, do I get an apology? (Wishful thinking). > You Brits can be monstrously annoying. You deserve whatever you get. We had the Labour party for 13 years. That made us cranky. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Richard Henry on 6 Jun 2010 20:28 On Jun 6, 1:13 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 11:55 am, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > > > > > On 06/06/2010 11:37 AM, JSH wrote: > > > > But it's been over two weeks. How long should it take with a trivial > > > to derive result, in such a big area as modular arithmetic, which > > > might have implications for integer factorization? > > > It depends on a number of factors. I edited my sister's thesis for about > > an hour before I gave up (after page 1: the introduction was completely > > abysmal). That was pretty much purely fixing spelling, punctuation, and > > grammar mistakes, as well as trying to come up with suggestions for > > better organization of the introduction; as I am not a geologist, I > > couldn't give any commentary of the results for accuracy as your > > editor/reviewer surely would. > > > Keep in mind that peer reviewers are probably looking at multiple > > papers, so there may be a backlog. To a degree, the more important > > results probably induce more scrutiny since a mistake becomes more > > embarrassing. > > There are possibly national security implications with a fundamental > result in modular arithmetic that involves factoring. It raises the > issue of the big unknown. And national security people not only hate > the "big unknown" they like to be informed of such things rapidly. > > Kind of beats your sister's thesis. > > If you think the national security implications are just deluded > ranting, your opinion in this case will not necessarily save your butt > later. > > What you don't know doesn't have to like you. > > James Harris Does this have something to do with you discovery in the defect of the definition of the number 7?
From: Ostap Bender on 6 Jun 2010 20:54 On Jun 6, 8:37 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 3:46 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:31:58 -0700 (PDT), JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >I want to emphasize to all of you that the issue is one of a potential > > >technological shift. > > > >If you know your history you should know the importance of technology, > > >from the military tactics of the Roman legions, to the sailing ships > > >of Europeans, and the computers of our modern age, the civilizations > > >with the technological edge, win. > > > >If a country like North Korea or Iran gets through the door on a major > > >exploit then you can wake up in a world where technology has shifted > > >in a way you cannot foresee, > > > >But the future you may live to witness may be one where the dominant > > >country is one you would say can't be dominate that fast, or ever, > > >today. > > > >Also on the darker side what you cannot imagine now can be very clear > > >to people later evaluating behaviors around this result. It is not > > >fun and games if you're facing some people in your home country and > > >they're asking you why you did not do what they would have expected. > > > >Depending on the country what you say then, or what you can say, may > > >mean life or death for you. > > > >So some readers around the world are now in a more delicate position > > >for that reason alone, regardless of anything else. > > > >Because in your country, doing nothing may be seen as a failed test of > > >loyalty. A betrayal of your state. A failure to your country and its > > >leaders. > > > >James Harris > > > Welcome back James. I hope you enjoyed your self-imposed exile from > > sci.math. I look forward to your latest mathematical musings. > > Usenet gives me more information than I get from other sources and > does so rapidly, so I found I still needed to use it. I've already > received interesting, if not valuable feedback now. > > Trouble is, without you people I'm mostly left debating with myself > about what's going on, and some of you actually are fairly decent at > finding what was previously known, and you know the process fairly > well for how papers move through math society. > > So I made the hard decision. It was the logical one given the > circumstances. > > > Have you had anything back yet from the Annals of Mathematics on the > > paper you sent them about residues? > > > rossum > > I'm replying because of that important question. Yes, they > acknowledged receipt the next day. > > I hope they don't mind me giving a copy of their reply. I guess it's > not like most of you would ever see one of these in your lifetimes > unless a wannabe author shows you (oh, I think I did years ago anyway > with a previous submission which was ultimately rejected), and why > would any of the major figures who usually submit to them, do so? So > I apologize to the Annals upfront, but it's not like there's a lot in > the reply, and I'll redact the name of the staffer who sent it. > > Here's a copy of their reply (contact redacted): > > <quote> > Dear Dr. Harris, > > We have received your submission, "Solving residues" as well as test > program and have forwarded them to the appropriate editor. > > We will contact you when we have any further information concerning > your paper. > > Thank you for your submission. > > Sincerely, > > *** **** > Annals staff > </quote> > > So things may be going ok. Hey, maybe I'm jumping the gun babbling > about this on Usenet as if things aren't! > > But it's been over two weeks. How long should it take with a trivial > to derive result, in such a big area as modular arithmetic, which > might have implications for integer factorization? The way it usually works is that several weeks or months after receiving your submitted paper, somebody will look at it long enough to see what filed of study it's in, and then assign 3 or 4 experts to read it. They are asked to do this in several months, but they are often busy. Thus, it takes many months or even years for the initial reviews to come back. And often, the answer is not "yes" or "no", but "maybe", depending on problems and questions the reviewers raise. Thus, it will take a second iteration. But in your case, you are right: the results that I have seen form you are so obvious that you should hear a :No" answer fairly soon. I recommend that you don't let the editors forget you and keep on reminding them of yourself every couple of weeks. And make sure you behave towards them the way you behave towards your readers here at sci.math. That way you'll get your rejection sooner and allow the editors to feel less guilty upsetting a clearly ill man like yourself. > Those aren't rhetorical questions. Here is where Usenet has value to > me, even if I get a lot of garbage replies. Otherwise I simply have > my own musing to ruminate over, where I end up just going in circles > after a while. This is a free world. If you want to find other people willing to accept you and help you - you may want to behave like a nice person and not insult others. However, your current arrogance and insults towards others are totally legal and valid behaviour. However, you will continue not to have any friends or supporters. I know you hate reading, but have you considered taking a look at, say, the old-old Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People How to Win Friends and Influence People 1. Don't criticize, condemn, or complain. 2. Give honest and sincere appreciation. 3. Arouse in the other person an eager want. Six Ways to Make People Like You 5. Talk in the terms of the other man's interest. 6. Make the other person feel important and do it sincerely. Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking 1. Avoid arguments. 2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never tell someone they are wrong. 3. If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically. 4. Begin in a friendly way. 8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view. 9. Sympathize with the other person. 10. Appeal to noble motives. --------------------------------------------
From: JSH on 6 Jun 2010 21:26
On Jun 6, 5:54 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 8:37 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 3:46 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:31:58 -0700 (PDT), JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >I want to emphasize to all of you that the issue is one of a potential > > > >technological shift. > > > > >If you know your history you should know the importance of technology, > > > >from the military tactics of the Roman legions, to the sailing ships > > > >of Europeans, and the computers of our modern age, the civilizations > > > >with the technological edge, win. > > > > >If a country like North Korea or Iran gets through the door on a major > > > >exploit then you can wake up in a world where technology has shifted > > > >in a way you cannot foresee, > > > > >But the future you may live to witness may be one where the dominant > > > >country is one you would say can't be dominate that fast, or ever, > > > >today. > > > > >Also on the darker side what you cannot imagine now can be very clear > > > >to people later evaluating behaviors around this result. It is not > > > >fun and games if you're facing some people in your home country and > > > >they're asking you why you did not do what they would have expected. > > > > >Depending on the country what you say then, or what you can say, may > > > >mean life or death for you. > > > > >So some readers around the world are now in a more delicate position > > > >for that reason alone, regardless of anything else. > > > > >Because in your country, doing nothing may be seen as a failed test of > > > >loyalty. A betrayal of your state. A failure to your country and its > > > >leaders. > > > > >James Harris > > > > Welcome back James. I hope you enjoyed your self-imposed exile from > > > sci.math. I look forward to your latest mathematical musings. > > > Usenet gives me more information than I get from other sources and > > does so rapidly, so I found I still needed to use it. I've already > > received interesting, if not valuable feedback now. > > > Trouble is, without you people I'm mostly left debating with myself > > about what's going on, and some of you actually are fairly decent at > > finding what was previously known, and you know the process fairly > > well for how papers move through math society. > > > So I made the hard decision. It was the logical one given the > > circumstances. > > > > Have you had anything back yet from the Annals of Mathematics on the > > > paper you sent them about residues? > > > > rossum > > > I'm replying because of that important question. Yes, they > > acknowledged receipt the next day. > > > I hope they don't mind me giving a copy of their reply. I guess it's > > not like most of you would ever see one of these in your lifetimes > > unless a wannabe author shows you (oh, I think I did years ago anyway > > with a previous submission which was ultimately rejected), and why > > would any of the major figures who usually submit to them, do so? So > > I apologize to the Annals upfront, but it's not like there's a lot in > > the reply, and I'll redact the name of the staffer who sent it. > > > Here's a copy of their reply (contact redacted): > > > <quote> > > Dear Dr. Harris, > > > We have received your submission, "Solving residues" as well as test > > program and have forwarded them to the appropriate editor. > > > We will contact you when we have any further information concerning > > your paper. > > > Thank you for your submission. > > > Sincerely, > > > *** **** > > Annals staff > > </quote> > > > So things may be going ok. Hey, maybe I'm jumping the gun babbling > > about this on Usenet as if things aren't! > > > But it's been over two weeks. How long should it take with a trivial > > to derive result, in such a big area as modular arithmetic, which > > might have implications for integer factorization? > > The way it usually works is that several weeks or months after > receiving your submitted paper, somebody will look at it long enough > to see what filed of study it's in, and then assign 3 or 4 experts to > read it. They are asked to do this in several months, but they are > often busy. Thus, it takes many months or even years for the initial > reviews to come back. And often, the answer is not "yes" or "no", but > "maybe", depending on problems and questions the reviewers raise. > Thus, it will take a second iteration. That's with a normal result. Hopefully you are correct along with Mark Murray in claiming that I've given a previously well-known result, as otherwise if it is a miss at the heart of modular arithmetic then there are national security implications. Then a false statement in this context could be a big deal. I know many of you are so used to making outlandish statements and hearing threats of serious repercussions that the concept of national security people actually interested in what you said seems ludicrous. Arguing about it is useless, however. Besides, if you and Mark Murray are correct then sci.math has already made itself useful to me. It doesn't matter to me if you find facts that dismiss the value of this result! That's actually better, for world security. And your security as well, as well as that of your nation, wherever you may be. I tweak you all for a purpose. Sometimes getting you motivated takes creativity. But if you've answered the question correctly, then all is well. James Harris |