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: dannas on 7 Jun 2010 12:31 "JSH" <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ff3d9b03-3098-4504-b9dd-dd4117ddbadf(a)u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com... On Jun 7, 1:09 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 07/06/2010 07:46, Ostap Bender wrote: > > >> Besides, if you and Mark Murray are correct then sci.math has already > >> made itself useful to me. > > > Then you are welcome. Actually, it is Mark who gave you the > > reference. > > Thanks! But note that _Usenet_ has made itself useful to James. _I_ > am a "stalker" who "pushes all his buttons". > > >> It doesn't matter to me if you find facts that dismiss the value of > >> this result! > > > And to be honest, it doesn't matter to ME one bit if you dismiss my > > and Mark's advice. > >> Note James' fury to my rebuttal of his work? It mattered to him a >> very great deal. >Not really. I'm pushing hard behind this latest result across a LOT >of formats, my math blog, my computer programming blog, as well as my >math group and on Scribd. seems like you are stuck in a DO LOOP JSH, you are pushing the same old stuff you did 10 years ago. (OBY Scribd gets the rights to what is published on their site, and when they go out of business they sell the rights off to 3rd parties, replay of other failed DOTcoms) > >It'd hurt worse for it to be a known result and I'd just have egg on >my face, again. > >And I be yanking it down across ALL those formats. Right now a lot of >hits from over 40 countries are being directed to this result. That >is, a lot of the world is being so directed. >So no, I'm not furious at you--if you're right! > >So we wait. Will ANYONE else agree with Mark Murray that my method >for finding k, when k^m = q mod N, is in the book he claims? Just look it up for yourself, that way you will believe(it wont be a newsgroup poster who you all say lie), if you are handicaped or not, you can call interlibarary loan and they will get the book, and even take it to your house for you. > >I'd really hate to buy that book, wait on it expectantly, and find I >was dealing with more lies from a Usenet posters, as that's, um, so >trite. dont have to buy it, inter libarary loan, a phone call. > >Usenet posters lie all the time. > >I've got a LOT behind this result at this point. Oh yeah! And a >submission to the Annals. and have said nothing about it, right? Know why ? > >If Mark Murry is correct then at least I can email them to withdraw >the paper!!! > >So I need a secondary verification here. I'm hesitant to act on the >word of a stalker of mine. > >Your stalkers aren't often the most reliable people, you know? and JSH, our Dear Leader, is untarnished. >James Harris
From: dannas on 7 Jun 2010 12:36 "JSH" <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:285e9cf9-f85a-4e28-93ed-dd2e98d79c09(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... On Jun 6, 11:46 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 6:26 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> >> You are strongly advised to contact NSA, CIA and the FBI immediately. >> Contacting local university medical schools and hospitals may be an >> other venue for you to consider. >Have you ever TRIED to contact the NSA or CIA? Best I managed with >the NSA was their public affairs office. And I've yet to see a way to >contact the CIA. >The FBI is easier but they're not math people. I've yet to get a >reply from them on anything math related. just call the local office, they will forwarded your results to NSA for evaluation >It's DAMN hard to contact the NSA or CIA about anything. Not a >trivial exercise for an American citizen. you havent tried, I have talked to them many times, they do not release any information, but they take whatever you give them Phone: 1-800-688-6115 Email: NIASC(a)nsa.gov > >If you (or anyone else) have a contact, please give it. > >If you can't give it out on Usenet, then feel free to email it to me, >which you should be able to do by replying to this post by email. > >I am serious here. This situation is not a game. sure. > >James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 7 Jun 2010 12:46 On 07/06/2010 15:15, JSH wrote: > So we wait. Will ANYONE else agree with Mark Murray that my method > for finding k, when k^m = q mod N, is in the book he claims? 1) Do your own bloody research. That way you can be sure that you are not being lied to (weasel opportunity #1). 2) In the unlikely event that you do so, you will not find the exact equation you quote above. You will find an explanation of the mathematics used to do the above, in a much more general way. Note that this gives you 2 further weasel opportunities (#2 - you couldn't find "your equation", so you claim the reference is invalid. #3 - "your method is somehow simpler than the book contents and therefore "better"). > I'd really hate to buy that book, wait on it expectantly, and find I > was dealing with more lies from a Usenet posters, as that's, um, so > trite. It really looks to me as though that you are planning to do this anyway. You have a poor record at understanding mathematical notation, and you will no dount claim this book has "made things complicated" or some such excuse. > Usenet posters lie all the time. Stated without any evidence. Well, the only evidence you have is folks disagreeing with your own results, which you refuse to check anyway, you you still have no evidence. > I've got a LOT behind this result at this point. Oh yeah! And a > submission to the Annals. Any idiot can submit. Make a noise if the paper is accepted. > If Mark Murry is correct then at least I can email them to withdraw > the paper!!! So check! You do know how to use a library, right? Mu referecne is only 8 or so pages. > So I need a secondary verification here. I'm hesitant to act on the > word of a stalker of mine. What, you need someone to read the book to you? > Your stalkers aren't often the most reliable people, you know? My stalker is very reliable. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Rotwang on 7 Jun 2010 12:47 JSH wrote: > > [...] > > Have you ever TRIED to contact the NSA or CIA? Best I managed with > the NSA was their public affairs office. And I've yet to see a way to > contact the CIA. How about https://www.cia.gov/contact-cia/index.html ? Link found through my high-level top-secret contacts that most people can only dream of (Google).
From: Mark Murray on 7 Jun 2010 12:50
On 07/06/2010 15:18, JSH wrote: > Have you ever TRIED to contact the NSA or CIA? Best I managed with > the NSA was their public affairs office. And I've yet to see a way to > contact the CIA. http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/contacts/index.shtml https://www.cia.gov/contact-cia/index.html Both found in under 30 secs without bothering to use a search engine. I thought you were "a discoverer". M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. |