Prev: JSH: Poll: Collected responses to JSH work in one place?
Next: Really Poor Wiki Article On Hard & Soft Science
From: Tim Little on 17 Jul 2010 23:50
On 2010-07-18, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Also I realized the prime residue axiom WAS an axiom as it is self-
> evident, and not provable by other axioms.

To assert that claim you have to *prove* that it isn't provable or
disprovable. E.g. by demonstrating models in which it is true and
models in which it is false.


> Examples of "blunders" would be appreciated!!!

Every time you have tried to precisely state your PRA, it has been
disproven by counterexamples. Your most recent statements of it have
been too ambiguous to actually do any mathematics using it.


- Tim
From: JSH on 18 Jul 2010 11:03
On Jul 17, 8:50 pm, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote:
> On 2010-07-18, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also I realized the prime residue axiom WAS an axiom as it is self-
> > evident, and not provable by other axioms.
>
> To assert that claim you have to *prove* that it isn't provable or
> disprovable.  E.g. by demonstrating models in which it is true and
> models in which it is false.

That's trivial and I HAVE done it as it's an interesting exercise.

For example if p mod 3 tends towards 1, that is a model where it is
NOT true, where 3 has a preference for a particular residues from
other primes, in this case 1.

That would force more integers in general where N mod 3 = 1 than the
actual 1/3, so a contradiction. (Note integers are either primes or
products of primes, except -1, 0 and 1, so a prime preference turns
into a composite preference, kind of like composites are "children" of
the primes.)

> > Examples of "blunders" would be appreciated!!!
>
> Every time you have tried to precisely state your PRA, it has been
> disproven by counterexamples.  Your most recent statements of it have
> been too ambiguous to actually do any mathematics using it.

Google: prime gap equation

When I do that I take #1 with a link to my math blog which gives the
mathematics that results.

Your claims are then refuted as false.

Posters get angry with me for giving that objective test, saying it's
proof by Google, but it is proof--that people like you boldly tell
things that are NOT true, which can be refuted by people all over the
world, through search engines.

Of course you then come back to claim that search engines aren't fair,
as you've been defeated.

If you allow the new technology then you "lose" so you dismiss the
technology and claim victory.

Months later when I talk about my research again you claim you refuted
it months before!!!

And round and round it goes....


James Harris
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: JSH: Poll: Collected responses to JSH work in one place?
Next: Really Poor Wiki Article On Hard & Soft Science