JSH: Mixed feelings about the newsgroup
in [Math]
|
Prev: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
Next: JSH: To my Chinese fans--thanks!!!
From: Victor Eijkhout on 12 Jul 2010 18:16 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've spent a lot of time typing up posts like this one Understatement of the decade. Victor. -- Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
From: JSH on 12 Jul 2010 20:54 On Jul 12, 2:10 pm, MichaelW <ms...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 12:20 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/07/2010 03:36, JSH wrote: > > > > >> Not universally, I think you'll find. I don't pay enough attention to > > > >> note the effects, but I have seen mild forms of support given without > > > >> the lashing you claim happens all the time. > > > > > Irrelevant. I've noted an odd benefit to the hostility anyway--people > > > > are afraid to extend my research, at least in posts on Usenet. > > > > I have noted very many improvements to your postings. You are an > > > apallingly bad listener, so I'm not surprised you haven't noticed > > > this. > > > See! An insult. Now you'll work indefinitely on various problems I > > present. > > > I notice such things and know that you're still looking to work for > > me. > > > Or do you deny that you were insulting there? > > > I'm sure you'll claim you're only being factual. > > > I don't care how you rationalize as long as when needed, you WORK for > > me, like before. > > > ___JSH > > James, > > If this is how you feel then can I expect an apology for calling me a > liar earlier in this thread? Or do you deny you were insulting there? You were making false statements. If you knowingly did so, then you were lying but I'm not sure I said that you were knowingly making false statements. But again, objective reality is easy for users to test! They can search in Google on: prime gap equation I get #1 when I do that search and don't see any prime gap equation of yours! Seems clear to me by an objective test. > It has been often said that you have one standard for yourself and > another for everyone else. Here is your chance to prove it wrong. Well I like objective tests! And prefer people to say when I'm wrong, when I AM wrong. IN this case, YOU are wrong. You claimed various accomplishments that do not pass objective tests. For instance, a prime gap equation is kind of cool. Turns out the world only has mine. Google gives an objective test of those statements for curious readers. You claim otherwise, but your WORDS collapse under reality testing. Usenet is a place where people like you can SAY ANYTHING. I don't know why exactly you do it, but I think many of you get comfortable with the belief that others can't call you on it. But with me, I can often direct people to Google, which fits with where I am. Your inability to answer objective measures shows where YOU are-- despite any words to the contrary. James Harris
From: MichaelW on 12 Jul 2010 23:11 On Jul 13, 10:54 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 2:10 pm, MichaelW <ms...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 12:20 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > > > > On 12/07/2010 03:36, JSH wrote: > > > > > >> Not universally, I think you'll find. I don't pay enough attention to > > > > >> note the effects, but I have seen mild forms of support given without > > > > >> the lashing you claim happens all the time. > > > > > > Irrelevant. I've noted an odd benefit to the hostility anyway--people > > > > > are afraid to extend my research, at least in posts on Usenet. > > > > > I have noted very many improvements to your postings. You are an > > > > apallingly bad listener, so I'm not surprised you haven't noticed > > > > this. > > > > See! An insult. Now you'll work indefinitely on various problems I > > > present. > > > > I notice such things and know that you're still looking to work for > > > me. > > > > Or do you deny that you were insulting there? > > > > I'm sure you'll claim you're only being factual. > > > > I don't care how you rationalize as long as when needed, you WORK for > > > me, like before. > > > > ___JSH > > > James, > > > If this is how you feel then can I expect an apology for calling me a > > liar earlier in this thread? Or do you deny you were insulting there? > > You were making false statements. If you knowingly did so, then you > were lying but I'm not sure I said that you were knowingly making > false statements. > > But again, objective reality is easy for users to test! > > They can search in Google on: prime gap equation > > I get #1 when I do that search and don't see any prime gap equation of > yours! > > Seems clear to me by an objective test. > > > It has been often said that you have one standard for yourself and > > another for everyone else. Here is your chance to prove it wrong. > > Well I like objective tests! And prefer people to say when I'm wrong, > when I AM wrong. > > IN this case, YOU are wrong. > > You claimed various accomplishments that do not pass objective tests. > > For instance, a prime gap equation is kind of cool. Turns out the > world only has mine. > > Google gives an objective test of those statements for curious > readers. > > You claim otherwise, but your WORDS collapse under reality testing. > > Usenet is a place where people like you can SAY ANYTHING. I don't > know why exactly you do it, but I think many of you get comfortable > with the belief that others can't call you on it. > > But with me, I can often direct people to Google, which fits with > where I am. > > Your inability to answer objective measures shows where YOU are-- > despite any words to the contrary. > > James Harris James, My statement was <quote> (3) Your prime gap equation consistently produces the wrong answer. I was not the first to post the correct formula here but post it I did </quote> I was directed to threads dating back 2 or more years (if I recall correctly) that had found the same problem so I was neither the first nor the only one to point this out. Your equation consistently miscalculates the number by a factor of about 1.123. I have not got my own result on the net since your result (when done correctly) has been known since the late 19th century. Why post a page when there are perfectly good online text books and articles? Here's an example: http://cnx.org/content/m12764/latest/ Your equation can be found under figure 1. The only difference is that you use (p-2)/(p-1) whereas the author uses the more sensible (p-1)/p. Also he understands the connection between the equation and natural logarithms. Regarding Google search results, the Chinese Spam Incident shows the extent of your understanding of the internet. When you first posted about chinese fans a thought someone was malevolently pretending to be you since as far as I know everyone knew about this type of spam appearing on western blogs and there was no way you were that uninformed. Live and learn. In any case Google search ranks do not make something true (as you know) so if you think you can call someone a liar on this basis then this shows where you are. This bit of text: > You were making false statements. If you knowingly did so, then you > were lying but I'm not sure I said that you were knowingly making > false statements. ....is especially weasily. Look up the definition of lying. If you think what I am saying is wrong then say so. If you want to attack my character then you will want to be doing it from a far stronger place that where you are right now. Here's a simple test. Repost your BQDE simplification and I will post mine and then decide which is better. You won't, of course. Regards, Michael W.
From: Mark Murray on 13 Jul 2010 03:14 On 13/07/2010 01:54, JSH wrote: > But again, objective reality is easy for users to test! > > They can search in Google on: prime gap equation > > I get #1 when I do that search and don't see any prime gap equation of > yours! > > Seems clear to me by an objective test. Really? So you did the same objective test when you decided that "your" k^m = j mod N result was an important rediscovery, without managing to notice the connection to Chinese remainder theorem, modular exponentiation and discrete logarithms? >> It has been often said that you have one standard for yourself and >> another for everyone else. Here is your chance to prove it wrong. > > Well I like objective tests! And prefer people to say when I'm wrong, > when I AM wrong. No. You call those "insults". M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Mark Murray on 13 Jul 2010 03:22
On 13/07/2010 01:48, JSH wrote: >> "Master1729" attempted a goalpost-shifting argument reminiscent of >> Musatov, and other likely dialogues have expired off my news server. > > Ah yes, it was against "master1729" and your defensive response is > predictable. > > Yet you also continue to work by giving that information!!! And how does that move things forward, or are you still flailing around in the dark? > I find it odd but I've noted such behavior for years. .... and completely failed to make anything constructive of it. > Posters come and go, but there always seem to be some of you willing > to work as long as you get to hurl insults. Nice spin. Now I'm "working for you". If that makes you happy, I don't see any harm to it. You do lose any claim for the results to be yours, though. > And I explain that and it does not matter. > > You still come and go as the years go by, and the behavior follows the > same pattern. Yup. Debating can like that. Some folks do better than others. Stay fixated on a notion too long (like your belief that you are a great discoverer) and your emotional attachment to it becomes too expensive to drop. At that point your argument in defence becomes totally ridiculous. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. |