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: tinytwo claws on 13 Jul 2010 11:38 "Mark Murray" <w.h.oami(a)example.com> wrote in message news:4c3c1416$0$2524$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk... > 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? He's in the dark, always has been, needs to learn algebra first. > >> I find it odd but I've noted such behavior for years. > > ... and completely failed to make anything constructive of it. JSH = Troll. end of story, he learns math by cut and paste from wiki. > >> 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. why work for such a confused and math-challenged person? It will set you back to high school level. And JSH w his radioactive NPD will turn you into a sick little monkey. He could be a reference for you on your resume. > >> 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. nope. It starts as ridiculous. > > M > -- > Mark "No Nickname" Murray > Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Mark Murray on 13 Jul 2010 14:45 On 13/07/2010 15:11, JSH wrote: >> 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. > > There IS no other prime gap equation besides mine. You are priceless! What's next, 1 + 1 = 1 ? Did you even LOOK at that link? Hmm. An explanation is that you /did/ but couldn't understand it, which would be about right. Am I still doing my job to your satisfaction? > It handles arbitrary even gaps between primes out to positive > infinity. As the above link also does so, except properly, so does it. No need to call me a liar, just check; mathematics doesn't lie. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Mark Murray on 13 Jul 2010 18:13 On 13/07/2010 22:22, MichaelW wrote: > First thing I did when you reported the > Chinese comments was to run it through the Google translator. That's > what an experienced professional would do (and my apologies to those > who suggested going to a local Chinese restaurant but guys, it's the > 21st century, do this stuff online!). That was me, and no offense taken :-). I've seen atrocious Google translations of European languages; it seldom occurs to me to use automatic translation if I have a willing human close by. I'm also guilty of not assuming that James has the expertise to do this, but this is very much a secondary issue. > The real difference with both your claim about your equation and your > claim about the internet is that I *know* when I don't know something. This makes his references to the Kruger & Dunning paper rather ironic. > Unlike you I am able to clearly judge my level of knowledge and > ignorance and I know when my knowledge is insufficient and when to ask > for help. You however do not know how to ask for help as you yourself > have acknowledged. That's why you make these sad claims about making > your enemies do your work for you; God forbid that you should simply > ask for assistance or feedback and receive the same with grace and > patience. Good point. James, have you ever considered an approach similar to "Guys, I'm struggling a bit with .....; does anyone have any ideas/ suggestions?", and then being actually receptive to the helpful responses? This is Usenet, and and there will inevitably be some responses that you can safely ignore. NOTE: This will involve you needing to set aside any presumption that you are infallible. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: MichaelW on 13 Jul 2010 18:27 On Jul 14, 8:13 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 13/07/2010 22:22, MichaelW wrote: > > > First thing I did when you reported the > > Chinese comments was to run it through the Google translator. That's > > what an experienced professional would do (and my apologies to those > > who suggested going to a local Chinese restaurant but guys, it's the > > 21st century, do this stuff online!). > > That was me, and no offense taken :-). > > I've seen atrocious Google translations of European languages; it seldom > occurs to me to use automatic translation if I have a willing human > close by. > > I'm also guilty of not assuming that James has the expertise to do this, > but this is very much a secondary issue. > > > The real difference with both your claim about your equation and your > > claim about the internet is that I *know* when I don't know something. > > This makes his references to the Kruger & Dunning paper rather ironic. > Yes, I have had to bite my metaphorical tongue when he makes these references. He was only parroting what someone said to him of course.
From: Joshua Cranmer on 13 Jul 2010 18:44
On 07/13/2010 06:13 PM, Mark Murray wrote: > I've seen atrocious Google translations of European languages; it seldom > occurs to me to use automatic translation if I have a willing human > close by. Google has gotten rather good at traveling between the European branch of languages (they use the EU documents as a hefty part of the corpus), at least for technical stuff. It's the Asiatic languages that it has problems with. Cf. <http://translationparty.com>: that previous sentence gets stabilized at "This is a problem in Asia." Looking at intermediate results will quickly lead you to take the translations with VERY large grains of salt. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth |