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: MichaelW on 13 Jul 2010 18:45 On Jul 14, 4:45 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > 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. Mark, Thanks for the independent confirmation. After my last reply to James it is only fair that I seek the same. Sadly I am letting myself get sucked into a debate about search ranks when I prefer to keep things maths only. I would like to run an idea past you and any other maths and computer types who follow the JSH threads. This thread and the (highly quotable) "There is only one" thread he re-raised the prime gap equation, and on "Trying to be fair" he is running the core error again. I propose an online resource that collects responses to James' work so that when he brings back work that has been answered anyone can simply refer to a web page and ask him why he has not answered it. Personally I have lost count of the number of threads where I have presented a response and James has immediately started a new thread. Note that not every response would be a refutation. As an example an article on the prime gap equation would show why it is almost correct, give an outline on how to do it properly, provide links for those who want to go deeper and discuss the historical research to put it all into context (including James' claim to have a new solution). As another example it would be brilliant to have Rotwang's work on TSP summarised in a single place. I understand that in some cases a fixed response will be difficult as James often moves the goal posts (as we say in Oz) but I believe that it should be possible to provide a kind of meta-response to his ideas (e.g. instead of responding to every factoring algorithm do something like my digits from pi to show what is really going on). Sorry about the waffle. Does the idea have merit? Regards, Michael W.
From: David Bernier on 13 Jul 2010 19:53 MichaelW wrote: > On Jul 14, 4:45 am, Mark Murray<w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Mark, > > Thanks for the independent confirmation. After my last reply to James > it is only fair that I seek the same. Sadly I am letting myself get > sucked into a debate about search ranks when I prefer to keep things > maths only. > > I would like to run an idea past you and any other maths and computer > types who follow the JSH threads. This thread and the (highly > quotable) "There is only one" thread he re-raised the prime gap > equation, and on "Trying to be fair" he is running the core error > again. I propose an online resource that collects responses to James' > work so that when he brings back work that has been answered anyone > can simply refer to a web page and ask him why he has not answered it. > Personally I have lost count of the number of threads where I have > presented a response and James has immediately started a new thread. > > Note that not every response would be a refutation. As an example an > article on the prime gap equation would show why it is almost correct, > give an outline on how to do it properly, provide links for those who > want to go deeper and discuss the historical research to put it all > into context (including James' claim to have a new solution). As > another example it would be brilliant to have Rotwang's work on TSP > summarised in a single place. > > I understand that in some cases a fixed response will be difficult as > James often moves the goal posts (as we say in Oz) but I believe that > it should be possible to provide a kind of meta-response to his ideas > (e.g. instead of responding to every factoring algorithm do something > like my digits from pi to show what is really going on). > > Sorry about the waffle. Does the idea have merit? > > Regards, Michael W. I'm tagging this as follows (hope it's descriptive): Tags JSH Meta prime gap equation TSP David
From: JSH on 13 Jul 2010 20:07 On Jul 13, 12:22 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > 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? Posters like yourself enforce an unwritten rule: no one is to post support of my mathematical research!!! When "master1729" did so, you ripped into him, arguing with him until he gave up. I've had people contact me expressing fear of posting on the newsgroups. People like you are the reason for that fear, and then of course later you proclaim that NO ONE supports my research even though there have been posters who did so, who were ripped upon mercilessly. Including as I have mentioned before members of an ultra high IQ group of which I was for a while a provisional member. I find that behavior fascinating, though also idiotic. You make a claim which you enforce by verbally abuse against anyone who dares to challenge your position by posting support for my mathematical ideas! It's bizarre, but you do it anyway. And then post as if you expect to be taken seriously. But you are just a Usenet thug. James Harris
From: Rick Decker on 13 Jul 2010 21:18 On 7/13/10 8:07 PM, JSH wrote: > On Jul 13, 12:22 am, Mark Murray<w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: >> 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? > > Posters like yourself enforce an unwritten rule: no one is to post > support of my mathematical research!!! > > When "master1729" did so, you ripped into him, arguing with him until > he gave up. Tommy is a dolt. If you'd bother to read any but "JSH:" posts, you'd see that support from him helps your cause no more than vilification from the saner posters to this group. Perhaps you should try to recruit Marty Musatov. We need a laugh. > > I've had people contact me expressing fear of posting on the > newsgroups. Aww. So posters like Arturo and Dave, among others, don't suffer fools. Tell your whiners to to get over it. I've been slapped down here for being inaccurate (or downright stupid), but it was deserved. That's what math is all about--fuzzy thinking is easy to spot and the best of us have little patience with nonsense. > > People like you are the reason for that fear, and then of course later > you proclaim that NO ONE supports my research even though there have > been posters who did so, who were ripped upon mercilessly. Because they're either idiots or ignorant sycophants, as your "ultra high IQ" pal referred to below. Whatever became of him? > > Including as I have mentioned before members of an ultra high IQ group > of which I was for a while a provisional member. <snip--bah!> Regards, Rick
From: JSH on 13 Jul 2010 22:13
On Jul 13, 6:18 pm, Rick Decker <rdec...(a)hamilton.edu> wrote: > On 7/13/10 8:07 PM, JSH wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 13, 12:22 am, Mark Murray<w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > > Posters like yourself enforce an unwritten rule: no one is to post > > support of my mathematical research!!! > > > When "master1729" did so, you ripped into him, arguing with him until > > he gave up. > > Tommy is a dolt. If you'd bother to read any but "JSH:" posts, > you'd see that support from him helps your cause no more than > vilification from the saner posters to this group. Perhaps > you should try to recruit Marty Musatov. We need a laugh. Which makes a verbal assault against him that much odder. Hey, to me it's all data. > > > I've had people contact me expressing fear of posting on the > > newsgroups. > > Aww. So posters like Arturo and Dave, among others, don't suffer fools. They rarely are in my threads any more and Magidin won't reply to me. Besides, there has been fear expressed for years. I have been posting for about 14 or 15 years now. > Tell your whiners to to get over it. I've been slapped down here > for being inaccurate (or downright stupid), but it was deserved. > That's what math is all about--fuzzy thinking is easy to spot > and the best of us have little patience with nonsense. Um, that would be kind of stupid to insult people who fear posting for fear of being insulted... > > People like you are the reason for that fear, and then of course later > > you proclaim that NO ONE supports my research even though there have > > been posters who did so, who were ripped upon mercilessly. > > Because they're either idiots or ignorant sycophants, as your > "ultra high IQ" pal referred to below. Whatever became of him? There was more than one poster from that group. I assume they're doing their own things. > > Including as I have mentioned before members of an ultra high IQ group > > of which I was for a while a provisional member. > > <snip--bah!> > > Regards, > > Rick Sometimes the weirdest things about these exchanges is the sense I get that some of you really aren't on the same planet exactly as the rest of us, you know? Like the immediate assaults against Google over the search results. It's like this knee-jerk thing, but how can posters take themselves seriously? One would figure that posters would shift as the years revealed a growing reality with those search results which they can do themselves of a world that isn't exactly on the same page as them. Let's say that most academic mathematicians are. Then of course you wouldn't see my research talked about in their circles. They'd go on about their lives as if I don't exist. But how many mathematicians are there on the planet anyway? How many? Anyone have a clue? Whatever you think the number is, compare it to about 6.8 billion people on this planet and imagine them having a growing awareness that they do not know mathematicians, and maybe cannot trust them. Any of you know what happens if your fellow human beings no longer take care of you? You starve to death, at a minimum. Sure, I know, some mathematicians are certain they can live off the land or something. Ok. So maybe you can live off the land then. Your denial does not change reality. People have tried that trick since there were people. James Harris |