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: JSH on 11 Jul 2010 15:01 As much as I rip on Usenet at times and especially sci.math, reality is I've spent a lot of time typing up posts like this one, and have to credit posting here with the worldwide rise of mymath, as in, the mathematics on my math blog, where I get visitors from all over the world. I first saw a world interest doing searches on my ideas and Usenet threads would pop up, which surprised me years ago. Today I take it for granted. And SOME postings like on my prime residue axiom simply take over huge swaths of search results--all to Usenet groups around the world as sci.math has country variants all over the world. But I guess the reality is that Usenet is a way to communicate, and it's not about getting angry at the forum, or even the format which allows a free-for-all, nor does it appear to be useful to get angry with the hostiles who will work like mad demons to make your life miserable, like the ones who stalk my posts. And they DO work like mad demons. In years past I'd be amazed at postings that would go 24 hours a day, with posters clearly working overtime trying to figure out what nasty thing to say to me that they expected might hurt my feelings or, their real goal, stop me from posting. And readers may not realize that these people were confident of their ability to drive posters off of Usenet from EXPERIENCE. Some person would start posting about their math ideas and they would RIP on them, night and day--and that person would be gone. I've watched them celebrate after in posts. Free speech can be abused. But as the years have gone by and I've learned to mostly ignore the worst of them, I've actually found use for negative feedback about my mathematical ideas, which is an odd thing because of its value to me-- if someone shoots down an idea that's just it, it's gone. I forget the idea and can forget that person. The fear I had in years past was that someone might put forward a BETTER IDEA, which was the scary thing which is why what I've done may not be safe for all discoverers who do not wish to be upstaged!!! Oddly enough, the viciousness of the hostility may have protected me somewhat as posters were too afraid to say ANYTHING positive about my ideas knowing they'd be verbally assaulted if they did. The angry and nasty posters had made group rules that nothing good was to be said about my research, which is a set of rules they enforce to this day-- posters know ahead of time they will be punished if they break them. Hostile posters through the years have made it clear that you will be punished if you break those rules! Just recently I got an email from someone expressing interest in my ideas but afraid to post. So you could say the venom was like a protective screen. It annoyed me but did not stop me, but it stopped others cold. The value of the negative feedback was shown yet again with my k^m = q mod N result, where I just didn't think about discrete logs at first as I'd never really thought about them before, and had this focus on solving for k. An argument with a poster got me to wondering, hmmm....can I find m, with k, q and N known using these equations? The answer was: yes. Maybe eventually I'd have realized that but in a different situation it's quite possible someone else might have noticed before me, so another benefit to me of the vitriol and the rules against people posting anything positive about me or my research may be that I get to have all the major results! Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. History may reflect this saga as one of the most bizarre in human history, where a spate of mathematical discoveries in newly opened up areas were mine not because I hid anything, and not because there weren't smart people possibly able to figure things out before me-- often I take months to work through various results--but simply because GROUP RULES on Usenet put the fear of the wrath of angry posters into the minds of people who might try. Or they simply never thought to try trusting the angry idiots. At this date there's a well-worked system: I can post here without fear of positive responses. I take the negatives to help me kill bad ideas, and put forward draft posts. The best drafts I refine and put on my math blog or on mymathgroup or both. The most stunning results I send to the Annals of Mathematics. That's the system. It is well established at this point. And I think it works well. James Harris
From: Doug on 11 Jul 2010 15:39 "JSH" <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a3f277d4-3f62-4e4e-879c-3692a4256c22(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com... NPD checker [patented by Rolf Kamachie] Narcissistic Check = #self referencing words/unique words Below 5% OK 5% to 10% NARCISSISTIC 10% to 15% MALIGNANT NARCISSIST Above 15% immediately call Doctor, or police! This post by JSH = I+ME+Mine+my 26 + 13 +12 + 0 = 51/345 = 14.8% ****JSH is exuding extreme amount of self indulgent ego and is going to pop!*** 14.8% !! Unique words:345 Total words:841 Freq. Word 36 THE 26 I 25 TO 20 AND 20 OF 13 ME 13 THAT 12 A 12 MY 11 IT 11 BE 9 ABOUT 9 ON 9 THEY 8 IN 8 AS 7 NOT 7 HAVE 7 BUT 7 IS 7 POSTERS 6 WITH 6 LIKE 6 THIS 6 S 6 USENET 6 ALL 6 OR 6 IDEAS 6 WHICH 6 AT 6 WAS 5 ANGRY 5 MATH 5 VE 5 YEARS 5 WOULD 5 MAY 5 THEM 5 FOR 5 RULES 4 WHO 4 TAKE 4 D 4 FROM 4 MIGHT 4 POSTS 4 PEOPLE 4 RESULTS 4 CAN 4 AN 4 BECAUSE 4 IF 4 SOMEONE 4 WORLD 4 PUT 4 POSTING 3 THEIR 3 SIMPLY 3 WILL 3 WERE 3 PERSON 3 WORK 3 GONE 3 UP 3 WHERE 3 DAY 3 OVER 3 OUT 3 IDEA 3 JUST 3 FEAR 3 HAD 3 THING 3 SAY 3 ANYTHING 3 POSITIVE 3 GET 3 YOU 3 K 3 BEFORE 3 WELL 2 POSTINGS 2 FIRST 2 MAD 2 DEMONS 2 INTEREST 2 NEGATIVE 2 FEEDBACK 2 MATHEMATICAL 2 DO 2 PAST 2 VALUE 2 REALITY 2 BLOG 2 SCI 2 FIGURE 2 FORGET 2 HERE 2 WHAT 2 NASTY 2 TIME 2 FORWARD 2 AFRAID 2 ONE 2 RIP 2 DID 2 MADE 2 GROUP 2 FREE 2 RESEARCH 2 PUNISHED 2 BREAK 2 THROUGH 2 STOP 2 GOT 2 POST 2 SO 2 MATHEMATICS 2 M 2 Q 2 N 2 T 2 THINK 2 NEVER 2 THOUGHT 2 THESE 2 HISTORY 2 MOST 2 THERE 2 TRY 2 SOME 2 SYSTEM 1 EXPECTED 1 GROUPS 1 HURT 1 FEELINGS 1 AROUND 1 REAL 1 GOAL 1 HAS 1 READERS 1 COUNTRY 1 REALIZE 1 VARIANTS 1 DOING 1 GUESS 1 CONFIDENT 1 ABILITY 1 DRIVE 1 OFF 1 EXPERIENCE 1 SEARCHES 1 START 1 WAY 1 NIGHT 1 COMMUNICATE 1 WATCHED 1 CELEBRATE 1 AFTER 1 SPEECH 1 CREDIT 1 ABUSED 1 BY 1 LEARNED 1 MOSTLY 1 IGNORE 1 WORST 1 ACTUALLY 1 FOUND 1 USE 1 THREADS 1 ESPECIALLY 1 GETTING 1 POP 1 ODD 1 FORUM 1 ITS 1 LOT 1 EVEN 1 FORMAT 1 SHOOTS 1 DOWN 1 ALLOWS 1 SURPRISED 1 NOR 1 DOES 1 APPEAR 1 TIMES 1 USEFUL 1 HOSTILES 1 BETTER 1 SCARY 1 WHY 1 DONE 1 SAFE 1 DISCOVERERS 1 WISH 1 UPSTAGED 1 ODDLY 1 ENOUGH 1 VICIOUSNESS 1 HOSTILITY 1 PROTECTED 1 SOMEWHAT 1 TOO 1 VISITORS 1 AGO 1 TODAY 1 KNOWING 1 VERBALLY 1 ASSAULTED 1 MUCH 1 WORLDWIDE 1 MAKE 1 YOUR 1 NOTHING 1 GOOD 1 SAID 1 LIFE 1 SET 1 ENFORCE 1 KNOW 1 AHEAD 1 MISERABLE 1 ONES 1 HOSTILE 1 STALK 1 CLEAR 1 RISE 1 THOSE 1 RECENTLY 1 GRANTED 1 EMAIL 1 EXPRESSING 1 MYMATH 1 TYPING 1 COULD 1 VENOM 1 PROTECTIVE 1 SCREEN 1 ANNOYED 1 STOPPED 1 OTHERS 1 COLD 1 SHOWN 1 YET 1 AGAIN 1 AMAZED 1 GO 1 HOURS 1 MOD 1 PRIME 1 RESULT 1 DIDN 1 RESIDUE 1 CLEARLY 1 DISCRETE 1 LOGS 1 WORKING 1 REALLY 1 OVERTIME 1 TRYING 1 FOCUS 1 SOLVING 1 ARGUMENT 1 POSTER 1 WONDERING 1 HMMM 1 FIND 1 KNOWN 1 USING 1 EQUATIONS 1 ANSWER 1 YES 1 MAYBE 1 EVENTUALLY 1 REALIZED 1 DIFFERENT 1 SITUATION 1 QUITE 1 POSSIBLE 1 ELSE 1 NOTICED 1 ANOTHER 1 BENEFIT 1 VITRIOL 1 AGAINST 1 MAJOR 1 TALK 1 MAKING 1 LEMONADE 1 LEMONS 1 AXIOM 1 REFLECT 1 SAGA 1 SAW 1 BIZARRE 1 HUMAN 1 SPATE 1 DISCOVERIES 1 NEWLY 1 OPENED 1 AREAS 1 MINE 1 HID 1 HUGE 1 WEREN 1 SMART 1 POSSIBLY 1 ABLE 1 THINGS 1 OFTEN 1 MONTHS 1 VARIOUS 1 WRATH 1 INTO 1 MINDS 1 SWATHS 1 TRUSTING 1 IDIOTS 1 DATE 1 SEARCH 1 WORKED 1 SPENT 1 WITHOUT 1 RESPONSES 1 NEGATIVES 1 HELP 1 KILL 1 BAD 1 DRAFT 1 BEST 1 DRAFTS 1 REFINE 1 MYMATHGROUP 1 BOTH 1 STUNNING 1 SEND 1 ANNALS 1 ESTABLISHED 1 POINT 1 WORKS 1 JAMES 1 HARRIS
From: MichaelW on 11 Jul 2010 18:29 On Jul 12, 5:01 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The fear I had in years past was that someone might put forward a > BETTER IDEA, which was the scary thing which is why what I've done may > not be safe for all discoverers who do not wish to be upstaged!!! > This has already happened. Looking at your Top Super Results post from May 11 on the mymath blog: (1) My algorithm to extract a solution from the digits of pi is still more efficient than yours (in all its incarnations) (2) I have posted a better simplification to the BQDE and can do so again if you like (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 Your reinvention of history not withstanding the "hostiles" as you call us have often upstaged you and (in many cases) done so with grace, patience and humour. Regards, Michael W.
From: Mark Murray on 11 Jul 2010 18:53 On 11/07/2010 20:01, JSH wrote: > But as the years have gone by and I've learned to mostly ignore the > worst of them, I've actually found use for negative feedback about my > mathematical ideas, which is an odd thing because of its value to me-- > if someone shoots down an idea that's just it, it's gone. I forget > the idea and can forget that person. Just about all of your ideas have been comprehensively shot down, and you have not given up on the vast majority of them. You hang onto provably wrong ideas with the tenacity of a true crank. One of your recent Twitter posts sums thing up rather well: <quote> was wondering why i don't have a bigger audience and this thought occurred to me, a thought which will not go: maybe i'm just not that good. about 23 hours ago via web </quote> Probably one of your more insightful thoughts. > The fear I had in years past was that someone might put forward a > BETTER IDEA, which was the scary thing which is why what I've done may > not be safe for all discoverers who do not wish to be upstaged!!! In many cases, this "BETTER IDEA" preceded yours without you doing the necessary checking to notice. > Oddly enough, the viciousness of the hostility may have protected me > somewhat as posters were too afraid to say ANYTHING positive about my > ideas knowing they'd be verbally assaulted if they did. The angry and > nasty posters had made group rules that nothing good was to be said > about my research, which is a set of rules they enforce to this day-- > posters know ahead of time they will be punished if they break them. > > Hostile posters through the years have made it clear that you will be > punished if you break those rules! > > Just recently I got an email from someone expressing interest in my > ideas but afraid to post. > > So you could say the venom was like a protective screen. It annoyed > me but did not stop me, but it stopped others cold. Whining and conspiracy theorising. > The value of the negative feedback was shown yet again with my k^m = q > mod N result, where I just didn't think about discrete logs at first > as I'd never really thought about them before, and had this focus on > solving for k. An argument with a poster got me to wondering, > hmmm....can I find m, with k, q and N known using these equations? > The answer was: yes. You "didn't get to wondering". You were TOLD. > Maybe eventually I'd have realized that but in a different situation > it's quite possible someone else might have noticed before me, so > another benefit to me of the vitriol and the rules against people > posting anything positive about me or my research may be that I get to > have all the major results! So someone points out the flaws in your old-hat "rediscovery", and you claim a "new result". > Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. Others may call this either lack of insight or plaigarism. > History may reflect this saga as one of the most bizarre in human > history, where a spate of mathematical discoveries in newly opened up > areas were mine not because I hid anything, and not because there > weren't smart people possibly able to figure things out before me-- > often I take months to work through various results--but simply > because GROUP RULES on Usenet put the fear of the wrath of angry > posters into the minds of people who might try. Or they simply never > thought to try trusting the angry idiots. Still no clue that you haven't found a damn thing that wasn't aready known. Sad. Very sad. The whining doesn't help either. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: JSH on 11 Jul 2010 18:56
On Jul 11, 3:29 pm, MichaelW <ms...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > On Jul 12, 5:01 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The fear I had in years past was that someone might put forward a > > BETTER IDEA, which was the scary thing which is why what I've done may > > not be safe for all discoverers who do not wish to be upstaged!!! > > This has already happened. Looking at your Top Super Results post from > May 11 on the mymath blog: > > (1) My algorithm to extract a solution from the digits of pi is still > more efficient than yours (in all its incarnations) > (2) I have posted a better simplification to the BQDE and can do so > again if you like > (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 I didn't even know you had one! No, no need to post it. I tire of people like you trying to ride my coattails. Just did a search: prime gap equation Hmmm...I have #1 when I do that in Google. Where are you? > Your reinvention of history not withstanding the "hostiles" as you > call us have often upstaged you and (in many cases) done so with > grace, patience and humour. > > Regards, Michael W. Simple delusion. Usenet allows people to live in complete fantasy. Difference for me is that people can just do the web searches. A web search--unlike claims--is an intimate reality for each individual. But I'm replying here to note the bizarre reality that people will say just about anything. Oh, as the years have gone by, faced with Usenet posters who would continually make false statements I've learned to rely more and more on what I call objective measures. Posters will attack me in any way that they think hurts--like making false claims--but just go to Google or Yahoo! or some other search engine, and see the oddity of the blatant lies. It does bug you though, when you see the reality of humanity: its love of cruelty. People are often I think cruel even publicly when they think they can do so freely. Attacking another person's ideas and making false statements about them predictably can impact them negatively, even when the statements are clearly and blatantly false. James Harris |