JSH: Posting realities, residues result
in [Math]
|
From: JSH on 12 Jun 2010 11:47 On Jun 11, 9:28 pm, Pollux <po....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Moving through that cycle typically takes him on the order of a month > > or more per step. Previous cycles have included proving FLT, proving > > P=NP, polynomial-time factoring of large integers, demonstrating flaws > > in the ring of algebraic integers, and various combinations and > > repetitions of those. > > But wait! What if he was _right_?? Doesn't that send shivers down your > spine? It's like with this latest result--which is trivially proven--Usenet posters refuse all evidence mathematical or otherwise and *always* simply return to insulting me. Kind of interesting behavior actually. Anyone reading these latest posts in this thread first, would probably be shocked by the starting post which is about a solving residues result. That distraction is deliberate I think: run away from actual mathematics--to insult! > > At various points he has claimed that he was an advanced alien, the > > incarnation of Mathematics itself, the only true human, the embodiment > > of a godlike power, and various other self-aggrandizing delusions. > > Excellent! A prime specimen! Do you think he is writing from inside some > institution, or he is allowed out in the wild? He is not dangerous, is he? Attack the person. Ignore the math. Insult. Insult. Insult. As a strategy to try and refute a mathematical result for solving for k, when k^m = q mod N, it's actually a tried-and-true technique for convincing others! People are trusting. It seems harder to believe that one person is right and so many other people are not only wrong, but vicious in their activity, than to just assume *something* must be wrong with what he says. And the impasse continues. Which is a victory for the people who argue with me. I imagine number theory professors around the world are breathing a sigh of relief. Their attack dogs are still working hard and diligently to protect them. And I'd guess the professors are preparing for the next school year when they'd expect that NONE of these results have to be acknowledged as existing at all. As their students pay big bucks for their college educations, and trust. James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 12 Jun 2010 13:09 On 06/12/2010 11:47 AM, JSH wrote: > People are trusting. It seems harder to believe that one person is > right and so many other people are not only wrong, but vicious in > their activity, than to just assume *something* must be wrong with > what he says. The typical JSH "cycle": 1. You claim to have a new result. 2. People claim it to be either not new, too impractical to use (i.e., worse than the naive case), or incorrect. 3. You respond to this with rather spitting vitriol and bile, and come up with detailed hypotheticals involving the end of civilization, a new world order, etc., etc., etc.; all of this while ignoring most peoples weak attempts to indicate the negative property of your result. 3a. There is also a large component of your arguing that you're being persecuted by a cabal, with constant reference to previous results being suppressed. 4. Somebody does a detailed analysis of the result, initiating a careful series of thread mostly lacking the ad hominems thrown out in most posts. 5. Said analysis culminates in indisputable evidence that the result is either not new, too impractical to use, or incorrect. 6. You agree with this analysis, and close up the thread and leave for a few months, returning again with a new result and repeating the process. 7. In the new cycle, you add the previous result to your list of results being suppressed, conveniently omitting your omission that said result was incorrect. After observing, and participating in, a few rounds of this cycle, I have come to the following conclusions: 1. You lack either the aptitude or the willingness to approach your own results with skepticism and attempt to thwart them before announcing your result to the world. Results by others are by default wrong, unless they are so precisely stated and carried out that there is no step which can be waved away as incorrect. 2. There is a certain unimaginative tendency towards coming up with explanations for observations. Per #1, anyone attempting another explanation is treated as de facto wrong. 3. There is an underlying element of egocentrism (some have suggested narcissism), or at least something observationally equivalent to it, which leads you to: 3a. Believe that attempts to prove something wrong are equivalent to personal attacks. 3b. Assume said personal attacks are the result of a cabal realizing that its power is threatened by your results and therefore trying to suppress them. 3c. Conclude that the cabal is so powerful that it strangles the knowledge elements of most major countries, primarily Western, and it appears above all the U.S. and Britain (I do not recall seeing any explicit references to Canada, France, Germany, Benelux countries, Scandinavia, Iceland, Japan, Australia, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Austria, Hungary, Poland, or any other European country). 3d. Conclude that your results deal (or are capable of dealing, were the research continued further) foundational blows to elements of modern society. 3e. Conclude that since said results are so important, any attempt to suppress them will ultimately fail and it will be rogue elements outside the power of the cabal (and, by 3d, therefore any of the major countries in the world, although you seem to be Angloamerocentric) who turn these results into usable attacks. 3f. Declare, therefore, that anyone who suppresses these results is guilty of treason, and continually remind people as a result that to claim your results are wrong is therefore someone who should be awaiting calls from "Security Forces" (a term left undefined, but, depending on the reader's level of paranoia, can be interpreted along a sliding scale of "secret police" to "local police forces"). 3g. Treat all events which could be interpreted as manifestations of your importance as manifestations of your importance and discount alternative interpretations and, in cases, evidence which would tend not to support your interpretation. 4. I suspect that the same apparent manifestation of egocentrism is what dissuades the most competent from responding to your arguments and also leads most people to presuppose a notion of incorrectness or uselessness when it comes to your results. That, at least, is my interpretation of the historical record of your activity. Most people trust most the conclusions that they themselves come up with as a result of the evidence that they can see; many otherwise uninterested viewers who come to see the same results would probably arrive at the same conclusion. Granted, most people probably don't take in such a large body of evidence. In the wider historical record, the person who claims to have upended foundations of {insert branch of mathematics, science, religion, etc. here} have tended to be wrong. How many untold people have claimed to have squared the circle despite mathematical proof of its impossibility? A purely statistical result is that it is better to assume that the person who claims to be right where 200 years of mathematics are wrong--the so-called crank--is wrong. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Pol Lux on 12 Jun 2010 14:28 On Jun 12, 10:09 am, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 06/12/2010 11:47 AM, JSH wrote: > > > People are trusting. It seems harder to believe that one person is > > right and so many other people are not only wrong, but vicious in > > their activity, than to just assume *something* must be wrong with > > what he says. > > The typical JSH "cycle": > 1. You claim to have a new result. > 2. People claim it to be either not new, too impractical to use (i.e., > worse than the naive case), or incorrect. > 3. You respond to this with rather spitting vitriol and bile, and come > up with detailed hypotheticals involving the end of civilization, a new > world order, etc., etc., etc.; all of this while ignoring most peoples > weak attempts to indicate the negative property of your result. > 3a. There is also a large component of your arguing that you're being > persecuted by a cabal, with constant reference to previous results being > suppressed. > 4. Somebody does a detailed analysis of the result, initiating a careful > series of thread mostly lacking the ad hominems thrown out in most posts. > 5. Said analysis culminates in indisputable evidence that the result is > either not new, too impractical to use, or incorrect. > 6. You agree with this analysis, and close up the thread and leave for a > few months, returning again with a new result and repeating the process. > 7. In the new cycle, you add the previous result to your list of results > being suppressed, conveniently omitting your omission that said result > was incorrect. > > After observing, and participating in, a few rounds of this cycle, I > have come to the following conclusions: > 1. You lack either the aptitude or the willingness to approach your own > results with skepticism and attempt to thwart them before announcing > your result to the world. Results by others are by default wrong, unless > they are so precisely stated and carried out that there is no step which > can be waved away as incorrect. > 2. There is a certain unimaginative tendency towards coming up with > explanations for observations. Per #1, anyone attempting another > explanation is treated as de facto wrong. > 3. There is an underlying element of egocentrism (some have suggested > narcissism), or at least something observationally equivalent to it, > which leads you to: > 3a. Believe that attempts to prove something wrong are equivalent to > personal attacks. > 3b. Assume said personal attacks are the result of a cabal realizing > that its power is threatened by your results and therefore trying to > suppress them. > 3c. Conclude that the cabal is so powerful that it strangles the > knowledge elements of most major countries, primarily Western, and it > appears above all the U.S. and Britain (I do not recall seeing any > explicit references to Canada, France, Germany, Benelux countries, > Scandinavia, Iceland, Japan, Australia, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Austria, > Hungary, Poland, or any other European country). > 3d. Conclude that your results deal (or are capable of dealing, were the > research continued further) foundational blows to elements of modern > society. > 3e. Conclude that since said results are so important, any attempt to > suppress them will ultimately fail and it will be rogue elements outside > the power of the cabal (and, by 3d, therefore any of the major countries > in the world, although you seem to be Angloamerocentric) who turn these > results into usable attacks. > 3f. Declare, therefore, that anyone who suppresses these results is > guilty of treason, and continually remind people as a result that to > claim your results are wrong is therefore someone who should be awaiting > calls from "Security Forces" (a term left undefined, but, depending on > the reader's level of paranoia, can be interpreted along a sliding scale > of "secret police" to "local police forces"). > 3g. Treat all events which could be interpreted as manifestations of > your importance as manifestations of your importance and discount > alternative interpretations and, in cases, evidence which would tend not > to support your interpretation. > 4. I suspect that the same apparent manifestation of egocentrism is what > dissuades the most competent from responding to your arguments and also > leads most people to presuppose a notion of incorrectness or uselessness > when it comes to your results. > > That, at least, is my interpretation of the historical record of your > activity. Most people trust most the conclusions that they themselves > come up with as a result of the evidence that they can see; many > otherwise uninterested viewers who come to see the same results would > probably arrive at the same conclusion. Granted, most people probably > don't take in such a large body of evidence. > > In the wider historical record, the person who claims to have upended > foundations of {insert branch of mathematics, science, religion, etc. > here} have tended to be wrong. How many untold people have claimed to > have squared the circle despite mathematical proof of its impossibility? > A purely statistical result is that it is better to assume that the > person who claims to be right where 200 years of mathematics are > wrong--the so-called crank--is wrong. > > -- > Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth This is obviously hopeless. The only rational behavior to JSH is to just ignore him. And there are legions like him. And they don't even realize they are cranks. They take themselves seriously! They honestly "claim kinship with DaVinci, Einstein..." as Arindam was posting today. Unbelievable. It's not sci.math, it's a forum for deranged crazies with all sorts of delusions (with a few serious people here and there, of course).
From: MichaelW on 12 Jun 2010 18:16 On Jun 13, 3:09 am, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 06/12/2010 11:47 AM, JSH wrote: > > > People are trusting. It seems harder to believe that one person is > > right and so many other people are not only wrong, but vicious in > > their activity, than to just assume *something* must be wrong with > > what he says. > > The typical JSH "cycle": > 1. You claim to have a new result. > 2. People claim it to be either not new, too impractical to use (i.e., > worse than the naive case), or incorrect. > 3. You respond to this with rather spitting vitriol and bile, and come > up with detailed hypotheticals involving the end of civilization, a new > world order, etc., etc., etc.; all of this while ignoring most peoples > weak attempts to indicate the negative property of your result. > 3a. There is also a large component of your arguing that you're being > persecuted by a cabal, with constant reference to previous results being > suppressed. > 4. Somebody does a detailed analysis of the result, initiating a careful > series of thread mostly lacking the ad hominems thrown out in most posts. > 5. Said analysis culminates in indisputable evidence that the result is > either not new, too impractical to use, or incorrect. > 6. You agree with this analysis, and close up the thread and leave for a > few months, returning again with a new result and repeating the process. > 7. In the new cycle, you add the previous result to your list of results > being suppressed, conveniently omitting your omission that said result > was incorrect. > > After observing, and participating in, a few rounds of this cycle, I > have come to the following conclusions: > 1. You lack either the aptitude or the willingness to approach your own > results with skepticism and attempt to thwart them before announcing > your result to the world. Results by others are by default wrong, unless > they are so precisely stated and carried out that there is no step which > can be waved away as incorrect. > 2. There is a certain unimaginative tendency towards coming up with > explanations for observations. Per #1, anyone attempting another > explanation is treated as de facto wrong. > 3. There is an underlying element of egocentrism (some have suggested > narcissism), or at least something observationally equivalent to it, > which leads you to: > 3a. Believe that attempts to prove something wrong are equivalent to > personal attacks. > 3b. Assume said personal attacks are the result of a cabal realizing > that its power is threatened by your results and therefore trying to > suppress them. > 3c. Conclude that the cabal is so powerful that it strangles the > knowledge elements of most major countries, primarily Western, and it > appears above all the U.S. and Britain (I do not recall seeing any > explicit references to Canada, France, Germany, Benelux countries, > Scandinavia, Iceland, Japan, Australia, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Austria, > Hungary, Poland, or any other European country). > 3d. Conclude that your results deal (or are capable of dealing, were the > research continued further) foundational blows to elements of modern > society. > 3e. Conclude that since said results are so important, any attempt to > suppress them will ultimately fail and it will be rogue elements outside > the power of the cabal (and, by 3d, therefore any of the major countries > in the world, although you seem to be Angloamerocentric) who turn these > results into usable attacks. > 3f. Declare, therefore, that anyone who suppresses these results is > guilty of treason, and continually remind people as a result that to > claim your results are wrong is therefore someone who should be awaiting > calls from "Security Forces" (a term left undefined, but, depending on > the reader's level of paranoia, can be interpreted along a sliding scale > of "secret police" to "local police forces"). > 3g. Treat all events which could be interpreted as manifestations of > your importance as manifestations of your importance and discount > alternative interpretations and, in cases, evidence which would tend not > to support your interpretation. > 4. I suspect that the same apparent manifestation of egocentrism is what > dissuades the most competent from responding to your arguments and also > leads most people to presuppose a notion of incorrectness or uselessness > when it comes to your results. > > That, at least, is my interpretation of the historical record of your > activity. Most people trust most the conclusions that they themselves > come up with as a result of the evidence that they can see; many > otherwise uninterested viewers who come to see the same results would > probably arrive at the same conclusion. Granted, most people probably > don't take in such a large body of evidence. > > In the wider historical record, the person who claims to have upended > foundations of {insert branch of mathematics, science, religion, etc. > here} have tended to be wrong. How many untold people have claimed to > have squared the circle despite mathematical proof of its impossibility? > A purely statistical result is that it is better to assume that the > person who claims to be right where 200 years of mathematics are > wrong--the so-called crank--is wrong. > > -- > Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth I am only here for the step 4 of the cycle, the analysis. Of late it has become almost impossible. I have found response 3a in particular (treating it as a personal attack) to have overwhelmed any chance a a mathematical to and fro. As James would say, that's why it is called MyMaths: James and the maths are one and the same and anything negative about one is negative about the other. I have observed that it has not always been so bad, but others have disagreed. Just before JSH's recent temporary retirement I was considering retirement from the group myself. This latest round has been especially unedifying and I am pretty much ready to bail. I would add a step 2b to your cycle; and JSH thread is immediately cluttered with vitriol from posters who seem to come to this group only to insult the cranks and who have never shown any interest or ability in maths. I would note that step 7 in the cycle is especially creeping me out. He recently claimed to have never agreed that his TSP algorithm is wrong (despite posts clearly stating just that) and that he has solved BQDE (ditto). I agree with PL's response to this post; the whole thing is hopeless and it is better to ignore him. Regards, Michael W.
From: Joshua Cranmer on 12 Jun 2010 18:54
On 06/12/2010 06:16 PM, MichaelW wrote: > I am only here for the step 4 of the cycle, the analysis. Of late it > has become almost impossible. I have found response 3a in particular > (treating it as a personal attack) to have overwhelmed any chance a a > mathematical to and fro. As James would say, that's why it is called > MyMaths: James and the maths are one and the same and anything > negative about one is negative about the other. Step 4 is the step I'm most interested in too. The detailed analyses of JSH's work are among the most interesting posts I have read in sci.math, once you suck the vitriol, hyperbole, and egos out of the threads. Unfortunately, that is the stuff that makes up the bulk of the threads. > I have observed that it has not always been so bad, but others have > disagreed. What I have seen more in the most recent cycles is people who just take the opportunity to insult JSH and do nothing but that. However much I like or dislike JSH, and however much he may or may not warrant it, such actions are just unacceptable in my view. Everyone would be better off if they just shut up: those posts just waste bandwidth and adds fuel to the file. > I would add a step 2b to your cycle; and JSH thread is immediately > cluttered with vitriol from posters who seem to come to this group > only to insult the cranks and who have never shown any interest or > ability in maths. I try to mentally block those people out. Then again, apparently the tactic of ignoring bullies is no longer recommended (it worked for me, although I only had to deal with it for two years). -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth |