JSH: Prime gap equation, 3 years grace
in [Math]
|
Prev: DECLARED ASSERTION TO THE BEST MATHEMATICIAN OF CURRENT MATHEMATICS-- DR EDGAR ESCULTURA PHD, U.W MADISON ,1 and 0.999 a final resolution
Next: JSH: We must move on
From: MichaelW on 23 Jul 2010 18:41 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:41:46 -0400, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 07/23/2010 12:41 AM, JSH wrote: >> And you lie. You'll never concede. No matter what evidence. > > Actually, I suppose this is true, in a fashion. MichaelW has admitted > that he would concede if presented a specific counterexample; since you > seem to be unable or unwilling to provide examples in general, it stands > to reason that you will never attempt to present one and therefore > MichaelW will never concede. > > I have noticed, in general, that the more someone tries to pin you down > to specific, unambiguous examples, the more you fudge and try to escape. > Yet you continually pester us to give the kinds of examples that you > yourself avoid giving. I am on record as stating that the equation is only wrong in proportion; if you fix this by multiplying through then the equation is in fact correct. For example if you look at James' equation you can deduce that pairs of gap 6 will be be half as common as pairs of gap 4 which the data confirms. James seems to be saying in this thread that the number of pairs for various gaps is independent of the size of the gap. Thus checking up to a gap of 34 means that I might be missing important data. But his own equation actually states that (for sufficiently high primes) there is only one formula multiplied by a number derived from the prime factors of the gap. My own tests confirm this. It was pointed out to me that this has been demonstrated by others 4 years ago. Regards, Michael W.
From: Penny Hassett on 24 Jul 2010 04:26 JSH wrote: > > A max gap of 34? You continue to play like you're very dimwitted. > > That's nothing given the size of the tables. You haven't even > started. > > And you lie. You'll never concede. No matter what evidence. > > You'll always find a new dodge. > > Don't work for me here. I've given YEARS to the mathematicians. > > Let them have them. They need those years. They need the money. > > And I need the time. Wander off little man. This game is too big for > you. If you test the powers you will be blocked. You do not know > your world, yet. > > There is no way one man like you can stand in this game. > > The stakes are too high. > > You think you're safe in Australia? Live and learn. If you press too > hard your reality will change, and with it your delusions and your > sense of security. > > Don't make the mathematicians beat you down. LOL. > > > James Harris James, Michael is being polite and courteous; you are being rude and obnoxious. You are at an unfortunate point in your behavioural cycle and I think you will look back and regret what you have written here. Please take a step back and consider whether you need to aplogise.
From: Mark Murray on 24 Jul 2010 05:03 On 24/07/2010 09:26, Penny Hassett wrote: > Michael is being polite and courteous; you are being rude and obnoxious. > You are at an unfortunate point in your behavioural cycle and I think > you will look back and regret what you have written here. Please take a > step back and consider whether you need to aplogise. Penny, I've seen James be rude and obnoxious on many occaisions. I have never seen him apologise. As for regret, what is usually seen is a cancellation of postings, and often lame excuses. These include drunkenness, a preference for "combative" style of discourse, a need to cajole folks into "working for him" and so forth. Actual regret, if shown, is usually years after the event, and not sincere. It is usually a limited admission of delusion, applying strictly to past behaviour, and in no way affecting current (bad) behaviour. He never addresses past behavioural transgressions, except with excuses. The whole pattern adds up to a very self-centred individual who shows no empathy whatsoever. "Rude and obnoxious" are normal for him; I don't know if he even knows how to be otherwise. Apologies for painting a bleak picture in response to your admirable effort; just as it is necessary for you to have your recommendation on record, I'd like to have it on record my opinion that James does not have the required strength of character to take it. Your measured response and his respect for you will, I hope, provide a needed behavioural clue. Hopes are, regrettably, not high. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Tim Little on 24 Jul 2010 11:19 On 2010-07-24, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Would you rather I were LESS honest? I don't think you could possibly be less honest. - Tim
From: JSH on 24 Jul 2010 11:32
On Jul 24, 8:19 am, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-07-24, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Would you rather I were LESS honest? > > I don't think you could possibly be less honest. > > - Tim And I think mathematicians routinely lie about even their most sacrosanct areas of research, like especially with prime numbers. Progress? James Harris |