JSH: Prime gap equation consequences
in [Math]
|
Prev: An exact simplification challenge - 97 (hypergeom/EllipticF)
Next: e, pi and the 10th degree polynomial
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 24 Jul 2010 20:55 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > I am a world figure for a reason. Aside from your stellar performance in Google searches, and the fact that spammers the world over scan your blogs for email addresses, what evidence do you have that you're a world figure? Has any site at all independently referred to you by name? (Cranks.net notwithstanding, of course.) -- Jesse F. Hughes "How come there's still apes running around loose and there are humans? Why did some of them decide to evolve and some did not? Did they choose to stay as a monkey or what?" -Kans. Board of Ed member
From: Enrico on 24 Jul 2010 21:43 On Jul 24, 3:29 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 2:10 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 24/07/2010 21:31, JSH wrote: > > > > You're welcome again! > > > :-) :-) :-) > > > >>> And the answer here is, no, it's the correlation that matters. > > > >>> Now ponder that for a while, understand why I don't worry a lot about > > >>> a claim of a probabilistic equation supposedly often being about 12% > > >>> off, and if necessary brush up on probability and statistics, which I > > >>> think you really should do. > > > >> I'm very familiar with the concept of experimental error, ant the > > >> statistical processing thereof. This requires a formal study of > > >> statistics, albeit not at the level of a major as degree level. > > > >> A consistent 12% is cause for concern, and needs to be dealt with, > > > > No. That's just not correct! > > > Please explain (in detail). The stuff that MichaelW pointed out is the > > same equation as yours, except for the constant 1.12... factor. Please > > explain why that equation matches actual data much better than yours > > does (or /vice versa/?). > > THAT is about an empirical formula which appears to match the data > well. > > My result is derived from the prime residue axiom. > > Understand now? Or did that just whiz over your head? > > I CANNOT give you a college education on stat mech in Usenet posts!!! > > You CAN take a course on the subject. > > > >> and posters here (MichaelW and Penny Hassett) have both pointed out > > >> papers that explain this 12%. They have shown that apart from this > > >> 12%, your equation is correct, by showing it in a paper. > > > > Mathematics is a HUGE subject. No one can be an expert on it all. > > > Goes without saying. Thats why folks get together in discussion groups. > > If I get something wrong, there is usually someone here who can help me > > get it right. > > You are naive aren't you. > > Dude, you're entertainment now. > > There are people I'm sure who read this newsgroup just to wait until I > finally let loose upon the latest poor sucker who decided to step into > the fray. > > For every one poster who MAY seem to help you--and where are they > now?--there may be thousands of readers around the world, looking to > be entertained by you or someone like you. > > And it's so weird, I asked once years ago to see what people like you > think, and this poster replied back that he thought roughly a dozen > people were paying attention to my posts!!! > > Google Groups claims over 5000 reads in the last 7 days. > > That JUST Google Groups though, and however they get those stats as to > what they consider a "read". > > When I post actively I push search results in any number of areas > impacting people all over the world--especially if they happen to have > THEIR research in those areas. > > Posters like you accept that as if it's normal but for the > professionals it must be disconcerting. > > I draw attention at the level of a small university--all by my little > self. > > > > But you can't just think you can read posts on Usenet and get a firm > > > grasp of something and then just refer back to other posters when > > > called on your error. > > > No, but I consider the material referred to inhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/d07daf82d9238778 > > persuasive, in support of MichaelW having accurately displayed the > > 12% discrepancy and provides a reference to a paper that contains > > an equation very similar to yours, except for the 12% correction. > > Empirical. > > My result is *derived* from the prime residue axiom. > > > Penny Hassett concurs, I do believe. > > If the poster posting on the newsgroup IS Penny Hassett--I have my > doubts--you need to read a little more carefully. > > > > Quite simply, you are wrong here. Worse, you are wrong in a way that > > > shows a very dismal lack of understanding of basic probability and > > > statistics. > > > Please check the above papers. The most relevant one is published by > > The Mathematical Association of America. These are not idiots. > > LOL. You are so trusting. > > You're looking at empirical results. > > So people look at prime gaps and try to find a formula that matches, > and correct it as they look at more data. > > In contrast I derived a result from my prime residue axiom. > > So my research is about 'why'. > > I answer why. THAT is the point. When you see empirical results you > need to understand what you're facing which is about, sorry, > education. > > Mathematics is a HUGE subject. And you're on a worldwide forum with a > guy who gets attention from over 100+ countries. > > Sorry but while your world may be silly in many ways, it's not THAT > silly. > > People like me get that level of attention for a reason. > > And I'm taking time out to help you as I fear you may have been caught > in the gears of a rather large machine you just don't understand. > > In a sense, maybe this will help--it's like you're on something like a > reality television show with a worldwide audience, but it's just not > like others, so it is more like a stealth show, and I'm pulling away > the curtain for you.... > > James Harris- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ========================================================== > > Mathematics is a HUGE subject. And you're on a worldwide forum with a > guy who gets attention from over 100+ countries. > > > People like me get that level of attention for a reason. > True. Also true in the same way for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_Road_Runner "While he is generally silent in the Coyote-Road Runner shorts, he speaks with a refined accent in these solo outings (except for Hare- Breadth Hurry), introducing himself as "Wile E. Coyote - super genius" So _That's_ where that super-genius thing came from! Enrico
From: JSH on 24 Jul 2010 22:05 On Jul 24, 6:43 pm, Enrico <ungerne...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 3:29 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 2:10 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > > > On 24/07/2010 21:31, JSH wrote: > > > > > You're welcome again! > > > > :-) :-) :-) > > > > >>> And the answer here is, no, it's the correlation that matters. > > > > >>> Now ponder that for a while, understand why I don't worry a lot about > > > >>> a claim of a probabilistic equation supposedly often being about 12% > > > >>> off, and if necessary brush up on probability and statistics, which I > > > >>> think you really should do. > > > > >> I'm very familiar with the concept of experimental error, ant the > > > >> statistical processing thereof. This requires a formal study of > > > >> statistics, albeit not at the level of a major as degree level. > > > > >> A consistent 12% is cause for concern, and needs to be dealt with, > > > > > No. That's just not correct! > > > > Please explain (in detail). The stuff that MichaelW pointed out is the > > > same equation as yours, except for the constant 1.12... factor. Please > > > explain why that equation matches actual data much better than yours > > > does (or /vice versa/?). > > > THAT is about an empirical formula which appears to match the data > > well. > > > My result is derived from the prime residue axiom. > > > Understand now? Or did that just whiz over your head? > > > I CANNOT give you a college education on stat mech in Usenet posts!!! > > > You CAN take a course on the subject. > > > > >> and posters here (MichaelW and Penny Hassett) have both pointed out > > > >> papers that explain this 12%. They have shown that apart from this > > > >> 12%, your equation is correct, by showing it in a paper. > > > > > Mathematics is a HUGE subject. No one can be an expert on it all.. > > > > Goes without saying. Thats why folks get together in discussion groups. > > > If I get something wrong, there is usually someone here who can help me > > > get it right. > > > You are naive aren't you. > > > Dude, you're entertainment now. > > > There are people I'm sure who read this newsgroup just to wait until I > > finally let loose upon the latest poor sucker who decided to step into > > the fray. > > > For every one poster who MAY seem to help you--and where are they > > now?--there may be thousands of readers around the world, looking to > > be entertained by you or someone like you. > > > And it's so weird, I asked once years ago to see what people like you > > think, and this poster replied back that he thought roughly a dozen > > people were paying attention to my posts!!! > > > Google Groups claims over 5000 reads in the last 7 days. > > > That JUST Google Groups though, and however they get those stats as to > > what they consider a "read". > > > When I post actively I push search results in any number of areas > > impacting people all over the world--especially if they happen to have > > THEIR research in those areas. > > > Posters like you accept that as if it's normal but for the > > professionals it must be disconcerting. > > > I draw attention at the level of a small university--all by my little > > self. > > > > > But you can't just think you can read posts on Usenet and get a firm > > > > grasp of something and then just refer back to other posters when > > > > called on your error. > > > > No, but I consider the material referred to inhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/d07daf82d9238778 > > > persuasive, in support of MichaelW having accurately displayed the > > > 12% discrepancy and provides a reference to a paper that contains > > > an equation very similar to yours, except for the 12% correction. > > > Empirical. > > > My result is *derived* from the prime residue axiom. > > > > Penny Hassett concurs, I do believe. > > > If the poster posting on the newsgroup IS Penny Hassett--I have my > > doubts--you need to read a little more carefully. > > > > > Quite simply, you are wrong here. Worse, you are wrong in a way that > > > > shows a very dismal lack of understanding of basic probability and > > > > statistics. > > > > Please check the above papers. The most relevant one is published by > > > The Mathematical Association of America. These are not idiots. > > > LOL. You are so trusting. > > > You're looking at empirical results. > > > So people look at prime gaps and try to find a formula that matches, > > and correct it as they look at more data. > > > In contrast I derived a result from my prime residue axiom. > > > So my research is about 'why'. > > > I answer why. THAT is the point. When you see empirical results you > > need to understand what you're facing which is about, sorry, > > education. > > > Mathematics is a HUGE subject. And you're on a worldwide forum with a > > guy who gets attention from over 100+ countries. > > > Sorry but while your world may be silly in many ways, it's not THAT > > silly. > > > People like me get that level of attention for a reason. > > > And I'm taking time out to help you as I fear you may have been caught > > in the gears of a rather large machine you just don't understand. > > > In a sense, maybe this will help--it's like you're on something like a > > reality television show with a worldwide audience, but it's just not > > like others, so it is more like a stealth show, and I'm pulling away > > the curtain for you.... > > > James Harris- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > ========================================================== > > > > > Mathematics is a HUGE subject. And you're on a worldwide forum with a > > guy who gets attention from over 100+ countries. > > > People like me get that level of attention for a reason. > > True. > Also true in the same way for this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_Road_Runner > > "While he is generally silent in the Coyote-Road Runner shorts, he > speaks with a refined accent in these solo outings (except for Hare- > Breadth Hurry), introducing himself as "Wile E. Coyote - super genius" > > So _That's_ where that super-genius thing came from! > > Enrico Ah yes, the classics. Those cartoons are just freaking brilliant. Unbelievably brilliant. Good one. ___JSH
From: JSH on 24 Jul 2010 22:08 On Jul 24, 5:55 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > I am a world figure for a reason. > > Aside from your stellar performance in Google searches, and the fact > that spammers the world over scan your blogs for email addresses, what > evidence do you have that you're a world figure? That is such a setup for a trite response. Something like I could tell you, but.... > Has any site at all independently referred to you by name? (Cranks.net > notwithstanding, of course.) If they had, why would I tell you? And what makes you think you'd know? Hmmm...a Google search maybe? Why do I have to remind you there are a lot of people in this world--6.8 billion of them approximately--and you can't keep up with everything. So tell me, if I had the evidence you seek, why would I give it to YOU? James Harris
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 24 Jul 2010 22:45
JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Jul 24, 5:55 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > I am a world figure for a reason. >> >> Aside from your stellar performance in Google searches, and the fact >> that spammers the world over scan your blogs for email addresses, what >> evidence do you have that you're a world figure? > > That is such a setup for a trite response. Something like I could > tell you, but.... > >> Has any site at all independently referred to you by name? (Cranks.net >> notwithstanding, of course.) > > If they had, why would I tell you? > > And what makes you think you'd know? > > Hmmm...a Google search maybe? > > Why do I have to remind you there are a lot of people in this > world--6.8 billion of them approximately--and you can't keep up with > everything. > > So tell me, if I had the evidence you seek, why would I give it to > YOU? Why, to help prove your own claim, of course. -- Jesse F. Hughes "I can't tell you how many times she left me. I lost count the very first time that she did." -- The Flatlanders, "I Thought the Wreck Was Over" |