JSH: Prime gap equation consequences
in [Math]
|
Prev: An exact simplification challenge - 97 (hypergeom/EllipticF)
Next: e, pi and the 10th degree polynomial
From: JSH on 25 Jul 2010 00:44 On Jul 24, 7:45 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(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. Why would I do that? My mathematical proofs are rather direct and clear using primarily elementary mathematics. The resistance to them then is not about rationality. Human beings when pushed hard enough can react violently. Right now American mathematicians read these newsgroups I believe relying on people like you, hoping they are safe based on your responses. That keeps them from potentially turning to other means. So yes, what you believe in THAT sense might have an impact on them. But you see, if they do rely on you and posters like you then they are limited by your behavior, and I understand your behavior. They don't. You don't rely on facts nor do you nor any of the others have any particular insight into how well my ideas are progressing around the world. I never needed just American or British mathematicians and it may be safer without them. It's a big world. And my research can advance that world--leaving others behind. What would motivate me to help people who not only are stupid enough to fight mathematics, they rely on USENET posters for their sense of how well that is going? Of course I use you. I tell you I use you. You simply never seem clear on how much. So then, why would I show you any evidence that would convince you of anything at all? James Harris
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 25 Jul 2010 01:05 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Jul 24, 7:45 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> JSH <jst...(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. > > Why would I do that? My mathematical proofs are rather direct and > clear using primarily elementary mathematics. To prove your claim that you are a world figure, you silly. -- Jesse F. Hughes "Sir, if you won't say sorry for killing father and mother, then I'll shoot you." -- Quincy P. Hughes, screenwriter
From: Penny Hassett on 25 Jul 2010 05:14 various people squared up to the keyboard and tapped out: >>>>> 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. >>> <snip> >>> 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. Someone back there has ascribed writing to me that I didn't make. I haven't expressed a view or pointed to any literature on this subject. James, why do you doubt me? I'm having a crisis of identity now ;-) I'm the same Penny Hassett who wrote, for example, http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/7b7afa5bafec2f71/b9abff9ce74a0353 in 2003 but the ISP 'dabsol' went belly-up and I had to change. Do you suspect that the Penny Hassett who writes on this newsgroup is different to the one who has occasionally replied to your blog?
From: Mark Murray on 25 Jul 2010 07:01 On 25/07/2010 10:14, Penny Hassett wrote: >>> If the poster posting on the newsgroup IS Penny Hassett--I have my >>> doubts--you need to read a little more carefully. > > Someone back there has ascribed writing to me that I didn't make. I > haven't expressed a view or pointed to any literature on this subject. Penny, I do note that you haven't expressed a point of view; it was me that said that, and I apologise. I should have restricted my reference to MichaelW and left you out of it. The references to literature came from this article: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/d07daf82d9238778 Perhaps I should have credited Socrates instead? ;-) M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Penny Hassett on 25 Jul 2010 10:44
Mark Murray wrote: > On 25/07/2010 10:14, Penny Hassett wrote: >>>> If the poster posting on the newsgroup IS Penny Hassett--I have my >>>> doubts--you need to read a little more carefully. >> >> Someone back there has ascribed writing to me that I didn't make. I >> haven't expressed a view or pointed to any literature on this subject. > > Penny, > > I do note that you haven't expressed a point of view; it was me that > said that, and I apologise. I should have restricted my reference > to MichaelW and left you out of it. > > The references to literature came from this article: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/d07daf82d9238778 > > Perhaps I should have credited Socrates instead? ;-) > > M Oh, I'd forgotten that, but someone else found the reference, I just turned it into a google search and answer. Socrates is good at arguing but won't use my laptop, it has a touchpad but no mouse. |