JSH: There is only one
in [Math]
|
Prev: Embedding a separable metric space in the Hilbert parallelotope
Next: Every Day More Physicists Are Coming Closer To The Truth About Gravity / S D Rodrian
From: Tim Little on 14 Jul 2010 04:18 On 2010-07-14, Mark Murray <w.h.oami(a)example.com> wrote: > Extreme lazinness and reluctance to follow up on salient evidence is > not a trait associated with "great discoverers". Maybe that's because all the previous great discoverers simply weren't great enough. The greatest of great discoverers can simply claim that their work is new and don't need to check whether it actually is or not. That fuss and bother belongs to mere mortals. Besides, you could have subverted the Web (and the public library) to create false references to previous work. You could do that by using his suppressed factoring result to break all their security systems. Better to ignore possibly false evidence, and just curl up into a ball with tightly closed eyes to contemplate true greatness. - Tim
From: Joshua Cranmer on 14 Jul 2010 17:14 On 07/14/2010 03:47 AM, Tim Little wrote: > If you suggest he check out a book from a public library, you could > have agents planted there to kidnap him. Or the book could have > subtle mind-control techniques embedded in the text. Safer for him to > just reject all outside information completely. Actually, he has complained that he lacks access to a public library when asked to look at a book in the past. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Mark Murray on 14 Jul 2010 17:58 On 14/07/2010 22:14, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > Actually, he has complained that he lacks access to a public library > when asked to look at a book in the past. Always an excuse. I don't believe this one, though. He's been seen to not understand the mathematical notation that the books he needs to read use (same goes with papers and journals). I'm more inclined to believe that he simply doesn't have the skill to read mathematics more complex than the very basic notation that he posts in. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Chum Ley on 14 Jul 2010 18:17 "Mark Murray" <w.h.oami(a)example.com> wrote in message news:4c3e32dc$0$27999$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk... > On 14/07/2010 22:14, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> Actually, he has complained that he lacks access to a public library >> when asked to look at a book in the past. > > Always an excuse. > > I don't believe this one, though. He's been seen to not understand > the mathematical notation that the books he needs to read use (same > goes with papers and journals). I'm more inclined to believe that he > simply doesn't have the skill to read mathematics more complex than > the very basic notation that he posts in. > > M > -- > Mark "No Nickname" Murray > Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. in one post JSH admitted that he does it all from the computer keyboard, via Wiki and Google. JSH dosent' own math books, or reads them. He has demonstrated he does not know or understand complex numbers, imaginary numbers, proofs, "random", negative square roots, basic algebra, etc.
From: JSH on 14 Jul 2010 19:46
On Jul 14, 1:18 am, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-07-14, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > > Extreme lazinness and reluctance to follow up on salient evidence is > > not a trait associated with "great discoverers". > > Maybe that's because all the previous great discoverers simply weren't > great enough. The greatest of great discoverers can simply claim that > their work is new and don't need to check whether it actually is or > not. That fuss and bother belongs to mere mortals. Besides, you > could have subverted the Web (and the public library) to create false > references to previous work. You could do that by using his > suppressed factoring result to break all their security systems. No it's simpler than that as I know what information people give when they click on links as I need that information for my various websites. Web site owners are less sanguine about clicking on links as they are more aware than people who don't manage websites! > Better to ignore possibly false evidence, and just curl up into a ball > with tightly closed eyes to contemplate true greatness. If a prime gap equation was accepted by most mathematicians as being known it'd be a crown jewel of number theory. With it you could prove or disprove the Twin Primes conjecture for one thing, as well as an infinity of such conjectures. Are there an infinity of prime gaps of 4? The prime gap equation could answer that question. So some Usenet posters saying, here is a link to a prime gap equation, is kind of suspicious in and of itself, given that the acceptance of one would generate world wide headlines. It'd be one of the biggest events in the mathematical world of the century. Luckily nincompoops knew so little math--demonstrably--that they posted as if none of that were true, so why should I chase links that can't be correct anyway? It's like if someone posted that they had a cure for cancer, and some other people replied that was nothing and that a cure for cancer was already known, and they gave a link!!! Would you check that link? (If you would, can I sell you some land in Florida?) James Harris |