JSH: When your math is wrong
in [Math]
|
Prev: Numeric Mc^2. By Aiya-Oba
Next: math solution, fyi
From: rossum on 12 Jun 2010 07:55 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:10:47 -0700, Pollux <po.lux(a)gmail.com> wrote: >(6/11/10 4:51 PM), JSH wrote: ><snip> > >Maybe we could summarize the average sci.math post: > >1. I'm right, you are all stupid, >2. I have a new theory, all the other mathematicians have been wrong for >centuries (and stupid), >3. I demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1 + 1 != 2, but if you >ask details, it's only that you are utterly stupid, >4. I know that infinity doesn't exist, if you think otherwise, you are >stupid, >5. Cantor was wrong all along, (and stupid) >6. Einstein was completely wrong, (ah, here they usually don't dare to >say that Einstein was stupid?!) >7. I have discovered all by myself a wonderful new identity: a + a = 3a, >(but I'm not stupid) > >and on and on >.... > >It's just getting very stale and boring, and I've been here only a week. JSH - an Axiomatic Approach Axiom 1: JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician. Being an axion of the system, this is unchallengable from within the system. We are at liberty to speculate whether or not JSH is the greatest mathematician ever, but we cannot challenge Axiom 1. This axiomatic system is also consistent - there is no inconsistency between the axiom and itself. The greatness of JSH is already apparent. Theorem 1: There are parts of mathematics that only JSH understands. If someone else understood all the mathematics that JSH does, then that person would be as great a mathematician as JSH, and that is not allowed by Axiom 1. Theorem 2: All mathematical results produced by JSH are new, exciting, ground breaking, revolutionary and very important. This follows directly from Axiom 1; since JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician, therefore all his results are the worlds greatest mathematical results. JSH has a complete and rigorous proof of this, but unfortunately it falls into the area of mathematics covered by Theorem 1, so we cannot hope to understand it. This theorem applies to all of JSH's results. If JSH rederives the Chinese Remainder Theorem, then that result is also new, exciting, ground breaking, revolutionary and very important. Whoever first discovered the CRT thousands of years ago was not aware of things like complex numbers, transcendental numbers and so forth that JSH is, hence JSH's result cannot be viewed in the same light as the original proof, which was made in a far less complex environment. Borges' "Pierre Menard ..." (http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/borges-quixote.html) is relevant here, particularly the passage discussing "truth, whose mother is history, rival of time ...". Corollary 2.1: JSH's factoring methods are new, exciting, ground breaking, revolutionary and very important. This follows directly from Theorem 2. Lemma 2.2.1: RSA factoring is in danger. By Corollary 2.1 we know the importance etc. of James' factoring ideas. This requires that these methods will be able to factor RSA numbers quickly; if they were not able to factor such numbers quickly then the methods would not be revolutionary etc. Since we know that these results are important they must have a great impact on the Factoring Problem. Once we have understood the full impact of these factoring ideas we will be able to factor very large numbers very quickly. However, due to our lack of understanding, as per Theorem 1, James has not yet been able to assign a timescale to how long it will take us to fully comprehend the depth and importance of his factoring methods. Corollary 2.2: JSH's Diophantine methods are new, exciting, ground breaking, revolutionary and very important. This follows directly from Theorem 2. Merely because we cannot see the importance of James' results does not mean that they are not important. Theorem 1 may well be in play again here. Corollary 2.3: There is a problem with the Ring of Algebraic Integers. James has repeatedly tried to explain the problem to us, but due to Theorem 1 we are not able to understand his explanation. This is our problem, not James' problem. Maybe in a few hundred years, when the rest of mathematics has caught up, future mathematicians might be able to understand. rossum
From: Joshua Cranmer on 12 Jun 2010 10:23 On 06/12/2010 04:51 AM, Mark Murray wrote: > I sometimes follow Porat, kenseto, BURT, Hercules etc. Too many to > engage with, so I stick to JSH. I can see a time when the various > dribblings become boring enough and I move on other sources of light > entertainment. BURT's posts are too short for me, and I don't get a sense of continuity. > The only one I don't find entertaining is is Musatov. He's in my > killfile. He's still posting? He's been in my killfile for so long, I can no longer see any evidence of his existence. At the very least, people have stopped posting for him to shut up, and I don't see any more "parody" threads. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: JSH on 12 Jun 2010 11:51 On Jun 11, 8:26 pm, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-06-11, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've speculated that the math error actually selects out certain > > types of people who tolerate error--despite their denial. > > That displays more self-insight than usual for you. > > - Tim Google (has to be Google): algebraic integers vs complex numbers Oh and then reply ranting and raving about how Google search results are meaningless to explain away why a paper of mine is #1. I'm not the nut. You people are hiding from that result. Because it's a foundational level result which shreds your mathematical educations, so if you admit it's correct, what then? ___JSH
From: Joshua Cranmer on 12 Jun 2010 12:10 On 06/12/2010 11:51 AM, JSH wrote: > Google (has to be Google): algebraic integers vs complex numbers Why does it have to be Google? Why not, say, Bing, Baidu, or AltaVista? -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: David Bernier on 12 Jun 2010 18:44
JSH wrote: > On Jun 11, 8:26 pm, Tim Little<t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: >> On 2010-06-11, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've speculated that the math error actually selects out certain >>> types of people who tolerate error--despite their denial. >> >> That displays more self-insight than usual for you. >> >> - Tim > > Google (has to be Google): algebraic integers vs complex numbers > > Oh and then reply ranting and raving about how Google search results > are meaningless to explain away why a paper of mine is #1. > > I'm not the nut. You people are hiding from that result. > > Because it's a foundational level result which shreds your > mathematical educations, so if you admit it's correct, what then? > > > ___JSH I don't think anybody knows the answer to that. David Bernier |