JSH: When your math is wrong
in [Math]
|
Prev: Numeric Mc^2. By Aiya-Oba
Next: math solution, fyi
From: dannas on 13 Jun 2010 01:22 "Pubkeybreaker" <pubkeybreaker(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:5c928a27-8b99-47c6-ae2b-feec61e8dea0(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 13, 12:58 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 8:38 pm, "dannas" <inva...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > > > "JSH" <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >My degree in physics has to do with what humanity found WORKS. And > > >we're surrounded by examples every day, including these computers and > > >networks over which we furiously trade insults. > > > Wrong, that was electrical and computer engineering, physics has little > > to > > do with it. > > Vanderbilt will not confirm that a James H. Harris ever got a degree > in > physics. In fact, if you think about it: James math skills are so poor that there is no way he could get a degree in physics! James wouldn't know the difference between the curl and divergence of a vector field if it bit him. He certainly is so lacking in understanding of linear algebra that tensors are beyond him, and as for understanding the role of SO(3) and SU(3) forget it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<< He may have had a year there, but he must have flunked out in Algebra, he doesn't know algebra, he knows nothing about complex numbers. Bet he Googled "Vanderbilt" once and that was it. and yes Vanderbilt has not confirmed any James Harris, or James S Harris got a Physics degree of any type. Probably one of JSH's IF statements; If he had gone to Vanderbilt, he would have got a degree in physics, if he was Gauss or if he was Pee-Wee Herman, or Melvin the two headed duck........
From: David Bernier on 13 Jun 2010 03:28 MichaelW wrote: > On Jun 13, 1:14 pm, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 12, 7:01 pm, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com"<porky_pig...(a)my- >> >> deja.com> wrote: >>> On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> The real underlying problem is that years ago I found a foundational >>>> error in number theory. >> >>> Yeah, sure. Let me guess. Prime Factorization Theorem, right? It's all >>> wrong. Courtesy of JSH. And of course you're not going to tell anyone >>> exactly what was that error for fear it would be stolen by some white >>> blue-eyed mathematician from MIT, the same one who stole the Prime >>> Numbers algorithm, discovered by two Inverse 19 country boys. >> >>> Da plot thickens. >> >> Google (has to be Google): algebraic integers vs complex numbers >> >> A paper of mine should come up #1. (If it doesn't I want to hear >> about it in reply and please give your country.) >> >> Seems the ring of algebraic integers has a fight with the field of >> complex numbers and directly contradicts it. >> >> Of course, you should know who ultimately wins that battle. >> >> But that fight shatters the dreams of a generation of mathematicians >> who it seems would rather be wrong--and live in a world where their >> training is "right"--than handle the mathematical truth. >> >> James Harris > > #2 in Australia with Wiki first. I use Wiki a lot so it may have to do > with my profile. I tried <http://www.google.fr/> on: entiers algebriques versus les nombres complexes The first "hit" is this web page: < http://www.ilemaths.net/encyclopedie/Nombre_alg�brique.html > They refer to Wikipedia, but not by article name. Searching again on: nombre alg�brique leads to: < http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_alg�brique > , which seems very good to me at first glance. David
From: W. Dale Hall on 13 Jun 2010 04:39 JSH wrote: > On Jun 12, 7:01 pm, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com"<porky_pig...(a)my- > deja.com> wrote: >> On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The real underlying problem is that years ago I found a foundational >>> error in number theory. >> >> Yeah, sure. Let me guess. Prime Factorization Theorem, right? It's all >> wrong. Courtesy of JSH. And of course you're not going to tell anyone >> exactly what was that error for fear it would be stolen by some white >> blue-eyed mathematician from MIT, the same one who stole the Prime >> Numbers algorithm, discovered by two Inverse 19 country boys. >> >> Da plot thickens. > > Google (has to be Google): algebraic integers vs complex numbers > > A paper of mine should come up #1. (If it doesn't I want to hear > about it in reply and please give your country.) > > Seems the ring of algebraic integers has a fight with the field of > complex numbers and directly contradicts it. ... seems? Why be so coy? Who cares that it's a heaping crock of stuff we don't prefer to have heaping crocks of, but so what? You simply display your inability to deal with the failure of unique factorization. > > Of course, you should know who ultimately wins that battle. > Because big things beat small things. How imaginative. > But that fight shatters the dreams of a generation of mathematicians > who it seems would rather be wrong--and live in a world where their > training is "right"--than handle the mathematical truth. > > > James Harris You seem to believe that there is a contradiction that occurs with algebraic integers. You don't seem to realize that "algebraic integer" is merely a shorthand way to say "number that is a zero of a monic polynomial over the integers". You don't seem to be bothered by the mathematical fact that there is a set defined by that criterion. You might even believe that this set forms a ring. Could you prove it? No. Would you understand a proof of it? It's doubtful. If you could prove a contradiction by use of algebraic integers, then merely replacing the technical term "algebraic integer" with "number that is a zero of a monic polynomial over the integers", globally, you could produce the same contradiction using complex numbers. A mere definition cannot introduce contradictions. Get over it. Dale
From: JSH on 13 Jun 2010 10:15 On Jun 13, 12:28 am, David Bernier <david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote: > MichaelW wrote: > > On Jun 13, 1:14 pm, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 7:01 pm, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com"<porky_pig...(a)my- > > >> deja.com> wrote: > >>> On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> The real underlying problem is that years ago I found a foundational > >>>> error in number theory. > > >>> Yeah, sure. Let me guess. Prime Factorization Theorem, right? It's all > >>> wrong. Courtesy of JSH. And of course you're not going to tell anyone > >>> exactly what was that error for fear it would be stolen by some white > >>> blue-eyed mathematician from MIT, the same one who stole the Prime > >>> Numbers algorithm, discovered by two Inverse 19 country boys. > > >>> Da plot thickens. > > >> Google (has to be Google): algebraic integers vs complex numbers > > >> A paper of mine should come up #1. (If it doesn't I want to hear > >> about it in reply and please give your country.) > > >> Seems the ring of algebraic integers has a fight with the field of > >> complex numbers and directly contradicts it. > > >> Of course, you should know who ultimately wins that battle. > > >> But that fight shatters the dreams of a generation of mathematicians > >> who it seems would rather be wrong--and live in a world where their > >> training is "right"--than handle the mathematical truth. > > >> James Harris > > > #2 in Australia with Wiki first. I use Wiki a lot so it may have to do > > with my profile. > > I tried <http://www.google.fr/> on: > entiers algebriques versus les nombres complexes I didn't write it in French!!! Why would Google think that a French speaking person asking a question in French, wanted an English document? How well would it go over in France if Google routinely gave you English when you made French queries? And I really wanted to reply to this one! That's just so funny! Do the English query and report back, please. I'm curious. I do get hits from France to my math blog, of course, as I cover all of Europe. I can assure you that most queries to my blog are in English, though there are some other languages represented, for some things, like the definition of mathematical proof. I guess that translates better across the globe. James Harris
From: David Bernier on 13 Jun 2010 10:44
JSH wrote: > On Jun 13, 12:28 am, David Bernier<david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote: >> MichaelW wrote: >>> On Jun 13, 1:14 pm, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 12, 7:01 pm, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com"<porky_pig...(a)my- >> >>>> deja.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> The real underlying problem is that years ago I found a foundational >>>>>> error in number theory. >> >>>>> Yeah, sure. Let me guess. Prime Factorization Theorem, right? It's all >>>>> wrong. Courtesy of JSH. And of course you're not going to tell anyone >>>>> exactly what was that error for fear it would be stolen by some white >>>>> blue-eyed mathematician from MIT, the same one who stole the Prime >>>>> Numbers algorithm, discovered by two Inverse 19 country boys. >> >>>>> Da plot thickens. >> >>>> Google (has to be Google): algebraic integers vs complex numbers >> >>>> A paper of mine should come up #1. (If it doesn't I want to hear >>>> about it in reply and please give your country.) >> >>>> Seems the ring of algebraic integers has a fight with the field of >>>> complex numbers and directly contradicts it. >> >>>> Of course, you should know who ultimately wins that battle. >> >>>> But that fight shatters the dreams of a generation of mathematicians >>>> who it seems would rather be wrong--and live in a world where their >>>> training is "right"--than handle the mathematical truth. >> >>>> James Harris >> >>> #2 in Australia with Wiki first. I use Wiki a lot so it may have to do >>> with my profile. >> >> I tried<http://www.google.fr/> on: >> entiers algebriques versus les nombres complexes > > I didn't write it in French!!! > > Why would Google think that a French speaking person asking a question > in French, wanted an English document? > > How well would it go over in France if Google routinely gave you > English when you made French queries? > > And I really wanted to reply to this one! That's just so funny! > > Do the English query and report back, please. I'm curious. I do get > hits from France to my math blog, of course, as I cover all of Europe. > > I can assure you that most queries to my blog are in English, though > there are some other languages represented, for some things, like the > definition of mathematical proof. > > I guess that translates better across the globe. > > > James Harris I often use Google translate to read news stories in Spanish. David Bernier |