JSH: When your math is wrong
in [Math]
|
Prev: Numeric Mc^2. By Aiya-Oba
Next: math solution, fyi
From: Richard Henry on 18 Jun 2010 09:00 On Jun 12, 4:55 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:10:47 -0700, Pollux <po....(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 You forgot the Conspiracy Theorem, which follows from Axioms 1 and 2 and apparently has a new proof consisting of mathematicians "leaving the country on sabbatical" when confronted with JSH's brilliance. (What story did I miss there?)
From: JSH on 18 Jun 2010 10:17 On Jun 17, 7:51 pm, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-06-17, Jim Ferry <corkleb...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Over the years he has admitted numerous errors in his previous work. > > (Despite this historical pattern he always contends that there is no > > chance that his current work is flawed.) > > More than that: some time after admitting error in all his attempts at > a particular work and giving up on it, he starts to maintain that > there was no error and that his work was simply attacked by people > wishing to protect their mathematical careers and perpetuate the > Worldwide Mathematicians' Conspiracy. If he retains any admission of > error it is only in regard to a few brief brainstorming ideas he had, > throwaway concepts not central to his work. Give an example please. ___JSH
From: Mark Murray on 18 Jun 2010 10:24 On 06/18/10 15:17, JSH wrote: >> More than that: some time after admitting error in all his attempts at >> a particular work and giving up on it, he starts to maintain that >> there was no error and that his work was simply attacked by people >> wishing to protect their mathematical careers and perpetuate the >> Worldwide Mathematicians' Conspiracy. If he retains any admission of >> error it is only in regard to a few brief brainstorming ideas he had, >> throwaway concepts not central to his work. > > Give an example please. A particularly clear example of the above was the last collapse of your last factoring attempt. http://science.niuz.biz/jsh-t203199.html M --
From: Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake on 18 Jun 2010 14:28 On Jun 12, 1:41 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 12/06/2010 04:27, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > > Pollux<po....(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >> (6/11/10 4:51 PM), JSH wrote: > >> <snip> > > >> Anybody getting bored? > > > Heavens, no! > > :-) I am getting a little bored, due to the simple repetitiveness > og JSH's posts. But I'm waiting with baited breath ... Hey, wormbreath!. That should be 'bated breath, as in abated. This etymology is for some reason not well known even among us native speakers of English. Rerds, Achava > Mark "No Nickname" Murray > Notable nebbish (Other than the noted part, I am too. I have also been called a shmegeggy, but I haven't yet figured out how to spell it.) , extreme generalist.
From: Mark Murray on 18 Jun 2010 15:08
On 18/06/2010 19:28, Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake wrote: > Hey, wormbreath!. That should be 'bated breath, as in abated. This > etymology is for some reason not well known even among us native > speakers of English. Thanks for the correction. I haven't been grammar/spelling-lamed in a while, and was feeling the withdrawal symptoms, so YA "thanks"! Hmm. Counter-insult. Cheers, toe-jam! >> Mark "No Nickname" Murray >> Notable nebbish (Other than the noted part, I am too. I have also been called a shmegeggy, but I haven't yet figured out how to spell it.) , extreme generalist. "Shmegegge" means something like "bullshit", so I guess they were calling you a bullshitter ("shmegegger"?). Mind if I adopt that one too? M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. |