Prev: Twin-prime conjecture "proof" by Charles N. Moore, 1944
Next: Origins of the universe
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 26 Jun 2010 15:14
There is some good and bad about this Mathematical Intelligencer
publication.
The good is that I was right or correct all along and that Euclid's IP
proof was a
"direct method" not an indirect. And this article is perhaps the first
"in print article"
to point out to muddle headed mathematics professors that they never
really understood
Euclid's IP proof well enough. So that this published article starts a
new momentum
forward to cleanse the math community of their lousy misunderstanding
of Euclid's IP
proof.

The bad news is that Hardy & Moongold and the editors of Mathematical
Intelligencer
chose to lift Archimedes Plutonium's work without reference or
attribution on this subject
and present it into Mathematical Intelligencer as their own original
work without so much as
even a recognition of all the work done by AP on this subject, for the
issue of attribution
is lacking in this article. Maybe the magazine feels that sci
newsgroup posts are unworthy
of referencing and that ideas and posts are free to lift from the sci
newsgroups.

They probably think they can get away with it because all my work on
this subject was posted
to the sci.math newsgroup from 1993 to present day, and many editors
have the sneeky suspicion that whatever appears on the newsgroups is
free to steal as their own thoughts and
research.

I do not know the code of ethics or whether it is a codified law for
science publishers to make
attribution. Whether Hardy and Moongold broke some sort of copyright
law or whether Mathematical Intelligencer broke some legal law of
citing reference. Michael Hardy does have
posts to the sci newsgroups where he is involved with my post and
especially Euclid's Infinitude of Primes proof, so that Michael Hardy
cannot say he "does not know AP and
his posts about Euclid's proof."

Also, in my sci.math posts, I listed many math book authors who got
Euclid's proof all wrong
as to whether it was direct or indirect method. To Hardy and Moongold,
this would have been
a question of constructive versus contradiction whereas I prefered the
terms direct and indirect method, and they list many more
mathematicians who
had Euclid's proof all wrong than I listed. I listed about 30
mathematicians who got
Euclid's IP all wrong, whereas Hardy and Moongold list twice the
number.

And funny how Hardy and Moongold seem to think that the Euclid IP in
"A Mathematician's
Apology, G.H.Hardy, that Moongold & Hardy seem to think his proof was
correct, when in fact it was wrong. This is a fault of Hardy &
Moongold by not listing their
own direct and indirect proofs at the start, rather than the
philosophical spiel.

So Mathematical Intelligencer with Hardy & Moongold have committed a
injustice to
Archimedes Plutonium by writing a article that contains very much the
same ideas
that I had written a decade earlier, and never attributing any credit
to Archimedes Plutonium.
Now many in the science community should be concerned about this, not
because I was
treated unfairly, but because it makes the science newsgroups as a
open arena for thievery
and stealing of ideas by someone with access to a publisher, and for
them to thence claim
original research.

I admit there is alot of trash posts in the newsgroups, but there are
also many gems in the
newsgroups that should not be stolen just because someone with easier
access to a publisher
choses to steal from another.

And I also want to correct Hardy & Moongold, because they did not even
get a correct Euclid
IP proof out with this article of theirs in Mathematical
Intelligencer. Because if Arthur Rubin is
reading the Hardy & Moongold article and since Arthur Rubin is the
watchdog over the Wikipedia article on Euclid's IP and wherein that
article is in grave error, that Arthur Rubin
still does not learn anything to correct his foggy notions of a true
and valid Euclid proof
of Infinitude of Primes. In other words, Arthur Rubin, after reading
Hardy & Moongold, would
not understand his misconceptions of Euclid's proof. And Wikipedia
would still list a invalid
proof of the Infinitude of Primes.

By the way, Wikipedia, to their credit has archived the discussion as
to whether Euclid's proof was direct or indirect.

Hardy and Moongold, hem and haw around with philosophy spiel,
philosophy chitter chatter,
when they should have been focused logically. A pure slab of logic.
Show the two methods in
detail, one next to the other, up front and out in front. Show why
many mix the two and end up
with a invalid argument.

One would think that if you are going to correct the Euclid IP proof,
that you would set aside
a space in the article and give both methods, one after the other, so
that people can see clearly what the two methods are and why they
differ, both the constructive and contradiction
proof. Moongold and Hardy never did this.

Someone well equiped to correct Euclid's IP proof is someone who in
the first paragraph gives
the Direct or Constructive proof, then in the second paragraph gives
the Indirect or Contradiction proof. Then the rest of the article
would be to show the differences between the
two. This is what I have done with my book in sci.math of my book
"Correcting Math".

I do not see the clarity of mind the clarity of logic of Hardy and
Moongold to give both methods of proof. I see only chitter chatter,
philosophical meandering by Hardy and Moongold.

To their credit, Hardy and Moongold do recognize that Euclid's IP is a
direct or constructive proof. But to their discredit, they lifted
these ideas from my work in sci.math and feel they
have no obligation to cite me or list me as reference. To their
discredit, their article is obscure and obfuscates the argument. To
their discredit, they lack a pure slab of logic to know that
the first paragraph is the Constructive proof and the second is the
Contradiction proof and the
discussion from there on out is simply to point out the differences.
Hardy and Moongold did not have that slab of logic to know to give
both proof methods. It would be like buying a book
on rules on all the football games expecting to understand the rules
of both American football and soccer football, yet it never a mentions
soccer.

I doubt that Hardy and Moongold have enough logic to even do both a
contructive and
contradiction Euclid IP correctly,
and I pose this as a challenge to both Hardy and Moongold to post in
sci.math their
two methods of Euclid's IP since they omitted that clarity in their
Mathematical Intelligencer
article.

Please post your attempts of Euclid's IP here.

But I still will write a letter to the editors of Mathematical
Intelligencer, saying basically that
they owe an obligation to the newsgroups that their "writers of
articles" must attribute
work of ideas that are lifted from the sci.math and other sci
newsgroups when lifted. That
just because ideas and work is posted to sci.math, does not mean those
ideas are free
to steal and publish as if they were your own original research.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: Cassidy Furlong on 26 Jun 2010 17:52
you have given a condition of sufficiency,
that words typed aroundhereinat could have been a trigger, but
what will show a neccesity, that any one grokked a theorem
of Arivaderci Petroleum?

>  Mason's abc theorem may be viewed as a very special instance of a
>  Wronskian estimate:  in Lang's proof the corresponding Wronskian
>  identity is  c^3 W(a,b,c)  =  W(W(a,c),W(b,c)), thus if a,b,c are
>  linearly dependent then so are  W(a,c),W(b,c);  the sought bounds
>  follow upon multiplying the latter dependence relation through by
>  N0 = r(a) r(b) r(c), where  r(x) = x/gcd(x,x').

thus&so:
are not dilation of time and length (in the direction
of time-travellin' (sik), directly porportional?

thus&so:
how many of us'd ever understood a proof of the unfinity of the
primes?... well,
if not, we'll never get p-adic numbers, or AP-didactical ones,
either. anyway,
p-adics are cool, when subsumed in Galois theory (or vise-versa .-)

thus&so:
well, there's phi of me to one o'you; go figure!

> outnumber the intelligent so, odds are that the first replier to a post is not even dot.dot

--the duke of oil!
Rationale. In addition to political, economic, and mechanical
feasibility, one must consider the environmental consequences of
choosing ethanol over gasoline. In par- ticular, the amount of air
pollution released in the form of CO2 and other green house gases
(GHGs) is a crucial point of interest. In order to model the
difference in ethanol and gasoline emissions, it is necessary to
calculate the final mass of GHGs (in the case where 10% of the
gasoline energy supply has been replaced by ethanol) minus the ini-
tial mass (before the 10% replacement was implemented). If the result
is negative, the 10% ethanol scenario gives off fewer GHGs; if it is
positive, it gives off more.
Assumptions and calculations. Our model is based on the following
assump- tions:
1.
Itisassumedthatnearlyallofthegasolinerequiredfortheproductionofethanol
is used in the farming and harvesting stage, while other energy
sources (i.e., coal)
http://www.maa.org/pubs/cmj47.pdf
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Twin-prime conjecture "proof" by Charles N. Moore, 1944
Next: Origins of the universe