Prev: Ritz method example?
Next: A very uneducated culture?
From: Usenet Account on 25 Jul 2010 00:42
JSH: some impotent blithering, almost entirely free of actual math.

"JSH" <jstevh(a)gmail.com> gurlbled in message
news:c2dbfa13-b31d-45e9-8a87-51d28a283709(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Some of the arguing about prime numbers that I'm facing may be about
> my sphincter.
>
> You will noticing...
>
> ...there is be no math...
>
> ...a tall in these post.
>
> James Harris, JSH.



From: JSH on 25 Jul 2010 14:39
On Jul 24, 9:42 pm, "Usenet Account" <ja...(a)darkshadow.ca> wrote:
> JSH: some impotent blithering, almost entirely free of actual math.

It's a sad thing when the truly fascinating history of humanity's
search for answers about prime numbers can at best muster a derisive
reply like the one above.

It is a FASCINATING story which is not just about Riemann and if you
don't know about Chebyshev and don't know why Li(x) was put forward by
Gauss, what do you really know about the subject without understanding
its history?

And I'd be surprised if I got it all right as I was going from memory,
so why aren't posters jumping to correct one of the best tales in
mathematics?

But then again that could explain a reality where the claims of
interest in prime numbers in the modern world is just about show.

I wonder how many readers on math newsgroups even know that it was
Euler's zeta function and NOT Riemann's?

And poor Chebyshev, how many math people even know his name?

And any of you think you can get famous for math? Except for a few
names, most people who do math whatever recognition they get at one
point, they are soon forgotten.

And eventually people don't even care about their stories.


James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 25 Jul 2010 14:45
On 25/07/2010 19:39, JSH wrote:
> And I'd be surprised if I got it all right as I was going from memory,
> so why aren't posters jumping to correct one of the best tales in
> mathematics?

Because its easier to find a trustworthy source elsewhere than it is to
correct you without getting a rude response.

> But then again that could explain a reality where the claims of
> interest in prime numbers in the modern world is just about show.
>
> I wonder how many readers on math newsgroups even know that it was
> Euler's zeta function and NOT Riemann's?
>
> And poor Chebyshev, how many math people even know his name?
>
> And any of you think you can get famous for math? Except for a few
> names, most people who do math whatever recognition they get at one
> point, they are soon forgotten.
>
> And eventually people don't even care about their stories.

James, this is flame-bait.

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: W. Dale Hall on 26 Jul 2010 02:09
JSH wrote:

I have to note the best little joke in a post filled with little jokes:

... stuff deleted ...

> And poor Chebyshev, how many math people even know his name?

I mean, a mathematician who hasn't heard the name Chebyshev
(Чебышёв, по-русский), is pretty rare. Anyone who has been
exposed to Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature, Chebyshev polynomials,
the Chebyshev theorem (Prob(|x - E(X)| > k std(X)) <= 1/k^2).

Ignorance? One might as well plumb the Mariana trench.

Dale
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Ritz method example?
Next: A very uneducated culture?