It was back in 2002 when I discovered a discrete damped oscillator
as
an accident as it was the heart of a prime counting function that I
was actually looking to find.

Here is the damped discrete oscillator:

With natural numbers, if y<sqrt{x} then

P(x,y) = x-1-\sum_{k=2}^y {((P([x/k],k-1)-P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))\Delta
P(k,

sqrt{k})}

else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}) where

Delta P(k,sqrt{k}) = P(k,\sqrt{k})-P(k-1,\sqrt{k-1})

It was back in 2002 when I discovered a discrete damped oscillator as
an accident as it was the heart of a prime counting function that I
was actually looking to find.

Here is the damped discrete oscillator:

With natural numbers, if y<sqrt{x} then

It was back in 2002 when I discovered a discrete damped oscillator as
an accident as it was the heart of a prime counting function that I
was actually looking to find.

Here is the damped discrete oscillator:

With natural numbers, if y<sqrt{x} then

P(x,y) = x-1-\sum_{k=2}^y {((P([x/k],k-1)-P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))\Delta P(k,
sqrt{k})}

else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}) where

Delta P(k,sqrt{k}) = P(k,\sqrt{k})-P(k-1,\sqrt{k-1})

whenever k is not prime Delta P(k, sqrt{k}) equals 0, while it equals
1 if k is prime, so you get this oscillation, and program it and you
can watch it drop as you iterate from k=2 up to sqrt{x}.

Oh yeah, it happens to also count primes but that is secondary here.

Now it turns out that discrete mathematics can be really, really hard,
which is one of the reasons that continuous functions are so big in
physics--they're easier.

But quantum mechanics brought in a discrete viewpoint, and I think
it's just a matter of time before physics is fully discretized.

Now I've known about this for years without emphasizing it a lot,
partly because I've been mulling it all over,

but also because I'm a
curious person, and THIS result allowed me to test the mathematicians
with something relatively simple, where I could see how they operate.

Which gave me time to mull the questions over, and I've taken a few
years and now feel like it's time to point out that, hey, here might
be a key function in a fully discretized physics.

But don't expect help from mathematicians because they've been heaping
scorn on me for years.

Ok, so yeah, I admit it, I have a thing against mathematicians.

I
remember back when I was an undergrad I had a professor who just
ragged and ragged against them, and you know what?

He was right.

They don't understand science.

They go on and on about being "pure" but while this idea of mine was
just a "pure" prime counting function, they ignored it, or on Usenet,
ripped on it.

These people have lost touch with reality, so they've finally lost
touch with mathematics as well, as mathematics as we know it is a tool
we need to figure out reality.

Without a reason beyond what makes them feel good, mathematicians
today are lost.

There is no other known way to count prime numbers using a discrete
summation of a partial difference equation.
From what I hear, there still isn't.

How could they just act like it doesn't exist?

I contacted a guy named Odlyzko who is like tops in this area, and he
told me my research was of no interest

after I pushed him a bit when
he dumped me on a colleague who programmed that prime counting
function in C. I posted his program later on the newsgroup sci.math
and was not surprised when it was ripped upon by nasty posters.

That was just fun, but it was telling fun. Math people are
disconnected from reality.

If these people actually gave a damn about anything other than
pretending to actually care about the pursuit of knowledge they'd have
been all over this years ago.

Mathematicians are not scientists. There are mathematicians who call
themselves physicists who are NOT scientists, and some of them
probably babble about primes and relating them to physics because of
some muddled nonsense they trot out about the Riemann Hypothesis.

I don't expect them to give a damn either about my find as it's too
simple for such people.

Who wants a partial difference equation that picks out prime numbers
and sums to also give a count? I mean, like, what intellectually
minded person could be interested in such a thing?

What intellectually minded person could not?

These people are not very bright. They are pretend bright.

They cannot find real theories that work in the real world, and they
cannot help with the next physics revolution, when discrete
mathematics takes over the field, and the easier continuous functions
are only used maybe to teach or when people just want a quick rough
guess.

The demonstration is in front of you. Brilliant mathematics reviled
by mathematicians, where the ace I had to play was to point out that
it is actually a discrete damped oscillator.

For years I've made my disdain of mathematicians known. If these
people had an ounce of sense they'd have expected this sort of gambit,

where I'd let them show their contempt for purity for years, so that I
could come in and checkmate them on the physics.

To them "pure math" is whatever makes them look prettier or gives them
money, like with a prize or a some fat federal grant.

They are NOT very bright. They are just pretenders, who fool a lot of
the people, most of the time, including many of you who probably
naively look up to mathematicians who cannot do physics, even to save
their own skins.

James Harris