| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"James Harris" |
| Date: |
21 Feb 2004 11:49:52 AM |
| Object: |
JSH: My fear, consider this |
It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple examples for so
long, and posters like "Nora Baron", Dik Winter and Arturo Magidin
have *successfully* come back with their own posts and kept winning at
convincing you all that I was wrong!
It's been so frustrating that I'm terrified that they will just get
away with it again, so here's another angle as I desperately try yet
again to get someone to care about what's mathematically correct
knowing the kind of people who are out there to come right back and
push incorrect math.
Previously I noted that I could use
P(x) = (x+8a)(x+b), and ab = 1, so P(x) = x^2 + (8a + b)x + 8.
And I considered 8a + b = 17, as then you have
8/b + b = 17, so b^2 - 17b + 8 = 0.
Now imagine *any* non-unit factor f in the ring of algebraic integers,
like 1+i that might be a factor of b, and let b = fz, and substitute
and you get
f^2 z^2 - 17fz + 8 = 0, so
f z^2 - 17z + 8/f = 0
and notice you STILL have that f on the front.
I don't want to hear that it isn't applicable because f isn't an
integer, as if you will have to get a polynomial reducible over Q if
you pick the right f, as that's just bogus.
The problem is that 17. For it to work, you need to have something
even!
I'm so damned tired. I can't be sure if anyone will listen to me.
Arturo Magidin or Dik Winter or "Nora Baron" or Rick Decker will come
back like they have before, now won't they?
They'll come back and post something stupid, and wrong, and just plain
evil, and you'll go along like you've done before.
It's so evil, so frustrating. Nothing matters in mathematics,
mathematicians don't give a damn about the truth.
NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT THE
TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JSH
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Day" |
|
| Title: Re: My fear, consider this |
21 Feb 2004 02:01:10 PM |
|
|
"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0402210949.1f9c76fb@posting.google.com...
< snip >
I'm so damned tired. I can't be sure if anyone will listen to me.
They won't. You have zero credibility. No, That's not quite
true. Your credibility is purely imaginary -- it's all in your mind.
-- Bob Day
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dik T. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
22 Feb 2004 07:08:50 PM |
|
|
In article <3c65f87.0402210949.1f9c76fb@posting.google.com> (James Harris) writes:
It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple examples for so
long, and posters like "Nora Baron", Dik Winter and Arturo Magidin
have *successfully* come back with their own posts and kept winning at
convincing you all that I was wrong!
Can you show *one single article* posted by us where the position we
had has been shown seriously wrong?
Previously I noted that I could use
P(x) = (x+8a)(x+b), and ab = 1, so P(x) = x^2 + (8a + b)x + 8.
And I considered 8a + b = 17, as then you have
8/b + b = 17, so b^2 - 17b + 8 = 0.
Now imagine *any* non-unit factor f in the ring of algebraic integers,
like 1+i that might be a factor of b,
So b can be 1 or 16...
like 1+i that might be a factor of b,
It is when b = 16. So let's have b = 16.
and let b = fz,
So f = 16/(1 + i) = 8 - 8i.
and substitute
and you get
f^2 z^2 - 17fz + 8 = 0, so
= (fz - 8)(fz - 1)
f z^2 - 17z + 8/f = 0
You are leaving the realm of algebraic integer coefficients here, f is
*not* a divisor of 8, f/2 is. So you had more properly say:
2f z^2 - 34z + 16/f = 0
to remain with algebraic integer coefficients.
But then we have a polynomial that is equal to:
(2z - 16/f)(fz - 1).
So it is not irreducible over the algebraic integers.
and notice you STILL have that f on the front.
Yes, and so what?
I don't want to hear that it isn't applicable because f isn't an
integer, as if you will have to get a polynomial reducible over Q if
you pick the right f, as that's just bogus.
How can you get a polynomial, reducible over Q, when you do not get a
polynomial over Q in the first place?
The problem is that 17. For it to work, you need to have something
even!
Eh?
I'm so damned tired. I can't be sure if anyone will listen to me.
Arturo Magidin or Dik Winter or "Nora Baron" or Rick Decker will come
back like they have before, now won't they?
When you are talking nonsense? Yes, of course.
They'll come back and post something stupid, and wrong, and just plain
evil, and you'll go along like you've done before.
What in the above is stupid and/or wrong?
NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT THE
TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think there is only one, and you have a problem with your keyboard.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
21 Feb 2004 03:28:15 PM |
|
|
In article <3c65f87.0402210949.1f9c76fb@posting.google.com>,
(James Harris) wrote:
It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple examples for so
long, and posters like "Nora Baron", Dik Winter and Arturo Magidin
have *successfully* come back with their own posts and kept winning at
convincing you all that I was wrong!
Sad for you, perhaps, but hilarious for us to watch your weaseling when
confronted by undeniable evidence of your errors.
Keep it up. It's as much fun as watching the inmates at Bedlam.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Servo" |
|
| Title: Re: My fear, consider this |
21 Feb 2004 08:32:34 PM |
|
|
James Harris <jstevh@msn.com> wrote
It's so evil, so frustrating. Nothing matters in mathematics,
mathematicians don't give a damn about the truth.
This fellow, and the hundreds of patiently repudiating replies he
has received in response to his mathematical incoherence, demonstrate
the limitations of cognitive therapy.
James, have you tried antipsychotic medications?
Seriously.
Servo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
21 Feb 2004 04:01:08 PM |
|
|
James Harris wrote:
It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple examples for so
long, and posters like "Nora Baron", Dik Winter and Arturo Magidin
have *successfully* come back with their own posts and kept winning at
convincing you all that I was wrong!
[snip]
alt.math.undergrad? You pathetic heap of parrot droppings. Your
ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest to the
world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an interesting
laughingstock.
Hey stooopid loud troll James "Always in error, never in doubt!"
Harris, put up or shut up. James Harris, King of the Primes! Where
are your sceptor and crown, delusional James Harris, your regal
clothes? Is a $10,000 prize no questions asked too small to justify
your submission of two little prime numbers? Or are you a psychotic
impotent gelding?
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/faq.html
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/numbers.html
http://www.crank.net/harris.html
It's not every braying jackass that gets a whole page at crank.net
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c65f87.0212222034.d5959fd%40posting.google.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c65f87.0212251249.4b69d7c5%40posting.google.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Ajames+author%3Aharris+%22i+was+wrong>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ferry" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
23 Feb 2004 01:47:04 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4037D524.2C149C20@hate.spam.net>...
James Harris wrote:
It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple examples for so
long, and posters like "Nora Baron", Dik Winter and Arturo Magidin
have *successfully* come back with their own posts and kept winning at
convincing you all that I was wrong!
[snip]
alt.math.undergrad? You pathetic heap of parrot droppings. Your
ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest to the
world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an interesting
laughingstock.
I disagree. James Harris is quite an interesting laughingstock. I find
Uncle Al to be less original, far less interesting, and somewhat less able
to engage in civilized discourse than James Harris. On the other hand,
Uncle Al seems less megalomanical than James and substantially smarter.
It is difficult to say which of the two is more pathetic overall. James
has wallowed so utterly self-indulgently for so long in such a ridiculous
delusion, that he has transfigured himself into a great beacon of pathos.
And yet, he seems like he's basically a decent guy who, for some reason,
can't accept the fact that he's average. His bad behavior is only a result
of people attacking his delusion. But Uncle Al takes ghoulish delight in
all manner of things that he deems inferior to himself, as if they feed
some relentlessly hungry cancer in his soul.
I guess I'd have to say that James is the more pathetic, because he is
indeed the very pinnacle of pathos, whereas Uncle Al has moved beyond
pathetic into odious. Both seem to be beyond redemption, decorating the
walls of their cells instead of trying to escape -- because in order to
escape from prison you first have to realize that you are in prison.
-Jim Ferry
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W. Dale Hall" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
21 Feb 2004 02:16:22 PM |
|
|
James Harris wrote:
It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple examples for so
long, and posters like "Nora Baron", Dik Winter and Arturo Magidin
have *successfully* come back with their own posts and kept winning at
convincing you all that I was wrong!
Especially since you have been wrong on every occasion? Just Google
for JSH on sci.math, phrase "I was wrong". I get 177 articles, many
of which are admissions of having been incorrect. Here's the most
recent (top hit in above Google search, sorted by date):
From: (James Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.math,alt.math.undergrad
Subject: JSH: Chaotic math?
Date: 19 Feb 2004 07:40:30 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <3c65f87.0402190740.c85f02c@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:40:31 +0000 (UTC)
It all boils down to a system of equations:
w_1(x) w_2(x) = 7
(5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x) + 7) = 7(25x^2 + 30x + 2)
a^2 - (x - 1)a + 7(x^2 + x)
Now then solve for w_1(x) or w_2(x).
YES, I WAS WRONG with a specific assertion of mine that I made
repeatedly for some time, in that I didn't believe you could
always find w's in the ring of algebraic integers, but now what?
... stuff deleted ...
Isn't it strange that you would follow this article of the 19th with one
barely 2 days later with a revisionist version, in which you were being
stymied by people "winning at convincing" sci.math that you were wrong?
It's been so frustrating that I'm terrified that they will just get
away with it again, so here's another angle as I desperately try yet
again to get someone to care about what's mathematically correct
knowing the kind of people who are out there to come right back and
push incorrect math.
Yes, being correct does allow someone to "get away with it".
Life is unfair in that way. It allows those who produce the *correct*
results to *get away with it*.
Meanwhile, the one who has repeatedly made incorrect assertions, due
to a flawed method, is "desperately" trying to get folks to care about
what? "What's mathematically correct".
Wait! Weren't you *mathematically INCORRECT* about that factoring
business? Didn't all the evil sci.math folks *get away with* being
correct? So where was the *incorrect math* in those responses? Huh?
Previously I noted that I could use
P(x) = (x+8a)(x+b), and ab = 1, so P(x) = x^2 + (8a + b)x + 8.
And I considered 8a + b = 17, as then you have
8/b + b = 17, so b^2 - 17b + 8 = 0.
Now imagine *any* non-unit factor f in the ring of algebraic integers,
like 1+i that might be a factor of b, and let b = fz, and substitute
and you get
f^2 z^2 - 17fz + 8 = 0, so
f z^2 - 17z + 8/f = 0
and notice you STILL have that f on the front.
I don't want to hear that it isn't applicable because f isn't an
integer, as if you will have to get a polynomial reducible over Q if
you pick the right f, as that's just bogus.
The problem is that 17. For it to work, you need to have something
even!
I'm so damned tired. I can't be sure if anyone will listen to me.
Arturo Magidin or Dik Winter or "Nora Baron" or Rick Decker will come
back like they have before, now won't they?
What are you trying to say? That people who know algebra can unravel the
mess you weave, and turn it into a valid mathematical question that they
then answer? Or is it that those answers show you're wrong?
Is that what's sticking in yer craw, champ?
They'll come back and post something stupid, and wrong, and just plain
evil, and you'll go along like you've done before.
Yes, the answers that show you're in over your head are just that:
stupid, and wrong, and just plain evil.
It's so evil, so frustrating. Nothing matters in mathematics,
mathematicians don't give a damn about the truth.
Your notion of truth is what's screwed. Despite your ranting, it
is you who insists that he has a special place in the mathematical
universe, who has a privileged understanding of all of algebra, and
who ALONE can save the human race from its destiny. You are the one
engaging in magical thinking, and you are the one who tries to intuit
algebraic reality.
YOU. Not the sci.math crowd.
NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT THE
TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apparently not, not the way you perceive it, because you
are seriously deluded. Your method of derivation is just
plain flawed, *because* it does not hew to logic, based on
the properties of the system you're dealing with. The evidence
of that is unmistakable: your method produces flawed results.
It doesn't matter how much faith you have in it, or how
well you think you understand it; as long as your method
leads you to make incorrect assertions, it will be wrong.
How long has it been that you have been giving your undying
allegiance to a system of thought that paints you as a fool?
JSH
Dale.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Will Twentyman" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
23 Feb 2004 02:12:43 PM |
|
|
James Harris wrote:
It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple examples for so
long, and posters like "Nora Baron", Dik Winter and Arturo Magidin
have *successfully* come back with their own posts and kept winning at
convincing you all that I was wrong!
They frequently convince you that you were wrong too.
It's been so frustrating that I'm terrified that they will just get
away with it again, so here's another angle as I desperately try yet
again to get someone to care about what's mathematically correct
knowing the kind of people who are out there to come right back and
push incorrect math.
Previously I noted that I could use
P(x) = (x+8a)(x+b), and ab = 1, so P(x) = x^2 + (8a + b)x + 8.
Note: ab=1 implies a and b are units in whatever ring you're in.
And I considered 8a + b = 17, as then you have
8/b + b = 17, so b^2 - 17b + 8 = 0.
Which implies that b = (17 + sqrt(257))/2 or b = (17 - sqrt(257))/2.
This implies a = 2/(17+sqrt(257)) so a is a root of: 8a^2 -17a + 1 = 0
So, a is not an algebraic integer.
Just worth mentioning.
Now imagine *any* non-unit factor f in the ring of algebraic integers,
like 1+i that might be a factor of b, and let b = fz, and substitute
and you get
f^2 z^2 - 17fz + 8 = 0, so
f z^2 - 17z + 8/f = 0
and notice you STILL have that f on the front.
You mean in the left term?
I don't want to hear that it isn't applicable because f isn't an
integer, as if you will have to get a polynomial reducible over Q if
you pick the right f, as that's just bogus.
The problem is that 17. For it to work, you need to have something
even!
What problem? You've done a manipulation. Since b is a factor of 8, so
is f. What's the problem? You say you want something to work: what?
I'm so damned tired. I can't be sure if anyone will listen to me.
Arturo Magidin or Dik Winter or "Nora Baron" or Rick Decker will come
back like they have before, now won't they?
You haven't stated a problem, just done a substitution and some
manipulations.
[rant deleted]
--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "C. Bond" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
21 Feb 2004 12:52:50 PM |
|
|
James Harris wrote:
[snip]
This thread was originated by James Harris. Therefore its contents are false.
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David C. Ullrich" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
21 Feb 2004 01:37:17 PM |
|
|
On 21 Feb 2004 09:49:52 -0800, (James Harris) wrote:
[...]
I'm so damned tired.
That's so sad.
I can't be sure if anyone will listen to me.
Being unsure about that indicates remarkable stupidity.
Anyone with the intelligence of a brick would be certain
by now that nobody was going to "listen".
Arturo Magidin or Dik Winter or "Nora Baron" or Rick Decker will come
back like they have before, now won't they?
Yup. And they'll be _right_.
They'll come back and post something stupid, and wrong, and just plain
evil, and you'll go along like you've done before.
It's so evil, so frustrating. Nothing matters in mathematics,
mathematicians don't give a damn about the truth.
NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT THE
TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Giggle. You don't seem to be keeping count, but every one
else is. It's happened 1,342 times that you've complained
about the fact that nobody cares about the truth. And
1,341 of those times even _you_ eventually agrees that
the rotten liars were right.
No, James, going back to your recent post about why you're
better than us: You're not. One of many reasons is that
you are _so_ incredibly slow to catch on to things. I
mean rats in laboratories learn a lot faster than you do.
JSH
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Titan Point" |
|
| Title: Re: JSH: My fear, consider this |
21 Feb 2004 12:46:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 09:49:52 -0800, James Harris wrote:
It's so sad that I've tried to come up with simple examples for so
long, and posters like "Nora Baron", Dik Winter and Arturo Magidin
have *successfully* come back with their own posts and kept winning at
convincing you all that I was wrong!
Because they were right. You are a crackpot.
It's been so frustrating that I'm terrified that they will just get
away with it again, so here's another angle as I desperately try yet
again to get someone to care about what's mathematically correct
knowing the kind of people who are out there to come right back and
push incorrect math.
...and never a doubt in your mind that you could be wrong.
Previously I noted that I could use
P(x) = (x+8a)(x+b), and ab = 1, so P(x) = x^2 + (8a + b)x + 8.
And I considered 8a + b = 17, as then you have
8/b + b = 17, so b^2 - 17b + 8 = 0.
Now imagine *any* non-unit factor f in the ring of algebraic integers,
like 1+i that might be a factor of b, and let b = fz, and substitute
and you get
f^2 z^2 - 17fz + 8 = 0, so
f z^2 - 17z + 8/f = 0
and notice you STILL have that f on the front.
I don't want to hear that it isn't applicable because f isn't an
integer, as if you will have to get a polynomial reducible over Q if
you pick the right f, as that's just bogus.
The problem is that 17. For it to work, you need to have something
even!
I'm so damned tired. I can't be sure if anyone will listen to me.
Arturo Magidin or Dik Winter or "Nora Baron" or Rick Decker will come
back like they have before, now won't they?
They'll come back and post something stupid, and wrong, and just plain
evil, and you'll go along like you've done before.
It's so evil, so frustrating. Nothing matters in mathematics,
mathematicians don't give a damn about the truth.
NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT THE
TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right. We're only here to laugh at crackpots.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
