| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"James Harris" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2004 05:17:01 PM |
| Object: |
Over two years, same arguments |
For two years plus I've noted certain unique features about my prime
counting function, and for two years plus sci.math'ers have come
forward claiming my work is not unique.
And I give the facts which support my case, and they insinuate, dodge
the facts, or call me names, and then when I stop talking about it,
that's it.
Months pass, and I talk about my research again and they say the SAME
THINGS!!!
The reality doesn't change. My prime counting function is concise,
neat, and is new to the math world:
dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
sqrt(y-1))],
S(x,1) = 0, p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, and S(x,y) is the sum of
dS from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
It's not as if expressions that distinctive could be hidden if they
were known, but the sci.math'ers don't care about the obvious.
They'll point to something that LOOKS similar to what's known and
yell, "it's the same!!!"
Then I point out why it's clearly different--like dS(x,y) is a partial
difference equation--and they cannot answer the facts, but they simply
wait until later and say THE SAME THINGS!!!
What gets to me slightly is that many of you apparently believe them.
I go out the web and do searches and find comments from people here
and there, usually smug, talking about how dumb or crazy I am,
claiming I have some important prime counting research.
You see, they believe.
The sci.math'ers tactics work!!!
I can refute them fact for fact, point for point, over and over again
but there are people out there who just go with what they see as the
majority opinion.
Sure, it's frustrating in ways, but then again, it makes a lot of
sense.
That is, people are behaving as expected in line with what one would
expect.
Math is a complex area. For most people it's an area that they don't
have a clue in, and they don't trust what *they* see. They rely on
mathematicians. To them, yesh, sure I can *appear* to answer the
sci.math'ers, but what's the catch?
They trust mathematicians or the group or whatever they think is doing
most of the posting on these newsgroups, and it's their trust which
makes sense.
I don't feel sorry for them.
James Harris
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Over two years, same arguments |
22 Aug 2004 07:11:01 PM |
|
|
James Harris wrote:
For two years plus I've noted certain unique features about my prime
counting function,
[snip]
Your ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest
to the world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an
interesting laughingstock. It's not every braying jackass who
earns a whole page at
http://www.crank.net/harris.html
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 $20,000 prize no questions asked too small
to justify your submission of two little prime numbers? Or are
you a psychotic impotent gelding?
Hey stoopid loud troll James "Prime *****" Harris, a better man
than you has factored RSA-576. Pookie pookie.
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/faq.html
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/numbers.html
<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/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Over two years, same arguments |
22 Aug 2004 07:00:59 PM |
|
|
James Harris wrote:
For two years plus I've ..
... whined and whined and whined..
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
