| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"James Harris" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2004 08:43:04 PM |
| Object: |
Real world problem solving |
I've thought that my prime counting research should be of interest to
physicists beyond the fact that there are physicists these days trying
to relate the prime distribution to physics simply because physicists
are real world problem solvers.
And my find of a unique and compact way to count prime numbers is a
demonstration of the power of real world problem solving skills while
the refusal of "pure math" mathematicians to acknowledge my results
shows how bad it can get with people who lack same.
Besides, why in the hell is that derivation I posted earlier today
new?
Maybe some history will help.
Hundreds of years ago some pretty good mathematicians came up with a
way to count prime numbers based on this simple idea:
floor(x/p) - 1
gives the count of composites up to and including x that have a prome
p as a factor and
floor(x/(p_1 p_2))
gives the count of composites up to and including x that have p_1 p_2
as a factor, and so on as if you use this idea you have to add and
subtract various combinations of prime numbers.
Like to count the primes up to 10, you have
10 - floor(10/2) - floor(10/3) + floor(10/6) + 2 - 1 = 10 - 5 - 3 + 1
+ 2 - 1 = 4.
Simple idea. Messy but it works.
The idea wasn't practical though for BIG NUMBERS and mathematicians
fiddled with various algorithms to find faster ways to count prime
numbers.
Hundreds of years pass, and I come along, a physics major, and at some
point while I'm arguing with some posters on sci.math about some of my
research, I have this idea that hey, maybe I can use this something or
other (the details are vague) to count primes!
So I quit arguing for a bit and started musing.
I approached the problem with the problem solving skills I'd been
taught as a physics undergrad, along with problem solving skills I'd
learned elsewhere, along with what must have been a good dose of
intuition, and it took me about two weeks to find what I tend to call
my prime counting function.
I see my find as a warning call to those who think that "pure" means
better, when it's clear to me that mathematicians who don't learn
about real world problem solving tend to get in ruts.
They tend to go one way, and see things one way, so they can only find
solutions one way.
Then they get pissed at you when you find something they didn't see,
and act like it doesn't exist!!!
People who deal with real world problems can't behave that way, as in
the real world, when you obstinately refuse to accept the truth, you
tend to get creamed.
In the world of mathematics, you just keep on moving on as if nothing
happened.
Clearly, mathematicians have no problem with obstinately rejecting the
truth from what I've seen with my prime counting function.
So why teach students a way to approach problems that failed with
something as dramatic as prime counting, as generation after
generation of mathematicians walked in the same footsteps as those
before them, and kept pushing at prime counting algorithms instead of
just starting from scratch and finding a whole new way to do it?
I'm sure mathematicians could argue night and day for why they should
be allowed to concentrate on "pure math" and never learn real world
problem solving skills, and just keep following each other like
lemmings, just so they can keep rejecting new ideas from people who
think laterally and completely out of the box.
But I say, why let them?
Why give mathematicians money for research when they may decide to not
tell the truth? Why give them incentive to lie about results they
don't like because they figure it isn't practical so they can get away
with it?
Why give them any of the best and brightest minds for them to screw
them up?
The story gets uglier as mathematicians have some serious skeletons in
their closest in terms of "pure math" research that is just completely
wrong, and in fact, so simply wrong that it can be made obvious to
non-mathematicians.
They have some weird and wacky problems.
It's freaky, but kind of fun, but also weird. There are some
interesting errors that have cropped up in math textbooks in some
important areas.
What is clear at this point is that given absolute control over their
interests without the real world forcing them to be honest,
mathematicians have wondered off into some wild and woolly error prone
world, and they now need serious help.
If none of you help, so what?
You know, I don't know? I figure that hey, maybe they aren't really
all that important anyway, and so what if math textooks or journals
get filled with errors?
Who ever reads them anyway but mathematicians?
They can just go wander off into a complete fantasy world, and will it
really matter to anyone in the real world?
James Harris
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Math" |
|
| Title: Re: Real world problem solving |
15 Aug 2004 09:05:42 PM |
|
|
Good evening. You are still a idiots.
"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0408151743.591cf3a9@posting.google.com...'
<An imperial metric pus-load of excrement...>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Real world problem solving |
15 Aug 2004 08:55:19 PM |
|
|
James Harris wrote:
I've thought that my prime counting research should be of interest to
physicists beyond the fact that there are physicists these days trying
to relate the prime distribution to physics simply because physicists
are real world problem solvers.
Perhaps folks are biased because you have your page a crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22James+Harris%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://www.crank.net/harris.html
Then again your mathematics could be without merit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Real world problem solving |
15 Aug 2004 09:44:45 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Then again your mathematics could be without merit.
Could be?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Real world problem solving |
15 Aug 2004 09:26:35 PM |
|
|
James Harris wrote:
I've thought that my prime counting research should be of interest to
physicists beyond the fact that there are physicists these days trying
to relate the prime distribution to physics simply because physicists
are real world problem solvers.
[snip whining crap]
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 $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://www.crank.net/harris.html
It's not every braying jackass who earns 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/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
