| Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » Steven Cullinane is a Crank |
|
Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jesse F. Hughes |
 Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com writes:
[quote:7ad726d29f]Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
The fact is: creating sock puppets to complain about someone's web
pages in fora that have nothing to do with that person is just utterly
bizarre. You are a complete and utter loon, regardless of the quality
of Cullinane's mathematics. Worse: you're an amateur loon, unable to
pull off plausible sock puppets.
Your IP address research is incomplete without checking that
Cullinane's IP is different from the other 2.
[/quote:7ad726d29f]
I checked *every* post from February until yesterday. The only posts
from touchtelindia were crankbuster and his puppet.
I think my research was complete to the point of embarrassment.
Of course, I cannot prove that the posts aren't authored by Cullinane
or some other third party covering their tracks by using
touchtelindia. But I think I provided overwhelming evidence that the
author of crankbuster and Bob Stewart posts are almost certainly the
same guy -- whoever it is.
[quote:7ad726d29f]But, useless as your shenanigans are, at least the thread has some
utility.
References in Cullinane pages are excellent.
[/quote:7ad726d29f]
Okay.
--
"A set having three members is a single thing wholly constituted by
its members but distinct from them. After this, the theological
doctrine of the Trinity as 'three in one' should be child's play."
--Max Black, _Caveats and Critiques_ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jesse F. Hughes |
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Stewart" <bobstewart_III@hotmail.com> writes:
[quote:dc45bffeab]crankbuster wrote:
[...]
[...]
[/quote:dc45bffeab]
Man. You are just pathetic.
At least find some other ISP to use, so that it's slightly less
obvious that you're talking to yourself.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Besides, discoverers are too proud to kiss butt. Indiana Jones would
never kiss some academic's ass to get published, and neither will I."
--James Harris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:35 pm |
|
|
|
|
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
[quote:1d9600ab2a]Of course, I cannot prove that the posts aren't authored by Cullinane
or some other third party covering their tracks by using
touchtelindia. But I think I provided overwhelming evidence that the
author of crankbuster and Bob Stewart posts are almost certainly the
same guy -- whoever it is.
[/quote:1d9600ab2a]
If these two comedians and Cullinane are not the same individual, I
could only suggest that they are so much p*ssed off because their
girlfriend left (or, threatened to leave) to Cullinane. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Heckman |
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 14-Jul-2005, jdolan@math-cl-n03.math.ucr.edu (James Dolan)
wrote in message <db5g85$e51$1@glue.ucr.edu>:
[...]
[quote:cc6eafa593]my current favorite way of thinking about the homomorphism 4! -> 3! is
as the "line at infinity in the projective completion" functor from
affine planes to projective lines over the field z/2.
[/quote:cc6eafa593]
Bah. It's a trivial corollary of the fact that the Coxeter graphs (or
Dynkin diagrams if you prefer) A_3 and D_3 are the same.
--
Jim Heckman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crankbuster |
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A man from Pennsylvania
Had the Diamond mania
My "Theorem" indeed
Is all you'll ever need
But I can't prove it, can'ya?
http://m759.freeservers.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Stewart |
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Is Jesse F. Hughes really the President of The Eternal (and Int'l)
Order of Palsy-Walsies?
Was Jesse F. Hughes really a busboy? One always admires a man who rises
to such great heights from such humble beginnings!
Way to go Jesse!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jesse F. Hughes |
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Stewart" <bobstewart_III@hotmail.com> writes:
[quote:581cad7f4c]Is Jesse F. Hughes really the President of The Eternal (and Int'l)
Order of Palsy-Walsies?
[/quote:581cad7f4c]
Since Jesse F. Hughes is founder of that Order (and there are only ten
other members and also *every* member is called the President), this
isn't so hard to believe.
[quote:581cad7f4c]Was Jesse F. Hughes really a busboy? One always admires a man who rises
to such great heights from such humble beginnings!
[/quote:581cad7f4c]
Lots of folks work restaurant jobs during their high school and
college years. Big deal.
Busboy was a pretty good job. Now, Taco Mayo (Fast-food Mexican for
folks that find Taco Bell too high-class) -- that was a low job.
[quote:581cad7f4c]Way to go Jesse!!
[/quote:581cad7f4c]
Gosh. Thanks.
--
One these mornings gonna wake | Ain't nobody's doggone business how
up crazy, | my baby treats me,
Gonna grab my gun, kill my baby. | Nobody's business but mine.
Nobody's business by mine. | -- Mississippi John Hurt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:46 am |
|
|
|
|
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
[quote:970cbcffb1]
"Bob Stewart" <bobstewart_III@hotmail.com> writes:
Is Jesse F. Hughes really the President of The Eternal (and Int'l)
Order of Palsy-Walsies?
Since Jesse F. Hughes is founder of that Order (and there are only
ten other members and also *every* member is called the President),
this isn't so hard to believe.
[/quote:970cbcffb1]
Nope - It's obviously a a p-adic circle, in which every point is
its centre
[See "A Mathematical Seduction" by Drew Aderburg.
http://www.williams.edu/Mathematics/eburger/BurgerMathHorizons.pdf,
an interesting read all round]. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crankbuster |
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hey guys!
Check out
http://log24.com/
Steven Cullinane's tribute to yours truly! Not bad, not bad at all! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:31 am |
|
|
|
|
crankbuster wrote:
[quote:919ced1115]
Hey guys!
Check out
http://log24.com/
Steven Cullinane's tribute to yours truly! Not bad, not bad at all!
[/quote:919ced1115]
If I didn't know better, I'd swear this is the old negative
publicity stunt - dissing one's own work to at least try and
bring it to the attention of others.
Hang on - Come to think of it, I _don't_ know better  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crankbuster |
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john_ramsden@sagitta-ps.com wrote:
[quote:44b39384fe]If I didn't know better, I'd swear this is the old negative
publicity stunt - dissing one's own work to at least try and
bring it to the attention of others.
[/quote:44b39384fe]
Oh? You think I am Steven Cullinane using a proxy IP address? Curioser
and curioser! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Stewart |
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ah, I just found an interesting old post on one of Steven Cullinane's
gazillion websites that proves that the statement of his "Diamond
Theorem" is totally and outrageously false! I am quoting the post
verbatim:
What follows is attributed to:
Jed Pack
packj@et.byu.edu
18:35:25 04/17/02 Wed
Steven Cullinane,
I wonder how you got the number 322,560.
I suggest the number is at most 30^2=900.
Please let me know if you find the error in my logic.
In the original four diamond configuration. The matrix indicating which
squares have the black corner either at top-right or top-left is:
0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
Similarly, the matrix indicating which squares have the black corner
either at top-right or bottom-right is:
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
These two matricies fully describe the configuration. Swapping columns,
rows, and quadrants can change these matricies into any of the
following other 30 matricies (there are no other possibilities):
0 0 1 1 | 0 1 1 0 | 0 0 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 0 1 0 |
0 0 1 1 | 0 1 1 0 | 1 1 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 0 |
0 0 1 1 | 1 0 0 1 | 1 1 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 | 0 1 0 1 |
0 0 1 1 | 1 0 0 1 | 0 0 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 0 1 0 1 |
0 1 0 1 | 0 0 0 0 | 0 1 0 1 | 1 0 0 1 | 1 1 0 0 |
0 1 0 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 0 1 0 | 0 1 1 0 | 1 1 0 0 |
0 1 0 1 | 0 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 0 | 1 0 0 1 | 0 0 1 1 |
0 1 0 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 0 1 0 1 | 0 1 1 0 | 0 0 1 1 |
0 1 1 0 | 0 0 1 1 | 0 1 1 0 | 1 0 1 0 | 1 1 1 1 |
0 1 1 0 | 1 1 0 0 | 1 0 0 1 | 0 1 0 1 | 1 1 1 1 |
0 1 1 0 | 0 0 1 1 | 1 0 0 1 | 1 0 1 0 | 0 0 0 0 |
0 1 1 0 | 1 1 0 0 | 0 1 1 0 | 0 1 0 1 | 0 0 0 0 |
0 0 0 0 | 0 1 0 1 | 1 0 0 1 | 1 1 0 0 | 1 0 0 1 |
0 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 0 | 0 1 1 0 | 0 0 1 1 | 1 0 0 1 |
1 1 1 1 | 0 1 0 1 | 0 1 1 0 | 1 1 0 0 | 1 0 0 1 |
1 1 1 1 | 1 0 1 0 | 1 0 0 1 | 0 0 1 1 | 1 0 0 1 |
0 0 1 1 | 0 1 1 0 | 1 0 1 0 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 0 1 0 |
0 0 1 1 | 1 0 0 1 | 0 1 0 1 | 0 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 0 |
1 1 0 0 | 0 1 1 0 | 0 1 0 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 0 1 0 |
1 1 0 0 | 1 0 0 1 | 1 0 1 0 | 0 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 0 |
0 1 0 1 | 0 0 0 0 | 1 1 0 0 | 1 0 0 1 | 1 1 0 0 |
0 1 0 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 0 0 1 1 | 1 0 0 1 | 1 1 0 0 |
1 0 1 0 | 1 1 1 1 | 0 0 1 1 | 0 1 1 0 | 1 1 0 0 |
1 0 1 0 | 0 0 0 0 | 1 1 0 0 | 0 1 1 0 | 1 1 0 0 |
Consequently, any pattern that can be obtained through such
transformations can be described by a pair of these two matricies.
There are 30^2 such pairs, and hence can be no more than 30^2 patterns
obtained through the mentioned transformations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steven H. Cullinane |
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Stewart" wrote
"Ah, I just found an interesting old post on one of Steven Cullinane's gazillion websites that proves that the statement of his 'Diamond Theorem' is totally and outrageously false!"
The website in question is
http://www.voy.com/14256/.
It also contains the following,
not quoted by "Bob Stewart"--
my 4/25/02 reply to Pack,
his 7/10/02 response,
my 7/18/02 reply,
his 11/11/02 response, and
my 11/12/02 reply.
The 11/11/02 response from Pack was:
"Thank you for your help!
You are absolutely correct. I should have read your site more carefully. The matter of the number of 'configurations' was simply a misunderstanding. I have verified the number you have given.
Although I am not a mathematician, I find your work interesting."
For a brief summary of the work discussed by Pack and "Stewart," see
http://log24.com/theory/DTemail.html. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Stewart |
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Steven H. Cullinane wrote:
[quote:25cdd7093f]The website in question is
http://www.voy.com/14256/.
It also contains the following,
not quoted by "Bob Stewart"--
my 4/25/02 reply to Pack,
his 7/10/02 response,
my 7/18/02 reply,
his 11/11/02 response, and
my 11/12/02 reply.
The 11/11/02 response from Pack was:
"Thank you for your help!
You are absolutely correct. I should have read your site more carefully. The matter of the number of 'configurations' was simply a misunderstanding. I have verified the number you have given.
Although I am not a mathematician, I find your work interesting."
[/quote:25cdd7093f]
That's stupid! Verified the number? This "voy forum" is your own
creation and you yourself wrote that "reply"! I dont think Pack would
care what you write on your forum after having proved that the total
number of distinct patterns is less than 900. How awkward for you, you
pompous fool! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jesse F. Hughes |
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Stewart" <bobstewart_III@hotmail.com> writes:
[quote:1a121fea67]Steven H. Cullinane wrote:
Although I am not a mathematician, I find your work interesting."
That's stupid! Verified the number? This "voy forum" is your own
creation and you yourself wrote that "reply"!
[/quote:1a121fea67]
Maybe he did, maybe not. Doesn't make much sense that he would do so,
when he could have just deleted the original post had he wanted to.
On the other hand, your sock puppetry is remarkably obvious and
juvenile.
I don't think you get many points for this attack.
--
"If you have a really big idea, you can get a measure of how big it is
by how much people resist the obvious. From what I've seen, I have a
REALLY, REALLY, *REALLY*, BIG DISCOVERY!!!"
--James Harris, on being ignored |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
