In article <3c65f87.0312011913.5c58f0aa@posting.google.com>,
jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

If Gauss were alive today, would he cheer me?


Gauss's motto was "Few, but ripe." He would probably call your
contributions, "Many, and rotten."

fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote in message
news:<BLOCKSPAMfishfry-6F2C12.21171201122003@netnews.attbi.com>...
In article <3c65f87.0312011913.5c58f0aa@posting.google.com>,
jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

If Gauss were alive today, would he cheer me?


Gauss's motto was "Few, but ripe." He would probably call your
contributions, "Many, and rotten."

I disagree that a great man and mind like Gauss would do that. The
insults to open minded creative people (whether they are right or
wrong) are rather an attribute of closed minded envious persons.

fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote in message
news:<BLOCKSPAMfishfry-6F2C12.21171201122003@netnews.attbi.com>...
In article <3c65f87.0312011913.5c58f0aa@posting.google.com>,
jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

If Gauss were alive today, would he cheer me?


Gauss's motto was "Few, but ripe." He would probably call your
contributions, "Many, and rotten."

I disagree that a great man and mind like Gauss would do that. The
insults to open minded creative people (whether they are right or
wrong) are rather an attribute of closed minded envious persons.

I should be a rather happy guy. After all, over 18 months ago I found
this partial difference equation I call dS(x,y), and the sum of dS
from dS(x,2) to dS(x,sqrt(x)) is the count of primes up to and
including x.

"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0312011913.5c58f0aa@posting.google.com...
I should be a rather happy guy. After all, over 18 months ago I found
this partial difference equation I call dS(x,y), and the sum of dS
from dS(x,2) to dS(x,sqrt(x)) is the count of primes up to and
including x.

Hey James. You know what? I actually have faith in you. I'm pretty
sure that if you got some professional help, took your medicine, and then
signed up for some math courses, you could actually do some
interesting math. I think you're smart enough.

"Francis Harrington" <f.harrington@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%Quzb.19541$_M.67985@attbi_s54...

"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0312011913.5c58f0aa@posting.google.com...
I should be a rather happy guy. After all, over 18 months ago I found
this partial difference equation I call dS(x,y), and the sum of dS
from dS(x,2) to dS(x,sqrt(x)) is the count of primes up to and
including x.

Hey James. You know what? I actually have faith in you. I'm pretty
sure that if you got some professional help, took your medicine, and
then
signed up for some math courses, you could actually do some
interesting math. I think you're smart enough.

Well, I'm diagnosed with 'mental illness' and I've been reading a book by,
psychologists Chadwick et al, about 'Cognitive Therapy For Delusions,
Voices
and Paranoia'. They propose that the psychiatric concept concerning
delusions is flawed and propose a psychological model for understanding
and
modifying 'delusions.'

The psychiatric concept is roughly ( check the DSM and ICD manuals) that
delusions are convictions held by the person that are seen as irrational
by
other people in the same culture and that are not open to modification or
reaccessment, despite overwhelming evidence to the contray that the
conviction is false.

They are regarded by most psychiatrists as not being beliefs and in a
separate category to beliefs and are classed as one symptom in some forms
of
mental illness. However, to be diagnosed, you generally have to have a
cluster of symptoms, of degree to a greater or lesser extent, that
correspond to a particular syndrome such as schizophrenia, etc. Generally,
psychiatrists( especially biological psychiatrists-biological psychiatry
is
the dominant paradigm in psychiatry at the moment) regard these syndromes
as
discrete illnesses each indicating a brain pathology with an underlying
physical cause/s, which are not amenable to psychotherapies.

Chadwick et al have empirical evidence that 'delusions' can be weakened or
modified. They conceptualise 'delusions' as being at the extreme end of a
continuum with normal beliefs held by so called normal people in the
population, and thus can be understood within the discourse of psychology.
They say there is evidence that 'delusions' relate to the persons
underlying
psychological vulnerabilities that relate to their view of themselves and
their world.

Their technique, to briefly describe it, I hope not simplistically, is
called collaborative empiricism. They create a non threatening
relationship
with the person and with the person develop empirical tests to test the
evidence for the 'delusion.'

edit: * not would *could*
But, firstly they proceed through stages to gain the confidence of the
person in a non threatening manner. One technique mentioned is called
'Reaction to Hypothetical Contradiction.' This is where they agree with
the
person a hypothetical test which *could* contradict the 'delusion' to see
how
they react to contradiction, rather than confronting them directly which
could be counter productive.

On 3 Dec 2003 06:03:06 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<9ntosv48ap7jpvs0l1kjgn469r4hhdebqs@4ax.com>...
On 1 Dec 2003 19:13:39 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

I should be a rather happy guy. After all, over 18 months ago I found
this partial difference equation I call dS(x,y), and the sum of dS
from dS(x,2) to dS(x,sqrt(x)) is the count of primes up to and
including x.

Afer talking with mathematicians all over the world by email and
Usenet, and searching math references, both bought and on the
Internet, I know that I have a first-find.

Somehow, I am the first human being in recorded human history to find
a partial difference equation that sums to give the count of prime
numbers.

Not true. Won't become true through repetition. See

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LegendresFormula.html


Are you saying David Ullrich that what's shown at the link you provide
is a partial difference equation that sums to give the count of prime
numbers?

Uh, yes.

James Harris wrote:

Gauss wondered what the discrete count of prime numbers could have to
do with continuous functions like x/ln x, and while mathematicians
made progress in finding relations that gave limits, like Chebyshev's
use of the zeta function discovered by Euler, they never found a
reason why.

I may have found that reason.

What is it? You keep talking as if you are about to present it, but never
do.

As I've found a partial difference equation, it leads to a partial
differential equation. That partial differential equation may answer
many questions.

What "partial differential equation"? You have never posted it. You claim
it may provide answers to many questions, but neither post it nor the
answers. It's one thing to claim magnificent properties for a specific
result, but how can you claim them for an undetermined result?

"Francis Harrington" <f.harrington@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%Quzb.19541$_M.67985@attbi_s54...

"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0312011913.5c58f0aa@posting.google.com...
I should be a rather happy guy. After all, over 18 months ago I found
this partial difference equation I call dS(x,y), and the sum of dS
from dS(x,2) to dS(x,sqrt(x)) is the count of primes up to and
including x.

Hey James. You know what? I actually have faith in you. I'm pretty
sure that if you got some professional help, took your medicine, and then
signed up for some math courses, you could actually do some
interesting math. I think you're smart enough.

Well, I'm diagnosed with 'mental illness' and I've been reading a book by,
psychologists Chadwick et al, about 'Cognitive Therapy For Delusions, Voices
and Paranoia'. They propose that the psychiatric concept concerning
delusions is flawed and propose a psychological model for understanding and
modifying 'delusions.'

"C. Bond" <cbond@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3FCCA6C6.D02DC8B7@ix.netcom.com>...
James Harris wrote:

Gauss wondered what the discrete count of prime numbers could have to
do with continuous functions like x/ln x, and while mathematicians
made progress in finding relations that gave limits, like Chebyshev's
use of the zeta function discovered by Euler, they never found a
reason why.

I may have found that reason.

What is it? You keep talking as if you are about to present it, but never
do.

As I've found a partial difference equation, it leads to a partial
differential equation. That partial differential equation may answer
many questions.

What "partial differential equation"? You have never posted it. You claim
it may provide answers to many questions, but neither post it nor the
answers. It's one thing to claim magnificent properties for a specific
result, but how can you claim them for an undetermined result?

I *have* posted it before, so you're lazy as well as wrong, as if
you'd checked the archives, you'd have seen it.

Gauss wondered what the discrete count of prime numbers could have to
do with continuous functions like x/ln x, and while mathematicians
made progress in finding relations that gave limits, like Chebyshev's
use of the zeta function discovered by Euler, they never found a
reason why.

Not true. A reason why (that is, a proof of the Prime Number Theorem)
was found long ago, I think in the 1890's. More or less simultaneously
by two people, who I think are the people whose names I think are
spelled something like Hadamard and de-Vallee Poisson.

I should be a rather happy guy. After all, over 18 months ago I found
this partial difference equation I call dS(x,y), and the sum of dS
from dS(x,2) to dS(x,sqrt(x)) is the count of primes up to and
including x.

OOPS! That is incorrect, as actually the sum is a count of
*composites* which you can subtract to give the count of primes.

Readers should check to see if any posters caught me on that error in
this thread or others.

Now you should also look at David Ullrich's posts in a different
light.

He claimed to have a difference equation that worked like mine, only
problem is that the description of how mine worked was wrong.

Silly mathematician that David Ullrich. What I find odd about
mathematicians is how dense they are. Why didn't *any* of these
posters point out the error?

Ultimately, I think they're just disagreeing with anything that they
think would help me. They're kind of like obnoxious children in that
way.

OOPS!
[snip]