jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) 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.


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.


James Harris

"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

"Pat" <mrpat@blue.DUMP.SPAM.CRAPEIE.yonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<iYwzb.19070$N_1.185065659@news-text.cableinet.net>...
"Francis Harrington" <f.harrington@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%Quzb.19541$_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.'

Hi Pat, and I'd like to apologize for the poster trying to use
accusations of mental illness as an attack. Unfortunately there are
people who think of mental illness as just some joke, who think it's
socially acceptable to level accusations of mental illness in
insulting exchanges to make points.

However, for those actually mentally ill, just like those with cancer,
or those with diabetes, or any other disease, it's not a joke, or just
some tool to try and score argument points or hurt someone else's
feelings.

Those of you like Francis Harrington who callously toss out posts
meant to try and hurt one person without concern for those
others--mostly silent--who actually take the hit, are rather sick
yourselves, and in reality, are sociopathic.

It takes a certain kind of person to have such contempt for the
feelings of others that they don't even consider them, and for them,
hurting others on a wide scale is no more a concern than accidentally
stepping on ants.

That's the kind of person Francis Harrington clearly is, and I
apologize to you Pat for that poster's hurtful comments.

James Harris

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.

This post is about some of the significance of that beyond
it being a first-find.

Really? Curious that it's such a long post, then.

Prime numbers have fascinated people for some time, and mathematicians
especially. The great mathematician Karl Gauss is credited with
making an important hypothesis in the field of prime numbers, as he'd
noticed something.

Gauss noticed that the count of primes numbers could be approximated
by x/ln x, for instance, the count of primes up to 1000 is 168, and
1000/ln 1000 approximately is 144.76. The count of primes up to 10000
is 1229, and 10000/ln 10000 is approximately 1085.73, which is a
closeness that continues as you go higher.

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.

That is false. Can someone help David Ullrich out by *giving* the
Prime Number Theorem?

Everyone but you _knows_ the PNT.

It's a boundary condition,

Huh? Exactly how is the statement that pi(x) is asymptotic to
x/log(x) a "boundary condition"?

It is obviously a boundary condition: pi(x)=sin(a)^cos(x/log(x)) is

On 4 Dec 2003 12:12:57 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) 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.


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,

No, that's not what I claimed.

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.


James Harris

"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

************************

David C. Ullrich

"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:elbvsv8578m19jk94bkjep0lds0a90i82a@4ax.com...
On 4 Dec 2003 12:12:57 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) 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.


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,

No, that's not what I claimed.

Are you hedging your bets here? As I pointed out in an earlier post you seem
to be implying you are not aware of Gauss's classical method I find that
astonishing! What are you actually trying to defend here? I think you should
be clear about that.

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.


James Harris

"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

************************

David C. Ullrich

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:34:54 GMT, "Pat"
mrpat@blue.DUMP.SPAM.CRAPEIE.yonder.co.uk> wrote:


"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:elbvsv8578m19jk94bkjep0lds0a90i82a@4ax.com...
On 4 Dec 2003 12:12:57 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) 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.


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,

No, that's not what I claimed.

Are you hedging your bets here? As I pointed out in an earlier post you
seem
to be implying you are not aware of Gauss's classical method I find that
astonishing! What are you actually trying to defend here? I think you
should
be clear about that.

Uh, yes. Or no, I think maybe.

"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:rg12tvcrbbgoofs8gqqhn465644v3blaij@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:34:54 GMT, "Pat"
mrpat@blue.DUMP.SPAM.CRAPEIE.yonder.co.uk> wrote:


"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:elbvsv8578m19jk94bkjep0lds0a90i82a@4ax.com...
On 4 Dec 2003 12:12:57 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) 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.


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,

No, that's not what I claimed.

Are you hedging your bets here? As I pointed out in an earlier post you
seem
to be implying you are not aware of Gauss's classical method I find that
astonishing! What are you actually trying to defend here? I think you
should
be clear about that.

Uh, yes. Or no, I think maybe.

What about: "I don't know."

Why are you carrying on with this James Harris thing, I think the poor guy
obviously has problems, maybe you are making him worse by carrying it on,
but then perhaps you have your own complex reasons for bothering to reply to
him. Do you think it is in the best interests of public perception of the
maths community to be partially responsible for this exchange continuing.
Or, do you see it as entertainment at his expense?

"Pat" <mrpat@blue.DUMP.SPAM.CRAPEIE.yonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<EFJAb.1591$DX6.30594324@news-text.cableinet.net>...
"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:rg12tvcrbbgoofs8gqqhn465644v3blaij@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:34:54 GMT, "Pat"
mrpat@blue.DUMP.SPAM.CRAPEIE.yonder.co.uk> wrote:


"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:elbvsv8578m19jk94bkjep0lds0a90i82a@4ax.com...
On 4 Dec 2003 12:12:57 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) 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.


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,

No, that's not what I claimed.

Are you hedging your bets here? As I pointed out in an earlier post
you
seem
to be implying you are not aware of Gauss's classical method I find
that
astonishing! What are you actually trying to defend here? I think you
should
be clear about that.

Uh, yes. Or no, I think maybe.

What about: "I don't know."

Why are you carrying on with this James Harris thing, I think the poor
guy
obviously has problems, maybe you are making him worse by carrying it
on,
but then perhaps you have your own complex reasons for bothering to
reply to
him. Do you think it is in the best interests of public perception of
the
maths community to be partially responsible for this exchange
continuing.
Or, do you see it as entertainment at his expense?

It's been going on for years.

Ullrich is a math professor at Oklahoma State University.

But he doesn't seem to be very bright.

He'd probably keep arguing for years more.

So, you can say that at least he's persistent, if not very bright.


James Harris

Ullrich is a math professor at Oklahoma State University.

But he doesn't seem to be very bright.

Why are you carrying on with this James Harris thing, I think the poor guy
obviously has problems, maybe you are making him worse by carrying it on,
but then perhaps you have your own complex reasons for bothering to reply to
him. Do you think it is in the best interests of public perception of the
maths community to be partially responsible for this exchange continuing.
Or, do you see it as entertainment at his expense?

James Harris wrote:

[snip]

Ullrich is a math professor at Oklahoma State University.

But he doesn't seem to be very bright.

I wouldn't consult you for an opinion on who was bright any more than I'd consult a bald person to find a good barber.

Well, a bald person wasn't always bald ...

In article <3c65f87.0312041547.3fddb456@posting.google.com>, jstevh@msn.com
(James Harris) writes:
|kramsay@aol.com (KRamsay) wrote in message
[...]
|> That's interesting. Of course, James Harris has for a period of
|> several years been developing a distrust of nearly everyone here,
|> so I don't suppose we're in any position to gain his trust.
|
|Oh, I'm having fun.

You like to tell us how much fun you're having, but you evidently
find your situation pretty frustrating quite a lot of the time.
You keep returning to cursing "evil" mathematicians and so on.
Overall it seems like you've been having a pretty frustrating time.

It seems to have a lot to do with the fact that you're so isolated,
effectively. Even if you exchange messages with someone, as long as
you don't have someone who understands algebra, AND who you can trust
to be honest in their assessment of your efforts, it's basically
still just as if you were on your own, at least as far as the math
goes.

It's hard to do the kind of reality-testing that Pat referred to when
you don't have people you let help you.

[...]
|> I don't know how one sets about testing a standpoint like his
|> empirically. So much of it hinges on his evaluation of his own
|> work as being valid and valuable mathematics. As far as I can
|> tell, the world continuing to act just like he wasn't a world class
|> mathematician but just a guy who thinks he is, is consistent
|> with his beliefs. He just concludes his work is great but people
|> are choosing to pretend it isn't.
|
|> Keith Ramsay
|
|Come on Keith Ramsay, I've sent and received interesting replies from
|Andrew Granville, Barry Mazur, and others. In the past when I had
|truly flawed math arguments I involved Kenneth Ribet, which you know
|about personally. Remember?

They don't consider you to be a world class mathematician. For a lot
of mathematicians, the point they start trying to figure out how to
get you to leave them alone is when they realize that you *think* of
yourself as a world class mathematician even though you're not.

|To me that's just part of the entertainment value of it all.
|
|I go to the top, and am used to being heard.

You seem not to understand how much of this is just common courtesy
or maybe curiosity. I wrote to my congressman, Barney Frank, when
I was living in his district, and got an "interesting reply" showing
some actual thought about the specifics of what I'd written about.
He's not a mathematician; in fact he is much more famous and influential
than they are. (One anecdote. The New Yorker magazine reported that he
had caught his shirt on fire "trying to light his cigar". Frank wrote
a letter to the editor pointing out that he had not merely tried to
light his cigar, but had been successful.)

But this is also not so unusual. Nearly any educated person who bothers
to write to people like this, and is reasonably patient, sooner or later
gets a response, and not just a form letter. Not all famous people ever
answer, but enough do that just the fact you got to correspond with them
a little doesn't mean very much.

I remember how you once described having gotten a letter printed in Time.
Most people I know have gotten letters to the editor of large-volume
publications published. I don't remember ever meeting anyone who actually
wrote letters to the editor who didn't get any of them printed. I wrote
one to Time magazine that they didn't print, but they sent me a letter
saying they were printing another one which they said they thought made
essentially the same point (which it did).

A lot of "big name" mathematicians are apt to write back if someone
writes to them expressing some kind of normal-seeming interest in
their work or related topics. In mathematics, interest expressed by
amateurs is *liked*, usually. I remember one amateur who'd come to
talks in the Boston area (where Harvard, MIT, Boston University, and
dozens of other colleges are). People thought it was sort of neat that
someone from "the general public" had an actual interest in the kind of
number theory he followed.

Keith Ramsay

In sci.math Pat <mrpat@blue.dump.spam.crapeie.yonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why are you carrying on with this James Harris thing, I think the poor
guy
obviously has problems, maybe you are making him worse by carrying it
on,
but then perhaps you have your own complex reasons for bothering to
reply to
him. Do you think it is in the best interests of public perception of
the
maths community to be partially responsible for this exchange
continuing.
Or, do you see it as entertainment at his expense?

In the past Harris has ordered Dr. Ullrich to stop posting in "his"
threads. He's also contacted Dr. Ullrich's employer (more than once)
in an attempt to get him fired and/or force him to stop posting.
Dr. Ullrich has made it clear on several occasions that he believes
Harris's tactics of censorship and intimidation should not be allowed
to succeed, and that demonstrating that point is a major part of the
reason he continues to reply to Harris' articles.

I get help from mathematicians, much of which I don't post about,
though I have posted about some, but consistently when it comes time
to deliver, they run away.

Like that mathematician Odlyzko referred me to, who wrote the initial
C++ program that I modified and posted a lot, who then took off.

Like I just had yet another mathematician go point by point through my
key argument showing the problem with algebraic integers. He said
he'd get back to me, and maybe he will, but I also wouldn't be
surprised if he didn't.

Oh yeah, a paper of mine is *still* under peer review last I heard at
a math journal.

Usually I mention that I'm *not* a mathematician, and am in need of
help or guidance.

However, when I talk about corresponding with Barry Mazur, he actually
commented on a paper of mine, and offered up advice as well as
questioned a part of it. I answered, answering his question, and he
did not reply further.

Or way back with Kenneth Ribet, which you should remember. He offered
one of his graduate students to consider one of my, unfortunately
flawed attempts at proving Fermat's Last Theorem, as he was intrigured
by that stupid bet that I ended up losing.

Or Andrew Granville's several replies in different areas, like one
where he claimed that one of his graduate students had talked recently
about a prime counting function that he'd found, and his now famous on
sci.math statement that 20% of his graduate students came up with
them.

Later he entered the picture *again* by referring my paper on
algebraic integers up to the chief editor of the New York Journal of
Mathematics.

It has been a useful process.

In article <3c65f87.0312081432.40635de2@posting.google.com> jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) writes:

Like I just had yet another mathematician go point by point through my
key argument showing the problem with algebraic integers. He said
he'd get back to me, and maybe he will, but I also wouldn't be
surprised if he didn't.

Don't hold your breath.