Well I contacted Lagarias again, and for those of you outside of math
circles and the area of prime numbers, he's a mathematician that you
can consider to be an expert in the area of prime numbers.

His reply makes me consider what is likely to be the defense of
mathematicians I've contacted over the years when it becomes clear
just how important to the heart of mathematics my work is.

My guess is that mathematicians wish to use journals as a defense, and
claim that it was my responsibility to get a paper in format for a
journal, and present it to journal editors until *someone* published
my results.

Their own defense then being that it's just not their fault if I
couldn't manage to write a paper that other mathematicians would
consider.

The excuse is that if you find something, no matter how dramatic it
might be, if you can't write a math paper in a standard format, then
mathematicians don't have to be expected to pay attention to your
result.

Some of you may not understand just how strict of a requirement that
is, unless you read math journals, or even maybe have read sci.math
long enough, to see the withering criticisms of Ph.D's in physics
who've tried to write math papers.

Physicists have their way of writing papers; mathematicians have their
own.

Mathematicians pride themselves on a special format, that has a
certain look, feel and read particular to, you guessed it,
mathematicians.

Basically the barrier to outsiders isn't content, but style.

I want those of you outside of the math world to hear that potential
defense now, so that you can consider it before the mathematicians can
deliver it in earnest, when I put them, and their practices, on public
trial.


James Harris

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

James Harris wrote:

Well I contacted Lagarias again, and for those of you outside of math
circles and the area of prime numbers, he's a mathematician that you
can consider to be an expert in the area of prime numbers.

His reply makes me consider what is likely to be the defense of
mathematicians I've contacted over the years when it becomes clear
just how important to the heart of mathematics my work is.

[snip]

1) The bottom line:

Hey stooopid loud troll James Harris, put up or shut up,

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 that gets a whole page at crank.net

2) The aesthetics of psychosis:

Ode to James Harris

Somebody said it couldn't be done,
But James with a chuckle replied
That "maybe it couldn't," but he would be one
Who wouldn't say so till he'd tried.
So James buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
James started to sing and he tackled the thing
And James never fucking could do it.

Somebody scoffed: "Oh, you'll never do that;
At least no one has ever done it";
But James took off his coat and he took off his hat,
And the first thing we knew he'd begun it.
With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin,
Without any doubting or quiddit,
James started to sing and he tackled the thing
And James never fucking could do it.

There are thousands to tell James it cannot be done,
There are thousands to prophesy failure;
There are thousands to point out to James, one by one,
"How hopeless that task set before you."
But just buckle in with a bit of a grin,
James take off your coat and go to it;
Just start to sing as you tackle the thing
And James, you'll never fucking do it.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Well I contacted Lagarias again, and for those of you outside of math
circles and the area of prime numbers, he's a mathematician that you
can consider to be an expert in the area of prime numbers.

His reply makes me consider what is likely to be the defense of
mathematicians I've contacted over the years when it becomes clear
just how important to the heart of mathematics my work is.

My guess is that mathematicians wish to use journals as a defense, and
claim that it was my responsibility to get a paper in format for a
journal, and present it to journal editors until *someone* published
my results.

Their own defense then being that it's just not their fault if I
couldn't manage to write a paper that other mathematicians would
consider.

The excuse is that if you find something, no matter how dramatic it
might be, if you can't write a math paper in a standard format, then
mathematicians don't have to be expected to pay attention to your
result.

Some of you may not understand just how strict of a requirement that
is, unless you read math journals, or even maybe have read sci.math
long enough, to see the withering criticisms of Ph.D's in physics
who've tried to write math papers.

Physicists have their way of writing papers; mathematicians have their
own.

Mathematicians pride themselves on a special format, that has a
certain look, feel and read particular to, you guessed it,
mathematicians.

Basically the barrier to outsiders isn't content, but style.

I want those of you outside of the math world to hear that potential
defense now, so that you can consider it before the mathematicians can
deliver it in earnest, when I put them, and their practices, on public
trial.

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.0312052040.50d01a71@posting.google.com>...
Well I contacted Lagarias again, and for those of you outside of math
circles and the area of prime numbers, he's a mathematician that you
can consider to be an expert in the area of prime numbers.

A _real_ mathematician! Oooohhhh... shiny...

His reply makes me consider what is likely to be the defense of
mathematicians I've contacted over the years when it becomes clear
just how important to the heart of mathematics my work is.

Yes. It is worthless shit. A waste of time. Enough said.

Here's the math for those of you who forget the specifics:

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).

Those are all the instructions needed for calculating p(x,y) for any
positive integer x and y, and it just so happens p(x,sqrt(x)) gives a
count of primes.

You can't find that information in a math reference. That's because I
discovered the formula and method over 18 months ago, and
mathematicians have balked at recording it.

Now then, do you really think that if you figured out something
mathematical, you'd dare to push if mathematicians told you to bug
off?

In article <bqrpl7$262vg0$1@ID-206850.news.uni-berlin.de>, David Moran
wrote:
I want those of you outside of the math world to hear that potential
defense now, so that you can consider it before the mathematicians can
deliver it in earnest, when I put them, and their practices, on public
trial.

Trial? Nobody's broken the law so you can't put anyone on trial. And if
you

This is why people should ignore cranks, rather than tease them, because
there IS a way they can *try* to put something as nebulous as mathematics on
trial. Basically, they can commit a crime, and then try to bring up as part
of their defense that the crime was justified in response to the way the
mathematicians were mistreating them.

Think Howard Roark from the movie "The Fountainhead" (and I'd guess the
book, too, since Ayn Rand did the script for the movie). In the movie
(spoiler alert...stop reading now if you plan to see the movie (or read the
book, I suppose) and don't want a major development given away), Roark, an
architect, blows up a building that is under construction, because they made
changes to his design, and defends himself with a lot of Randian blithering.
(It's still a pretty good movie).

Now mathematicians may believe they can just call me names, and claim
I *must* be able to write a math paper that they like, and present it
to a math journal that accepts it, or my finds are worthless, but I
don't think most rational people will agree.