 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » JSH: And I ALWAYS beat them... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| JSH... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
What happens after you can see in the recent threads.
More interesting after that is Usenet posters will SAY I didn't beat
them and maintain I'm a crackpot who is not reasonable.
And that has gone on since 2002.
I have learned a fascination with the process! People lie. And then
lie about lying. And other people can come in and lie with them.
But there are areas where the lies do not work.
James Harris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rotwang... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 1 Nov, 21:11, JSH <jst... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
[/quote]
Like my simple proof that the constraint in your prime counting
function is unnecessary, for example.
[quote]What happens after you can see in the recent threads.
[/quote]
Yes: you refuse to look at simple proofs that show you're wrong,
preferring instead to attack the source, change the subject, and
generally run away from facts you don't want to hear like a big girlie
man. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:11 pm, JSH <jst... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
What happens after you can see in the recent threads.
More interesting after that is Usenet posters will SAY I didn't beat
them and maintain I'm a crackpot who is not reasonable.
And that has gone on since 2002.
I have learned a fascination with the process! People lie. And then
lie about lying. And other people can come in and lie with them.
But there are areas where the lies do not work.
James Harris
[/quote]
J. S. H. & H. S. Watt!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JSH... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:12 pm, Rotwang <sg... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On 1 Nov, 21:11, JSH <jst... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
Like my simple proof that the constraint in your prime counting
function is unnecessary, for example.
[/quote]
Hey, I tried to remove that constraint myself, years ago. And you
have been soundly beaten on other points, where below I'll state your
positions that have been so beaten and explain why you are wrong.
But the main thing is, it doesn't matter. Today has been a re-hash of
similar attempts years ago to get rational behavior on this subject
from math people.
I merely make a point now of how obstinate the refusal to accept
simple points is.
[quote]What happens after you can see in the recent threads.
Yes: you refuse to look at simple proofs that show you're wrong,
preferring instead to attack the source, change the subject, and
generally run away from facts you don't want to hear like a big girlie
man.
[/quote]
Your position is that I have not found anything important with the
prime counting function I found in 2002.
That prime counting function has a form similar to Legendre's Formula,
and a continuing assertion against my find is that it is simply a re-
hash of Legendre's Formula.
The prime counting function I have does appear to lead to a PDE, but
you note that I prove nothing about that PDE, and do not prove using
it that it is close to x/ln x, or Li(x), or that the prime count
itself maps closely with the integration of that PDE.
You use those positions to dismiss my find.
Here are simple points, however, to consider:
1. Even if what I have IS a form of Legendre's Formula, it is a
previously unknown one, so why not record it, somewhere? At a
minimum? Why dismiss it entire?
Yet for 7 years now I've been the lone voice talking about this
equation. If math people got their way, it is clear now 7 years since
its discovery, it would be simply lost. Buried by being ignored.
Here is my prime counting formula in its sieve form when it is closest
to Legendre's Formula, for reference:
With natural numbers where p_j is the j_th prime:
P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for j=1 to n of {P([x/p_j],j-1) - (j-1)}
where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt
(x) then n is reset to that count.
2. By INSPECTION of my prime counting function in its sieve form even
a casual reader can see that it calls itself recursively. But no
other "prime counting function" in human history PRIOR to this find
has that feature. That is not disputable. If disputing, provide the
function please.
One reason that is clearly not disputable is that those who know the
mathematical literature are aware that mathematicians use a pi(x)
function for the prime count, and that is a single variable function.
There is no mathematically known way to define a single variable
function that counts prime numbers by recursively calling itself, but
why is that important?
Because with recursive calls you can remove mention of primes by using
P(j,sqrt(j)) - P(j-1,sqrt(j-1)) as a switch, as if k is prime that is
1, but it is 0, if k is NOT prime. So for the first time in known
history in this area you have a difference equation form of the prime
counting function.
I give it for reference:
With natural numbers
P(x,y) = x - 1 - sum for j=2 to y of {(P([x/j],j-1) - P(j-1, sqrt
(j-1)))(P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1)))}
where if y>sqrt(x), then P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt(x)).
Notice the simple addition of the switch mentioned above to remove use
of p_j, as now the function picks out primes on its own, which is a
unique feature.
And now I remind readers that math people have tried to dismiss this
result by not properly acknowledging it for 7 years now.
Yet before we even get to the issue of the prime distribution being
connected to continuous functions I've already noted several unique
features, while also noting there is a relation to prior knowledge in
this area.
3. The final point has to do with an apparent connection between the
count of prime numbers and continuous functions where x/ln x is an
easily checkable example:
Count of primes up to 10: 2, 3, 5 and 7. 4 primes
10/ln 10 = 4.3 to one significant digit
Count of primes up to 100: 25 primes.
100/ln 100 = 21.7 to one significant digit
Pondering that apparent connection has been something that some of the
great mathematical minds have done, where Euler found a connection
between the prime count and continuous functions with his zeta
function.
Rather than go further through that history, I note that the unique
features I mentioned above with my prime counting function now can be
seen to have a further impact, as now because of them a partial
differential equation follows from the difference equation.
Here a crucial point is ALWAYS avoided by Usenet posters who argue
against the value of this research, which is that if there is no other
"prime counting function" that can recursively call itself, and so
lead to a difference equation, there is NO OTHER "prime counting
function" which naturally leads to a partial differential equation!!!
But imagine Euler with this information centuries ago. Would it not
have occurred to him even with his zeta function answer that another
possible reason for the connection with functions like x/ln x, was the
closeness of the integration of the PDE with the discrete summation of
the difference equation or of the sieve form?
It's a natural question.
But to maintain a dismissal of my research posters have to avoid that
obvious and feign stupidity in this area, to the natural notion that
MAYBE the answer to the connection is right in front of you.
And remember, they do so with the intent of BURYING the result, and
have succeeded for 7 years.
They succeeded for 7 years, but now without expending a good deal of
energy.
I was maligned as a crank and a crackpot. The Usenet poster Erik Max
Francis put up a flame page against me on his Crank.net website. And
math posters maintained a steady diatribe of hostility against my
research.
Mathematicians in mainstream areas did little better. (One colleague
of Odlyzko wrote a C implementation of the difference equation form
before begging off. Odlyzko himself claimed the work was not of
interest. And Lagarias merely suggested I put the equation on arxiv.)
And I could not get published in a math journal.
You can see the consequences today of their inaction.
7 years later the result is still effectively buried.
For seven years I have always won on the logical points.
Mathematically my position is perfect.
My equations are absolute perfection.
The knowledge is irrefutable, by reason.
So they have avoided reason and used instead, social forces.
I always win on the logic. They win on social ineptitude.
James Harris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JSH wrote:
[quote]It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
[/quote]
Well, maybe you should try to use some math in your
arguments. Your FLT "proof" was a laugh. Your "publication"
was a joke. When are you going to do math?
[quote]
What happens after you can see in the recent threads.
[/quote]
No, we do not see that since you have won no arguments.
You have whined and complained and showed your hatred and
paranoia but that is not winning.
[quote]
More interesting after that is Usenet posters will SAY I didn't beat
them and maintain I'm a crackpot who is not reasonable.
[/quote]
You are the one providing the proof for that. See crank.net for
a listing of reasons you are a crackpot.
[quote]
And that has gone on since 2002.
[/quote]
So why have you not learned anything in that time?
[quote]
I have learned a fascination with the process! People lie. And then
lie about lying. And other people can come in and lie with them.
[/quote]
So far, it is just you lying. Your delusions are pretty sad.
[quote]
But there are areas where the lies do not work.
[/quote]
Like in math. You should learn something about it some time.
[quote]
James Harris[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JSH wrote:
[...]
Seven JSH posts on one screen. Fuck that.
*plonk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ronchese... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"JSH" <jstevh at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c5b4512-3857-43e4-93b4-5ff74be129ea at (no spam) w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
[quote]It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
What happens after you can see in the recent threads.
More interesting after that is Usenet posters will SAY I didn't beat
them and maintain I'm a crackpot who is not reasonable.
And that has gone on since 2002.
I have learned a fascination with the process! People lie. And then
lie about lying. And other people can come in and lie with them.
But there are areas where the lies do not work.
James Harris
[/quote]
Liar. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JSH wrote:
[quote]
It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
[snip rest of whining crap][/quote]
Cite an example.
You are a mewling Head Start wretch belching implanted self-esteem in
counterpoint to sickeningly obvious facts in evidence. Factor an RSA
product or shut your incessantly voluminously drooling stooopid boring
mouth. Put up or shut up. Impotent farceurs have no basis for
seduction.
http://mathoverflow.net/
JSH kryptonite
[quote]James Harris
[/quote]
"Saepe errans, numquam dubitans"
God save us from the congenitally inconsequential.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Noob... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JSH wrote:
[quote]More interesting after that is Usenet posters will SAY I didn't beat
them and maintain I'm a crackpot who is not reasonable.
And that has gone on since 2002.
[/quote]
Don't be so modest.
As far as I can tell, you've been labeled a crank since 1996. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JSH wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 2:12 pm, Rotwang <sg... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 1 Nov, 21:11, JSH <jst... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
Like my simple proof that the constraint in your prime counting
function is unnecessary, for example.
Hey, I tried to remove that constraint myself, years ago. And you
have been soundly beaten on other points, where below I'll state your
positions that have been so beaten and explain why you are wrong.
But the main thing is, it doesn't matter. Today has been a re-hash of
similar attempts years ago to get rational behavior on this subject
from math people.
I merely make a point now of how obstinate the refusal to accept
simple points is.
What happens after you can see in the recent threads.
Yes: you refuse to look at simple proofs that show you're wrong,
preferring instead to attack the source, change the subject, and
generally run away from facts you don't want to hear like a big girlie
man.
Your position is that I have not found anything important with the
prime counting function I found in 2002.
That prime counting function has a form similar to Legendre's Formula,
and a continuing assertion against my find is that it is simply a re-
hash of Legendre's Formula.
The prime counting function I have does appear to lead to a PDE, but
you note that I prove nothing about that PDE, and do not prove using
it that it is close to x/ln x, or Li(x), or that the prime count
itself maps closely with the integration of that PDE.
You use those positions to dismiss my find.
Here are simple points, however, to consider:
1. Even if what I have IS a form of Legendre's Formula, it is a
previously unknown one, so why not record it, somewhere? At a
minimum? Why dismiss it entire?
Yet for 7 years now I've been the lone voice talking about this
equation. If math people got their way, it is clear now 7 years since
its discovery, it would be simply lost. Buried by being ignored.
Here is my prime counting formula in its sieve form when it is closest
to Legendre's Formula, for reference:
With natural numbers where p_j is the j_th prime:
P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for j=1 to n of {P([x/p_j],j-1) - (j-1)}
where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt
(x) then n is reset to that count.
2. By INSPECTION of my prime counting function in its sieve form even
a casual reader can see that it calls itself recursively. But no
other "prime counting function" in human history PRIOR to this find
has that feature. That is not disputable. If disputing, provide the
function please.
One reason that is clearly not disputable is that those who know the
mathematical literature are aware that mathematicians use a pi(x)
function for the prime count, and that is a single variable function.
There is no mathematically known way to define a single variable
function that counts prime numbers by recursively calling itself, but
why is that important?
Because with recursive calls you can remove mention of primes by using
P(j,sqrt(j)) - P(j-1,sqrt(j-1)) as a switch, as if k is prime that is
1, but it is 0, if k is NOT prime. So for the first time in known
history in this area you have a difference equation form of the prime
counting function.
I give it for reference:
With natural numbers
P(x,y) = x - 1 - sum for j=2 to y of {(P([x/j],j-1) - P(j-1, sqrt
(j-1)))(P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1)))}
where if y>sqrt(x), then P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt(x)).
Notice the simple addition of the switch mentioned above to remove use
of p_j, as now the function picks out primes on its own, which is a
unique feature.
And now I remind readers that math people have tried to dismiss this
result by not properly acknowledging it for 7 years now.
Yet before we even get to the issue of the prime distribution being
connected to continuous functions I've already noted several unique
features, while also noting there is a relation to prior knowledge in
this area.
3. The final point has to do with an apparent connection between the
count of prime numbers and continuous functions where x/ln x is an
easily checkable example:
Count of primes up to 10: 2, 3, 5 and 7. 4 primes
10/ln 10 = 4.3 to one significant digit
Count of primes up to 100: 25 primes.
100/ln 100 = 21.7 to one significant digit
Pondering that apparent connection has been something that some of the
great mathematical minds have done, where Euler found a connection
between the prime count and continuous functions with his zeta
function.
Rather than go further through that history, I note that the unique
features I mentioned above with my prime counting function now can be
seen to have a further impact, as now because of them a partial
differential equation follows from the difference equation.
Here a crucial point is ALWAYS avoided by Usenet posters who argue
against the value of this research, which is that if there is no other
"prime counting function" that can recursively call itself, and so
lead to a difference equation, there is NO OTHER "prime counting
function" which naturally leads to a partial differential equation!!!
But imagine Euler with this information centuries ago. Would it not
have occurred to him even with his zeta function answer that another
possible reason for the connection with functions like x/ln x, was the
closeness of the integration of the PDE with the discrete summation of
the difference equation or of the sieve form?
It's a natural question.
But to maintain a dismissal of my research posters have to avoid that
obvious and feign stupidity in this area, to the natural notion that
MAYBE the answer to the connection is right in front of you.
And remember, they do so with the intent of BURYING the result, and
have succeeded for 7 years.
They succeeded for 7 years, but now without expending a good deal of
energy.
I was maligned as a crank and a crackpot. The Usenet poster Erik Max
Francis put up a flame page against me on his Crank.net website. And
math posters maintained a steady diatribe of hostility against my
research.
Mathematicians in mainstream areas did little better. (One colleague
of Odlyzko wrote a C implementation of the difference equation form
before begging off. Odlyzko himself claimed the work was not of
interest. And Lagarias merely suggested I put the equation on arxiv.)
And I could not get published in a math journal.
You can see the consequences today of their inaction.
7 years later the result is still effectively buried.
For seven years I have always won on the logical points.
Mathematically my position is perfect.
[/quote]
Except for your unbroken trail of mistakes. See usenet if
there is a poor memory holding you back.
[quote]
My equations are absolute perfection.
[/quote]
Except again for the the trail of mistakes. Usenet has preserved
you myriad mistakes.
[quote]
The knowledge is irrefutable, by reason.
[/quote]
Yes, your mistakes are irrefutably there.
[quote]
So they have avoided reason and used instead, social forces.
[/quote]
No, you just hate failure and like to whine.
[quote]
I always win on the logic.
[/quote]
Well, how is the FLT proof coming?
They win on social ineptitude.
[quote]
You are mistaking that for facts.
James Harris[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark Murray... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wow.
Just wow.
M
JSH wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 2:12 pm, Rotwang <sg... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 1 Nov, 21:11, JSH <jst... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is mathematics so I can use very simple positions which are
irrefutable to win the arguments almost instantly.
Like my simple proof that the constraint in your prime counting
function is unnecessary, for example.
Hey, I tried to remove that constraint myself, years ago. And you
have been soundly beaten on other points, where below I'll state your
positions that have been so beaten and explain why you are wrong.
But the main thing is, it doesn't matter. Today has been a re-hash of
similar attempts years ago to get rational behavior on this subject
from math people.
I merely make a point now of how obstinate the refusal to accept
simple points is.
What happens after you can see in the recent threads.
Yes: you refuse to look at simple proofs that show you're wrong,
preferring instead to attack the source, change the subject, and
generally run away from facts you don't want to hear like a big girlie
man.
Your position is that I have not found anything important with the
prime counting function I found in 2002.
That prime counting function has a form similar to Legendre's Formula,
and a continuing assertion against my find is that it is simply a re-
hash of Legendre's Formula.
The prime counting function I have does appear to lead to a PDE, but
you note that I prove nothing about that PDE, and do not prove using
it that it is close to x/ln x, or Li(x), or that the prime count
itself maps closely with the integration of that PDE.
You use those positions to dismiss my find.
Here are simple points, however, to consider:
1. Even if what I have IS a form of Legendre's Formula, it is a
previously unknown one, so why not record it, somewhere? At a
minimum? Why dismiss it entire?
Yet for 7 years now I've been the lone voice talking about this
equation. If math people got their way, it is clear now 7 years since
its discovery, it would be simply lost. Buried by being ignored.
Here is my prime counting formula in its sieve form when it is closest
to Legendre's Formula, for reference:
With natural numbers where p_j is the j_th prime:
P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for j=1 to n of {P([x/p_j],j-1) - (j-1)}
where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt
(x) then n is reset to that count.
2. By INSPECTION of my prime counting function in its sieve form even
a casual reader can see that it calls itself recursively. But no
other "prime counting function" in human history PRIOR to this find
has that feature. That is not disputable. If disputing, provide the
function please.
One reason that is clearly not disputable is that those who know the
mathematical literature are aware that mathematicians use a pi(x)
function for the prime count, and that is a single variable function.
There is no mathematically known way to define a single variable
function that counts prime numbers by recursively calling itself, but
why is that important?
Because with recursive calls you can remove mention of primes by using
P(j,sqrt(j)) - P(j-1,sqrt(j-1)) as a switch, as if k is prime that is
1, but it is 0, if k is NOT prime. So for the first time in known
history in this area you have a difference equation form of the prime
counting function.
I give it for reference:
With natural numbers
P(x,y) = x - 1 - sum for j=2 to y of {(P([x/j],j-1) - P(j-1, sqrt
(j-1)))(P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1)))}
where if y>sqrt(x), then P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt(x)).
Notice the simple addition of the switch mentioned above to remove use
of p_j, as now the function picks out primes on its own, which is a
unique feature.
And now I remind readers that math people have tried to dismiss this
result by not properly acknowledging it for 7 years now.
Yet before we even get to the issue of the prime distribution being
connected to continuous functions I've already noted several unique
features, while also noting there is a relation to prior knowledge in
this area.
3. The final point has to do with an apparent connection between the
count of prime numbers and continuous functions where x/ln x is an
easily checkable example:
Count of primes up to 10: 2, 3, 5 and 7. 4 primes
10/ln 10 = 4.3 to one significant digit
Count of primes up to 100: 25 primes.
100/ln 100 = 21.7 to one significant digit
Pondering that apparent connection has been something that some of the
great mathematical minds have done, where Euler found a connection
between the prime count and continuous functions with his zeta
function.
Rather than go further through that history, I note that the unique
features I mentioned above with my prime counting function now can be
seen to have a further impact, as now because of them a partial
differential equation follows from the difference equation.
Here a crucial point is ALWAYS avoided by Usenet posters who argue
against the value of this research, which is that if there is no other
"prime counting function" that can recursively call itself, and so
lead to a difference equation, there is NO OTHER "prime counting
function" which naturally leads to a partial differential equation!!!
But imagine Euler with this information centuries ago. Would it not
have occurred to him even with his zeta function answer that another
possible reason for the connection with functions like x/ln x, was the
closeness of the integration of the PDE with the discrete summation of
the difference equation or of the sieve form?
It's a natural question.
But to maintain a dismissal of my research posters have to avoid that
obvious and feign stupidity in this area, to the natural notion that
MAYBE the answer to the connection is right in front of you.
And remember, they do so with the intent of BURYING the result, and
have succeeded for 7 years.
They succeeded for 7 years, but now without expending a good deal of
energy.
I was maligned as a crank and a crackpot. The Usenet poster Erik Max
Francis put up a flame page against me on his Crank.net website. And
math posters maintained a steady diatribe of hostility against my
research.
Mathematicians in mainstream areas did little better. (One colleague
of Odlyzko wrote a C implementation of the difference equation form
before begging off. Odlyzko himself claimed the work was not of
interest. And Lagarias merely suggested I put the equation on arxiv.)
And I could not get published in a math journal.
You can see the consequences today of their inaction.
7 years later the result is still effectively buried.
For seven years I have always won on the logical points.
Mathematically my position is perfect.
My equations are absolute perfection.
The knowledge is irrefutable, by reason.
So they have avoided reason and used instead, social forces.
I always win on the logic. They win on social ineptitude.
James Harris
[/quote]
--
Mark Murray |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ronchese... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"JSH" <jstevh at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63683c27-3f10-4f1c-9c93-9d74b421470b at (no spam) f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
[quote]And I could not get published in a math journal.
You can see the consequences today of their inaction.
7 years later the result is still effectively buried.
For seven years I have always won on the logical points.
Mathematically my position is perfect.
My equations are absolute perfection.
The knowledge is irrefutable, by reason.
So they have avoided reason and used instead, social forces.
I always win on the logic. They win on social ineptitude.
James Harris
[/quote]
Your research is where it should be => buried with the dead.
It was/is, and forever will be, DOA.
**** Flawed high school algebra is not news. ****
Deal with it.
=> accept the *Fact* you will NEVER gain recognition as a Math dude.
[it is because you work so poorly in beginning maths]
-Amed |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JSH... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:49 pm, "ronchese" <nos... at (no spam) spamless.com> wrote:
[quote]"JSH" <jst... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63683c27-3f10-4f1c-9c93-9d74b421470b at (no spam) f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
snip
And I could not get published in a math journal.
You can see the consequences today of their inaction.
7 years later the result is still effectively buried.
For seven years I have always won on the logical points.
Mathematically my position is perfect.
My equations are absolute perfection.
The knowledge is irrefutable, by reason.
So they have avoided reason and used instead, social forces.
I always win on the logic. They win on social ineptitude.
James Harris
Your research is where it should be => buried with the dead.
It was/is, and forever will be, DOA.
**** Flawed high school algebra is not news. ****
Deal with it.
=> accept the *Fact* you will NEVER gain recognition as a Math dude.
[it is because you work so poorly in beginning maths]
-Amed
[/quote]
We'll see.
James Harris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark Murray... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:44 pm
|
|