Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!

Why not submit your code to a numerical analysis or computer
journal or maybe even take it to the Computer Science
Department at Vanderbilt and see what they think?
I'll tell you why not. Because we both know that
it is not at the level of original research. It's so child-like
to maintain the fantasy of being a misunderstood genius.
Your childhood glory days are over, James. Now you're a
grown-up troll and/or crank. If you can't face it hoist another
and say Cheers!

James Harris wrote:
Wait though, it seems to me that the need of the poster "Uncle Al" to
question the correctness of my work shows I think the popular feeling
that a valid result in the area of prime numbers *should* be worth
noting, especially by mathematicians!!!

The math formula is

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.

And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where you get S(x,y) as the sum
of dS from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).

And, amazingly enough, p(x,sqrt(x)) gives the count of prime numbers
up to and including x, like p(100,10) = 25, the count of primes up to
and including 100.

I'll also include a straightforward Java implementation, which also
prints out prime numbers found by my formula along the way! ___JSH
snip

"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0311280916.1dfc65ef@posting.google.com...
So I have a simple challenge. Posters assertions imply expertise, and
at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
formula works.

...

So it's an experiment. Let's see what happens.

I have one prediction. You will ignore negative results.

Why not submit your code to a numerical analysis or computer
journal or maybe even take it to the Computer Science
Department at Vanderbilt and see what they think?
I'll tell you why not. Because we both know that
it is not at the level of original research. It's so child-like
to maintain the fantasy of being a misunderstood genius.
Your childhood glory days are over, James. Now you're a
grown-up troll and/or crank. If you can't face it hoist another
and say Cheers!

James Harris wrote:
Wait though, it seems to me that the need of the poster "Uncle Al" to
question the correctness of my work shows I think the popular feeling
that a valid result in the area of prime numbers *should* be worth
noting, especially by mathematicians!!!

The math formula is

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.

And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where you get S(x,y) as the sum
of dS from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).

And, amazingly enough, p(x,sqrt(x)) gives the count of prime numbers
up to and including x, like p(100,10) = 25, the count of primes up to
and including 100.

I'll also include a straightforward Java implementation, which also
prints out prime numbers found by my formula along the way! ___JSH
snip

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message news:<acRxb.24761$m24.10097@fed1read02>...
"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0311280916.1dfc65ef@posting.google.com...
So I have a simple challenge. Posters assertions imply expertise, and
at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
formula works.

...

So it's an experiment. Let's see what happens.

I have one prediction. You will ignore negative results.

Huh? In any event, so far no one has even tried to explain, which I
find interesting. But the experiment has just started and I've given
a couple of weeks.

Let's see what happens.

James Harris

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

I'm going on-line now to look for the type journals you specified. If
you could give some *specific* names that'd be even better.

Make no mistake, I'm in this for the money. And I've checked
thoroughly, and as no one in recorded history has EVER used a partial
difference equation to count prime numbers, it's definitely something
that should be recorded for posterity.

Make no mistake, I'm in this for the money.

However, I have a suspicion that the people who've been boldest in
claiming that my work isn't important are ones who can't explain how
it works!!!

Well, I've started, and like in the past, I may post responses from
editors, as they can be so amusing. And yes, for those of you who
don't know, I've got a nice collection of interesting responses from
journal editors!

___JSH

"Nat Silver" <mathelp@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<d_Rxb.351668$0v4.19041038@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Why not submit your code to a numerical analysis or computer
journal or maybe even take it to the Computer Science
Department at Vanderbilt and see what they think?
I'll tell you why not. Because we both know that
it is not at the level of original research. It's so child-like
to maintain the fantasy of being a misunderstood genius.
Your childhood glory days are over, James. Now you're a
grown-up troll and/or crank. If you can't face it hoist another
and say Cheers!

James Harris wrote:
Wait though, it seems to me that the need of the poster "Uncle Al" to
question the correctness of my work shows I think the popular feeling
that a valid result in the area of prime numbers *should* be worth
noting, especially by mathematicians!!!

The math formula is

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.

And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where you get S(x,y) as the sum
of dS from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).

And, amazingly enough, p(x,sqrt(x)) gives the count of prime numbers
up to and including x, like p(100,10) = 25, the count of primes up to
and including 100.

I'll also include a straightforward Java implementation, which also
prints out prime numbers found by my formula along the way! ___JSH
snip

James Harris wrote:

Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!

Yes, that would be because it's not important at all.

-jcr

"John C. Randolph" <jcr@nospam.idiom.com> wrote in message news:<3FC8978E.D1347AB8@nospam.idiom.com>...
James Harris wrote:

Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!

Yes, that would be because it's not important at all.

-jcr

Really? Then clearly if you *know* that so that you can be so
certain, you can explain how it works, right?

Now then, why don't you try and explain how it works.

Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery,

That is, go ahead mathematicians, admit that "pure math" is a crock!

http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

Correction to previous post:

Dr. Joseph Mengele, *not* Mengala.

James Harris wrote:

"John C. Randolph" <jcr@nospam.idiom.com> wrote in message news:<3FC8978E.D1347AB8@nospam.idiom.com>...
James Harris wrote:

Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!

Yes, that would be because it's not important at all.

-jcr

Really? Then clearly if you *know* that so that you can be so
certain, you can explain how it works, right?

Now then, why don't you try and explain how it works.

Why don't *you* explain how it works? If your discovery is as important as you claim it is, the proper
course of action is to write a paper describing its operation in great detail. Either publish the paper in
a reputable journal or publish it yourself. But why in the world are you asking *other* people to explain
how it works?

You have succeeded in elevating idiocy to unprecedented heights, Wacky. Go back to your playpen.