"C. Bond" <cbond@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3FC94925.7A2A0B2@ix.netcom.com>...

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?

I've explained in the past but noticed that other posters would just
use information I provided to try and confuse others. Yup, they'd
pervert the process.

Here, by not explaining first in this thread, I'm showing readers that
all these people trying to convince them that my prime area discovery
is in fact unimportant, are in fact, lying.

If they're not lying then they have the expertise to answer the
question of how my partial difference equation works.

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


The essential point is that I'm someone who made a nice discovery in
the area of prime numbers, but rather than at a minimum acknowledge my
discovery, mathematicians chose to ignore or downplay it.

It's clearly a political decision at odds with claims of
mathematicians about the importance to them of "pure math" or beauty,
or math for math's sake.

It's also a high-risk strategy which clearly could back-fire with
stupendous consequences, so why would they do it?

I want you to think about that question without me trying to explain
it to you, except to remind you of others in a high stakes area
engaging in seemingly strange behavior. Like consider the current
president of the United States.

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fc797af.1661458@netnews.att.net>...
On 28 Nov 2003 09:16:10 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) in
sci.cognitive wrote:

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

However, I know exactly how my formula works, so it seems to me that a
good check of others is to see if they do as well.

So I have a simple challenge. Posters assertions imply expertise, and
at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
formula works.

So I'll give them a couple of weeks to try and explain it in this
thread, then if all goes according to plan I'll explain to you how it
works, and you can see who is the real expert.

Let me see if I have the general idea. First you delete sci.cognitive
from your address list and then we all agree that the algorithm works
whatever it is.

The relevance to sci.cognitive is that not only does my discovery
represent an intriguing case of a unique find in a well-worked
area--as prime numbers are VERY well worked--it also raises questions
about how human beings think.

Why did it take so long before anyone found my formula?

How readily do most people understand something that I'll tell you
relies on VERY simple ideas?

Why would mathematicians fight even *recording* it, challenging the
very values that define them!!! Like, modern mathematicians make
claims about beauty and purity in mathematics, where practical
applications and practical concerns are secondary to the "purity" of
mathematical knowledge gained for the sake of knowledge itself.

There are so many issues for the cognitive sciences that I could go on
and on.

It's fascinating and exciting as it all plays out.

Oh yeah, lest readers forget, the point of this thread is to see if
people claiming my math discovery that can count and *find* prime
numbers is unimportant and not worth acknowledging can prove expertise
by managing to explain how it works.

From my own understanding of how the human brain works, it will be
difficult for posters to lie about the value, yet manage to accurately
explain how it works!

You see, it's like there's a switch in people's heads that goes one
way or another. If they're going to lie about my work, they lose
cognitive function necessary to accurately explain how it works...or
at least that's my theory.


James Harris

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

There are so many issues for the cognitive sciences that I could go on
and on.

It's fascinating and exciting as it all plays out.

There are so many issues for the cognitive sciences that I could go on
and on.

It's fascinating and exciting as it all plays out.

He's right. I for one am deeply interested in the psychology of crankish
behaviour.

Shaun

"Shaun Webb" <shaun@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.06.03.20.58.35873@localhost.localdomain>...
There are so many issues for the cognitive sciences that I could go on
and on.

It's fascinating and exciting as it all plays out.

He's right. I for one am deeply interested in the psychology of
crankish
behaviour.

Shaun

Hmmm...that reminds me to check this thread. Remember my original
post is a direct request for *someone* to explain how my prime
counting function works.

I have seen at least one attempt at explanation.

After a bit, if necessary, I'll give the rather simple explanation for
how it actually works.

My purpose is to show that posters acting as if they are experts, are
nonesuch, but are actually *cheaters* who want you to believe in them
and their pronouncements, when they don't even understand the
mathematics involved!!!


James Harris

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

Hmmm...that reminds me to check this thread. Remember my original
post is a direct request for *someone* to explain how my prime
counting function works.

I have seen at least one attempt at explanation.

After a bit, if necessary, I'll give the rather simple explanation for
how it actually works.

My purpose is to show that posters acting as if they are experts, are
nonesuch, but are actually *cheaters* who want you to believe in them
and their pronouncements, when they don't even understand the
mathematics involved!!!

Hmmm...that reminds me to check this thread. Remember my original
post is a direct request for *someone* to explain how my prime
counting function works.

I have seen at least one attempt at explanation.

After a bit, if necessary, I'll give the rather simple explanation for
how it actually works.

My purpose is to show that posters acting as if they are experts, are
nonesuch, but are actually *cheaters* who want you to believe in them
and their pronouncements, when they don't even understand the
mathematics involved!!!


James Harris

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