| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » JSH: You people are stupid...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| biggus... |
 Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
(this JSH moment is brought to you by MIT Math Department, Make Sure you are
dealing with a Professional Mathematician, else this can happen;)
JSH: You people are stupid
Ok, let's just put it out there, you people as a group are stupid.
There is no way there can be nothing to my research when there is so much
math behind it that says it has to be important.
No way.
It is complete bullshit that rules your world, which is how you people keep
posturing despite your rank stupidity.
Only stupidity could explain the failure to even look into integrating that
partial differential equation.
Only stupidity could explain the ability of posters to keep going on and on
despite there being no other prime counting function that can even
recursively call itself.
And that's just my research related to the prime count.
Only people stupid on a massive scale could ignore publication in a peer
reviewed math journal, for an argument so damn trivial I can go over it in a
couple of paragraphs using basic algebra.
You people are just damn stupid. Your community is stupid.
You are willfully stupid, stupid, stupid.
[A reply to someone who said that James is a "ranting tit".]
At least I am right and have the mathematics to prove it.
I even got published.
You damn fools just said, duh, publication doesn't matter!
You are stupid.
I have the mathematics to prove my case.
I've had it for years.
Your society is just too damn stupid to go with the math.
You're just too damn stupid and full of yourselves.
Idiots.
# posted by James Harris at (no spam) 21:23
JSH: Four years plus of failure
It has been over four years since I found what I call my prime counting
function.
It is still an open question how closely the partial differential equation
that follows it maps to the prime distribution because the current math
world is broken, and rather than consider the answers to that question, most
mathematicians have ignored me, while you can see the posters here who just
work to dismiss the research.
The lack of answers is the fruit of their labors.
That's what such people are about, no answers, no solutions, ever.
Has it occurred to any of you that you could die, and a day later, some
person or persons could finally look into that partial differential equation
I found, and answer huge questions in mathematics, and the world go on and
on about this amazing thing that research thought quack from some crackpot
turned out to be important, but no one knew, because no one checked.
And mostly in looking over the history, they could see years of posturing
from people who never did anything of value.
ANYONE can criticize.
You have four years plus to see the value of posters just calling me names
and claiming my research is not new, as now you may know that yes, I did
find a partial differential equation that follows from a prime counting
function.
And it's an open question as to how closely integrating that partial
differential equation gets you to the prime distribution.
STILL an open question, over four years later.
Still there are posters who seem to think this is just about posturing on
some newsgroups as if no one cares if the question is EVER answered.
Ever.
What kind of human beings does this make you to be, when you are so
incurious, so incapable of wondering at the miniscule level necessary to get
some answers?
Instead you sit by and either promote or are in complicit in just blanket
do-nothingness.
A world of no answers, just talk.
Four plus years of total failure from your group and your community.
That's what the world has today.
Four plus years of total failure to find any kind of answer.
[A reply to someone who asked why is it that this is not a failure from
James.]
You fucking idiot I TESTED IT AND NUMERICALLY INTEGRATED IT AND FOUND IT
CLOSE!
You are the goddamn fools who refuse to check and then keep going on as if
you are intelligent when you will NOT EVEN FUCKING CHECK!!!
# posted by James Harris at (no spam) 21:13
JSH: Minority view
A few days ago I asked that readers who use Google Groups use the ratings
system that is provided through it where you can rate posts from 1 to 5
stars.
I have looked over threads that I created to talk about my research and
found that along with my ratings, as I've started now routinely rating
posts, I usually see 3 or 4 others and at times maybe 10 who have bothered
to vote.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to opposition, let's say there are about 10
people out there then who disagree with me and are vocal in that
disagreement.
Well I just checked Google Groups to see how many people it says subscribe
to sci.math and it said 5,506, which is the number through Google Groups, so
it's a lower number than the readership.
For instance, I don't subscribe to sci.math so I'm not part of that count.
But, of course, I post on sci.math a lot.
But let's go with the low number to be fair and now go with the high number
for the opposition based on ratings to get 10/5506 or about 0.18% of the
sci.math readership clearly disagrees with me.
So I have one point of view and about 10 or so other people who don't seem
to have any other support based on the ratings, argue with me, and that
generates a lot of posts.
I like the ratings system as gives an overview of how many people on
sci.math care to vote in one direction or another on these topics where if
you just look at the volume of postings you might wrongly assume that the
majority of sci.math is wrapped up in these discussions, when from the
ratings, most don't care.
Actually, only about 0.18% clearly show that they do care.
I suggest you use the ratings if you use Google Groups. There is just no
denying that much of the newsgroup doesn't care one way or the other when
there is no voting for your point of view.
# posted by James Harris at (no spam) 16:18
Friday, November 24, 2006
JSH: Under review
I wrote another paper and sent it to the Annals of Mathematics which
verified receipt.
A version of the paper is at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/MultiPrime.pdf
and in keeping with the philosophy of extreme mathematics, I would
appreciate comments.
The paper is under review as Princeton verified receipt. Uh, yeah that
surprised even me.
This thread is for comments on the paper.
And yes, this paper could end it all. If Princeton does what it should then
it doesn't matter what any of you say, as you know and I know that Princeton
trumps every last one of you.
I especially welcome comments from posters who argue with me regularly.
I am curious though. Read the paper, and come back and post as confidently
as you've done.
What gives you that faith?
[A reply to someone who wrote that, when the paper is rejected, James will
blame the sinister cadre of sci.math again.]
No. I know and you know that Princeton doesn't give a damn what you think.
There is only one case where sci.math definitely interfered and killed a
journal and that is with SWJPAM.
There is no way that Princeton would fall in the same way.
You people can't kill the Annals of Mathematics.
I dare you to try. Send your emails. Just try.
[A reply to someone who explained to James how uninteresting and dishonest
his paper is.]
The replies in this thread reek of fear.
What I actually did was go from a prime counting sieve function, to a
constrained summation of a partial difference equation that counts primes,
to the partial differential equation that follows from it.
The three forms connect the dots from the discrete count of primes to a
continuous function directly, for the first time in mathematical history,
showing how the count of primes connects to continuous functions, and
accomplishing what notables like Gauss and Riemann set out to do so long
ago.
That is done in just two pages, and is an accomplishment at the pinnacle of
human achievement in mathematics, but it's also an accomplishment members of
the sci.math newsgroup have enviously and jealously fought to disparage.
It is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of human thought.
It is more than a great enough accomplishment to merit publication in one of
the world's top math journals.
# posted by James Harris at (no spam) 01:16
Sabotage!
A member of the sci.math newsgroup managed to get past my screening and join
the group, revealing himself when he systematically down rated all of my
posts.
I have banned that person from the group.
It shows you how these people operated.
Looks like people not members of the group can rate posts so I was wrong on
that point.
As shown by a group of sci.math'ers who came in to downrate my posts.
Still, it shows how these people operate.
There was other evidence the banned person was a hostile sci.math'er so I'm
comfortable with the decision to ban that person.
I do wish Google would allow you to only let group members rate posts, as I
think their Beta still needs a bit more options for group owners, as this
current ongoing sabotage by members of the sci.math newsgroup shows.
The juvenile behavior from members of the Usenet sci.math group reveals a
clear weakness in Google's current setup.
# posted by James Harris at (no spam) 00:45
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
JSH: Use ratings
People coming in with Google Groups can rate posts, and I'd like more people
to start rating to help me pick which people to reply to.
If this experiment works, I'll start going more by group opinions on posts.
I'd like to try and see if more of the crap posters can be weeded out in
this way, as they are down-rated to a level that I know I can completely
ignore them from now on.
And no, down rating my posts will not matter to me.
I personally rate them highly.
This is just a way for those who wish to give me feedback as to which people
they think I should answer.
# posted by James Harris at (no spam) 22:24
JSH: Ever talk to a mathematician?
I wonder how many of you actually have sat down and had any kind of
conversation with a mathematician at a university.
I have had a few such conversations, like maybe half a dozen or so over the
years.
If you have not, then to you mathematicians may just be something out of a
novel, or a movie, but I assure you they are just people.
And they are mostly safe from consequences in a very protected world.
This story would not have played out like it has if they were not so safe.
My research is so obviously important that the supporting evidence is
overwhelming, but we all here know the rules, and the rules say that what
the mathematicians at universities say is important about mathematics is
what the world says is important.
So they know they can sit quietly, and they know the impact of sitting
quietly.
I've TALKED to some of these people in person. They are protected in a way
that most of you aren't.
Remember the story with Wiles? How he worked for over seven years with no
one knowing exactly what he was doing? He spent a lot of that time at home
with his family.
Can you do the same? Can you comprehend that world?
No one knows what you're really doing, but you have a good salary, respect
and admiration, to go off and do what you want for over seven years.
To them this whole thing may be kind of a puzzle, and it might not feel real
to them that by leaving me out here arguing with fringe people they are
doing a bad thing.
In their world, you protect YOUR research. Academics work to further their
OWN CAREERS.
Tellingly a leading math professor at my own alma mater Vanderbilt
University told me when I sat down to explain my work on factoring
polynomials into non-polynomial factors-worked it all out on the chalkboard
in a discussion that covered all the major issues over a couple of
hours-that I lacked "polish".
Well I have a B.Sc. in physics so I'm pondering why in the hell "polish"
matters when the result is so dramatic, and you know, sitting here now I
think that professor was just doing things by the rules of his society. My
polish means so much in an academic world where polish is part of the rules,
like the social rules that govern human behavior in many other areas.
But here and now with my research those rules are shown to be out-dated, but
that society is safe. Those mathematicians do not have to acknowledge my
research no matter how important it is easily shown to be because world
society does not make them, and by the rules they know, there are no
consequences.
Ever talk to a mathematician? Doing so might open your eyes to how their
world works, so that you understand that this drama is not about arguments
on Usenet, as Usenet has no real impact on their world.
It's about the society of mathematicians in universities around the world,
and the rules they play by.
# posted by James Harris at (no spam) 16:50
Attacking reformulations, prime contradictions
One thing that is clear at this point is the position by several posters
arguing with me that my prime counting function is a useless reformulation
of information already known about prime counting.
There is much to support that view:
With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime:
P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for i=1 to n of {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))}
where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt(x)
then n is reset to that count.
That prime counting function in its sieve form clearly has elements that can
be found in prior prime counting research, and, guess what?
It gives the same answer as the count of primes is the same.
So what good is a reformulation?
Well, posters in going to so much trouble to proclaim my research old have
repeatedly pointed out links between my prime counting function and
previously known algorithms for counting primes and functions like the sieve
function phi(x,a) used in those algorithms.
Um, but that sounds like they're saying that with one function, I can do
everything that mathematicians previously did with multiple functions like
using pi(x) and phi(x,a), so where before you had two or more, with my
ideas, you have one function, which posters repeatedly point out can be
optimized in EXACTLY THE SAME WAYS as what was previously known.
So this reformulation captures everything you need and you can work from it
alone to do prime counting, going over old ground, so saying the
reformulation is worthless can have some merit, right?
After all, prime counting isn't advanced by it, as I've finally acknowledged
though early on I had high hopes that you could find much faster prime
counting algorithms with it, so the reformulation despite its scope and size
is a waste of time?
Well, hold on a minute. Sure, my prime counting function can be used to do
everything known before, so you can say that it is going over old ground, so
that if history had been different there might never have been a phi(x,a)
function or even a one variable pi(x) function as you can do everything with
my multi-variable function. But history shows humanity didn't go that route,
so that's it, right?
BUT, the function I give-look back if you need to refresh
yourself-recursively calls itself and directly counts primes, so you can use
something simple, where I'll go to the classical prime counting function to
show it:
pi(x) - pi(x-1)
with a natural number x greater than 3 is only non-zero if x is prime.
Because of that my prime counting function can go from being a sieve
function, so that instead of having P(x,n) where n is a count of primes, you
can use P(x,y) where y is just a natural number like x, as the function can
call itself to sieve out the primes on its own, without human aid.
Hmmm.that sounds like more than just a reformulation now.
And besides, remember reformulations aren't necessarily all bad. How about
Laplace Transforms? Or Hamiltonians?
Why just hate reformulations? Posters here clearly do as they repeatedly
attack my research.
Yes I've made grand claims at times and had to back-track, but I acknowledge
being excited about my own ideas and discoveries and hoping that they are
grander than they may be, and I can stand corrected.
But even the reformulation argument begins to fall apart when the P(x,y)
function arrives, able to do what no other "prime counting function" has
ever been known to do in mathematical history.
And posters attack that noting that algorithms counting primes are now slow.
Um, is all prime counting just about fast prime counting, as excuse me, but
isn't there something called the Riemann Hypothesis which gives methods that
are even slower?
If speed actually counting primes is all that matters, why in the hell does
anyone care about the Riemann Hypothesis?
Of course, it's not just about speed counting primes, and here the
objections of posters go into hysteria and denial as they bounce all over
the map, to ignore a unique feature of my research, but hey, this is Usenet.
Usenet is known for having people who are at the extremes of human behavior,
who can say just about anything, and it's not like the math world is ruled
by Usenet.
Nope. My research is not blocked by strange people objecting in weird ways
on Usenet and calling me nasty names.
It is blocked by mathematicians at universities allowing that to go on by
refusing to acknowledge my research, no matter how much I try to get them to
pay attention.
So no, it's not about the posters calling me nasty names, and not even Erik
Max Francis calling me a crackpot on his website, but aboutprofessors at
universities, sitting quietly.
And that is why I say that the academic world today is a dinosaur with
medieval crap like tenure giving them too much leeway, so that they can sit
without fear of reprisals if the truth is known.
Do you think ANY math professor on this planet is brave enough to quietly
sit by while my research is wrongly reviled on Usenet and the web if they
thought it could impact their own careers?
If they thought they would be tossed out of their universities and forced to
get a real job in the outside world, where results actually matter?
I doubt it. They don't strike me as being brave people.
But they are smart enough to know that today's academic world makes them
almost bullet-proof when it comes to consequences for ignoring my research
and leaving it to fringe people on Usenet to wrongly go after it, while they
sit quietly, knowing they are safe from consequences, while also knowing
that they are the key to having important research like my prime counting
function properly acknowledged.
If they sit quietly long enough, they can hope that it will all just go away
and the knowledge will be lost, with their academic careers safely
protected.
# posted by James Harris at (no spam) 16:37 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Blue... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
news:9caf13a0-983b-464e-84c4-d6fe1b9e80df at (no spam) 1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Actually, Linus. it's a federal crime to attempt, as you have done to
hack my computer. Additionally, it's a state and federal crime to
spam, newsgroups included. And when my ISP and DNS server gets done,
I will be taking YOU into a court of law and prosecuting you. I don't
care much about the spam, but attempting to hack my IP is like
breaking into my home, creep.
BTW, hows the weather today down there In Mississippi? YOU ARE BEING
MONITORED, dumbass. Cease and desist now or suffer the consequences. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Blue... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 7:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 10, 8:36 pm, Blue <rainbowblue_rf... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: news:9caf13a0-983b-464e-84c4-d6fe1b9e80df at (no spam) 1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Actually, Linus. it's a federal crime to attempt, as you have done to
hack my computer. Additionally, it's a state and federal crime to
spam, newsgroups included. And when my ISP and DNS server gets done,
I will be taking YOU into a court of law and prosecuting you. I don't
care much about the spam, but attempting to hack my IP is like
breaking into my home, creep.
BTW, hows the weather today down there In Mississippi? YOU ARE BEING
MONITORED, dumbass. Cease and desist now or suffer the consequences.
Sorry, it's LENIS, or BIGGUS or whatever troll name you're using this
week.
Are you happy? does doing what you do give you a thrill?
You must be a lonely, sad person, with little or no friends to
want to do what you're doing, biggus or should I say
Mike Nassour. That is your name, right?
Now, before you spout off with more of your brillantly inane logic,
my ISP and DNS actually want me to draw you out and not ignore you.
I am so going to enjoy seeing you burn for this, troll. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Blue... |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 11, 6:25 pm, "Doug" <nos... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
Quote: "Blue" <rainbowblue_rf... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ae89c50-cee0-4bd4-b5c3-fe6a72ea076e at (no spam) a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 8:36 pm, Blue <rainbowblue_rf... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
news:9caf13a0-983b-464e-84c4-d6fe1b9e80df at (no spam) 1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Actually, Linus. it's a federal crime to attempt, as you have done to
hack my computer. Additionally, it's a state and federal crime to
spam, newsgroups included. And when my ISP and DNS server gets done,
I will be taking YOU into a court of law and prosecuting you. I don't
care much about the spam, but attempting to hack my IP is like
breaking into my home, creep.
BTW, hows the weather today down there In Mississippi? YOU ARE BEING
MONITORED, dumbass. Cease and desist now or suffer the consequences.
Sorry, it's LENIS, or BIGGUS or whatever troll name you're using this
week.
Are you happy? does doing what you do give you a thrill?
You must be a lonely, sad person, with little or no friends to
want to do what you're doing, biggus or should I say
Mike Nassour. That is your name, right?
Now, before you spout off with more of your brillantly inane logic,
my ISP and DNS actually want me to draw you out and not ignore you.
I am so going to enjoy seeing you burn for this, troll.
hack your IP? google "IP", and you will find you don't have any at all,
never did, even you mama knew this.
you will *never* find that rootkit I remotely installed on your computer, it
sends me screenshots of where you have been and a list of all your
keystrokes, and you cannot detect it at all, but I have biggus plans for
your machine now.
And yes, I'm am "Mike Nassouri in Mississippi", so what are you going to do
about it, pussy?
Thanks again, drooling Rainbow "blue cheer" burned-out acid freak mumbling
girly-lad at IP # 64.146.141.17
(oh, ask your DNS what he does for a living, bet he is a dentist)
reported abuse and hack admission to x-privat 5.11.08 at (no spam) 22:05 local
time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Doug... |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Blue" <rainbowblue_rfoll at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ae89c50-cee0-4bd4-b5c3-fe6a72ea076e at (no spam) a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On May 10, 8:36 pm, Blue <rainbowblue_rf... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
news:9caf13a0-983b-464e-84c4-d6fe1b9e80df at (no spam) 1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Actually, Linus. it's a federal crime to attempt, as you have done to
hack my computer. Additionally, it's a state and federal crime to
spam, newsgroups included. And when my ISP and DNS server gets done,
I will be taking YOU into a court of law and prosecuting you. I don't
care much about the spam, but attempting to hack my IP is like
breaking into my home, creep.
BTW, hows the weather today down there In Mississippi? YOU ARE BEING
MONITORED, dumbass. Cease and desist now or suffer the consequences.
Sorry, it's LENIS, or BIGGUS or whatever troll name you're using this
week.
Are you happy? does doing what you do give you a thrill?
You must be a lonely, sad person, with little or no friends to
want to do what you're doing, biggus or should I say
Mike Nassour. That is your name, right?
Now, before you spout off with more of your brillantly inane logic,
my ISP and DNS actually want me to draw you out and not ignore you.
I am so going to enjoy seeing you burn for this, troll.
hack your IP? google "IP", and you will find you don't have any at all,
never did, even you mama knew this.
you will *never* find that rootkit I remotely installed on your computer, it
sends me screenshots of where you have been and a list of all your
keystrokes, and you cannot detect it at all, but I have biggus plans for
your machine now.
And yes, I'm am "Mike Nassouri in Mississippi", so what are you going to do
about it, pussy?
Thanks again, drooling Rainbow "blue cheer" burned-out acid freak mumbling
girly-lad at IP # 64.146.141.17
(oh, ask your DNS what he does for a living, bet he is a dentist) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:44 pm
|
|