 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Math Forum / Mathematics / Recreational Math / October 2008JSH: Any ideas what to do?
This latest result is great for those of you who think I'm facing rational resistance to understand what is really going on. x^2 + Dy^2 = N meaning z^2 + D(x+y)^2 = N*(D+1) is to me fun mathematics. Interesting number theory following from amateur research of my own, where I use this wild technique I got to name as I invented it, which is tautological spaces. So I figured all kinds of things out about quadratic Diophantine equations in 2 variables by subtracting from an identity made using x+y+vz=0(mod x+y+vz) and later using z=1. So you have this remarkable analysis technique using identities. And I get complex identities, subtract equations from them, and analyze the residue where I can give you x^2 + Dy^2 = N requiring z^2 + D(x+y)^2 = N*(D+1) as just one of the discoveries from this path, and then let you think about the reaction of the mathematical community, which is disappointing. I've had a paper published on other research which followed from my previous research using tautological spaces, where I'd chased Fermat's Last Theorem and found I could show a subtle error in number theory. See: http://mymath.blogspot.com/2008/04/re-visiting-non-polynomial.html So you see, ignoring the mathematics here is at least partly about hiding error, which is why the fight against the research is so political where there are so many smear tactics used against me. They betrayed the discipline itself, and to escape they have to always distract from the truth, as mathematical proof is their enemy. Think about it. Say some math professor writes complete garbage in a certain academic style, and a committee of others claim it is correct, who can come in and get the truth known if they all just keep agreeing? You try. They'll smear you. Call you a crackpot. Question your sanity, and ultimately just never acknowledge no matter what you prove, as all they have to do is keep agreeing. But why would anyone do such a thing? Because that's how they get paid. If they tell the truth then they are no longer mathematicians. But by talking complexities they can write complete garbage in a certain style that is said to be correct by others because they are writing complete garbage in a certain style and now all they have to do is keep out real checking, like by computers. So computer checking of claims does not meaningfully exist in the math field. And then they have to go after real discoverers like me, with the most powerful tactic being to do nothing. And it's not just me, as consider Britney Gallivan. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Gallivan I want you to understand that they will suffocate if they can ANY research that threatens their ability to put forward garbage in a particular style and claim it's valid mathematics, and they will not even properly acknowledge the work of a young teenage girl, as she was a teenager at the time (since graduated from college). That could be you. It might be you if you're someone else who ran into this dark reality out there. So what can be done? I'm really wondering. I have tried publication. One dead journal later... Google SWJPAM. I've talked to mathematicians by email and one in person at my alma mater. I've gotten feedback from notables like Barry Mazur. I've tried contacting the press about the situation. I even contacted a U.S. Attorney once about the situation. From what I've seen, they've blockaded all the doors leaving me with posting on newsgroups, where other posters in a dedicated way shadow my posts to pump in negatives and distract often from the mathematics. Or I can put things on my math blog and wait and hope. And years later... One of the remarkable things the world has done, according to Google, is a vote for my research through search engine results, like my favorite: Google "definition of mathematical proof" But that is scary as well as it implies also that the world doesn't know what to do either. The academics are entrenched. Who can win against them? How can the truth win against the agreement by committee? For those who think this issue is still just about one person, consider that the current financial crisis in the world was partly driven by complex mathematical models sold to financial institutions. Lying about mathematics is not just a minor thing. Without the correct mathematical ideas in place humanity cannot move forward in science and technology. Short-sighted people worrying about their paychecks or having a job (as what would they do if they had to do REAL research versus faking doing math?) are willing to destroy the future of the entire human species. If you thought this issue was unimportant, look to the financial crisis playing out, and really consider that math people sold those financial ideas. Math people did it. Your society helped break the world. James Harris > This latest result is great for those of you who think I'm facing > rational resistance to understand what is really going on. [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > James Harris Here's what you can do: solve the Collatz Conjecture. You won't get resistance from the mathematicians because they just ignore it, only amateurs work on it. Of course, you might have a time trying to convince those that are deluded into thinking they've proved it that they're wrong (they won't listen to me for some reason). That would be new for you, wouldn't it? Debunking crackpot proofs? (Not the same thing as a crackpot debunking of a real proof.) BTW, it happens to be *MY* pet project (I make no claim to have proved it, one way or the other), so we would actually have something to discuss instaed of trading insults. Are you up to the challenge? > Here's what you can do: solve theCollatzConjecture. I have questions about the Collatz conjecture. I suppose I might find the answer via Google-Google-Read-Study-Read but, as this is *not* a homework problem, perhaps one of you will just tell me the answers. :-) If the Conjecture is false, and there is a large-number loop in the Collatz series, it would seem likely to be based on an arithmetic fact like 3 ^ 1343657973 <~= 2 ^ 2129647501 where "<~=" means "less than but almost equal". If my arithmetic is correct, the right-side here is only .000017% bigger than the left-side. Write down an equation like x = f.f.g.g.f.g.g....f.g (x) where f(y) = (3y+1)/2 and g(y) = y/2 and where there are 1343657973 "f"'s in the right-side expression and 785989528 = 2129647501 - 1343657973 "g"'s. (There are C(2129647501,1343657973) such equations.) Each equation is a simple(!) linear equation in one unknown; if it's solution is an integer, it represents a Collatz Counterexample. (The condition 3 ^ 1343657973 <~= 2 ^ 2129647501 ensures that x will be largish and positive.) The 1343657973 inequality was chosen somewhat arbitrarily. Easier places to look might include: 3 ^ 14936 <~= 2 ^ 23673 3 ^ 15601 <~= 2 ^ 24727 3 ^ 47468 <~= 2 ^ 75235 3 ^ 79335 <~= 2 ^ 125743 3 ^ 190537 <~= 2 ^ 301994 3 ^ 10781274 <~= 2 ^ 17087915 3 ^ 64497107 <~= 2 ^ 102225496 These are all based on close rational approximations to log(3)/log(2). My questions are: (1) Do people look for Collatz counterexamples in this way? (2) Are there shortcuts? The computations implied above would be horrendous. (3) This discussion implies that there are an infinity of plausible places to look for counterexamples. I *don't* claim that this implies such a counterexample exists. It *does* make me wonder, however, why a consensus believes that there is no counterexample. (Or do they?) James Dow Allen > > Here's what you can do: solve theCollatzConjecture. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *not* a homework problem, perhaps one of you > will just tell me the answers. :-) Sure, if there ARE any answers. :-) > If the Conjecture is false, and there is a > large-number loop in the Collatz series, it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If my arithmetic is correct, the right-side > here is only .000017% bigger than the left-side. What's that based on? > Write down an equation like > x = f.f.g.g.f.g.g....f.g (x) > where f(y) = (3y+1)/2 Bad idea, 3y+1 is better. If you do that, the /2 part just becomes another g, and then you have it that you can't have two f's in a row although you can have any number of consecutive g's. There is an actual advantage in doing it this way, which I'll get to momentarily. > and g(y) = y/2 > and where there are 1343657973 "f"'s > in the right-side expression and > 785989528 = 2129647501 - 1343657973 "g"'s. What _I_ do is simply count the number of consecutive g's. Because there cannot be 2 consecutive f's, their presence can be implied. Instead of f,g,f,g,g,f,g,g,g,f,g,g,g,g I would say that's [1,2,3,4] (1 g then 2g's then 3 g's then 4 g's with an implied f preceeding each group of g's). This means a sequence must be defined to start with an odd number, which doesn't have any serious consequences. It also implies the list cannot be empty and contains only integers >0. Thus, [1], [1,2,3,4], [1,236456236545,66,3] all represent valid lists. Now what's neat is that ANY valid list determines a Hailstone Function X*a - Z g = ------- Y where 'g' (seed) is the starting number in the sequence, 'a' is the ending number (hailstone) of the sequence and X,Y,Z are constants (albeit different for each list). The constants are easily determined (example [1,2,3,4]): X = 2**sum(list) ; 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 Y = 3**count(list) ; 4 numbers in list Z = 3**0 * 2**6 ; sum of all list elements except last 1 + 3**1 * 2**3 ; sum of all list elements except last 2 + 3**2 * 2**1 ; sum of all list elements except last 3 + 3**3 * 2**0 ; sum of all list elements except last 4 = 133 X = 1024 Y = 81 Z = 133 Once you know this, you can convert the Hailstone Function into a linear congruence X*a == Z (mod Y) which, if solvable, can locate a hailstone for the given list. It's solvable if GCD(X,Y) divides Z. But X is always a power of 2 and Y is always a power of 3, so the GCD(X,Y) is always 1, which always divides Z, so the linear congruence is always solvable. And if a liear congruence has one solution, then it has infinite solutions. Thus EVERY legal list not only exists somewhere on the Collatz graph, it exists infinitely many times. Solving for [1,2,3,4] (a_0=1) we get a seed of 11. 11__34 <- one even 17__52 <- two evens 26 <- 13__40 <- three evens 20 <- 10 <- 5__16 <- four evens 8 <- 4 <- 2 <- 1 To find the ith soultion, a_i = i*Y + a_0 and plug a_i into the Hailstone Function to get g_i. Or use g_i = i*X + g_0. Thus, the next number whose sequence is the pattern [1,2,3,4] is 1035 (the hailstone would be 82 but it's ok for a sequence to END on an even number, it just can't start with one). > (There are C(2129647501,1343657973) > such equations.) In my system, you would ask "how many ways can a depth number of items (the g's) be partioned into a width number of bins (number of f's). Which is C(depth-1,width-1). In the [1,2,3,4] example, we want to know 10 items into 4 bins: [1, 1, 1, 7] [1, 1, 2, 6] [1, 1, 3, 5] [1, 1, 4, 4] [1, 1, 5, 3] [1, 1, 6, 2] [1, 1, 7, 1] [1, 2, 1, 6] [1, 2, 2, 5] [1, 2, 3, 4] [1, 2, 4, 3] [1, 2, 5, 2] [1, 2, 6, 1] [1, 3, 1, 5] [1, 3, 2, 4] [1, 3, 3, 3] [1, 3, 4, 2] [1, 3, 5, 1] [1, 4, 1, 4] [1, 4, 2, 3] [1, 4, 3, 2] [1, 4, 4, 1] [1, 5, 1, 3] [1, 5, 2, 2] [1, 5, 3, 1] [1, 6, 1, 2] [1, 6, 2, 1] [1, 7, 1, 1] [2, 1, 1, 6] [2, 1, 2, 5] [2, 1, 3, 4] [2, 1, 4, 3] [2, 1, 5, 2] [2, 1, 6, 1] [2, 2, 1, 5] [2, 2, 2, 4] [2, 2, 3, 3] [2, 2, 4, 2] [2, 2, 5, 1] [2, 3, 1, 4] [2, 3, 2, 3] [2, 3, 3, 2] [2, 3, 4, 1] [2, 4, 1, 3] [2, 4, 2, 2] [2, 4, 3, 1] [2, 5, 1, 2] [2, 5, 2, 1] [2, 6, 1, 1] [3, 1, 1, 5] [3, 1, 2, 4] [3, 1, 3, 3] [3, 1, 4, 2] [3, 1, 5, 1] [3, 2, 1, 4] [3, 2, 2, 3] [3, 2, 3, 2] [3, 2, 4, 1] [3, 3, 1, 3] [3, 3, 2, 2] [3, 3, 3, 1] [3, 4, 1, 2] [3, 4, 2, 1] [3, 5, 1, 1] [4, 1, 1, 4] [4, 1, 2, 3] [4, 1, 3, 2] [4, 1, 4, 1] [4, 2, 1, 3] [4, 2, 2, 2] [4, 2, 3, 1] [4, 3, 1, 2] [4, 3, 2, 1] [4, 4, 1, 1] [5, 1, 1, 3] [5, 1, 2, 2] [5, 1, 3, 1] [5, 2, 1, 2] [5, 2, 2, 1] [5, 3, 1, 1] [6, 1, 1, 2] [6, 1, 2, 1] [6, 2, 1, 1] [7, 1, 1, 1] For these partitions, X & Y are invariant, only Z changes. Now if any of these happen to be a loop cycle, then the cyclic permutations would comprise the cycle, so if [1,2,3,4] were a loop, then the entire loop would be the hailstones of [1,2,3,4], [2,3,4,1], [3,4,1,2] and [4,1,2,3]. > Each equation is > a simple(!) linear equation in one unknown; > if it's solution is an integer, it represents > a Collatz Counterexample. (The condition > 3 ^ 1343657973 <~= 2 ^ 2129647501 > ensures that x will be largish and positive.) The Hailstone Function happens to be the equation of a straight line with slope X/Y. The slope CANNOT be 1 since X is a power of 2 and Y a power of 3. Thus, it MUST intercept the identity line whose slope is 1. So, by setting g=a, we find that this intersection is the rational number Z/(X-Y). EVERY valid list is a loop cycle in the rationals. And if that rational is an integer, it's a loop cycle in Collatz. And the log(3)/log(2) ratio determines whether that loop is in the positive or negative domain. ALL you need to do to find a counterexample is locate a Z whose factors cancel all those of (X-Y). Note, this means there MAY be counterexamples in the negative domain, although they wouldn't be Collatz counterexamples. > The 1343657973 inequality was chosen somewhat > arbitrarily. Easier places to look might include: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (1) Do people look for Collatz counterexamples > in this way? I don't. > (2) Are there shortcuts? Sometimes. If you're looking for loop cycles in 3n+C, then you only need to consider lists where the congruence classes mod C of X match those of Y (although such matches are necessary, they are not sufficient). However, in Collatz, C=1 so no such matching exists. That doesn't let you off the hook, though. Factor cancelling in Z/(X-Y) is still a possibility. > The computations > implied above would be horrendous. Likewise even when you have such a shortcut. > (3) This discussion implies that there are > an infinity of plausible places to look > for counterexamples. I would agree there. > I *don't* claim that this implies such a > counterexample exists. It *does* make me > wonder, however, why a consensus believes > that there is no counterexample. (Or do they?) Can you prove that the factor cancelling of X/(X-Y) CANNOT happen? NO, YOU CANNOT PROVE IT BECAUSE A COUNTEREXAMPLE EXISTS!! If you work it out as above, you'll discover there IS a valid list that produces a non-trivial (X-Y NOT a unit) integer value. That list is [1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 4] which is the loop cycle of -17. True, it's in the negative domain. Nevertheless, Z/(X-Y) is 2363/-139 or 17*139/-139 which reduces to the integer -17. There is simply NO REASON to believe a counterexample doesn't exist since factor cancelling has been demonstrated. Math solutions often occur as None, One or Many. We know now that None has been ruled out. If it turns out there is only One or that the Many ONLY occur in the negative domain, then Collatz is true. Perhaps this could be answered without actually knowing what the specific counterexample actually is. > James Dow Allen > > > Here's what you can do: solve theCollatzConjecture. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sure, if there ARE any answers. :-) Correcting a couple typos. > > If the Conjecture is false, and there is a > > large-number loop in the Collatz series, it [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > In my system, you would ask "how many ways can a depth > number of items (the g's) be partioned into a width number That s/b "partitioned". I have some kind of mental block that makes me always type "partioned". Freud might have something to say about my inability to type "tit", but I just think my brain works faster than my fingers can keep up. > of bins (number of f's). Which is C(depth-1,width-1). > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Can you prove that the factor cancelling of X/(X-Y) That s/b Z/(X-Y). As I mention below, when X-Y is a unit, the rational is trivially an integer. You'll find that there are always three trivial cases in any 3n+C system, C, -C and -5C, only one of which is in the positive domain. > CANNOT happen? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Here's what you can do: solve theCollatzConjecture. > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > > > of bins (number of f's). Oops, another error. I forgot to add "such that each bin contains at least 1 item". This is necessary since a valid list cannot contain any 0s. That's why we start at [1,1,1,7] and not [0,0,0,10]. > Which is C(depth-1,width-1). That applies to the "at least 1 per bin" case. > > In the [1,2,3,4] example, we want to know 10 items into 4 bins: > > [1, 1, 1, 7] [1, 1, 2, 6] [1, 1, 3, 5] [1, 1, 4, 4] [1, 1, 5, 3] [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > This latest result is great for those of you who think I'm facing > rational resistance to understand what is really going on. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > z^2 + D(x+y)^2 = N*(D+1) How did you get from the first equation to the second ? What is z ? Since z is squared, there are two solutions for z, negitive and positive. Why did you put in additional solutions ? <snip self-referencing babble> > James Harris > > This latest result is great for those of you who think I'm facing > > rational resistance to understand what is really going on. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What is z ? Another poster named Tim Smith noted that z = x - Dy. > Since z is squared, there are two solutions for z, negitive and positive. > Why did you put in additional solutions ? It works with the negative and the positive solutions. Easiest thing is to just try it. Then you'll see how it works. James Harris On Sep 29, 2:56 pm, "Dudly" <dd...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> What is z ? >Another poster named Tim Smith noted that >z = x - Dy. (x-Dy)^2 + D(x+y)^2 = N*(D+1) x^2 + (1-D)xy + D(x+y)^2 = N*(D+1) x^2 + xy -Dxy + Dx^2 + 2Dxy + Dy^2 = N*(D+1) x^2 + Dy^2 + D (+x^2 + xy + y^2) = N*(D+1) x^2 + Dy^2 = - D (+x^2 + xy + y^2) + N*(D+1) Wrong again. Substituting in z = x-Dy into your second equation DOES NOT result in the first. > > This latest result is great for those of you who think I'm facing > > rational resistance to understand what is really going on. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What is z ? A few people have given ways. Here are two. #1 x^2 + Dy^2 = N #2 Dx^2 + D^2y^2 = ND multiply by D #3 (x^2 + D^2y^2) + D(x^2 + y^2) = N(D+1) add #1 and #2 #4 (x-Dy)^2 + D(x+y)^2 = N(D+1) by inspection of #3 Even better is the method given by Bill Debuque. Here's a very slight modification of what he gave, to account for JSH's propensity for writing his equations different from the way other people write them: Let S = sqrt(-D), and lets consider numbers of the form a+bS, where a, b are integers. Define the norm of such a number, M(a+bS), to be a^2+Db^2. It's easy to verify that numbers of this form are closed under multiplication, and that M(a+bS)*M(c+dS) = M( (a+bS)*(c+dS) ). Equation #1 can be written now as M(x+yS) = N Note that M(1+S) = D+1. Then we have M(1+S)*M(x+yS) = N(D+1) But the left side is M( (1+S)(x+yS) ) = M( (x-Dy) + (x+y)S ) = (x-Dy)^2 + D(x+y)^2. (Remember, S^2 = -D). Note that by using other constants in place of 1+S, you can get other similar formulas.  Signature--Tim Smith > And it's not just me, as consider Britney Gallivan. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > even properly acknowledge the work of a young teenage girl, as she was > a teenager at the time (since graduated from college). Er, can you explain what you think went wrong with the Gallivan story? In what way did them evil folk "not even properly acknowledge" her work? What should they have done that they didn't do? On Sep 29, 8:09 pm, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > > And it's not just me, as consider Britney Gallivan. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > story? In what way did them evil folk "not even properly acknowledge" > her work? What should they have done that they didn't do? Publication in a major journal. A math prize. For starters... ___JSH > On Sep 29, 8:09�pm, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Publication in a major journal. � The only journal that would have published it died. Some a.shole got it killed when he managed to get a fraudulent "paper" published there. Ironic, eh? The journal that published sh.t folded before the toilet paper arrived. > A math prize. �For starters... > > ___JSH > On Sep 29, 8:09 pm, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > > Er, can you explain what you think went wrong with the Gallivan > > story? In what way did them evil folk "not even properly acknowledge" > > her work? What should they have done that they didn't do? > > Publication in a major journal. A math prize. For starters... Did she write an article? And was it a major result? One measure of whether a result is important is the number of proofs which use the result. Are there a lot of proofs out there now that refer to this theorem? Which prize should have been given to her? What she did was (as far as I can tell) impressive mathematics for a young student and noteworthy because it overturned a well-known legend about paper folding. I'm just not clear why you think that it was more than that. On Sep 30, 4:27 am, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > > On Sep 29, 8:09 pm, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > > > Er, can you explain what you think went wrong with the Gallivan [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > about paper folding. I'm just not clear why you think that it was > more than that. Yeah right. One of Gauss's major achievements had something to do with, what was it? A 17-sided n-gon? Why would anyone think it was more than that? He had it inscribed on his tombstone or something? I may have details wrong here, can someone correct with the full story? Now then, what if Gauss were in our modern math world where his achievement was not worth a prize, not worth publication in a major journal and when challenged people just asked why it was a big deal? You people may have pushed down one of the potentially great discoverers, who could have been another Gauss, and I say you do such things deliberately. Just like you've fought my tautological spaces idea for nearly 9 years now!!! You changed the rules at a whim, tell the world to cheer your heroes whom you pick, and then feel quite confident in slighting a young woman with a major mathematical achievement, and rationalizing it all the way. I say to the world: until they follow consistent rules please do not celebrate supposed achievements by any mathematicians, worldwide. And don't keep giving them prize money!!! James Harris On Sep 30, 4:27 am, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > On Sep 29, 11:59 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> about paper folding. I'm just not clear why you think that it was >> more than that. >Yeah right. One of Gauss's major achievements had something to do >with, what was it? A 17-sided n-gon? >Why would anyone think it was more than that? Why not ? >He had it inscribed on his tombstone or something? Have you seen it? It is nice. >I may have details wrong here, can someone correct with the full >story? >Now then, what if Gauss were in our modern math world where his >achievement was not worth a prize, not worth publication in a major >journal and when challenged people just asked why it was a big deal? Then it would not be Gauss, but just someone who thinks he is. >You people may have pushed down one of the potentially great >discoverers, who could have been another Gauss, and I say you do such >things deliberately. "may"? Who are you talking about? It has to be someone that understands complex numbers and advanced calculus, which isn't you. >Just like you've fought my tautological spaces idea for nearly 9 years >now!!! You have not shown that it is useful, if it was it would have been in use today, but it is not. >You changed the rules at a whim, tell the world to cheer your heroes >whom you pick, and then feel quite confident in slighting a young >woman with a major mathematical achievement, and rationalizing it all >the way. perhaps her presentation skills were too confrontational. >I say to the world: until they follow consistent rules please do not >celebrate supposed achievements by any mathematicians, worldwide. And >don't keep giving them prize money!!! replace "mathematicians" with "politicians" >James Harris > On Sep 30, 4:27 am, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > achievement was not worth a prize, not worth publication in a major > journal and when challenged people just asked why it was a big deal? I'm not saying that she doesn't deserve publication. I can't tell whether she does or not, but I do know that two requirements for publication are: (1) Writing an article (2) Submitting the article to a journal for publication. Do you have any evidence that she did (1) and (2) and was rejected? On Sep 30, 8:27 am, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > > On Sep 30, 4:27 am, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Do you have any evidence that she did (1) and (2) and was rejected? Good question. I think there was something on the Pomona society page. I think her community published it for her, which is telling. Consistency is where current mathematical society failed. Every objection you raised against the value of her find could have been made about a find by Gauss when he was a young man, which rocketed him to fame during his time, and was a result so important to him, he had it inscribed on something or other... I think it was a monument over his grave. James Harris > On Sep 30, 8:27 am, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > rocketed him to fame during his time, and was a result so important to > him, he had it inscribed on something or other... I don't know much about either contribution, but I do understand that theorems about constructing geometric objects were a central object of study in the past. I don't know that whether her theorem contributed to an active area of research. In any case, I still can't see what you expect. If she never submitted her work to an mathematical journal, how can you suggest that the math community wronged her by not publishing it? > I think it was a monument over his grave. Okay. So? How is this relevant? In article <03ae5368-2322-4746-a238-8b4faebcc8fb@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > I don't know much about either contribution, but I do understand that > theorems about constructing geometric objects were a central object of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > submitted her work to an mathematical journal, how can you suggest > that the math community wronged her by not publishing it? As usual, JSH is greatly exaggerating the worth of some minor work. At least it is someone else's minor work, rather than his own. The difference between Britney Gallivan's minor result and JSH's minor results is that her's was simultaneously correct and new. JSH usually fails on one or both of those. Her work is described at the end of this article: <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Folding.html> Briefly, she derived the following formula for folding paper: L = pi d (2^n + 4) (2^n - 1) / 6 where d is the thickness of the paper, and n is how many times you fold it in half over itself, and L is how long your piece of paper has to be in order to be folded n times. A proof of this is available here: <http://www.its.caltech.edu/~ari/paper-folding.html> In addition to deriving the above formula, she also set the world record for paper folding, by successfully folding a piece of paper 12 times (it was a very long piece of paper!). It had been widely believed that you could not fold a piece of paper in half over itself more than 8 times: <http://pbskids.org/zoom/activities/phenom/paperfold.html> <http://educ.queensu.ca/~fmc/june2002/PaperFact.htm> Gallivan made a worthwhile contribution to mathematical knowledge, and has been appropriately acknowledged. If JSH would try doing the same, he would be similarly acknowledged. Signature--Tim Smith > On Sep 30, 8:27�am, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > rocketed him to fame during his time, and was a result so important to > him, he had it inscribed on something or other... It was easier to be a discoverer back when things hadn't been discovered. > I think it was a monument over his grave. > > James Harris- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > So you see, ignoring the mathematics here is at least partly about > hiding error, which is why the fight against the research is so > political where there are so many smear tactics used against me. Yes, they did that to me too. > They betrayed the discipline itself, and to escape they have to always > distract from the truth, as mathematical proof is their enemy. I feel the same way, they are liers. > Think about it. Say some math professor writes complete garbage in a > certain academic style, and a committee of others claim it is correct, > who can come in and get the truth known if they all just keep > agreeing? So very true, they just want to keep their phonie jobs. > You try. They'll smear you. Call you a crackpot. Question your > sanity, and ultimately just never acknowledge no matter what you > prove, as all they have to do is keep agreeing. They have questioned my sanity quite a while, but they will see, they will see. > But why would anyone do such a thing? It is criminal! > Because that's how they get paid. If they tell the truth then they > are no longer mathematicians. They are taught that in school. > But by talking complexities they can write complete garbage in a > certain style that is said to be correct by others because they are > writing complete garbage in a certain style and now all they have to > do is keep out real checking, like by computers. I use my phone for checking. > So computer checking of claims does not meaningfully exist in the math > field. It never adds up correctly. > And then they have to go after real discoverers like me, with the most > powerful tactic being to do nothing. I have discovered far more than you ever will. > And it's not just me, as consider Britney Gallivan. She is a fox! > See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Gallivan I helped her, did you know that? > I want you to understand that they will suffocate if they can ANY > research that threatens their ability to put forward garbage in a > particular style and claim it's valid mathematics, and they will not > even properly acknowledge the work of a young teenage girl, as she was > a teenager at the time (since graduated from college). She graduated in PE, with a 2.0 gpa. > That could be you. It might be you if you're someone else who ran > into this dark reality out there. I don't want to be her, she is female, I am male. > So what can be done? I'm really wondering. Taking Math classes should be good for you. > I have tried publication. One dead journal later... Google SWJPAM. Only one? > I've talked to mathematicians by email and one in person at my alma > mater. I've gotten feedback from notables like Barry Mazur. I've > tried contacting the press about the situation. I even contacted a > U.S. Attorney once about the situation. What did the Attorney say ? > From what I've seen, they've blockaded all the doors leaving me with > posting on newsgroups, where other posters in a dedicated way shadow > my posts to pump in negatives and distract often from the > mathematics. Try a Hindi Journal, they will publish anything > Or I can put things on my math blog and wait and hope. And years > later... People will steal it, and say it is theirs. > One of the remarkable things the world has done, according to Google, > is a vote for my research through search engine results, like my > favorite: Google "definition of mathematical proof" Google is driven by paid ads. > But that is scary as well as it implies also that the world doesn't > know what to do either. If you trust Google. > The academics are entrenched. In their offices. > Who can win against them? How can the truth win against the agreement > by committee? Try meeting with them, instead of whining on the internet. > For those who think this issue is still just about one person, > consider that the current financial crisis in the world was partly > driven by complex mathematical models sold to financial institutions. No, it is all Barnie Frank's doing. > Lying about mathematics is not just a minor thing. So, why do you? > Without the correct mathematical ideas in place humanity cannot move > forward in science and technology. So that is why you have stayed stuck for the past 10 years going backwards. > Short-sighted people worrying about their paychecks or having a job > (as what would they do if they had to do REAL research versus faking > doing math?) are willing to destroy the future of the entire human > species. We are not human, we are all aliens inside, the Scientologists are right. You are Sporgaq, from Sirious with a human suit on. > If you thought this issue was unimportant, look to the financial > crisis playing out, and really consider that math people sold those > financial ideas. Math people did it. Nope, it was software hackers trying stuff out to see what sticks. > Your society helped break the world. But it is Your fault for letting it happen. > James Harris turn yourself in. you are a nutcase. Gov will do experiments on your brain release your math to the world > So computer checking of claims does not meaningfully exist in the math > field. Just curious, but who would you trust better than mathematicians (who you seem to abhor) to write those computer programs checking mathematical proofs? > So what can be done? I'm really wondering. Open your eyes in between dreams. Be less arrogant. Thank, not deride nor ignore, people who mean to help. Back on topic, and very narrowly answering the particular question in the title... Maybe the kind of mechanical substitutions and algebraic manipulations you appear to be so fond of, could lead to a mid-to-high grade level "101 Offbeat Math Problems" book. Provided of course that you filtered-out the junk claims, filled-in some resemblance of formal proofs/answers to what's left, and followed the rest of the rules to get it published someplace reputable. Cheers, Liviu > > So computer checking of claims does not meaningfully exist in the math > > field. > > Just curious, but who would you trust better than mathematicians (who > you seem to abhor) to write those computer programs checking > mathematical proofs? Expert systems are not written entirely by the "expert". Your question is like wondering how medical diagnosis programs can get written if medical doctors only would write them. Or do you naively believe that only medical doctors write such programs? I'm curious as this issue repeatedly comes up, where math people seem bizarrely to believe that mathematicians would actually write the programs!!! Do you all think that? Are you all so naive about modern computer science? Who do you think write these programs? I'll tell you: computer scientists. Like mathematicians do mathematical research, computer scientists write programs for expert systems and can do so in areas where they themselves are NOT expert. Sometimes the math community seems remarkably obtuse about the simplest things!!! Or are you playing stupid? Like mathematicians are experts with mathematics. Computer scientists you, you, I find it hard to describe you people, are the experts with computer systems!!! Duh. James Harris "JSH" <jstevh@gmail.com> On Oct 1, 6:50 pm, "Liviu" <lab...@gmail.c0m> wrote: >>> So computer checking of claims does not meaningfully exist in >>> the math field. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Computer scientists you, you, I find it hard to describe you people, > are the experts with computer systems!!! I'll take that as a generic "you" since I've never claimed being an expert, in either computers or math for that matter. I was, and still am, just curious who you'd hypothetically put your trust on, if not the people familiar with the subject being "checked". If you say "computer scientists" with no further qualification, then that's simply plain laughable. If you qualify it with "guided/directed by ..." then you have still not filled in the blanks, and only evaded the question. > Your question is like wondering how medical diagnosis programs > can get written if medical doctors only would write them. > > Or do you naively believe that only medical doctors write such > programs? Naive or not, I would myself keep a safe distance from any medical "program" written by a c.s. alone ;-) Cheers, Liviu P.S. You seem to have brushed over my "problems book" suggestion. Just for the record, that _was_ serious. > Expert systems are not written entirely by the "expert". > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I'll tell you: computer scientists. So how do the mathematicians prevent the computer scientists from writing natural language proof checkers? Why don't the computer scientists just write them? Theoretical computer scientists have a perfectly good understanding of what a proof is. They surely don't need the mathematicians' help. This being the case, I'm having trouble understanding how the conspiracy works to prevent these natural language proof checkers. On Oct 2, 5:15 am, je...@phiwumbda.org wrote: > > Expert systems are not written entirely by the "expert". > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > writing natural language proof checkers? Why don't the computer > scientists just write them? Good question. > Theoretical computer scientists have a perfectly good understanding of > what a proof is. They surely don't need the mathematicians' help. > This being the case, I'm having trouble understanding how the > conspiracy works to prevent these natural language proof checkers. They need the help of the "expert". Like how do you think medical expert systems got written? There has to be a demand from the field. Or do you think medical expert systems were written over the objections of doctors? Or without their help? James Harris In article <a8fac1e0-439a-4ffb-ba86-6d7ca1b32d10@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > Who do you think write these programs? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This being the case, I'm having trouble understanding how the > conspiracy works to prevent these natural language proof checkers. Also, the line between mathematician and computer scientist is pretty fuzzy. It would be very hard to argue that computer scientists such as Donald Knuth or Leonard Adleman are not mathematicians. Signature--Tim Smith > So how do the mathematicians prevent the computer scientists from > writing natural language proof checkers? The Godel incompleteness thorem. Bye. Jasen In article <a8fac1e0-439a-4ffb-ba86-6d7ca1b32d10@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > Expert systems are not written entirely by the "expert". > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So how do the mathematicians prevent the computer scientists from > writing natural language proof checkers? > Why don't the computer scientists just write them? Because writing a competent natural-language interface to *anything* is a major research project. It's more feasible within a narrow domain, such as published mathematical proofs in some narrow speciality. But even if the language interface problem is solved for that, there are still major issues with filling in the gaps in proofs. > Theoretical computer scientists have a perfectly good understanding of > what a proof is. They surely don't need the mathematicians' help. > This being the case, I'm having trouble understanding how the > conspiracy works to prevent these natural language proof checkers. The problem is not conspiracy, but unfeasibility. Signature--------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum viditur. | BBB aa a r bbb | ----------------------------- > In article > <a8fac1e0-439a-4ffb-ba86-6d7ca1b32...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > The problem is not conspiracy, but unfeasibility. You're talking to the guy who proved FLT with high school math, solved the the Traveling Salesman problem, invented Surrogate Factoring, is the only one who can count primes with a function of two variables. He doesn't know the meaning of unfeasibility. > -- > --------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > In article > <a8fac1e0-439a-4ffb-ba86-6d7ca1b32...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > The problem is not conspiracy, but unfeasibility. So those computers answering phones are a mirage, eh? You lie. It's not that it's unfea... having problems spelling. It's not that it can't be done. It's that math people don't want it done. After all, we are the brilliant human race, right? We've landed on the moon. We've captured stardust. We can peer into our own brains. But we cannot get a computer to read a mathematical proof? Go lie to some other people. I can see right through you. With x- rays as we CAN do that, so there. You are a liar and a bad one. Computers don't read mathematical proofs because math people DO NOT WANT computers reading over their work. Which then may not be mathematical proofs, which would explain why the math people do not want them checked. See? Easy. Logic is so much easier than bullshit. James Harris In article <97aff140-1bbd-4636-bb41-3012d613c3e9@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <a8fac1e0-439a-4ffb-ba86-6d7ca1b32...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > See? Easy. Logic is so much easier than bullshit. Whoa there, Mr. Harris. You have jumped to a conclusion without adequate consideration of the other logical possibilities. Since you consider me to be a liar I don't expect you to take my word for that, but I do expect you to respect logic, which you claim to value. First, a working definition, which I hope you find non-controversial: A person is LYING when they assert something they believe to be untrue, with the intent to deceive. Your claim that my assertion that "writing a competent natural-language interface to *anything* is a major research project" is a lie thus involves the premise that I believe it is untrue that "writing a competent NL interface ... is a major research project". But how could you possibly know what I believe? Perhaps writing a competent NL interface is not hard, but I am merely mistaken, not knowing that fact and having no intention to deceive. Or perhaps YOU are mistaken, and that writing a competent NL interface is indeed hard, and I am not mistaken. A word of advice: before defaming someone, it is wise to consider all the reasonable possibilities. [added sci.logic] > James Harris Signature--------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum viditur. | BBB aa a r bbb | ----------------------------- On Oct 1, 6:50 pm, "Liviu" <lab...@gmail.c0m> wrote: > "JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote > > > So computer checking of claims does not meaningfully exist in the math > > field. > >> Just curious, but who would you trust better than mathematicians (who .> you seem to abhor) to write those computer programs checking >>> mathematical proofs? >Expert systems are not written entirely by the "expert". That subject is so over your head, you have no idea. >Your question is like wondering how medical diagnosis programs can get >written if medical doctors only would write them. >Or do you naively believe that only medical doctors write such >programs? you ARE so simplistic. MDs provide all the information. Writing a computer program to display it, IS F*CKING TRIVIAL. Already done. But you are stuck in your disconnected bubble. >I'm curious as this issue repeatedly comes up, where math people seem >bizarrely to believe that mathematicians would actually write the >programs!!! Most do, ever heard of *Mathamatica*, dumbass??? >Do you all think that? Are you all so naive about modern computer >science? "modern" => such a "60's" george jetson word >Who do you think write these programs? >I'll tell you: computer scientists. Wrong. Hackers from India. You gonna write it in assembly or C++ ? Thought so. >Like mathematicians do mathematical research, computer scientists >write programs for expert systems and can do so in areas where they >themselves are NOT expert. You are NOT expert, you eggbert. >Sometimes the math community seems remarkably obtuse about the >simplest things!!! Sour Grapes, from JSH, the overlooked hacker troll. >Or are you playing stupid? You have intellectually "sh.t in your own pants", here. >Like mathematicians are experts with mathematics. >Computer scientists you, you, I find it hard to describe you people, >are the experts with computer systems!!! You are/play the role as, a frustrated white valley girl libaraian of 22. >Duh. Yep. >James Harris |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.