JSH: Google problems, start of debate against series
|
|
Thread rating:  |
JSH - 05 Oct 2008 07:25 GMT Google Groups is on one of their delay things again so I can't see my new messages, so I can't reply through Google Groups, which is what I use to reply, to criticisms I see that have arisen.
So I'll make this post to note the problem, which hopefully will clear up in a few days, and to point out some things:
First, my infinite series was not previously known as you would have seen something like the following in a mathematical text on the subject and as so much has been written about Pell's Equation, I doubt you'd have missed it:
1. x^2 + Dy^2 = F
2. (x-Dy)^2 + D(x+y)^2 = F*(D+1)
3. ((1-D)x-2Dy)^2 + D(2x + (1-D)y)^2 = F*(D+1)^2
4. ((1-3D)x + (2D^2 - 4D)y)^2 + D((3-D)x + (1-3D)y)^2 = F*(D+1)^3
and that goes out to infinity. To get successive terms in the series you use the algebraic result that given:
u^2 + Dv^2 = C
it must be true that
(u-Dv)^2 + D(u+v)^2 = C*(D+1).
And where whenever the exponent of (D+1) is even, you can have a case where you just have a multiple of x and y, so you can solve for D, which defines possible values for F in terms of x or y.
Like with the third in the series:
((1-D)x-2Dy)^2 + D(2x + (1-D)y)^2 = F*(D+1)^2
you can consider
(1-D)x-2Dy = +/-(D+1)x or +/-(D+1)y
and
2x + (1-D)y = +/-(D+1)x or +/-(D+1)y
because trivially
(+/-(D+1)x)^2 + ((D+1)y)^2 = F*(D+1)^2
and solving for those possibilities gives a value for D. I got D=1, for the case of
(1-D)x-2Dy = (D+1)x and 2x + (1-D)y = (D+1)y.
So you can map the series as a super structure, where D is set at various levels.
One poster lobs a criticism that
u^2 + Dv^2 = C
requiring that
(u-Dv)^2 + D(u+v)^2 = C*(D+1)
is derivable from an equation known to Brahmagupta. Fine, so show that Brahmagupta derived that particular result and USED it to generate an infinite series.
Hey, you people missed the result right in front of you too, which may be why I'm seeing so many angry replies with insults.
Your chance of a lifetime was a post away and you missed it so anger can be a reaction.
And missing it against me when the opportunity to upstage me was there for days may really anger people who have argued with me or listened to and believed in other posters who argued with me as well.
That social stuff is powerful with a lot of people. Having people trust and believe in you, like when you're criticizing a "crackpot" can be powerful magic making a person feel all warm and fuzzy inside like they're actually SOMEBODY.
Getting upstaged pops the bubble. Reality is so annoying at times for some people, you know?
But you are now up against the worldwide community of people interested in mathematics who might want to explore that number theoretic super structure, and hatred is not an excuse for denigrating valuable mathematical ideas...not if you wish to be taken seriously later. Ever.
Students again I remind you of your futures. Angry sci.math posters are there because they're not good enough to go anywhere else, and I'm there because I'm an amateur who has been blocked out of usual circles, so I post to several math newsgroups including the one full of angry idiots.
But it is YOUR future. Angry losers on sci.math will probably keep ripping on this result just because...well, because they're losers, who you'll notice could not see that infinite series right in front of them for days.
They were too busy still ripping on me.
Don't make it personal. It's math. You make it personal and you lose.
So you all lost round one. Easy mathematical fame escaped you with the find of the series, so now it's up to you what you do next.
Continue to listen to angry idiots, or do the math.
James Harris
Gib Bogle - 05 Oct 2008 07:30 GMT > Google Groups is on one of their delay things again so I can't see my > new messages, so I can't reply through Google Groups, which is what I [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Hey, you people missed the result right in front of you too, which may > be why I'm seeing so many angry replies with insults. No insults from me! I've already advocated that you publish this. I think your paper should include the name of your new series. "The JSH series" has a nice ring to it, but you might prefer "The Harris series". It's your call.
Dirk Van de moortel - 05 Oct 2008 11:40 GMT Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote in message gc9mst$kkn$1@lust.ihug.co.nz
[snip irrelevancies]
>> Hey, you people missed the result right in front of you too, which may >> be why I'm seeing so many angry replies with insults. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > series" has a nice ring to it, but you might prefer "The Harris series". > It's your call. It does not matter *what* you say. To people suffering from this condition, *everything* sounds like an insult. If you feel sorry for them, you ignore them and don't reply. If you want to tease them, you reply, and what you say does not even matter.
In a sense these people only allow some effective but very limited form of one-way communication: they have nothing of interest to tell you, and every noise you make, triggers the same alarm bell with them.
Dirk Vdm
JSH - 06 Oct 2008 04:30 GMT On Oct 5, 3:40 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gib Bogle <bo...@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dirk Vdm No, I can't name an infinite series I discovered after myself.
I do find it interesting replying in a rational manner to a post where you talked about me as if I were some thing you find distasteful.
But I can do what you cannot because I see you as a human being, regardless of what you said, while you clearly do not see me as one.
James Harris
Dirk Van de moortel - 06 Oct 2008 09:27 GMT JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote in message 15a02f58-ebb8-423f-adb4-923113d8ac7b@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com
> On Oct 5, 3:40 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I do find it interesting replying in a rational manner to a post where > you talked about me as if I were some thing you find distasteful. Not distateful. Just modestly interesting.
Dirk Vdm
> But I can do what you cannot because I see you as a human being, > regardless of what you said, while you clearly do not see me as one. > > James Harris JSH - 07 Oct 2008 05:30 GMT On Oct 6, 1:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Dirk Vdm While to me, you are not.
Initial survey is complete.
To the limits of the math newsgroup the infinite series is a unique discovery, with profound implications sparking irrational behavior (mostly typical ape status response along past lines) consistent with the size of the discovery.
1. x^2 + Dy^2 = F
2. (x-Dy)^2 + D(x+y)^2 = F*(D+1)
3. ((1-D)x-2Dy)^2 + D(2x + (1-D)y)^2 = F*(D+1)^2
4. ((1-3D)x + (2D^2 - 4D)y)^2 + D((3-D)x + (1-3D)y)^2 = F*(D+1)^3
which shows the functional behavior.
Additional terms in the series are found by using the relation:
Given
u^2 + Dv^2 = C
it must be true that
(u-Dv)^2 + D(u+v)^2 = C*(D+1).
This result unlike others has a rapid pounce ability in that I can push a result in hours, with little effort.
And I can simply skip the journal system completely, so that journals are now out of the loop.
Because now I don't need them. Any of them.
James Harris
Enrico - 07 Oct 2008 17:20 GMT > On Oct 6, 1:27�am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ========================================
> 1. x^2 + Dy^2 = F > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 4. ((1-3D)x + (2D^2 - 4D)y)^2 + D((3-D)x + (1-3D)y)^2 = F*(D+1)^3 Here's some more:
U(n)^2 + DV(n)^2 = F(D+1)^n
U(4) = x - 6Dx - 4Dy + D^2x + 4D^2y V(4) = 4x + y - 4Dx - 6Dy + D^2y
U(5) = x - 10Dx - 5Dy + 5D^2x + 10D^2y - D^3y V(5) = 5x + y - 10Dx - 10Dy + D^2x + 5D^2y
U(6) = x - 15Dx - 6Dy + 15D^2x + 20D^2y - D^3x - 6D^3y V(6) = 6x + y - 20Dx - 15Dy + 6D^2x + 15D^2y - D^3y
U(7) = x - 21Dx - 7Dy + 35D^2x + 35D^2y - 7D^3x - 21D^3y + D^4y V(7) = 7x + y - 35Dx - 21Dy + 21D^2x + 35D^2y - D^3x - 7D^3y
U(8) = x - 28Dx - 8Dy + 70D^2x + 56D^2y - 28D^3x - 56D^3y + D^4x + 8D^4y V(8) = 8x + 1y - 56Dx - 28Dy + 56D^2x + 70D^2y - 8D^3x - 28D^3y + 1D^4y
Enrico
Dirk Van de moortel - 07 Oct 2008 17:27 GMT Enrico <ungernerik@aol.com> wrote in message e7c5c052-0839-480a-8e10-fa8c2bc995e9@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>> On Oct 6, 1:27�am, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > Enrico more insults :-)
Dirk Vdm
Enrico - 07 Oct 2008 20:05 GMT > > On Oct 6, 1:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > - Show quoted text - +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1. x^2 + Dy^2 = F > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > 4. ((1-3D)x + (2D^2 - 4D)y)^2 + D((3-D)x + (1-3D)y)^2 = F*(D+1)^3 Equation 4. is wrong. Here's the whole lot:
U(0) = x V(0) = y
U(1) = x - Dy V(1) = x + y
U(2) = x - Dx - 2Dy V(2) = 2x + y -Dy
U(3) = x - 3Dx - 3Dy +D^2y V(3) = 3x + y -Dx -3Dy
U(4) = x - 6Dx - 4Dy + D^2x + 4D^2y V(4) = 4x + y - 4Dx - 6Dy + D^2y
U(5) = x - 10Dx - 5Dy + 5D^2x + 10D^2y - D^3y V(5) = 5x + y - 10Dx - 10Dy + D^2x + 5D^2y
U(6) = x - 15Dx - 6Dy + 15D^2x + 20D^2y - D^3x - 6D^3y V(6) = 6x + y - 20Dx - 15Dy + 6D^2x + 15D^2y - D^3y
U(7) = x - 21Dx - 7Dy + 35D^2x + 35D^2y - 7D^3x - 21D^3y + D^4y V(7) = 7x + y - 35Dx - 21Dy + 21D^2x + 35D^2y - D^3x - 7D^3y
U(8) = x - 28Dx - 8Dy + 70D^2x + 56D^2y - 28D^3x - 56D^3y + D^4x + 8D^4y V(8) = 8x + 1y - 56Dx - 28Dy + 56D^2x + 70D^2y - 8D^3x - 28D^3y + 1D^4y
JSH - 08 Oct 2008 01:17 GMT > > > On Oct 6, 1:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > V(8) = 8x + 1y - 56Dx - 28Dy + 56D^2x + 70D^2y - 8D^3x - 28D^3y + > 1D^4y Thanks Enrico!!!!
James
Angus Rodgers - 06 Oct 2008 12:21 GMT >On Oct 5, 3:40 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" ><dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >But I can do what you cannot because I see you as a human being, >regardless of what you said, while you clearly do not see me as one. Exactly. Spot on. There you have one of the central problems of psychiatry (in its widest sense) in a ... nutshell. How (if at all) should you conceptualise delusional (or presumably delusional) states, such as yours (or other mental states, such as mine, which are believed by the person in question and/or by some other person to be `wrong' - in some sense of that overloaded word) in /human/ terms, without either reducing a person to a thing, or else taking that person's communications at face value? One way is to presume the person in question to be a liar. (I think you can take it from there ...) :-)
(N.B. I'm not presuming that Dirk was actually regarding James as a thing rather than a person - I'm just responding to James's reply.)
Obligatory declaration: my postings to JSH-related threads since Thu 25 Sep 2008 have raised £6.00 for "Charity". (That's one post per day on average. Am I perhaps on the road to recovery at last?)
 Signature Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
JSH - 07 Oct 2008 01:07 GMT > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:30:38 -0700 (PDT), JSH > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > the person in question to be a liar. (I think you can take it from > there ...) :-) But what have I done that would suggest insanity?
Turns out I post my own amateur mathematical ideas, where I admit to being, an amateur.
When I think I'm right I defend those ideas despite others disagreeing with me.
I make over the top posts often enough, but have noted that's necessary to keep readers, so a lot of it is about entertainment. Like talking about the end of the world, noting the power of myth, and incessantly harping on the lying by mathematicians (which is entertainment but they DO lie).
Now then, on what basis can a reasonable person call me insane?
From what I've noticed simply POSTING and not just accepting it if other posters (other people who post) claim I'm wrong is presented as proof of my insanity.
If pushed they'll probably say that posting for years, as I've posted for over 10, is further proof, but clearly I enjoy posting, and enjoy posting about my amateur research, so what is the basis for the insanity call?
I've noticed that mathematicians routinely call other people insane.
James Harris
Mensanator - 07 Oct 2008 01:37 GMT > > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:30:38 -0700 (PDT), JSH > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > But what have I done that would suggest insanity? Shall we ask David Ullrich?
> Turns out I post my own amateur mathematical ideas, where I admit to > being, an amateur. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > incessantly harping on the lying by mathematicians (which is > entertainment but they DO lie). See, you are insane.
> Now then, on what basis can a reasonable person call me insane? Shall we ask the Oklahoma District Attorney?
> From what I've noticed simply POSTING and not just accepting it if > other posters (other people who post) claim I'm wrong is presented as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > James Harris junoexpress - 07 Oct 2008 04:53 GMT > I make over the top posts often enough, but have noted that's > necessary to keep readers, .... > Now then, on what basis can a reasonable person call me insane? It could be your incessant need for attention
> I've noticed that mathematicians routinely call other people insane. Or, on second thought, maybe your paranoia.
> James Harris- Hide quoted text - M
JSH - 07 Oct 2008 05:08 GMT > > I make over the top posts often enough, but have noted that's > > necessary to keep readers, .... > > Now then, on what basis can a reasonable person call me insane? > > It could be your incessant need for attention So Paris Hilton is insane? She has an incessant need for attention.
> > I've noticed that mathematicians routinely call other people insane. > > Or, on second thought, maybe your paranoia. Plenty of people are paranoid. Are mathematicians calling them all insane too?
What has happened is you all made up your own rules.
Short answer is: anyone who doesn't follow along with what you want them to do, you call them insane.
James Harris
junoexpress - 07 Oct 2008 05:23 GMT > > > Now then, on what basis can a reasonable person call me insane? > > > It could be your incessant need for attention > > So Paris Hilton is insane? She has an incessant need for attention. It's called "borderline personality". You should read about it sometime, esp. since you've *publically* stated that you believe you suffer from it.
> > > I've noticed that mathematicians routinely call other people insane. > > > Or, on second thought, maybe your paranoia. Plus, on top of it all, your grammar sucks!
> Plenty of people are paranoid. Are mathematicians calling them all > insane too? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Short answer is: anyone who doesn't follow along with what you want > them to do, you call them insane. No, that's actually your expertise. When you're responding to comments you are defending your arguments. When mathematicians do it they're lying. I believe the term for this is "projection"
> James Harris M
JSH - 07 Oct 2008 05:32 GMT > On Oct 7, 12:08 am, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > Now then, on what basis can a reasonable person call me insane? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sometime, esp. since you've *publically* stated that you believe you > suffer from it. Ah, so you think Paris Hilton is mentally ill.
I'm not surprised. From what I've seen, mathematicians love to diagnose mental illness in others.
Thank you for at least being honest here.
James Harris
junoexpress - 07 Oct 2008 06:16 GMT > > It's called "borderline personality". You should read about it > > sometime, esp. since you've *publically* stated that you believe you > > suffer from it. > > Ah, so you think Paris Hilton is mentally ill. I never said anything about her, now did I? I know nothing about her and neither do you. The difference between you and I is that I don't talk about things I know nothing about. However, you can't take the focus off of you and now try to avoid statements you made that are public record.
> I'm not surprised. From what I've seen, mathematicians love to > diagnose mental illness in others. Which "others"? I believe it is only you they refer to. (Or have you now developed multiple personalities?)
> Thank you for at least being honest here. *I've* never been anything but.
> James Harris Keep on responding if you want: I've made my point. Besides, your juvenile logic is too easy to shoot down and bores me at this point.
M
galathaea - 07 Oct 2008 06:01 GMT > > >On Oct 5, 3:40 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > ><dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> It does not matter *what* you say. To people suffering from this > > >> condition, *everything* sounds like an insult. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Now then, on what basis can a reasonable person call me insane?
> From what I've noticed simply POSTING and not just accepting it if > other posters (other people who post) claim I'm wrong is presented as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I've noticed that mathematicians routinely call other people insane. or crank or crackpot or some other belittlement
ignore the word "insanity" james
you're not insane
it's folk-psychology at it's worst a vague term used to pin monster-masks on the world
what is important is the dynamics
in particular the linguistic dynamics
what logical connectives does a person use? is this adaptive? (i.e. do they lead to healthy actions?)
it is an important part of any science of human dynamics that these dynamics be classified and mechanisms understood
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
at the bottom of it all is honesty
james your act makes you say you solved fermat's last theorem
even though you know that is not true
and even though you have publicly admitted it in your act
and your attacks on abstract algebra and a few other minor slips
that kind of dishonesty implies that others should not trust your function
and it does not matter that your prime counting algorithm works or that you understand a good portion of the theory of pells because the flaws mask that part of your art that is interesting and could make for very clever stories
your act is hurting you james
it causes others to see the flaws and in their imperfect ways try to fix them
what you see the lies and anger and frustrations posted your way have been the monkeyscream faces of a hundred or more engineers over the years
you see artists love attention
and you are an artist
james
and most just think you're a con artist a spinner
unreliable
a problem to be fixed in their interaction with environment
you see artists still have to be good
the whole point of the arrogance is that you have something important to contribute locked up inside
something new
and the practice of their art is a devotion
your act is self-destructive james
people try to fix you and along the way they take you apart
as an artist as an actor as a contributor to the word you draw attention to yourself
what you see is the result a quick sampling of humankind and it's imperfect response to your imperfect art
and well a lot of people still say you're pretty smart
the stories you weave of intellectual efforts and world events are all quite clever and they show you enjoy playing with symbols
and you have a wide scope writing about many different fields of study demonstrating the existential struggle for meaning that has become the shrieking background noise of our era
but there is a dynamic in your art working against you james
violations of trust that you have learned to ignore
o--o
artists can never ignore
they must constantly fight to develop the detail of their representations
become unblind
^..^
but a great artist cannot be told to be great
it is something they do to themselves some deep drive to practice that pushes their message their art to fulfill it's hubris
you are not yet a great artist
james
some people say you will never be
i say you are just lazy
you see i have hope
a lazy artist takes some arbitrary iteration sequence and displays it as their art
a better artist gives some motivation of interest proves some interesting properties maybe sketches some conjectures for the future
an untrustworthy artist will make claims of experiential conflict
a clever artist will find a way forward anyway
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
JSH - 07 Oct 2008 06:17 GMT > > > >On Oct 5, 3:40 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > > ><dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > ignore the word "insanity" > james It's a powerful tactic that costs me money.
I can't ignore it.
> you're not insane > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > even though you know that is not true It is true.
You have a good rhythmn to your words.
Google "a poet's cry" and read my poem, and consider if you wish to talk to me about poetry and not math.
And if so, email me.
> and even though you have publicly admitted it > in your act That's not true.
Tautological spaces which lead me to this latest result, the infinite series and the general solution for binary quadratics, were discovered by me in order to solve FLT. And they accomplished that feat.
That's where I gained the confidence to move on, and found my prime counting function and everything else since.
So the real start was with the proof of FLT.
> and your attacks on abstract algebra > and a few other minor slips > > that kind of dishonesty > implies that others should not trust your function I am not dishonest. And what people trust is irrelevant. Trust is about what some people try.
But there are others who will try without trust.
And evolution is about getting it right, however you did it.
It's not that the strong survive.
It's that the most intelligent--truly intelligent--survive.
So time is the answer beyond the debates, when people so loud now are long silent in death. Their thoughts their fears so vibrant before-- nothing left, nothing more.
A dream to some, a nightmare to others, that end so soon, so soon and not one to escape.
Our wishes our hopes our dreams and our lives trapped forever like amber in our fates.
Yes, your Fate.
Your destiny, which you will not. Cannot, escape.
> and it does not matter > that your prime counting algorithm works Of course it works. It counts primes.
Hard for math people to lie about that, eh?
And it DOES matter as it gave me confidence. Confidence to continue when people like you told me I was wrong, and I learned you were wrong, but wouldn't accept it.
Why wouldn't you?
Because you wanted to feel safe, and safe to you was being mathematically wrong.
We all have our place in this world, great or small, short or tall, something we didn't ask for, or maybe we did, long ago, in some certain world.
But that place is not necessarily admitted or accepted, or even thought out, try as we may, to work it all out.
Life is a mystery, maybe because, for many of us, a lot of us, the answer is, the last thing we'd ever want to see.
Because regardless we have no choice but to be. Until, of course, we die. And then maybe...
James Harris
galathaea - 18 Oct 2008 04:32 GMT > You have a good rhythmn to your words. > > Google "a poet's cry" and read my poem, and consider if you wish to > talk to me about poetry and not math. i like to associate situations to song lyrics so i've wondered what might be appropriate here
"atmosphere" by joy division seemed to ring a little but nothing popular seemed to catch the essential points
so i had to pick one of my own
it's an old one but i think it has a clever fit
(you're not the only one people mention npd to)
it's called thirty dollar poem
*..**..**..**..**..**..**..**..**..*
scorpion embers trace past the empty stone wall
wispy on the tail of tiger steel
recant
and let the ancients fall
tribal songs ejaculate this quiet pastel night
and fifteen songs ago i was still alone
let it fall
and taste the razor clitoris turns and flees
at dawn: autonomic dreams distract the threads of self-delusion sheets ripple serpentine to dawn's end game
and hold we can't hold back the chains that stroke the backs
of dead men crawling for a place to hide
to die
laughter in the breeze children's games
no longer
mammalian fantasies / something crashes through the down and down fast stops
..
there once was a time when i thought in stunted malformed thoughts
that all would be well
well
these landscapes have eroded down to nothing and dust and dirty dreams
i was the one who was crazy all those days
golden breath convince myself of new and wondrous things that break apart
i've begun to see better what it was to cause this sweet collapse
a mariner's song a cowboy's weathered eyes
these are the points of pain which acupuncture this slow-rotting numbness
it goes like this:
a kid too stupid to realise that dreams are the wrong way to go tortures herself 'til she learns to love the pain
the slashing guilt of fallen stars
the bread-pan pounding of regret
the bright insanity of madmen's whispers breaking through the night again and again and
sh.t i should have known better
--
we used to tell such beautiful lies reclined on wicker chairs beneath a brilliant azure sky
but i believed
we used to dream of dreams that no one could have ever dreamed before
but i believed
and we planned and schemed and tore on through like bullets in a headlong race through childhood's disease-like grace and i believe now fear replaces everything
i believe that hope is for the hopeless
i believe that innocence is better left disturbed
and i believe that nothing can atone this
so now trapped in towers vaguely skeletal i have watched while all my dreams fell
silently
and out into this ashen hell i whisper or i scream:
yes!
goddamnit yes!
i've learned my lesson well!
and i am trembling
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Angus Rodgers - 07 Oct 2008 08:21 GMT >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:30:38 -0700 (PDT), JSH >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >But what have I done that would suggest insanity? I actually only used the adjective "delusional".
From The Chambers Dictionary (1998 edition):
*delude*, /vt/ to deceive or cause to accept what is false as true; to play with (someone) so as to frustrate them or their hopes (/obs./); to elude (/obs./) ... /adj/ *deluded* holding or acting under false beliefs
*delusion*, /n/ the act of deluding; the state of being deluded; a hallucination; a false belief (/esp psychol/); error. - /adj/ *delusional* relating to or afflicted with delusions.
>Turns out I post my own amateur mathematical ideas, where I admit to >being, an amateur. > >When I think I'm right I defend those ideas despite others disagreeing >with me.
>I make over the top posts often enough, but have noted that's >necessary to keep readers, so a lot of it is about entertainment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Now then, on what basis can a reasonable person call me insane? It wouldn't be unreasonable to do so, but it would generate more heat than light, because the word carries a lot of baggage. (The dictionary definition sheds no light on it at all.) I would only call you "insane" if I were in a particularly bad mood with you. But when I call you "delusional", I am only expressing in simple terms my experience of you as a person, and not (or at least not intentionally) buying into a vast (and vastly muddled) ideology.
>From what I've noticed simply POSTING and not just accepting it if >other posters (other people who post) claim I'm wrong is presented as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I've noticed that mathematicians routinely call other people insane. I'm rather wrapped up in my own psychological problems at the moment, and I'm reluctant to get drawn too deeply into this or any other JSH thread (as I'm liable to do, simply because such threads provide foci for obscure identifications, and off-topic psychological ramblings of a tempting kind), so I'll just say that a person can, in principle at least, wonder about their own "divided self", without getting caught up in any of the competing ideologies about "mental health". (I can't even be bothered to look that term up in the dictionary, because I'm so disgusted with all the idiotic nonsense there is around the term.)
But you'll find it hard to reflect honestly on the workings of your own mind while you're so caught up in this quixotic public conflict with the mathematical world. I don't know how you'll find peace and quiet to do so - at the moment, you're not giving yourself any peace.
Obligatory declaration: my postings to JSH-related threads since Thu 25 Sep 2008 have raised £6.50 for "Charity".
 Signature Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Michael Press - 07 Oct 2008 19:55 GMT > >On Oct 5, 3:40 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > ><dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the person in question to be a liar. (I think you can take it from > there ...) :-) By recognizing how one person treats another. No need to classify.
 Signature Michael Press
hagman - 26 Oct 2008 15:13 GMT > On Oct 5, 3:40 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > No, I can't name an infinite series I discovered after myself. Indeed, modesty might compel you to name the series after some other mathematician - so what about "Lie series"?
Tim Smith - 05 Oct 2008 12:12 GMT In article <15562c5e-c226-47d5-90fd-d152cda49a12@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> One poster lobs a criticism that > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > is derivable from an equation known to Brahmagupta. Fine, so show I wouldn't even say your result is derivable from his result--I'd only say B is derivable from A if there is at least some minimal effort involved in getting B from A. Getting your result from Brahmagupta's result involves no noticeable effort. It simply involves substituting 1 for two free variables in his result. Since it is obvious at a glance that substituting 0 for one or both of those variables is useless, substituting 1 for both is the first case that might be interesting--and it gives your result. At best, your result is an example of his result.
 Signature --Tim Smith
|
|
|