 |
 | 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: Drama continues?
Oh well maybe it was too much to hope that one infinite series might make a difference and I have analyzed the situation and believe that mainstream mathematicians who must be aware of my research, as I routinely notify them by email, are relying on the angry idiots on the sci.math newsgroup as their cover. My guess is they feel they can sit back indefinitely and routinely reject my papers which yes I still do send to math journals, and always say later that my research was not accepted by the mainstream math community citing sci.math which puts me in a conundrum. Now that I've used tautological spaces again I can potentially wipe out the need for new research in some other area of number theory, but I suspect mathematicians will just act like I didn't and still do pretend research so I'm not sure if that's the way. The angry idiots on sci.math have continually challenged me to solve the factoring problem and post a demonstration as one thing they'd have to accept. I find that fascinating as a challenge, as I've said I refuse to do research in that area as I'm worried about crashing the world economy. But that worry is diminishing as the world economy is crashing on its own. Kind of ironic, don't you think? Regardless, I'm not interested in adding to the misery because mathematicians can lie as a group, are heartless fiends, who pretend to like mathematics when they despise it, who are also very savvy political operators. The political war continues and I'm up against people who could teach George W. Bush some lessons, but that is just the reality of the problem. Wasted time. Wasted lives. But let's face it. At the end of the day, the lives of math students aren't any more important than the lives of countless other people all over the world facing so much worse than throwing their time and mental energy away learning crap math. James Harris In article <c6be0ba0-3414-48ea-b7cb-b9e8cf568b44@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > The angry idiots on sci.math have continually challenged me to solve > the factoring problem and post a demonstration as one thing they'd > have to accept. I find that fascinating as a challenge, as I've said > I refuse to do research in that area as I'm worried about crashing the > world economy. That excuse doesn't apply to your refusal to solve generalized Pell equations, so how come you won't post examples showing that? You've claimed you have a complete theory of these equations that allows you to easily solve them, so do so, and show your work (you need to show your work because there are known methods to solve these equations, so just giving the solution doesn't show that you used your methods). If your work is correct, that will silence those critics who say the work is wrong. As far as factoring goes, you can prove that your work is worthwhile there with no risk to the economy. Factor this number, *without* showing your work: 1592446803836973340257844184776567170418574846915726286677037761337532726 0535814541642907537463366628784232857943333616132843339805373127194007892 4697781512147521343020462163092907480811865357017526420645311111937936398 1887142388001020076031408293924608889274748315559176043607988529061689549 5684337907995512874114679381974294179109940651907932816832136595301813503 7569668475295851246742035216071955100491715407478939563443382569168729865 6697339147794728859432396787490219222762191214923904140280580357950267490 4817639735426643345492401305081687426946377109629197366692195108491586019 329752352000656981134002103717749 I generated that specifically for you. It is not used in any cryptographic system. Nothing economically depends on it at all. It is far beyond what any known algorithm can factor in reasonable time, so if you were to factor it, that would be pretty convincing proof you have a major factoring breakthrough. Hence, there is no need for you to actually show the work, and so no danger that this will harm the economy.  Signature--Tim Smith > In article > <c6be0ba0-3414-48ea-b7cb-b9e8cf568...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That excuse doesn't apply to your refusal to solve generalized Pell > equations, so how come you won't post examples showing that? You've It's boring to me. > claimed you have a complete theory of these equations that allows you to > easily solve them, so do so, and show your work (you need to show your > work because there are known methods to solve these equations, so just > giving the solution doesn't show that you used your methods). If your > work is correct, that will silence those critics who say the work is > wrong. No it wouldn't. > As far as factoring goes, you can prove that your work is worthwhile > there with no risk to the economy. Factor this number, *without* [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 4817639735426643345492401305081687426946377109629197366692195108491586019 > 329752352000656981134002103717749 No, I can't factor that and I'm not continuing research that might lead to me being able to factor it. James Harris In article <c8458173-992a-4f0a-8603-2c2e9573634b@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > > The angry idiots on sci.math have continually challenged me to solve > > > the factoring problem and post a demonstration as one thing they'd [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > No, I can't factor that and I'm not continuing research that might > lead to me being able to factor it. Bottom line: you've asserted you have a complete theory of Pell-like equations, that easily gives solutions. The "paper" you've written is incomplete and full of errors, so no one else is able to learn your theory from that. You have not demonstrated actually solving a single equation using your theory, so we don't even have a reason to believe that the flaws in the paper are due to poor writing, rather than due to an incorrect underlying theory. Thus, it comes down to you simply making a public claim that you've solved the problem, but providing no evidence whatsoever that you have done so. Same with factoring. You've claimed a breakthrough, but what you've written discloses a method that is similar to old, known, slow methods of factoring. Your method is only notable compared to those for being particularly slow. So, either you've botched your disclosure, or you don't have anything. So, this too comes down to you having simply asserted you have solved the problem, with no evidence provided. Claims without proof impress nobody. Signature--Tim Smith > In article > <c8458173-992a-4f0a-8603-2c2e95736...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Bottom line: you've asserted you have a complete theory of Pell-like > equations, that easily gives solutions. The "paper" you've written is I do. > incomplete and full of errors, so no one else is able to learn your > theory from that. You have not demonstrated actually solving a single > equation using your theory, so we don't even have a reason to believe That's not true. The paper actually has an example of an equation being solved, though I don't use the full theory, as it wasn't necessary. In the paper as readers can see for themselves as it's on Google Docs: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfs4mntm_35gc7sc4dv I solve in integers: x^2 + 2xy + 3y^2 = 4 + 5x + 6y by solving the equation: (-4(x+y) + 10)^2 + 2S^2 = 166 which is related to it by the theory. I've noticed that you rant a lot, make false statements a LOT, and really stupid ones as if you can't comprehend the concept of a previously unknown infinite series or comprehend how that can be of mathematical interest, and seem to really want to keep my attention by me replying to you. That is annoying, tedious and a waste of my time. James Harris On Oct 5, 10:08 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > In article > <c8458173-992a-4f0a-8603-2c2e95736...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote: <Snip crap math> >> > No, I can't factor that and I'm not continuing research that might >> > lead to me being able to factor it. > >> Bottom line: you've asserted you have a complete theory of Pell-like >> equations, that easily gives solutions. The "paper" you've written is >I do. >> incomplete and full of errors, so no one else is able to learn your >> theory from that. You have not demonstrated actually solving a single >> equation using your theory, so we don't even have a reason to believe <snip Crap Math> >That is annoying, tedious and a waste of my time. >James Harris JSH, a dull witted + mean troll. In article <c6be0ba0-3414-48ea-b7cb-b9e8cf568b44@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, ? > Regardless, I'm not interested in adding to the misery because > mathematicians can lie as a group, They even study Lie groups! >are heartless fiends, who pretend > to like mathematics when they despise it, who are also very savvy > political operators. smooth operators, alright. > Oh well maybe it was too much to hope that one infinite series might > make a difference and I have analyzed the situation and believe that > mainstream mathematicians who must be aware of my research, as I > routinely notify them by email, are relying on the angry idiots on the > sci.math newsgroup as their cover. Huh? Trivial is, as trivial does. What about non-mainstream mathematicians? What about non-angry idiots on sci.math ? What about angry non-idiots on sci.math ? > My guess Hey! No Guessing! NOT allowed. > is they feel they can sit back indefinitely and routinely > reject my papers which yes I still do send to math journals, and > always say later that my research was not accepted by the mainstream > math community citing sci.math which puts me in a conundrum. May the conundrum be with you. > Now that I've used tautological spaces again I can potentially wipe > out the need for new research in some other area of number theory, but > I suspect mathematicians will just act like I didn't and still do > pretend research so I'm not sure if that's the way. Holy sh.t, Batman! "tautological spaces", a seemingly highly intellegent word - not. JSH, always pretending to do research.... > The angry idiots on sci.math have continually challenged me to solve > the factoring problem and post a demonstration as one thing they'd > have to accept. I find that fascinating as a challenge, as I've said > I refuse to do research in that area as I'm worried about crashing the > world economy. nope, you are not smart enough to do it, that is the real reason. > But that worry is diminishing as the world economy is crashing on its > own. Kind of ironic, don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to like mathematics when they despise it, who are also very savvy > political operators. You stay by yourself much of the time? > The political war continues and I'm up against people who could teach > George W. Bush some lessons, but that is just the reality of the > problem. Try restructuring your nebulous sentance. > Wasted time. Wasted lives. But let's face it. At the end of the > day, the lives of math students aren't any more important than the > lives of countless other people all over the world facing so much > worse than throwing their time and mental energy away learning crap > math. JSH, inventor of Crap Math (CM), tautological spaces (CM), one infinite series (CM),the factoring problem (CM) > James Harris (CM) |
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.