 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Math Forum / Mathematics / Undergraduate Math / June 2006JSH: So they lied
I first began to get a real grasp of the true situation when I was arguing about my prime counting function, which is actually THE prime counting function, and after yet another useless argument on sci.math with some regulars, it occurred to me, they had to know. They had to know that what I had actually was different from what was previously known in key ways, but they were deliberately lying about it. Now I have found a new factoring method. Literally trillions of dollars WILL move as a result, but for now, you can see the quiet as these people keep lying. How is it possible? Mathematics is a difficult discipline. Or you can say, math is hard. Most people shy away from it because it IS so hard, but a few people learned that while doing real mathematics was hard, LOOKING like you were doing real mathematics was easier. So they fake it. Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being mathematicians is someone who actually is a mathematician. So they beat up such people, force them out of the discipline, and drown them out with crowd forces. Their loophole was the reality that major mathematicians only come around once every couple of hundred years, so they got away with it for a bit over a hundred years, and I was forced into my destiny. If it were up to me, I'd be doing so many other things than this. But it's not up to me, I'm driven by some overwhelming force that makes me fight against these people pretending to be real mathematicians, and so, here we are. The encryption system that they said was so powerful--because they're not real mathematicians--is now, as I type this, broken. The world does not know this because the social forces are that strong, but eventually the truth will be known. These people are people some of you admire and trust, who have sat back, for years now, clearly I think, believing that social forces could stop someone like me. But mathematics is more than just a word. The proof for those of you who hoped, believed, or just wanted to deny the truth is in that new factoring method, which if the people you thought were mathematicians actually were, then they'd be talking about it everywhere, warning the world, excited about it, and working on solutions to protect OUR WORLD. But instead, they are quiet, leaving the doors open, leaving the world vulnerable. Leaving it possible for innocents to suffer or even die because they are not who they claim to be. But I am. The choice is yours. I can't do it alone. These people will let civilization crumble. They will let terrorists and other criminals, or anyone who has the will and know-how to use the mathematics in an evil way, do it, without the world knowing because it trusts them because they are not who they claim to be. You may die if you do nothing, and isn't that fair? Is life really not fair, or are most people cowards to the truth? A person like me comes around only every hundred years or so, and people forget. And then a LOT of people die, and then the mythologies are written, legends are born. But make no mistake, you might be one of those people who die THIS time. I suggest to you that even if you don't give a damn about mathematics, couldn't care less about what is truth, why should you protect fakes who have betrayed you, yet again, and in their inability to understand and their lack of intelligence, they leave the world vulnerable, because this time, to stop this post, all they had to do was step up--and protect the world? TODAY they could have stepped up to protect the world. Die for them? Why? And even if you won't die, why let anyone else? Their quiet is your answer if you had questions. Yes, they lied. They betrayed the world. And they lost. Question now is, who loses with them? James Harris > Now I have found a new factoring method. Don't forget to tell us when it turns out that you failed... again! :-) > Literally trillions of dollars WILL move as a result, but for now, you > can see the quiet as these people keep lying. > > How is it possible? Let's see. Perhaps because nobody but you believes that it works? Best regards, Jose Carlos Santos > I first began to get a real grasp of the true situation when I was > arguing about my prime counting function, which is actually THE prime [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > James Harris One for posterity, James. > I first began to get a real grasp of the true situation when I was > arguing about my prime counting function, which is actually THE prime [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > James Harris Once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder James, what would be your reaction to someone who said > If it were up to me, I'd be doing so many other things than this. > > But it's not up to me, I'm driven by some overwhelming force Hopefully you would suggest they seek psychiatric help. Then perhaps they could escape from this situation. Bertie We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 > We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers > using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 Only one example was given, and no systematic way of finding the values for K_1, K_2, K_3, and K_4 has been found yet. --- Christopher Heckman >> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers >> using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > --- Christopher Heckman systematic is mathematical, and mathematicians lie, therefore to find the truth one must use non-systematic methods which is guessing. > >> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers > >> using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > systematic is mathematical, and mathematicians lie, therefore to find the > truth one must use non-systematic methods which is guessing. JSH says he's a mathematician, and mathematicians lie. Therefore, JSH is lying. --- Christopher Heckman ... > > systematic is mathematical, and mathematicians lie, therefore to find the > > truth one must use non-systematic methods which is guessing. > > JSH says he's a mathematician, and mathematicians lie. Therefore, JSH > is lying. Partly. He is stating that he is an amateur mathematician, so he is an amateur lyar. Real mathematicians are much better at it.  Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > > We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers > > using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > --- Christopher Heckman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Factorize 391 ? That's a tough one. I'll just re-use K_1, K_2, K_3, K_4 from my earlier example for T = 13439 T = 391 X = 21 X ^ 2 - T = 50 = 2 * 5 ^ 2 , So (K_2 * K_3 - K_1 * K_4 ) ^ 2 = 5 ^ 2 K_1 = 3 K_2 = 4 K_3 = 1 K_4 = 3 F_1 = 2 * 3 ^ 2 - 1 ^ 2 = 18 - 1 = 17 F_2 = 2 * 4 ^ 2 - 3 ^ 2 = 32 - 9 = 23 Factorization of RSA is left as an exercise for the student. YHBT ... > Factorize 391 ? That's a tough one. Let's see if I can follow this. Do it with T = 5183. > I'll just re-use K_1, K_2, K_3, K_4 from my earlier example for T = > 13439 I will just try to calculate them. > T = 391 > X = 21 X = 79 > X ^ 2 - T = 50 = 2 * 5 ^ 2 , X^2 - T = 1058 = 2 * 23 ^ 2. > So (K_2 * K_3 - K_1 * K_4 ) ^ 2 = 5 ^ 2 So (K_2 * K_3 - K_1 * K_4) ^ 2 = 23 ^ 2. > K_1 = 3 > K_2 = 4 > K_3 = 1 > K_4 = 3 Will not work (obviously) so I will explore other values. > F_1 = 2 * 3 ^ 2 - 1 ^ 2 = 18 - 1 = 17 > F_2 = 2 * 4 ^ 2 - 3 ^ 2 = 32 - 9 = 23 This is based on (I think) F_1 = 2 * K_1 ^ 2 - K_3 ^ 2 and F_2 = 2 * K_2 ^ 2 - K_3 ^ 2 (because the remainder of the formulas cancel). It will take some time before you find that: K_1 = 2 K_2 = 5 K_3 = 9 K_4 = 11 will work. I did program it (making it a real algorithm). First assume K_1, K_2 and K_3 are positive. Starting with a sum of 3 and incrementing the sum, explore all possible combinations of K_1, K_2 and K_3 with that sum. Calculate K_4 (using the two possible formulas). If integral continue and calculate F_1 and F_2. Calculate their product, if it is T you are done. The first 349 results were not equal to T, it was the 350th result that was equal to T. This is a bit worse than trial division (disregarding that it takes some time to find X = 79). Now I am trying to find an X for T = 7743. Can you help me? Heck, even with T = 143 I can not find an X that satisfies the relations. Can you help me factorise 143? Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > ... > > Factorize 391 ? That's a tough one. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 > home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ Here you go: T = 7743 X = 88 X ^ 2 - T = 1 = 1 * 1 ^ 2 , So (K_2 * K_3 - K_1 * K_4 ) ^ 2 = 1 ^ 2 K_1 = 44 K_2 = 45 K_3 = 43 K_4 = 44 F_1 = 1 * 44 ^ 2 - 43 ^ 2 = 1936 - 1849 = 87 F_2 = 1 * 45 ^ 2 - 44 ^ 2 = 2025 - 1936 = 89 --------------------------------------------------------------- T = 143 X = 12 X ^ 2 - T = 1 = 1 * 1 ^ 2 , So (K_2 * K_3 - K_1 * K_4 ) ^ 2 = 1 ^ 2 K_1 = 6 K_2 = 7 K_3 = 5 K_4 = 6 F_1 = 1 * 6 ^ 2 - 5 ^ 2 = 36 - 25 = 11 F_2 = 1 * 7 ^ 2 - 6 ^ 2 = 2025 - 1936 = 13 If X ^ 2 - T = Z ^ 2, you don't have to search. The K 's can be calculated. (but why bother?) Its when X ^ 2 - T always has a large nonsquare factor, that I have trouble with this set of expressions. Since they resemble Pell equations, I don't see any way to avoid difficulty with large search spaces. > > ... > > > Factorize 391 ? That's a tough one. ... > > > X = 21 ... > > Now I am trying to find an X for T = 7743. Can you help me? Heck, even > > with T = 143 I can not find an X that satisfies the relations. Can you > > help me factorise 143? ... > Here you go: > > T = 7743 > X = 88 > > X ^ 2 - T = 1 = 1 * 1 ^ 2 , Why then did you not use X = 20 for T = 391? Or (for that matter) X = 120 for T = 13439? (X = 20 is smaller, X = 120 is slightly larger.) > So (K_2 * K_3 - K_1 * K_4 ) ^ 2 = 1 ^ 2 Why would you wish to find K_1 to K_4 in this case? It is immediate that (X - 1) * (X + 1) = T. > K_1 = 44 > K_2 = 45 > K_3 = 43 > K_4 = 44 How did you find them? > T = 143 > X = 12 Same here. > If X ^ 2 - T = Z ^ 2, you don't have to search. The K 's > can be calculated. (but why bother?) Indeed. > Its when X ^ 2 - T always has a large nonsquare factor, > that I have trouble with this set of expressions. I think that in general finding an X such that X ^ 2 - T is a square will not take much longer than finding an X such that that number has a small non-square factor, and once you have the X, finding the K's seems to me much more problematical. But this start to look pretty much as a variation of Fermat's method. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > ... > > Factorize 391 ? That's a tough one. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 > home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here you go: T = 7743 X = 88 X ^ 2 - T = 1 = 1 * 1 ^ 2 , So (K_2 * K_3 - K_1 * K_4 ) ^ 2 = 1 ^ 2 K_1 = 44 K_2 = 45 K_3 = 43 K_4 = 44 F_1 = 1 * 44 ^ 2 - 43 ^ 2 = 1936 - 1849 = 87 F_2 = 1 * 45 ^ 2 - 44 ^ 2 = 2025 - 1936 = 89 ----------------------------------------------------------- T = 143 X = 12 X ^ 2 - T = 1 = 1 * 1 ^ 2 , So (K_2 * K_3 - K_1 * K_4 ) ^ 2 = 1 ^ 2 K_1 = 6 K_2 = 7 K_3 = 5 K_4 = 6 F_1 = 1 * 6 ^ 2 - 5 ^ 2 = 36 - 25 = 11 F_2 = 1 * 7 ^ 2 - 6 ^ 2 = 49 - 36 = 13 When X ^ 2 - T = Z ^ 2, you don't have to search. The K's can be calculated. ( but why bother?) Its when X ^ 2 - T always has a large nonsquare factor, that I have trouble with this set of expressions. Since they resemble Pell equations, I don't see any way to avoid difficulty with large search spaces. >> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers >> using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 > > Only one example was given, and no systematic way of finding the > values > for K_1, K_2, K_3, and K_4 has been found yet. I find that quite a good method is to slice a tomato and look at the patterns made by the pips. Sometimes they seem to form digits. Has anybody else had any success with this method? SignatureClive Tooth www.clivetooth.dk Stock photos: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771 > >> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers > >> using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 > > > > Only one example was given, and no systematic way of finding the > > values > > for K_1, K_2, K_3, and K_4 has been found yet. Clive wrote: > I find that quite a good method is to slice a tomato and look at the > patterns made by the pips. Sometimes they seem to form digits. > > Has anybody else had any success with this method? Thanks, this explains something that had me puzzled. I find myself staring at the digits of pi. Sometimes they seem to form tomatoes. But please, let's keep this a secret, okay? Quadrillions of investor pips are at tomato stakes here. regards, chip > >> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers > >> using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Has anybody else had any success with this method? Tooth, kindly warn the reader before making this type of posting. I almost asphyxiated laughing. Regards. > -- > Clive Tooth > www.clivetooth.dk > Stock photos: > http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771 >> >> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA >> >> numbers [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Tooth, kindly warn the reader before making this type of posting. I > almost asphyxiated laughing. Ah... one of those beer-sprayed-all-over-the-screen moments perhaps... SignatureClive Tooth www.clivetooth.dk Stock photos: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771 > >> >> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA > >> >> numbers [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ah... one of those beer-sprayed-all-over-the-screen moments perhaps... You seem to enjoy doing this to people. How nasty! Regards. > -- > Clive Tooth > www.clivetooth.dk > Stock photos: > http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771 [MTD] >> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers >> using your cutting edge techniques, James. Or, for that matter, 391 [Proginoskes] > Only one example was given, and no systematic way of finding the values > for K_1, K_2, K_3, and K_4 has been found yet. Sorry, but much of that is wrong. The example you're referring to _here_ was an example of Enrico's method, and Enrico has given more than one example. It's true that Enrico hasn't given a systematic way to satisfy his equations. James appears to believe that Enrico's method is his (James's) method, but it's not. Enrico posted his method in a thread James started, and used five of the same symbol names as James used (although Enrico uses UPPERCASE), so James probably knee-jerk _assumed_ Enrico was talking about James's method. But apart from the symbol names, they have little in common. WRT James's (most recent) method, there are at least two systematic ways to find integer k_i "that work" without knowing T's factors in advance: 1. k_1 = k_3 = 1 k_2 = any integer k_4 = T - k_2 2. k_1 = T k_3 = 1 k_2 = 1 - k_4*T k_4 = any integer It's easy to verify that T = k_1*k_3*(k_1*k_4 + k_2*k_3) given either of the above. In a long post yesterday, I showed that James's method can't find a non-trivial factor in case #1 above. In case #2, it turns out it _can_ find a non-trivial factor, but if and only if you eventually pick a "y" for which 1 < gcd(2*y, T) < T My post yesterday proved that for a special case of #2, and made an incorrect claim that k_2=1 k_4=0 was forced when k_1=T & k_3=1, but turns out the conclusion holds in the general #2 case anyway. I don't count the variant of #2 with k_1=1 & k_3=T as being essentially different (and, of course, a similar "can't get there from here" conclusion follows from it). > [MTD] >>> We're still waiting for you to factorize some of those RSA numbers [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > essentially different (and, of course, a similar "can't get there > from here" conclusion follows from it). Well, yeah. But what about the pointed sticks? SignatureClive Tooth www.clivetooth.dk Stock photos: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771 >I first began to get a real grasp of the true situation when I was > arguing about my prime counting function, which is actually THE > prime Very good!! But what about the definition of "banana"? And what about pointed sticks? SignatureClive Tooth www.clivetooth.dk Stock photos: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771 > >I first began to get a real grasp of the true situation when I was > > arguing about my prime counting function, which is actually THE [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And what about pointed sticks? Hmmm... ¿Chocolate covered frozen bananas on a stick? > -- > Clive Tooth > www.clivetooth.dk > Stock photos: > http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771 The Last Danish Pastry wrote: > <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message > news:1150354125.670535.58600@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And what about pointed sticks? Hmmm... ¿Chocolate covered frozen bananas on a stick? Chocolate covered frozen bananas on a pointed stick, AXUALLY. SignatureClive Tooth www.clivetooth.dk > The Last Danish Pastry wrote: > > <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Chocolate covered frozen bananas on a pointed stick, AXUALLY. The rigour! The rigour! > Very good!! > > But what about the definition of "banana"? Regarding the suitability of bananas for publication, see http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/11015f6484242465 : Mathematics is a difficult discipline. : Or you can say, math is hard. ... : So they fake it. It's true - upon closer reflection, my PhD Thesis is comprised entirely of paper mache, glue, white bread, and the occasionally badly formed derivative. I am discovered, alas! Justin >[...] > >A person like me comes around only every hundred years or so, and >people forget. Wrong on both counts, sorry. >And then a LOT of people die, and then the mythologies are written, >legends are born. > >But make no mistake, you might be one of those people who die THIS >time. Just curious: Are you really not aware of the fact that when you talk this way readers are going to conclude that you're totally crazy? >I suggest to you that even if you don't give a damn about mathematics, >couldn't care less about what is truth, why should you protect fakes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >James Harris ************************ David C. Ullrich > Just curious: Are you really not aware of the fact that when you > talk this way readers are going to conclude that you're totally > crazy? It's a sign of the times. The #1 NY Times bestseller is just as full of paranoia, self-serving fantasies, and lies. > > Just curious: Are you really not aware of the fact that when you > > talk this way readers are going to conclude that you're totally > > crazy? > > It's a sign of the times. The #1 NY Times bestseller is just as full > of paranoia, self-serving fantasies, and lies. I'm curious which NYT bestseller list you have in mind. They have one set of categories (fiction, nonfiction, advice) for hardcover, another for paperback, and they also have a children's book category. Perhaps you are referring to the DaVinci Code, currently atop the paperback fiction list? I'm really hoping it's not a dig at Anderson Cooper, whose book heads up hardcover nonfiction. Go ahead. Tell me the truth, I can take it. regards, chip > > > Just curious: Are you really not aware of the fact that when you > > > talk this way readers are going to conclude that you're totally [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Go ahead. Tell me the truth, I can take it. It's Ann Coulter's latest book, _Godless: The Church of Liberalism_. Thank goddess I'm a Discordian. --- Christopher Heckman ... > > Go ahead. Tell me the truth, I can take it. > > It's Ann Coulter's latest book, _Godless: The Church of Liberalism_. > > Thank goddess I'm a Discordian. I think I am lucky being a third generation heathen from all sides. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > Thank goddess I'm a Discordian. Hey, what's that? Maybe I'm one and don't know it. > > Thank goddess I'm a Discordian. > > Hey, what's that? Maybe I'm one and don't know it. Try: 1. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/ 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism 3. Discordian.com Note: I had no clue what this was either. --W > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being mathematicians > is someone who actually is a mathematician. You should know that first hand. > A person like me comes around only every hundred years or so, and > people forget. Nah, I can think of a lot of Cranks, you being at the top. Dave > > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being mathematicians > > is someone who actually is a mathematician. > > You should know that first hand. Er, how could he? He's _not_ a mathematician. >> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being mathematicians >> > is someone who actually is a mathematician. >> >> You should know that first hand. > Er, how could he? He's _not_ a mathematician. But he is someone faking at being a mathematician. Stephen >>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being mathematicians >>> > is someone who actually is a mathematician. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stephen Which was my point. Dave >>>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being >>>> > mathematicians [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Which was my point. ... of a pointed stick? SignatureClive Tooth www.clivetooth.dk Stock photos: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771 >>>>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being >>>>> > mathematicians [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ... of a pointed stick? which monte python was that from ? > >>>>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being > >>>>> > mathematicians [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > which monte python was that from ? Season One Episode Four: Self-Defense. RSM: Right! Bananas! How to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. (to first man) Here, you take this. (throws him a banana) Now it's quite simple to defend yourself against the banana fiend. First of all, you force him to drop the banana, next, you eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him helpless. 2nd Man: Supposing he's got a bunch. RSM: Shut up! 4th Man: Supposing he's got a pointed stick. RSM: Shut up. <mensanator@aol.com> wrote in message news:1150521323.837253.304750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being >> >>>>> > mathematicians [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > RSM: Shut up. I remember that one. JSH must be a banana, he seems to have no point. > > >>>>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being > > >>>>> > mathematicians [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > RSM: Shut up. If memory serves, RSM was John Cleese, 2nd Man was Michael Palin, and 4th man was Eric Idle. --- Christopher Heckman > > > >>>>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being > > > >>>>> > mathematicians [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > If memory serves, RSM was John Cleese, 2nd Man was Michael Palin, and > 4th man was Eric Idle. Yes, but who was first man, the one to whom was tossed the banana? > --- Christopher Heckman > > > > >>>>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being > > > > >>>>> > mathematicians [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Yes, but who was first man, the one to whom was tossed the banana? The one who screamed at RSM and was shot? Graham Chapman, right? (I'm not Googling here.) There's also a 3rd Man, who was probably Terry Jones. (Either that, or it was a guest ... Gilliam didn't get many "live" roles.) --- Christopher Heckman > > > > > >>>>> > Trouble is, the worst thing for people faking at being > > > > > >>>>> > mathematicians [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > The one who screamed at RSM and was shot? Graham Chapman, right? (I'm > not Googling here.) Yep. I don't Google either since I have the two-volume collection of the scripts Monty Python: All the Words > There's also a 3rd Man, who was probably Terry Jones. Oops, you caught me without my books. But I believe so, he's the one who was given raspberries. > (Either that, or > it was a guest ... Gilliam didn't get many "live" roles.) > > --- Christopher Heckman > These people will let civilization crumble. They will let terrorists > and other criminals, or anyone who has the will and know-how to use the > mathematics in an evil way, do it, without the world knowing because it > trusts them because they are not who they claim to be. James, I actually think the system is more robust than you give it credit for. For example, when you were screwing things up at Alltel, they recognized your incompetence pretty fast and got rid of you. It's that kind of thing that gives me faith in the system! Have you ever considered becoming an amature sociologist instead of an amature mathematician? I think you'd do well, all sociologists do is talk bullshit .... > I first began to get a real grasp of the true situation when I was > arguing about my prime counting function, which is actually THE prime [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > James Harris > Have you ever considered becoming an amature sociologist instead of an > amature mathematician? That's funny, unless you think "amature" means "beginner". --- Christopher Heckman > I think you'd do well, all sociologists do is talk bullshit .... > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > > > James Harris > Have you ever considered becoming an amature sociologist instead of an > amature mathematician? He is. Not so very long ago he posted an article where he said that he was conducting a psychological experiment with his postings. The difference is only slight. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ [jstevh@msn.com] > ... > The proof for those of you who hoped, believed, or just wanted to deny > the truth is in that new factoring method, which if the people you > thought were mathematicians actually were, then they'd be talking about > it everywhere, warning the world, excited about it, and working on > solutions to protect OUR WORLD. Umm, what new factoring method? Enrico's? Note that _he's_ not making crazy claims about his method. Or, if you didn't get there yet, it's time you noticed that the method he posted in the: JSH: So quiet, new factoring method or not? thread was his own method, not a rearrangement of ideas you've posted. |
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
|
©2010 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.