Re: Partial difference equation, primes

From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 08/18/04 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:57:09 -0400

James Harris wrote:

> Will Twentyman <wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote in message news:<41234638_5@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
>
>>James Harris wrote:
>>
>>>I find it odd that there has been little response to my refutations of
>>>various bogus claims made by sci.math posters like Christian Bau.
>>
>>James, your "refutations" generally amount to one of three things:
>>1) Blindly restating your claim. This is not a refutation, so is not
>>going to generate much response.
>
> Actually, no, as what I do is answer specific charges with specific
> facts.

I've watched your history for over a year now. You occasionally answer
specific charges with specific facts. Often, however you just copy and
paste.

> Like I note that it's impossible for what I have to be old, when
> mathematicians still don't use a partial difference equation to count
> primes!

Like here.

> It's impossible for something to both be the same and different.

It depends on how "same" and "different" are measured. Two things can
be different, yet because they are isomorphic, they are in essence the same.

That's why tests for equivalence are common.

>>2) Non-mathematical rhetoric. This is not a refutation either, but
>>takes you completely off-topic.
>>3) Unsupported claims. It's not enough to claim something is new and/or
>>important: you also have to show why. When one of your claims is that
>>your results are unique in all of history, yet it appears to be a
>>modification of a well-known result, the burden of proof is on you.
>>Moreover, how you thought about the problem is not enough to make the
>>result different.

Here comes the cut and paste.

> Mathematicians have NEVER in their entire history used a partial
> difference equation to count prime numbers.
>
> The difference in look is extraordinary when you pay attention as my
> prime counting function is quite compact:
>
>
> dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
> sqrt(y-1))],
>
> S(x,1) = 0, p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, and S(x,y) is the sum of
> dS from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y)
>
> See http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_mathforprofit_archive.html
>
> To show you how silly these arguments are mathematicians can't even
> write a recursive prime counting function in such a short space!!!

Did you look at the mathworld link you gave me?

>>I'm sure you believe that your responses fall into some other category.
>> However, after making repeated response that are consistently, in my
>>oppinion, in one of those three, is it surprising that I rarely respond
>>to what you call a refutation?
>
> Who are you?

Will Twentyman. You kicked me off your msn group a while back. You
also have caught me in errors, you've also ignored when I found your
errors. If you look in a number of your threads on the google archives,
you'll find my name. I'm the guy with such a weird name you thought it
was fake.

>>>No preprocessing needed. It does not need a list.
>>
>>Neither do many of the other methods. Specifically, neither does
>>Legendre's formula.
>>
> Yes it does.
>
> It amazes me how often sci.math posters just lie.
>
> Legendre's Formula requires a list of primes to work.

Looking in more detail at the formulas, you are right.

>>>You'll need to go out and check other links to see what mathematicians
>>>have, and for your convenience here's one to a popular site:
>>>
>>>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeCountingFunction.html
>
>
> Go see for yourself.
>
> I've seen repeatedly that sci.math posters boldly lie, like this guy's
> claim that Legendre's Formula doesn't require a list of primes, when
> it does.
>
> My guess is they bank on most of you not bothering to check, like
> you're too intimidated by the math or you're lazy, and assume that no
> one would lie about something so easily checkable.
>
> They lie a lot.

And you ascribe to malice what can be explained easily by laziness or
oversight.

> Mathematicians have apparently learned that they can lie about many
> things rather boldly to other people.
>
> It's kind of interesting, actually.
>
>
>>>So, you have a fact:
>>>
>>>My prime counting function uses a partial difference equation.
>>>
>>>You have another fact:
>>>
>>>Mathematicians don't use partial difference equations to count primes
>>>as they use partial sieve functions that require preprocessing as they
>>>need prime lists.
>>>
>>>Now then, how do you reconcile those facts with claims made by
>>>sci.math posters?
>>
>>Easy. You are wrong. You appear to be fascinated by the term "partial
>>difference equation", but are unaware that it is not new, and is not
>>exciting. Moreover, you are blinded by your own notation.
>>
>>[return to lurking]
>

Return to cut and paste.

>
> Yet mathematicians never found a way to count prime numbers using a
> partial difference equation.
>
> I've described the derivation of my prime counting function in a post,
> and that derivation is unique to me.
>
> Worse, what mathematicians have is ugly.
>
> However, I want readers to notice that mathematicians and sci.math
> posters lie quite boldly.
>
> I've found that they lie a lot.
>
> Think about it, if mathematicians send out a press release claiming to
> have solved some great math problem, and then you hear that the
> supposed proof is hundreds of pages long and understandable by only a
> few experts in the world, what makes you think it's actually correct?
>
> Most of you can't check even if you wanted to, and few of you would
> want to, and don't you think mathematicians know that?
>
> If you believed in them before, consider my research, and my prime
> counting function and ask yourself why. 

-- 
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Partial difference equation, primes
    ... >> mathematicians still don't use a partial difference equation to count ... partial difference equation in my prime counting function IS ... I directly refute claims made by sci.math posters, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Partial difference equation, primes
    ... >> mathematicians still don't use a partial difference equation to count ... partial difference equation in my prime counting function IS ... I directly refute claims made by sci.math posters, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Partial difference equation, primes
    ... > mathematicians still don't use a partial difference equation to count ... > difference equation to count prime numbers. ... > write a recursive prime counting function in such a short space!!! ... > It amazes me how often sci.math posters just lie. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: JSH: And I ALWAYS beat them
    ... That prime counting function has a form similar to Legendre's Formula, ... Pondering that apparent connection has been something that some of the ... differential equation follows from the difference equation. ... Mathematicians in mainstream areas did little better. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: JSH: This is what it really takes to talk about the distance between primes
    ... And pity the poor mathematicians who lie all the time as they built up ... there was no way a prime counting function could work that way. ... That colleague ended up just wishing me luck so I went back to Odlyzko ... They lie to you all the time. ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast