Re: JSH: Just plain silly

From: W. Dale Hall (mailtowd-hall_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 09/19/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:20:21 GMT

Quinn Tyler Jackson wrote:
> Mensonator said:
>
>
>>So if it wasn't bugging you, why did you enlist your mentalist
>>friends to defend ....
>
>
> Um, first off -- what the heck is a mentalist?
>

 From Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm)
        men·tal·ist
        Pronunciation: 'men-t&l-ist
        Function: noun
        : MIND READER

The dictionary is your friend.

> Second -- when I jumped in a few months back and spoke out about the SWJPAM
> nonsense, I did it of my own accord, and James actually suggested I *not*
> get involved.
>
> I ended up getting royally roasted in public by an anonymous poster with no
> sense of human decency. And for what?
>

I don't know who can account for the actions of zealots. The anonymous
poster, whoever he or she is, seems fixated on something. I personally
doubt that he or she is anything more profound than a serious annoyance.

BTW, I would put JSH in that category. However, I don't see any reason
to launch into any sort of tirade about it.

> For stating that I'd seen something that was awry in the way a paper that
> had been accepted all of a sudden had magically been reviewed months before
> and rejected months before, with the editor allegedly sending this "review"
> to James that I'd seen posted here on sci.math AFTER publication, and which
> specifically spoke of the thing ALREADY having been published, but with that
> wording REMOVED from the "review" that was sent when the already published
> paper was yanked.
>
> These things angered me. I spoke up. James didn't enlist me.
>
> When I write something that gets published somewhere and someone doesn't
> necessarily agree with my take on things, they respond like this:
>
> http://hirvi.cs.queensu.ca/boolean/boolean_LL.pdf
>
> (See page two, first and second paragraph.)
>
> That is how it's supposed to be done. In an honorable way.
>
I have a couple of comments here.

The first is your casual association of your situation wrt the paper you
cited, where someone "doesn't necessarily agree with [your] take on
things", and JSH's paper, in which this isn't about anyone's "take on
things", unless you would count disagreement about whether 1+1=2, or
1+1 = 3 in standard arithmetic as constituting differing "takes on
things".

Using a couple of computer algebra programs, I personally produced
ordinary arithmetic (hence my association of this matter with
"1+1 = 2") that showed the primary conclusion of JSH's paper to be
in error: his conclusion was that some numbers were relatively
prime, and I provided factors that those (allegedly) relatively prime
numbers had in common, a direct contradiction of his conclusion. JSH
was well aware of this fact, prior to (perhaps for several months)
the publication, and he persisted in denying the validity of this
elementary arithmetic. To a person who has even the least familiarity
with the topic, my demonstration is absolutely obvious, yet JSH termed
my argument flawed, and my action in alerting the editor to the error
"lying" and "cheating". To call this "different takes on things"
suggests that you and the "anonymous" poster merely have "different
takes on things".

The second:

I wonder who it was you saw in sci.math suggest that SWJPAM handled this
matter correctly. Perhaps you have a list of names. I don't recall a
single person stepping forward to agree with their actions. I also don't
recall a single person stating that JSH's article should have passed
any sort of competent peer review, either. The nature of the errors in
that paper leads any competent mathematician to see that it (the paper)
is unsalvageable.

> That gives me a chance to formulate a response in the correct manner, and to
> seek publication of my response. My response to that author's comments are
> included in my latest paper. And so on.
>
> That's how it's supposed to be done, isn't it?
>

That sounds about right.

> Am I wrong about this? Or is James Harris a special case that allows for
> revisionist history?
>

Again: please tell us when you saw agreement with SWJPAM's actions. In
fact, at least one person has mentioned (in sci.math) having written to
the editors with a suggestion for correcting the situation by publishing
the "Advanced Polynomial Factorization" paper, together with corrigenda,
but was told (essentially) that SWJPAM did not publish papers with
errors. End of discussion. I attempted to locate the article in which
this was related, unsuccessfully. BTW, if anyone recalls this turn of
events, and can provide documentation, it would be appreciated.

So what is the revisionist history you are carping to sci.math about?
Complain all you like, but to be effective it might make sense to
complain to those with some degree of control over the situation.

> If so -- enlighten me, please.
>

Does this fit the bill?

> --
> Quinn
>
>

Dale

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If you found a way of factoring large numbers fast...
    ... Personally I'd run it by some mathematician friends who work in the ... that a paper has been submitted for publication, ... Your friends are much more likely to kill you (to grab that money). ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: I am fed up about the hulaboo about James Harris
    ... "Quinn Tyler Jackson says you are eccentric and a character." ... I am an eccentric character myself. ... Andrew Beckwith has a list of publication credits in his field longer than either of our arms. ... Frustration over how that lack of courage has crippled you all your life? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Burnhamism in Space!
    ... especially common in SF, ... (Hmm: any good ... That was from 1982, as I recall, but the title and publication date ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Arthur Stanley Eddington
    ... IIRC, the last survey I read (in a Friends' publication) showed 27% ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Arthur Stanley Eddington
    ... IIRC, the last survey I read (in a Friends' publication) showed 27% ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading