Re: JSH: Resolution now possible
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 10/17/04
- Next message: Stan Brown: "Re: Probability and the Urn"
- Previous message: KBH: "Re: simple quickie > how does (1 + r)^2 get to 1 + 2r + r^2 ?"
- In reply to: James Harris: "JSH: Resolution now possible"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: JSH: Resolution now possible"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: JSH: Resolution now possible"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:50:09 -0500
On 17 Oct 2004 07:13:23 -0700, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
>After over two years of arguing on the specifics of my techniques of
>polynomial factorization which adds to even more years of arguing
>before about factorizations I think it's finally clear how to move to
>resolve all the issues:
>
>1. My position is that the definition of the ring of algebraic
>integers requiring roots of monic polynomials with integer
>coefficients is arbitrary and misleading in that you can have numbers
>properly units that are excluded on the technicality that they are not
>roots of monic polynomials with integer coefficients.
Uh, right. This makes exactly as much sense as saying that
the definition of the ordinary integers is misleading and
flawed because some integers are units except for the
technicality that the reciprocals are not integers...
>[...]
>
>Over time some people should understand the argument, and see through
>the tactics used against me to gain an ever more negative opinion of
>the math community.
>
>Over time that negative opinion, especially given that math professors
>continue to teach erroneous ideas--now possibly deliberately giving
>young minds false information--will likely move to specific actions
>against the math community, well within most of your lifetimes.
>
>Given societies propensity for harsh penalties, some of you may face
>jailtime or significant loss of personal fortune, along with a great
>deal of shame.
Oops, sounding like a raving lunatic again.
When are you going to finally get around to hiring a lawyer?
>My suggestion at this point is objectivity.
>
>If I'm right you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by
>fighting correct mathematical results. While you may feel that you
>can win, that is the typical criminal thinking that helps to keep our
>world so interesting.
>
>Criminals usually think they'll get away with it, so if you wish the
>adjective "criminal" added to you, properly, and face a very angry
>society down the road, as people take education kind of seriously,
>then continue as you have been doing.
>
>Huge universities like Princeton or Harvard can be brought to their
>knees on this issue, and your academic colleagues probably won't be
>appreciative of the massive black eye that academia can get.
>
>Alternatively, you can simply start playing fair, and I say start
>since sci.math'ers have repeatedly stepped over bounds, from nasty
>webpages including copyright violations, to coordinated email
>assaults, to just plain meanness in lots of little ways.
>
>You have presented a story of hostility toward the world and against
>the truth, and even if you feel that was other sci.math'ers, don't
>make the mistake of thinking life is fair.
>
>If a few years from now, you're sitting in a jail cell, wondering how
>you got there, or wandering the streets, unable to get a job, then the
>door will have been closed as you will not be able to come back to
>now.
>
>
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
- Next message: Stan Brown: "Re: Probability and the Urn"
- Previous message: KBH: "Re: simple quickie > how does (1 + r)^2 get to 1 + 2r + r^2 ?"
- In reply to: James Harris: "JSH: Resolution now possible"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: JSH: Resolution now possible"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: JSH: Resolution now possible"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
