JSH: Polynomial multiples

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: 17 Oct 2004 16:43:46 -0700

If you had even a basic math education then you learned about
multiples of polynomials--you learned to divide them off.

None of you have ever been taught that multiples of polynomials are
varying functions that vary with the polynomial's variable, unless
you're learning from sci.math'ers.

Like P(x) = 4x^2 + 4x + 4 has a multiple of 4.

If some freaking poster were arguing for years that the factors of
P(m) have 4 divided off as function of x, would you be nodding along?

No.

But when yahoos argue with me, claiming that multiples of polynomials
divide off as freaking functions of the polynomial variable, you
nincompoops nod along, agree with them and call ME crazy.

Yup, you are Usenet.

Did it ever occur to any of you how stupid you look?

Barry Mazur didn't raise that objection when I sent a draft of my
paper Advanced Polynomial Factorization to him. And Andrew Granville
never argued with me about freaking CONSTANT TERMS!

You people are all by yourselves on this one, which means you have
managed to sink lower than math society in general, fighting the
result about algebraic integers and the technicality.

Sure, they were taught wrong, but you people are just plain stupid.

I wonder if any of you in math classes ever go into them and start
talking about how it's possible for a multiple of a polynomial can
divide off as a function.

Now that would be hilarious.

And when the professor looks at you like the freaking idiot you are,
then you can say "Nora Baron" taught you!!!

I've explained the problem with the ring of algebraic integers, and
even put up a paper draft which in Section 2, specifically addresses
exactly why you have algebraic integers that pop up, and Section 3
explains how you have conversion units from the ring of objects that
multiply times numbers that happen not to be roots of monic
polynomials with integer coefficients--the technicality--to give you
numbers that are.

Those conversion units are what makes things interesting.

But how can I explain to people too freaking stupid to understand that
constants are constant?

You people amaze me.

For YEARS you argued with me, and then I left you behind to go get
some papers published and there you were.

There you were sending goddamn emails to the journal editors like, I
don't know exactly how to describe sci.math'ers any more. You people
are in a league of your own.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Polynomial multiples
    ... >But when yahoos argue with me, claiming that multiples of polynomials ... >divide off as freaking functions of the polynomial variable, ... >Sure, they were taught wrong, but you people are just plain stupid. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Understanding the quotient ring nomenclature
    ... multiples of the polynomial X^2 + 1." ... Ris the ring of polynomials in the variable X with ... as solutions to a universal mapping problem. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: [OT] Re: Question for designers...
    ... This seems very odd to me. ... You find it easier to multiply and divide by ... quarter centimeter is 2.5mm; a sixteenth of a centimeter is 0.625mm. ... contains multiples of powers of 10... ...
    (comp.robotics.misc)
  • Re: JSH: Polynomial multiples
    ... > If you had even a basic math education then you learned about ... > None of you have ever been taught that multiples of polynomials are ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Understanding the quotient ring nomenclature
    ... multiples of the polynomial X^2 + 1." ... i.e. any element of some ring containing ... avoid this confusion by defining polynomials by their coefficient ...
    (sci.math)
Loading