Re: JSH: No shame
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: Don Whitehurst: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Changing frequency by changing speed"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "JSH: No shame"
- Next in thread: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: JSH: No shame"
- Reply: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: JSH: No shame"
- Reply: The Last Danish Pastry: "Re: JSH: No shame"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:37:38 -0600
On 2 Feb 2005 19:53:07 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>Reality is that I can prove my claims.
>
>If I'm proven wrong, then I am quite willing to acknowledge that as
>well, as I've done many times in the past, though yes, at times I've
>held on to wrong ideas for a while, but I strive to have correct
>information.
>
>However, I'm seeing that mathematicians as a group do not.
>
>The history of the prime counting function on the Wikipedia makes my
>point nicely.
>
>No one cared enough to write an article, so I did, and I included my
>own research, which is correct, though there have been claims that my
>prime counting function is not new:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
>
>It fits nicely in an encyclopedia. It works.
>
>So, even if every claim made by sci.math'ers about that formula were
>correct--except claims saying it didn't work, as it does--then why not
>use it in an article?
Because that encyclopedia is supposed to be a reliable reference,
and as the guy explained in his comments, your claim that this
formula is a "recent" discovery is simply false.
>The reality is that social crap governs math society.
>
>Mathematicians won't use my result as that would be an acknowledgement.
>
>So they are trying to let it die by blind neglect.
>
>Math society is corrupt. That kind of behavior is corrupt behavior.
Not only corrupt but _amazing_ well organized. The fact that the
evildoers on sci.math seem to have informed every journal editor
in the world that they should ignore your stuff is quite remarkable.
As is the fact that every editor in the world is playing along.
Again, maybe there's a simpler explanation. (Hint: the simpler
explanation is clear to everyone but you - it's been explained
to you many many times...)
>You cannot make up your own social rules to decide whether or not you
>will report mathematical results which can be shown to be important,
>like my prime counting function can, just by this simple demonstration.
>
>Let's say some kid out there is interested in numbers, and can get a
>handle on counting primes from a short, compact formula like mine, but
>she won't get that chance, now will she? Not if you people get your
>way, as you'll do whatever you can to hide that formula.
>
>And you will do that because you don't care about the future.
>
>You people are firmly locked in the present and fighting for your
>social order.
>
>I am the destroyer of that social order.
>
>So you fight, without regard to your social obligations.
>
>You people do what you do because you don't care.
>
>Your *behavior* is proof that you don't care.
>
>You are a sick and rogue group at odds with the larger social order.
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
- Next message: Don Whitehurst: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Changing frequency by changing speed"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "JSH: No shame"
- Next in thread: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: JSH: No shame"
- Reply: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: JSH: No shame"
- Reply: The Last Danish Pastry: "Re: JSH: No shame"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
