Re: Math discovery versus math society

From: Tim Peters (tim.one_at_comcast.net)
Date: 02/19/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:23:49 -0500

[Proginoskes]
>> And if you check the thread you started about the "simple test",
>> you'll find that your latest discovery fails the test; there is no
>> way to interpret your instructions to obtain a factor of 91. (I used
>> M = 91, j = 10 and couldn't even get a rational number for Ax.) You
>> have yet to respond to this statement.

[JSH]
> Well yeah, that thesis was wrong. I noticed that failure and find it
> interesting.

That's an "interesting" way of giving credit where credit is due. Over on
sci.math, Rick Decker tried the example M=15 and j=2, and failed to find a
rational Ax. JSH then explained that some of the words he used in his
challenge didn't mean what they appeared to say, and clarified what he
actually meant. Rick decided he had better things to do then than pee away
more time on it. I took up where Rick left off, and extended his example
according to JSH's new explanation, and gave 8 rational Ax where the
denominator in fact had no factors in common with T.

JSH then agreed the counterexamples were correct. Which would have been
hard to dispute given that the example was the smallest odd composite that
isn't the square of a prime.

Message id: 4bGdnTf9S_nQvIrfRVn-jA@comcast.com

So, if anyone on the other newsgroups is wondering what JSH means when he
says "I noticed", that's what it means here: "It was rammed down my throat
by a tiny counterexample someone else had to provide because I can't be
bothered to check my algebraic manipulations against even the smallest
integers to which I claim they apply."

In a sense, he's right that finding trivial counterexamples doesn't deserve
much credit. Trying to pass off someone else's work as your own observation
remains a mortal offense among professionals even so.

> What? You think that's a proof that it's all wrong?

LOL! *You're* the chucklehead who posted:

    I'm *telling* you that the denominator will only have prime
    factors in common with T.

    If I'm wrong, then the world has its first perfect random number
    generator.

    If I'm right, then for all we know by this time, hackers may be
    having field day.

    It's not a hard test.

    I mention for governments and their prosecutors who may come later
    that some of the posters here may have acted in their own selfish
    interest, possibly believing they could exact some personal gain by
    lying here.

    Others may represent third parties.

    It would make sense to check them all very carefully.

and you're the one who said:

    Now I've accused some posters of lying, and I've issued warnings
    mentioning hackers and terrorists, so it's only fair that I give
    an easy test for people to defend themselves, as later, there may
    be no defense. My accusations alone may be enough to get some of
    you in trouble, in a world where few people will be interested in
    listening to reasons.

    They may simply act.

    The test is simple.

Indeed it was simple, after hours were peed away figuring out what the test
actually was, and it's entirely *you* who made such a big deal out of this
test. You reap what you sow, bubba -- it's the test *you* set up as proof
for the defense. I actually have no idea why you think it was important,
but you're the one who said it was.

Since your challenge was successfully met, I expect that as a man of honor
you'll now retract your offensive accusations <heh -- but it would be a
oh-so-pleasant change if you acted with decency here>.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SF: Two square, mystery celebration
    ... [JSH] ... [Rick Decker] ... Rick already explained in detail. ... and gave you a ready-made excuse for requesting that he do so: ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: New core argument then
    ... [Dik T. Winter] ... The distributive property tells us nothing like that. ... steps to which numerous counterexamples do exist. ... I wouldn't be surprised to hear him [JSH] eventually ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Here comes alpha
    ... Hey, JSH, asshole: ... you not give credit, you even insult those who help ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Order to chaos, new conjecture
    ... >>> where n is an integer, and p is an odd prime, x, y and z can only have ... This is the way a JSH claim usually goes: ... counterexamples, which he never finds because he's so confident in his ... admit that the original claim was wrong, although he won't give credit to ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Communication breakdown
    ... >> the JSH article in one of their posted issues. ... >> Notice the listing for "Advanced Polynomial Factorization by James ... > I thought this paper was co-written with a guy named Beckwith. ... on the paper and try to steal the credit. ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast