Re: SF: Back to theory

From: Nora Baron (norabaron_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: 27 Feb 2005 12:23:25 -0800

jst...@msn.com wrote:
> Nora Baron wrote:
> <deleted>
>
> >
> > As in many other instances he has his own nonstandard definition
> > of 'liar'. A 'liar' is someone who disagrees with James Harris.
> >
>
> Sigh. Here's why I call "Nora Baron" a serial liar.
>
> For some years this poster has obsessively replied to my posts, and I
> noticed a while back that when I explained ideas out carefully and in
> detail in reply, this poster would just ignore the facts, no matter
how
> often I explained or how carefully I stepped through.
>

  I have an almost diametrically opposite view. You have
systematically and repeatedly ignored valid counterexamples and
disproofs posted by me and others, preferring to repetitiously
trot out your same old bogus arguments and simplistic toy
examples. "Advanced Polynomial Factorization", where you
generalize with no justification from m = 0 to m > 0, is a prime
example. You have never given a satisfactory response to me,
W. Dale Hall, or Arturo Magidin (who you also have called a liar
dozens of times, with never a single justification). Even in
this very post, you have ignored all the math content, preferring
to harp on trivia. This is your usual pattern.

> Also, the poster made a Nora Baron post ending with the name
"Andrzej"
> and there's another sci.math'er who used to obsessively reply to my
> posts, ignoring the facts no matter how detailed my replies who used
> that name.
>
> When caught, the poster claimed that the male name was the pseudonym
> and was being retired, while the "Nora Baron" name is supposedly the
> real name, but it is suspiciously a palindromic name.
>

  'Andrzej' was retired. I did not say what the "real name" is, or
the gender.

> >From my perspective the lying about math is what's most important

  Provide one example of where I have lied about math. Just one.

> while the weird sex thing is just that, weird.
>
> AT this point, it's anyone's guess what sex this poster even is, and
as
> for their mathematical statements, I've found that yes, the "Nora
> Baron" poster may say things that are correct up to the point that
> telling the truth would mean accepting one of my major conclusions.
>

  I have stated here that your "prime counting" algorithm appears to
be original and it appears to work. Was I lying? I have said
here more recently that "surrogate factoring" also appears to be
your original idea and that it might be worth investigating. Was
I lying then also? I do NOT accept anything else that you have
called a "major conclusion". Your alleged proof of FLT is wrong.
Your argument and conclusions in "Advanced Polynomial Factorization"
are wrong also.

  You however HAVE lied about the conclusion of "APF". At one point
recently you offered a "compromise": you said you would modify "APF",
if sci.math posters would refrain from trying to inform a journal
editor about their objections to it. Do you recall this? Am I
lying about it?

  Nora B.

> So that's why I say the poster is a serial liar. Take your pick,
lying
> about their sex, or lying about math, there's a lot of lying going on
> from that person whomever he or she really is.
>
>
> James Harris

Quantcast