Re: Counting primes, and lying mathematicians

From: josephus (dogbird_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:17:05 GMT

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> Christian Bau wrote:
>
>>In article <1109734562.217804.129000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>First off, it doesn't actually look like any other prime counting
>>>function, which you can verify by typing "prime counting function"
>
> in
>
>>>Google and going to look at some. However, some Usenet posters
>
> have
>
>>>gone around saying my discovery is just a copy of old mathematics
>
> and
>
>>>they often cite Legendre's Formula.
>>>
>>>Problem is, not only is it NOT Legendre's Formula, easily verified
>
> by
>
>>>inspection, but any similarities to Legendre's are because they
>
> *both*
>
>>>count primes and the count of primes is the same, right?
>>
>>Legendre's formula:
>>
>> Let phi (N, k) be the number of integers 1 <= i <= N which are
>> not divisible by any of the first k primes.
>>
>> pi (N) = phi (N, k) - k + 1 where k = pi (floor (sqrt (N)))
>>
>> phi (N, 0) = N
>> phi (N, k) = phi (N, k-1) - phi (floor (N / p (k)), k-1)
>>
>>This is practically identically to the formula that you find, as
>
> anybody
>
>>who doesn't keep their eyes closed will easily see. However, the
>>definition of phi (N, k) requires fewer special cases than your
>>definition, which makes it much easier to handle and to create
>
> improved
>
>>algorithms.
>>
>
>
> Well here's an area where fact-checking is possible.
>
> First off, as I mentioned Legendre's does NOT find the primes it needs
> on its own as can be seen with the variable p(k), which you'll note the
> poster did not explain, though it is the k_th prime.
>
> It's called a sieve function because it needs a human being or someone
> to give it a list of primes for it to work.
>
> Without that list given to it, it doesn't work. It does not work at
> all.
>
> But notice the poster didn't acknowledge that it's a sieve function and
> goes on as if a direct comparison can be made with my work claiming
> that it's "practically identically (sic)".
>
> That's the kind of blatant lying that math people do, and can do
> because most people are either intimidated by mathematical language,
> don't care, or simply believe that people don't lie to them.
>
> It is a *crucial* point.
>
> My prime counting function can find primes numbers on its own as it
> recurses, which has NEVER been seen before in mathematics with a "prime
> counting function".
>
> Every other recursive method for counting primes known has needed to be
> to given a list of primes.
>
> That is just a fact.
>
> So the fact is that the method shown *requires* a list of primes given
> to it, as I said, where that list is specifically used where you see
> p(k).
>
> But notice, the poster didn't explain p(k), and didn't acknowledge this
> point.
>
> Now there IS a similarity between my prime counting function and that
> relationship, as there's a mathematical relationship because they both
> do the same thing--count prime numbers.
>
> Why is that a big deal?
>
> Well, um, mathematicians supposedly value mathematics for its own sake,
> right?
>
> NEVER before in all of human history has a recursive method for
> counting primes that doesn't need to be given a list of primes been
> known.
>
> It's a unique find, with a clear way to show it's unique, and different
> from *anything* previously known.
>
> The facts are what's important here. Check the facts.
>
> Notice no one can give in reply a recursive prime counting function
> that does not need a list of primes given to it other than my prime
> counting function.
>
> Posters may lie around this issue, they may dodge it, or otherwise try
> to distract, but they can't refute me on it, and by itself that proves
> the uniqueness and importance of my find.
>
>
> James Harris
>

As near as I can tell you believe noone understands mathematics. It is
clear that you dont. I think it is a fallacy to assume your thesis is
more astute than the "mathematicians". It is clear that you separate
yourself from mathematicians. Because they do something you dont. make
sense.
        josephus

Relevant Pages

  • Re: X = Z
    ... travel a path and return to its beginning, a goal of mathematics is ... that have otherwise generally canonical meaning. ... the fundamental discovery of truth in mathematics, ... appear on the subject of 'primes' above and below mine, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: X = Z
    ... travel a path and return to its beginning, a goal of mathematics is ... that have otherwise generally canonical meaning. ... Fashion has nothing to do with truth. ... appear on the subject of 'primes' above and below mine, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Math errors in book Secret Life of Numbers
    ... mathematics. ... Consider, for example, the subset NP-Complete. ... his students have proven that primes can be found in polynomial time. ... that in practice, it always was solved in polynomial time using the ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • Re: Pure mathematics as intellectual dead end
    ... falsifiability implies the failure of theory. ... >>>with mathematics, in which a theorem once proved is ... check whether or not 2n is the sum of two primes. ... Of course the twin primes conjecture is not falsifiable ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Math journals do not just die
    ... probability that x is prime. ... primes with a few hundred bits. ... Mathematics that relies on probabilistic ideas. ... So statistics can point in a direction, but proof is about the REASON. ...
    (sci.skeptic)