Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 03/06/05 

Date: 5 Mar 2005 18:12:14 -0800

mm@nowhere.net wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > I said a *recursive* function.
> > [...]
> > Where is it recursive?
>
>
> I was answering this:
>
>
> |Now in any other method that you will see mathematicians talking
about
> |for counting primes you'll see a tell-tale list of primes being
needed,
> |and it's not because it's a luxury, but because it must be so, or
their
> |formulas won't work.
>
>
> Where is the word 'recursive'?
>

The methods I was talking about are recursive and require prime tables.

That's basic.

> Now, since you are a "professional programmer", as you claimed a
> few weeks ago, where is the problem? Any professional programmer
> knows how to make non-recursive a recursive algorithm and, when
> this is possible, he also knows how to make the contrary. So,
> just take the following formula
>
> k=x | (k-1)! + 1 | (k-1)! | |
> pi(x) = Sum | ---------- - | ------ | |
> k=2 |_ k |_ k _| _|
>
> and write it under a recursive form. Once more, here, this is
> stupid but this is feasible (and easy).
> No, you didn't know that, as a "professional programmer", you
> can do that? That's the problem of your life. All your abilities
> are hidden, but so much hidden that even you you don't know where
> they are.
>

Ok, you yourself say it's stupid, but then get on my case as if I'm
wrong.

Math people will refuse to acknowledge truths that they don't like,
against all reason, and they don't even make sense, but will do it
anyway.

Some of you reading may simply not be able to accept that people you
have thought of as extremely logical and rational, brilliant even,
could be worse than supposed "kooks" who will argue day and night
against things as basic as man having landed on the moon.

But all you have to do is consider this case where it's not even
debated that I found my own prime counting function.

I wrote a program implementing the sieve form of my prime counting
function over two years ago, and just did a run, so I can show you how
fast it actually is.

Sieve Time: 1903 milliseconds
m_max=1566638
pi(2454353657457)=89283424971

That is, there are 89283424971 primes up to 2454353657458

Total Time: 108376 milliseconds

So it took it less than 3 minutes to count all the primes up to

2,454,353,657,458

which is a count over 2 trillion numbers.

The actual count of prime is 89,283,424,971, which is a bit over 89
billion prime numbers.

That's from a program in Java which uses my discovery, and I should
have a right to be proud of my work, but the math people have turned
everything upside down.

My prime counting function in sieve form, not slow as the math people
not only say on Usenet, but some of them have put up webpages!!!

You can't be a rational adult and not get a sense that something is
really wrong here with mathematicians avoiding such a result in the
area of prime numbers.

The full story is so much bigger, and the corruption level is through
the roof.

Or do you think you know how to count primes over 2 trillion numbers?

How many people in the world do you think do?

Now then, how many of them are doing it with their own mathematical
discovery?

However, the math people brand me a "crank" and a "crackpot" or a
"loon", when I can demonstrate what my mathematical discoveries can do,
and can do so in dramatic areas like prime numbers.

Yet you can go to a major bookstore in the US and see books claiming
that prime numbers are so important to mathematicians.

Yeah, when people they consider members of their group make
discoveries, but somehow they seem to become far less important if an
amateur mathematician like myself does.

So how important are they really to mathematicians?

Or is the social view more important? You know that view most people
have of mathematicians as brilliant people?

What if they're not?

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Sieve distinction, prime counting
    ... A key point that needs to be understood to get at why my prime counting ... The "intelligence" you might say of my discovery that allows it to ... So built into my prime counting function is a logical switch that flips ... Now in any other method that you will see mathematicians talking about ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests
    ... Melch has them as ... for either surrogate factoring, or random number generation. ... > That's because supposedly mathematicians are curious about mathematics, ... > Some posters have spent a lot of time claiming my discovery is random. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests
    ... Melch has them as ... for either surrogate factoring, or random number generation. ... > That's because supposedly mathematicians are curious about mathematics, ... > Some posters have spent a lot of time claiming my discovery is random. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Wikipedia experiment, prime counting function
    ... but what if mathematicians do not behave as they should? ... It just so happens that my prime counting function has an extraordinary ... so you will ignore it or lie about it to instead claim ... my discovery is of no value. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cultures "discovering" math - USE IT OR LOSE IT!
    ... it was announced that mathematicians in India ... what did that culture do with the "discovery"? ... As to calculus and Newton and Leibniz, ... But did these cultures go beyond that simple use to "prove" the ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast