Re: More math stuff, truth and social reality
From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "More math stuff, truth and social reality"
- Next in thread: Felix Rawlings: "Re: More math stuff, truth and social reality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:03:00 -0800
> They deny.
Yes. They deny your bogus claims. I sthat a problem?
> To break through, notice, I have to have the best and fastest out
> there.
No. I have not seen anyone say that your problem is a result of your
algorithm not being the best or fastest. I have seen them correctly point
out that your algorithm is much slower and less reliable than a trial or
even pseudorandom division factoring effort. I have seen them ask you
questions that you never answer about your ever changing but ill-defined
factoring algorithm that you have never shown to work, and never proved to
be polynomial time. I have seen them challenge your "perfect" method with
rather small problems, that you cannot solve. I have seen you make
rediculous claims of calamity if we do not believe you, and nothing of the
sort ever happens.
> If I can't *personally* build the fastest prime counting function ever,
> they act like my work should be dismissed.
Why should it not be dismissed? What theorem did you ever prove? What
results were opened up to others that could take your "work" further? Why
have yu never published any of your results? Have you heard from the Annals
yet?
> If I can't factor better than anything else out there, they act like my
> factoring research should be ignored.
It should be ignored. You have admitted yourself from time to time that you
cannot get it to work properly, in spite of your frequent claims of
"perfect" and "complete" and "simple" solutions.
> With research where I can't so easily demonstrate, like with my other
> work in algebraic number theory, they just change the rules, so I get a
> paper published in a small electronic math journal, and most math
> people ignore it, while the sci.math'ers band together to email the
> journal!!!
The journal made a mistake. And they were cowards in the way they dealt with
it. But it was shuch a hideous mistake to have almost published it that I
can why they acted the way that they did, once the error was pointed out to
them. If the paper was any good, all the emails from sci.math folks would
have been ignored by the editor. It got yanked, but the main reason for that
was that it was trash.
> Before I came along you may have naively thought that if some guy, even
> if you thought he was a bit obnoxious, came along and found his own
> prime counting function then that would be news.
You never found your own prime counting function. That function already
existed, and it had a name. You came up with a rather unimpressive algorithm
that computed that function. But even that was not original, and not very
fast, and not of much theoretical value, at least as far as anyone seems to
be able to see. So no. That would not be news.
> Before I came along, an amateur mathematician getting a math paper
> published showing a major result would have been news.
You call that aborted attempt with the electroninc jouranal? Give me a
break. ANd what about the Annals? Heard from them yet?
> A new paper covering that original result and more ending up at
> Princeton to be reviewed would have been news as well.
Reviewed? Not published, but just reviewed? No... Not news. Let us know when
you hear from them though.. that would be exciting news for me.
> Look around you people. Look at how many things are debated into the
> ground despite the evidence.
Despite what evidence? The only evidence I see shows that you are an idiot.
> And look at how rarely the truth matters in today's world.
Well, you just might be right about that. But that has little to do with any
of your points so far.
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "More math stuff, truth and social reality"
- Next in thread: Felix Rawlings: "Re: More math stuff, truth and social reality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
