Re: Counting primes, my way versus others

From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 03/20/05 

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:23:15 +0100

denis feldmann <denis.feldmann@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes a écrit :
>> jstevh@msn.com writes:
>>
>>
>>>I kind of remember the discussions, and I do know that I didn't exactly
>>>like the idea that my explicit forms for the prime counting formula
>>>followed easily enough from as you put it, a centuries old minor
>>>identity, but I accepted it.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your post. Could you sum up by telling
>> me which of the following is true?
>>
>> (1) The JSH prime count method is original and important.
>>
>> (2) The JSH prime count method is a simple corollary to other methods
>> (and therefore unoriginal and unimportant?).
>>
>> Thanks much. I'm having trouble keeping score here.
>>
> By posting twice the queston, you take the very real risk of getting
> respectively (1) and (2) as answers (this is ultra-intuitionistic
> mathematics, after all)

Hey, I wouldn't complain. Twice the JSH is twice as nice!

But I think that intuitionists would prefer that you use the term
"paraconsistent mathematics" here. 

-- 
"All intelligent men are cowards.  The Chinese are the world's worst
fighters because they are an intelligent race[...]  An average Chinese
child knows what the European gray-haired statesmen do not know, that
by fighting one gets killed or maimed." -- Lin Yutang