Re: JSH: Things never before done
- From: "Tim Peters" <tim.one@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 02:40:39 -0400
[added "JSH:" to Subject]
[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
It amazes me how I can put up discoveries showing mathematics never
before seen that explains big questions
If you were able to prove it was correct, all would be different.
and you people can decide that the appropriate response is to lie about
the mathematics
That doesn't actually happen, except for the guy who occasionally refers to
a non-existent Russian paper from 1914 (or something like that).
and call me names.
You really can't trace that back to childish behavior on your part? For
example, the tail end of _this_ message.
There has never before been a direct link between a straight
mathematical equation and the prime distribution.
No one figured out how to do it before. And no, sieve methods don't
count, and brute force methods don't count, and Riemann's idea is just
a hypothesis.
Don't you know he was looking for what I found?
LOL -- no, I didn't. Silly me :-)
And you stupidly lie and people believe the stupid lies when they don't
even make sense!
For years a bunch of sci.math'ers were claiming that what I found was
just Legendre's Method.
But Legendre's work doesn't have a partial difference equation!!!
I'm not sure anyone knows what you mean by "partial difference equation",
but Legendre's formula certainly satisfies well-known recurrence
relations -- and most people would call your Wikipedia formula a recurrence
relation too.
But you've heard all that many times before (well, it's been _said_ to you
many times before, replete with references), so no point ...
When I'd push about the partial difference equation, people would start
talking about it being slow!
It is. As written, it's _very_ slow. They pointed that out because _you_
were making grandiose claims about it being the fastest-possible
prime-counting algorithm, and those claims were silly. Etc, etc. Yes, it
can be sped, and in many ways, and by a lot, but there's no reason to
believe that even heroic efforts in that direction would make it speed- or
space-competitive with the best prime-counting algorithms actually in use.
You people are stupid. You tell stupid lies. And you just amaze me
for acting so, so stupid!
So you push me to work on factoring. So I go ahead and figure out a
new way to factor, trying my best to make it harmless, hoping some
sense of self-preservation will step in, but no, you people are stupid.
You are STUPID!!!
Hint: "trying my best to make it harmless" is not the way to set the world
on fire here. If you want credit for grandiose factoring claims, you're
going to have to actually factor something non-trivial in a non-foolish way
(e.g., not like last time, where you produced two complex numbers whose
product was 119).
BTW, on April 10 you posted to sci.crypt, saying that the last round of
surrogating factoring equations was in fact incorrect, and you gave a new
set. While I usually give your methods a try, your head-in-the-sand refusal
to even _try_ validating your claims finally wore me out, and I ignored the
April 10 message. Nobody else replied to it seriously either. If you want
a serious reply, you might try posting it to sci.math -- Rick Decker still
seemed to enjoy staring at it last time around, and now there's yet another
free variable to enjoy ;-)
So I can put up a hyperblic factoring method and you just act like it
doesn't matter that IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE just like you act
like it doesn't matter that NO ONE IN HISTORY EVER FOUND A PARTIAL
DIFFERENCE EQUATION THAT COUNTS PRIMES and I just keep realizing that
you people are STUPID!!!
You people are just freaking stupid. You're stupid. You are stupid.
YOU ARE STUPID!!
James Harris
Strong back, weak mind -- that's me! Thanks for noticing ;-)
.
- References:
- JSH: Things never before done
- From: jstevh
- JSH: Things never before done
- Prev by Date: Re: Sawtooth formula?
- Next by Date: Re: Schuler Pendulum
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: Things never before done
- Next by thread: Re: Integrating both sides .. only in physics?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
