Re: JSH Theory: A *Much* Shorter Explaination

Frank J. Lhota wrote:

I think I have a much simpler version of James
Harris's recent work. If we
define

a_1 = 5 * sqrt(7)

and

a_2 = sqrt(7)

then

7 * 5 = a_1 * a_2

where all of these numbers are in the ring of
algebraic integers. It would
seem that 7 should divide either a_1 or a_2, but
NEITHER of the a's can have
7 as a factor in the ring of algebraic integers!

Don't you find that odd?

Don't worry, I didn't find it odd either. It seems
as though Mr. Harris is
the only one in these newsgroups that is unaware,
or unwilling to accept,
that the ring of algebraic integers do not always
behave the same way as the
ring of integers.

James is not interested in such simple stuff, because
then it becomes
obvious that what he says is nonsense. He reminds me
of what Bertrand
Russell said about Kant (I'm quoting from
Littlewood's Miscellany):

[Russell] said that what Kant did, trying to
g to answer to Hume [...],
was to invent more and more complicated stuff,
uff, till he could no
longer see through it and could believe it to be
o be an answer.

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Santos


Russell was, of course, the one who showed, by reducing
it to a formally logical problem, that Hume's skeptical
problem was a true problem of logic (rather than simple
sophism), which could then be taken seriously by logicians
like Godel, and dealt with formally.

As I see it, the trouble with the intellectually lazy
is that they never -- unlike Russell, Kant and Godel --
want to risk truth in the crucible of reason. They
simply want to believe as they believe. Harris
really isn't all that much different from the rest of
the world, just more vocal, at least in the limited world
of Usenet.

Tom
.