Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud


"JSH" <jstevh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188849511.829355.293260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 3, 11:18 am, marcus_b <marcus_bruck...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 2, 12:19 pm, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 1, 11:27 pm, junoexpress <MTBrenne...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I believe the burden of proof is on you.

Not necessarily if you believe that a concept can be of interest in
and of itself to people who are supposedly experts in a field.

Stupid.
Nobody will be even the slightest bit interested in it until you give
some indication (I'm not even saying proof, which I know you can't
do)
that it's performance is in *some way* optimal.
Why should they waste their time on your half-baked ideas when
they're
trained in the field and know they have ideas that are at least worth
working on.

But if the idea turns out to be a brilliant one which means factoring
is not a hard problem after all, then how can mathematicians who not
only couldn't figure it out, but who ignored it when presented with it
be considered to be true experts in the field?

A hypothetical. Hypotheticals are cheap.

What if THEY are the ones deluding themselves and doing research that
is valueless because they actually lack real mathematical ability?

So they are incapable of seeing important research as well?

More hypotheticals. You are counting chickens before they are
hatched, in fact before there is any reason to think they will
ever hatch.

You might as well say: "What if pigs are actually able to
fly, and zoologists have overlooked this possibility for
centuries?" Should zoologists really spend a lot of time
worrying about this?

Challenging Santos to commit every dime is part of that action, as
to
con artists, what really is more important than money?

I don't know, you tell us. You've been perpetuating a con job on
sci.math as long as I can remember, always promising something and
never having delivered on one promise. If that's not a con-job, I
don't know what is. What's even worse is that a lot of it you've done
dishonestly, using others to work out things you can't do, all the
while boasting how much smarter you are then the rest of humanity.

Except I HAVE delivered. Instead of just arguing with people over my
proof of Fermat's Last Theorem I wrote a paper over a key results that
followed from it and got it published.

The publication was a careless error on the part of an
incompetent editor. You knew before the paper was submitted
that there were fatal objections. You delivered, all right.
You delivered crap. And you got what you deserved, and more,
in return.

Posters on sci.math then declared that the journal system was flawed
and that math journals routinely publish false papers!!!

Oh, no. No one has said math journals routinely publish
false papers. There is no evidence for this in general.
That particular journal had a poor track record, having
previously published at least one very questionable paper.
The papers in it were often poorly edited, and a surprising
fraction of them were by the editor himself.

Others mounted an email campaign against the paper and convinced the
journal editors it was false, so they yanked it, and later the journal
shut down.

The paper was wrong to its very core and wrong in details.
It is NORMAL BEHAVIOR to write to the editor when an incorrect
paper is published. The editor lied to you regarding peer
review. The editor acted AGAINST explicit advice from
letter-writers here and yanked your paper with no explanation.
It is plausible that the editor was pressured to discontinue
the journal because of his incompetence and dishonesty. His
handling of your worthless paper was contributing evidence.

With my prime counting research I first found my prime counting
function, and then proved how it was different from anything else
previously known as to this day no one can give any other partial
difference equation used to count prime numbers, and no other known
that finds primes on its own.

Your algorithm is a minor variant of Legendre's method.
Your algorithm (not 'your function') is not competitive with
current methods in speed for counting primes. Neither you nor
anyone else have indicated why your 'partial difference
equation' is useful or important.

Posters on sci.math when challenged with those points shift the
definition of "difference equation" to a non-standard one, and ignore
the second point about finding primes or just lie about it.

Repeatedly, by all normal standards, I achieve and posters deny in
unreasonable ways all achievements while making dubious achievements
of their own--like killing a math journal.

REASONABLE people who listen to me talk about the factoring problem
can note that I'm making sense,

No, liar. REASONABLE people here have repeatedly tried to
implement your many variants of surrogate factoring. None are
remotely close to competitive with existing methods for
factoring integers. Further, you have not provided any
rationale for why factors of a surrogate might be connected
algebraically or probabilistically to nontrivial factors of
the original target. It looks like your rationale is the
following: "I have this vague hunch that factoring an integer
S which is a function of the target T might have a high
probability of producing nontrivial factors of T. The reason
this might work is, I am a genius and ideas generated by
geniuses often turn out to be right. No one can prove that my
vague hunch is wrong, so I am being unfairly ignored by the
evil hacks who call themselves mathematicians."


Sounds like you're ready to defend on every point, so your position is
clear, and now if that position is refuted ultimately by the evidence,
so that everything you said falls apart like a house of cards, what
then?

"if" ?


Can you get what I'm emphasizing here? That the math community cannot
have its cake and eat it too?

forget ego, come up with somepthing real, everybody will give you credit for
it
but you have to come up with something real
not fake


I want it clear that if you turn out to be wrong you lose the title of
experts.

that is what happened to you.


Period.

glad we agree.


No if's and's or but's, but quite succinctly, you lose the title of
experts in the field.

yup, canned, outted.


Get it? So it's not about me asking anything from you except clarity
on this position.

clarity? that is not what you want troll.


I want you and your community to understand that if I force this and
prove that I am correct, you lose the title "mathematicians".


you cannot force anything as you are not a mathematician, you are only a
person with a limited intellect in Math.


James Harfis



.

Relevant Pages