Re: Suggesting a Poll

On Feb 22, 4:09�am, BD <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mensanator <mensana...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:04 pm, BD <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mensanator <mensana...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Why is your sci.math message count over 800 more than shows
in my Google Groups profile?

Perhaps because you failed to consider the obvious fact that I've
posted under different email accounts over the past couple decades.

Well, yeah, I'm not one of your groupies, why would I consider that?

Yes, by now it's clear that you don't consider even the basic facts
regarding many matters that you naively babble about.

As you admit below, the above statement about multiple
email accounts was completely untrue. You were simply
lying, trying to cover up your incompetence.


Please explain how having different email accounts cause the count of
MY posts to be incorrect. Now, if you're counting the same posts
from the perspective of different sources, I could the the counts
being wrong, but that kind of mistake invalidates your entire list,
doesn't it?

The counts are the actual counts reported by Google Groups when
the statistics were collected last year (for all math groups, i.e.
group:*math*).

That's not what you originally posted, you specifically
said sci.math. And now that you've been called on it,
you're backpedaling and changing your story. Maybe you
should start using Google, then you can delete your
original post (like JSH) and pretend you never said it.

If you think they are in error then you should report
it to Google Groups.

I don't see any error on Goggle's part. I see that you
are outright lying claiming your list represents sci.math
when it actually represents sci.math PLUS other *math*
groups.

Beware that Google Groups has become less stable
recently so it may difficult to reliably recompute last years results.

Your list was *** last year and it's still ***.
Blaming Goggle isn't going to work as a cover for
your lies.


Don't you know how to prgram? Sounds like I won't have any problem
at all surpassing Tonico as long as you're doing the math.

Considering the fact that I was a primary developer of one of the
most complex mathematical software systems ever developed (Macsyma),
your above remarks are quite naive - to say the least.

The higher you are the farther you fall when you screw up.

Such a profound insight. I'll bet that's on the first page of
"3n+1 for Dummies" along with "what goes up must come down".

No, the first page will contain the profound insight in
catching liars in the act.


Work those hailstone curves!

They're straight lines you ignoramus.

Don't you even realize why it is called the "hailstone problem"?

I was refering to The Hailstone Function (Xa-Z)/Y which even a
Macsyma programmer should recognize as the equation of a straight
line. What were you refering to?

Read the standard reference: Lagarias' survey. �

I've read Lagarias years ago. I've moved beyond Lagarias,
but obviously you have not. The last time we argued about
this, I specifically asked what _YOU_ had accomplished
with regard to Collatz in the last two decades. I took
your refusal to answer as meaning you've just sat on your
ass doing nothing. Feel feel to correct my impression.

Come back when you
know some math

Oh? Specifically, name something I've said that is
mathematically incorrect. Not generalizations, specific
details. Is there something wrong with my Sequence Vector
definition? What, specifically? Is there something wrong
with the Hailstone Function? Are you claiming it doesn't
work? Are you saying the Crossover Point doesn't
resolve the issue of loop cycles? Are you claiming
that reducing a rational to lowest terms is somehow
different in Z- than in Z+? C'mon, you're the wizard
who developed Macsyma, let's hear your explanation.
This oughta be good.

and have something non-trivial to say about 3n+1.

Trivial has no bearing. The whole bleeding conjecture
is trivial. That doesn't stop it from being interesting.


You really should think a bit more before firing off such nonsense.

That's your problem, you dismiss what you don't understand as nonsense.
That makes YOU the crank, doesn't it?

You're a real hoot!

You didn't answer the question: why do you dismiss
what you don't understand?

Now I understand why you're almost at the top of
the most recent CRAP list.

More importantly, _I_ understand why. That it's
a worthless piece of crap by an incompetent
crank who lies when caught.

Tonico may have some competition after all.

Anyone who gives a *** about your fucking list
is an idiot.

.

Quantcast