Re: Suggesting a Poll

On Feb 22, 3:03 pm, BD <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mensanator <mensana...@xxxxxxx> writes:
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.

Sigh, your reading comprehension is worse than your mathematics.

Is it? What part of

<quote Bill Dubuque Feb 17>
Below are the statistics, gathered crudely by simply computing the
percentage of posts in the Google Groups sci.math archive that
involve telltale crank-bashing keywords (crank, loon, crackpot...).
</quote>

is it you think I'm not comprehending?

What part of

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

am I not comprehending? Go ahead, explain how your having
different email accounts throws off MY post count.


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 ***.

No, no, no, it was CRAP last year, and it's still CRAP!
Your abstraction is lacking, not to mention your manners.

Idiot. Let's look at an example even the short bus crowd can
understand:

Suppose someone made 100 posts to sci.math, of which 3 are what you
call CRAP. That's 3%, right? Now suppose those 3 posts and ONLY those
3 were cross-posted to alt.math and alt.math.recreational.

Under your retarded algorithm, they each get counted three times

3 in sci.math
3 in alt.math
3 in alt.math.recreational

That's a total of 9. And how many total posts are there?

100 in sci.math
3 in alt.math
3 in alt.math.recreational
= 106

And what's 9/106?

8.49%, quite a difference from 3%, eh?

The only CRAP around here is your pitiful attempt at statistics.

Macsyma developer my ass. What was your role, sweeping up the office?


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

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Methinks you did not refute my claim that you're incompetent.


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.

If you believe you've proved something new and worthwhile
then why didn't you publish it in a reputable math journal?

I thought I did. But I'm not in the biz, so I had no idea
that the journal I published it in was run by a crank.
Nevertheless, it's still out there on the Internet for any
interested party to peruse. Lately, I've been directing people
to the pre-print on my web-site

http://www.mensanator.com/mensanator666/collatz_utilities/blueprint_for_failure_1_1_preprint.pdf

as the online journal appeaed to be fucked up the last time
I was there.

And besides, not publishing it in a journal does not invalidate
it. I notice you skirted the issue of saying what specifically
was wrong. And that's because you can't, so now you're backpedalling
again and want to see "new and worthwhile". Are you actually
conceeding that there is nothing mathematically incorrect
with my work? That you are, in fact, a fucking liar?


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're missing the point, as usual.

Explain the point.


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?

I don't wast my valuable time on cranks. PLONK!

Coward! You ARE a fucking liar.

If you think I'm a crank, let's see you prove it!

You can't, so you're running away.

As much as I loathe to admit it, JSH may have a point.

.

Quantcast