Re: JSH: Would a major result get picked up?

JSH wrote:

On Sep 7, 6:27 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JSH wrote:

[...]



I am the published author here, though I also add the editors pulled
after publication.

The "published author" sticker loses its' shine when your only
publication was retracted, with the entire journal ceasing publication a
short time later.

[...]

Unless you know that the result is a revolutionary one that upsets
enough apple-carts that destruction of one electronic journal is minor
in comparison to the hugeness of the upset.

Ah, revolutionary you say?

What have you revolutionized. I still haven't seen you factor an RSA number
or anything reasonably interesting yet.


The preponderance of the evidence here is just extraordinary. There
is not just the bizarrely dead journal.

Publishing crap isn't really that bizzare of a prerequisite for ceasing
publication when you think about it.


Readers who wish to see how big what I call the Math Wars are need
only do a few quick Google searches.

Has to be Google search on: define mathematical proof

Or in Google: binary quadratic Diophantine equations

Riddle me this, James. What makes you different from the SEO folks who make
a product more "popular" by spamming sites google indexes?


To get a link to the dead math journal's archives on EMIS and also see
a link to the edition where my paper was yanked, just Google: SWJPAM

And I've posted yet again a re-discovery of mine of a rational conic
parameterization that has been known for centuries:

Given x^2 - Dy^2 = 1, in rationals:

y = 2t/(D - t^2) and x = (D + t^2)/(D - t^2)

WOW JAMES, YOU ACCOMPLISHED THE INCREDIBLE! Oh wait this *** has been known
for centuries, and isn't remotely surprising to anyone here.

How's the survey of that tidal pool going? Sure it was studied to death
years and years ago, but your autism makes it _far_ more interesting than
the ocean not 300 feet from you.


Google is an emergent technology (as well as a company of course) and
what you can possibly see now is what wasn't visible before when major
upheavals could lurk for some time before a revolution in thinking,
so, for instance, Galileo was some time after Copernicus and
persecuted, imprisoned in his own home for YEARS.

If you were persecuted and imprisoned, we wouldn't see your endless and
infinite bleating. So it stands to reason that the comparison isn't as apt
as you think.


It was 40 years if I remember correctly after his landmark book that
Darwin's theories on evolution started to really gain traction.

This saga instead of playing out over decades is playing out over
years, and is becoming visible because of the LATEST technology of the
modern age.

Ranting posters decrying Google and claiming its search results are
meaningless are a far cry from torch bearing clergy burning the devil
out of "heretics" but they represent the same type of resistive force.

New technology here reveals what has never before been seen in human
civilization--the below the surface movement of new ideas against
heated opposition.

It is rather unfortunate that you seem to feel that google has validated
your hugely inflated opinion of yourself and the [ir]relevance of your so-
called 'research'.

Still doesn't explain why you think your spew is relevant to sci.physics,
though.



James Harris

.

Quantcast