Re: Let's face facts, mathematicians' shame

"James Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > On 29 Nov 2003 12:59:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Harris) wrote:
> >
> > >David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >> On 24 Nov 2003 06:10:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Harris) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >1.  After years of being called names like "crank", "crackpot", and
> > >> >"loon", I managed to find a way to count prime numbers not in the
math
> > >> >references.
> > >> >
> > >> >Now that's a fact and I mention the previous hostility from math
> > >> >society to give context.  After all, many of you may wish to reject
> > >> >the idea that mathematicians would toss out valid knowledge just
> > >> >because the person who found it is someone they hate, but that's
> > >> >what's happening.
> > >> >
> > >> >2.  What I found is a recursive function that finds primes as it
> > >> >recurses *and* counts, a first in math history.
> > >>
> > >> Except for the essentially identical recursive formulas for pi(n)
> > >> found 200 years ago, you mean. Curious how you always forget to
> > >> mention that...
> > >
> > >That is a lie, and a seriously bad one because I can just ask for
> > >David Ullrich, a math professor at Oklahoma State University, to back
> > >up his claim by himself giving just *one* of the formulas he claims
> > >exist.
> >
> > See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LegendresFormula.html .
> > Note the formula
> >
> >   phi(x,a) = phi(x,a-1) - phi(x/p_a, a-1).
>
> Only problem is that doesn't count primes.
>
> Readers note, David Ullrich is here being caught in a lie.
>
> Consider what I have:
>
> dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
> sqrt(y-1))],
>
> S(x,1) = 0.
>
> And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, and you get S as the sum of dS
> from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
>
> Here p(x,sqrt(x)) IS the count of primes.
>
> For instance, p(100,10) = 25, which is the number of primes up to 100.
>
> > Hint: the fact that the _phrase_ "partial difference equation" does
> > not appear on that page does not mean that the above is not what
> > you're calling a partial difference equation - it is. If we say
> > phi_a(x,a) = phi(x,a) - phi(x,a-1) then that formula is exactly
> >
> >   phi_a(a,x) = phi(x/p_a, a-1).
>
> But that doesn't count primes.
>
> > Voila, a 200-year-old "partial difference equation" used to count
> > primes.
>
> But it doesn't count primes.
>
> > >For reference, here again is *my* discovery:
> > >
> > >dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
> > >sqrt(y-1))],
> > >
> > >S(x,1) = 0.
> > >
> > >And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, and you get S as the sum of dS
> > >from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
> > >
> > >Here p(x,sqrt(x)) gives the count of primes.
>
> Notice, David Ullrich had context as I clearly show how my discovery
> *counts primes*.
>
> > >So now, I've called David Ullrich, an actual math professor at a real
> > >university, a liar, and now ask him to put up or shut-up.
> > >
> > >Go ahead David Ullrich, put up an example to back up your claim, if
> > >you can.
> >
> > So now I've done that.
>
> But what you've shown doesn't count primes.
>
> For those of you who just can't believe that a mathematician could so
> blatantly and *stupidly* lie in a post to THREE newsgroups, consider
> how easily I caught him.
>
> What he gave does NOT count primes!!!
>
> Ok David Ullrich, now give something that gives a count of primes!!!
>
> For instance, I give p(100,10) = 25, which is an actual prime count.
>
> > >Now mathematicians can be rather, um, unethical, as if common decency
> > >is just some word, so don't be surprised those of you who didn't
> > >realize that fact.
> > >
> > >Let's see what David Ullrich says in response.
> >
> > And now that I've done what he asks, let's see how he replies.
> >
> > >James Harris
> > >
> > >"My math discoveries, found for profit"
> > >http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/
> >
> > ************************
> >
> > David C. Ullrich
>
> Now maybe readers can understand the contempt that mathematicians have
> both for mathematics and people who are not mathematicians.
>
> Here the final test to prove he's not a liar (and now a stupid liar)
> is for David Ullrich to actually deliver and show *something* that
> gives a prime count.
>
> Like, there are *four* primes up to 10, as they are 2, 3, 5, and 7,
> and my discovery correctly gives p(10,sqrt(10)) = 4.
>
> David Ullrich needs to post something that also gives a count of
> primes.
>
>
> James Harris

You need to learn decency. You insult too many people without substantial
evidence. It is obvious that the only reason you attack arguments is because
you do not understand the arguments presented to you.

Here's an example:
I showed you that you can rewrite something like y=x^2-4x+5 in the form
y=(x-2)^2+1 and you called me an F***ing liar, where anyone who has had
algebra I can show that they are the same thing. If you can't show that the
two are equivalent, you're seriously lacking in algebra. Everyone who reads
your posts knows that you lack algebra knowledge and maturity.

David Moran