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 30 Nov 2003 15:04:18 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Harris) wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Uhm no, it does count primes. Otherwise it wouldn't be known
> > as Legendre's method for counting primes...
>
> That's *not* Legendre's Method, but something used in the *entire*
> method.
>
> That is readers, David Ullrich gave a piece of the full thing, and
> didn't explain it.
>
> For instance the "a" you see in what he posted is a count of primes.
>
> So it already needs a prime count!!!

Dear God, you're dim.

Two seconds' glancing at the MathWorld link posted showed that you have
misunderstood the value of a. More to the point, in the reduction of this
formula to the prime-counting formula you eliminate the variable a in any
case.

David didn't post the complete explanation, he just showed the difference
equation, along with a link to a full explanatory page. Unlike you, who
repeat the whole damn thing every time you post.

>
> Why didn't he tell you in his original post?
>
> Sure you *can* check the link he gave, but I think David Ullrich
> expects you to not bother.

I did. He's right. You're wrong. Well surprise sur-blimmin-prise.

> But why didn't he give the *full* method rather than post a link and
> one piece where he didn't even explain variables?

Because there's no reason to copy a web page verbatim

>
> > And phi(x,x) = pi(x) - pi(sqrt(x)).
>
> Ok, so now he suddenly feels forced to give a little more
> information!!!

Because you are too obtuse to click a link.

>
> Here readers can see that you have phi(x,x) *defined* by pi(x) and
> pi(sqrt(x)), which may be what David Ullrich apparently thought was
> worth hiding in his original post.

No, phi(x,x) *equals* pi(x) - pi(sqrt(x)). From phi(x,x), which has its own
formula, you can deduce the value of pi(x) (or rather, you get a reduction
formula for it)

> So to recap, I noted that David Ullrich, a math professor, was lying
> in an earlier post and challenged him to give support for his claim to
> refute that assertion.

Stop using the word 'lying' when you mean 'wrong' and stop using either when
you don't know what you're talking about.

>
> In reply he gave a *piece* of Legendre's Method, calling it the entire
> thing, and didn't explain key things, like a variable with an internal
> dependency on prime counts.

Once again, you're being an idiot. To quote from the web page: 'Counts the
number of positive integers less than or equal to a number x which are not
divisible by any of the first a primes,'. That is: a is not a 'count of
primes', it is a parameter which is used to define your search space. You do
*not* need to know anything about pi(x) to calculate phi.

> Yet my discovery is straightforward:

I thought it doesn't matter how complicated something is, as long as it's
PURE MATH and about FREAKING PRIMES?

> In fact David Ullrich is feeding you false information, as what he
> showed is NOT a partial difference equation.
>
> It turns out it goes to that "a" variable, which represents the count
> of primes up to a certain range!!!

Duh

> But why should David Ullrich bother with the truth?
>
> I'll include the post without deletion from the original down to the
> last thing David Ullrich puts out.

I won't - but notice how you're using the fact that he included all this
stuff as if it's damning somehow. Of course, if he'd deleted it you'd
probably complain that he snipped out something terribly important.

Danny
(delurking because I suddenly can't bear to read this crap without saying
*something*)

PS: you have never answered this although several people have asked: how do
you expect to make a profit from this 'discovery'? Who might pay for it?
What would they do with it? You keep going on about how it's pure math and
so it doesn't matter if it's fast or better than other algorithms, but
surely you must see no-one's going to pay for something that is no better
than existing methods, even if they *did* have some urgent need to count
primes. Which they don't.