Re: Let's face facts, mathematicians' shame

"James Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Danny Kodicek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "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:
> > > > >> >>

Okay, some snippage going on here - anyone that wants to read
back-references can look back. Too many chevrons for pleasant reading now.

This will be my last post on the subject as I'm well aware the whole
exercise is pointless. But hey, I enjoy reading these threads, so I should
try to give *something* back ;)

> > > > >> 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.
>
> Notice Danny Kodicek *began* with an insult.

Quite true. But then, if I hadn't been so astonished by your inability to
understand a rather simple piece of maths, I wouldn't have felt the urge to
post at all.

David Ullrich, an actual
> math professor, has been caught in repeated lies,

No, your use of the word 'lie' is simply wrong here. Even if David was
incorrect (which he wasn't), this would not be a 'lie' but an 'error'. A lie
is when you state something to be the case while knowing it not to be. Here,
we have a case of someone citing precise references to back up their claim,
which may or may not be true but is certainly not a 'lie'. That is an
emotionally loaded word which has no place in a mathematical discussion.

but this person
> would rather deny the truth.  The problem is, the truth is rather
> obvious here,

You got that right.

 so the poster *begins* with an insult, expressing anger
> at me, possibly for catching the math professor.

I'm not expressing anger but frustration and bafflement. I have no personal
emotion towards you at all, except a certain admiration for your dogged
persistence in the face of clear evidence that you are wrong. It makes me
quite sad if anything: so much ambition, if you would just devote as much
effort to educating yourself (and learning from the really quite patient and
detailed responses you get here from Ullrich and others) as you do to
proclaiming your genius, you might be able to genuinely make some useful
discoveries. Although it wouldn't make you rich. Maths doesn't make you
rich.

>
> > 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.
>
> That's what David Ullrich posted, and "a" is a number of primes.

Yes, a is a number of primes, but not related in any way to the count of
primes up to x. It is simply a dummy parameter (an upper limit to the
formula, in fact), which is to be replaced by x.

 If
> the variable is just eliminated, why did he give what he did, and call
> it Legendre's Method?

Because that's how the method works. The main formula includes a variable a,
which by setting it to x gives a formula for the count of primes.

>
> > 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.
>
> Notice the familiar "David" used by Danny Kodicek,

Yes, this is Usenet. We're all on first name terms here. Except for you, of
course, preferring to use someone's full name in that vaguely accusatory way
you like so much. Feel free to call me Danny.

and notice that in
> fact, what David Ullrich posted is NOT a difference equation.

No, it's a reduction formula. So is yours, actually. If you use terminology
in a non-standard way you can't expect others to use it the same way as you.

 If you
> do bother to go to the linked to page, notice that phrase is not used.
>
> Finally he tries to justify Ullrich's piecemeal posting by attacking
> my ability to succinctly post both the partial difference equation I
> discovered and how to count primes with it.

Er, no I didn't say that. I said that you repeat the whole thing every time.
Which point you handily proved for me by writing:

>
> Here it is again so you can see what upsets the poster.
>
> 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).
>
> Now then, p(x,sqrt(x)) gives the count of primes.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Notice that the facts dispute this claim of Danny Kodicek, but
> consider his beginning of his post with an insult and use of the more
> personal "David" for David Ullrich, to consider that he's angry about
> David Ullrich being caught in lies, and primarily just wants to
> dispute the truth.

If David was caught in a lie, then I couldn't care less. However, I would be
surprised, since so far everything I've read of his seems reasonable,
factually accurate and well presented to my non-specialist eye. Tell me
exactly how the 'facts' dispute my claim. Actually, don't bother, because
I'm not planning to reply anyway...

>
> > > 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 you see more excuses made for a *math* professor!
>
> Now then, I emphasize David Ullrich being a math professor as I think
> that should raise a certain high expectation, and I want to highlight
> that Ullrich doesn't live up to that expectation.

What?

>
> Ullrich copied a *piece* because he wanted to convince others of a
> falsehood in an attempt to attack the value of my math discovery.

You are so strange. I simply don't understand what this has to do with
whether he posted a link or copied the text out. It simply has no bearing on
what you said.

> > > > 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.
>
> Notice that Danny Kodicek adds more insults.

Not really - it's a simple explanation to answer your exclamation...

>
> > >
> > > 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)
>
> Well, I can see how my saying it's defined by that expression could in
> fact be wrong, as it is an equality, not necessarily a definition for
> phi(x,x).

*Gasp* Have I done the impossible and got James to admit an *error*?!

>
> However, the fact remains that you have pi(x) *and* pi(sqrt(x)), so
> it's associated with *two* prime counts.

This is true. But then this makes it a fairly simple reduction formula which
rapidly reduces to small values of x. Your formula reduces linearly.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Which indicates again anger from Danny Kodicek, instead of
> rationality.

You would love people to be angry by something you say, wouldn't you. Sorry
to disappoint you.

>
> However, David Ullrich made various claims.  I noted his claims were
> false, and said he was lying.  In response to my challenge he made a
> couple of posts, and I highlighted why they indicated he was lying.
>
> I've built my case carefully.

LOL

>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> And again Danny Kodicek relies on insults, and then attacks facts.
>
> The "first a primes" is a count of primes.  For instance, the first
> two primes are 2 and 3, and for the first two primes, you get a=2.

Yes, but you have it the wrong way round. a is a parameter, not a derived
value. The value a represents the maximum number of primes you are
interested in, which is simply useful for setting up the equation. It's a
dummy variable which we later eliminate.

>
> That is a fact, which I'd think is rather obvious.

Yes, but it's the meaning of the fact which you've misunderstood in your
attack on David's post.

>
> Which is probably why Danny Kodicek started his paragraph with an
> insult.
>
> > > 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?
> >
>
> Now Danny Kodicek is apparently furious at the facts.

LOL. I should have known better than to attempt any kind of irony or parody.
James, I was mimicing your style, which I would have thought was
extraordinarily blindingly obvious. I don't use caps myself for emphasis (I
prefer the double-asterisk approach).

> > 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.
>
> I have a first-find, that is, I'm the first person in recorded human
> history to find a partial difference equation that can sum to give the
> count of prime numbers.

Nope, still not answered my question. How do you expect to make money from a
result that yields a method that doesn't work very well to solve a problem
no one is interested in?

Danny