Re: Let's face facts, mathematicians' shame

On 1 Dec 2003 08:45:10 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Harris) wrote:

>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!!!
>
>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.
>
>> >Readers note, David Ullrich is here being caught in a lie.
>> 
>> No, you, as usual, are either lying or exhibiting remarkable
>> ignorance, like you've never even glanced at that page on
>> mathworld in spite of the numerous times people have 
>> given you a reference to it.
>
>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 anyone who's curious can go to that page and read it?

No, that can't be the reason, must be that I'm trying to hide the
truth. Or something...

>Remember for reference David Ullrich, an actual math professor at
>Oklahoma State University, had the following from my reply:
>
>> >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.
>
>What I gave is complete, and straightforward, and doesn't require you
>check a link!
>
>> And phi(x,x) = pi(x) - pi(sqrt(x)).
>
>Ok, so now he suddenly feels forced to give a little more
>information!!!

Beezarre. The fact that there was more than one line in my post,
with some information here and some there, somehow shows...
well I'm not sure what your point is, but it's very strange.

>Here readers can see that you have phi(x,x) *defined* by pi(x) and
>pi(sqrt(x)), 

Uh, no, that's not the definition of phi(x,x).

>which may be what David Ullrich apparently thought was
>worth hiding in his original post.

I was "hiding" this formula by providing a link to that page.
Right.

>Also notice that you have pi(x) *and* pi(sqrt(x)), as it's not a very
>clean relation.
>
>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.

And it's clear to anyone but you that that's exactly what I did.

Not sure whether it's clear to you or not. Could be you're stupid,
could be you're lying, as always it's hard to decide.

>In reply he gave a *piece* of Legendre's Method, calling it the entire
>thing, 

Exactly where did I state that I'd presented all of Legendre's
method?

Hint: All I presented was the part that was needed to show
that your statement about how your formula was the first
in history to count primes via a difference equation was false...

>and didn't explain key things, like a variable with an internal
>dependency on prime counts.
>
>When pushed he finally gave a little more, revealing yet another
>dependency on a prime count with pi(sqrt(x)).
>
>Yet my discovery is straightforward:
>
>> >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
>
>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!!!
>
>It's not called a difference equation.
>
>Difference equations are analogs to differential equations.
>
>For instance, with y=x^2, the difference equation is easily enough
>calculated to be
>
>dy = 2x dx + 1, 
>
>(normally delta is used but d is more compact for text posts)
>
>which is the analog to the differential equation 
>
>f'(x) = 2x.
>
>So David Ullrich, as I pointed out, lied.  Now he's guilty of
>repeatedly lying on *three* newsgroups given that the posts are on
>sci.cognitive, sci.physics, and sci.skeptic, which is not surprising
>behavior to me.
>
>> >>   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.
>
>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.
> 
>> >> >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
>> 
>> ************************
>> 
>> David C. Ullrich
>
>
>Yup, all he had remaining to say was his name.
>
>
>James Harris
>
>"My math discoveries, found for profit"
>http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

************************

David C. Ullrich