Re: Let's face facts, mathematicians' shame

"Danny Kodicek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "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 ;)
> 

That's why I emphasize *social* issues so much as inexplicably,
despite being caught trying to defy the facts several times Danny
Kodicek apparently believes that he has social support!

However, the fact is that David Ullrich was caught in several lies
attempting to persuade readers on these newsgroups to discount the
reality of my prime counting discovery, and Danny Kodicek was caught
angrily defending him against the facts.

> > > > > >> 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.
> 

But why the anger exposed by the insulting start?  

Why am I so important that such anger is needed?

I suggest to you readers that the problem for Danny Kodicek is that
David Ullrich was *caught* in his lies.

> 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.
> 

The issue here is that mathematicians are attacking a mathematical
discovery, which is an important social issue.

David Ullrich, a math professor at Oklahoma State University, has been
caught in the act of *lying* about my math discovery.

However, Danny Kodicek replied angrily in Ullrich's defense, but
clearly was disputing several facts.

Now he's back-tracked yet again, to try and change the reality of the
discussion, as if sheer words are all that matter.

> 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.
> 

Notice how *casually* Danny Kodicek lies!  His emotion was shown in
his posts from all the insults, but rather than acknowledge the
obvious--after all, people *do* insult to show emotion--he tries to
deny it.

Then he condscendingly comments on my efforts as if he's in the
superior position, when he has been caught trying to defend lies from
Ullrich.

I want readers to consider that such behavior is typical of math
society, as if mathematicians have decided that they are by definition
superior to others, so that they cannot be put in an inferior
position--not even by their own actions.

So, after being beaten by the facts, and shown to be emotionally
invested Danny Kodicek thinks that all he has to do is just say
otherwise, as if reality itself bends to the will of mathematicians.

> >
> > > 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.
> 

Then why did David Ullrich post it, without explaining anything about
it, yet claim that it was Legendre's Method?

Readers need only consider that Danny Kodicek has agreed that the
variable IS indeed a number of primes, something denied in a previous
post.

But notice, no apologies or acknowledgements as if the inconsistency
is not something that should concern anyone!

I suggest to you that mathematicians belong to a society that has
*decided* that it is superior, and therefore, can simply say what it
pleases without concern about basic social values.

>  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.
> 

But that's not what David Ullrich posted.  When pushed he posted yet
another equation, but never explained.

Now I know that actually showing how to count primes using Legendre's
Method reveals that it's quite different from my discovery, as well as
being convoluted and, well, ugly.

Both David Ullrich and Danny Kodicek are dancing around that reality
by trying to not explain clearly, while giving pieces here and there,
apparently, expecting readers to trust them.

> >
> > > 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.
> 

Readers should note that the poster believes that he can speak for all
of Usenet.

I'm trying to emphasize to readers that something is *wrong* with math
society, which partly explains why they're attacking discovery, rather
than cheering it.

There's a social ill within the society.

> 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.

Actually, what I discovered IS a partial difference equation, while
what David Ullrich posted is not.

Readers should note that *now* Danny Kodicek concedes that what David
Ullrich called a difference equation is, in fact, not one.

So far, he's now conceding facts which I've been using to show that
David Ullrich was indeed lying, but notice his tone.
 
>  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:

Readers should note I'm emphasizing the succinct nature of my
discovery as well as the ease with which it's described versus what
mathematicians like David Ullrich are presented as equivalent.

The mathematicians are indeed caught here by reality, but inexplicably
refuse to acknowledge even basic facts, preferring to challenge
reality as if it only matter what *they* say is reality.
 
> >
> > 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...
> 

Now Danny Kodicek claims that he doesn't care, which is in
contradiction to his previous insulting post, which betrayed a LOT of
emotion.

Notice also that I've shown where David Ullrich was lying as I went
along, but now, Danny Kodicek maintains that everything Ullrich has
said seems reasonable.

So, readers are expected to deny the reality of Danny Kodicek's own
postings and the emotion he showed, as he now tries to just deny his
way out of 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 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?
> 

David Ullrich, a math professor at Oklahoma State University, is not
acting up to the level of expectation that a reasonable person might
expect given his position.

> >
> > 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.
> 

He lied.

If he *understood* the math, why would he need to copy anything
anyway?

Still, even if he has to copy, why present a *piece* of something as
if it were the entire thing, and then not explain that piece?


> > > > > 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...
> 

I don't have to present a link to another page as I can give my
discovery.

Ullrich couldn't match that capability and instead falsely claimed
that one piece that he bothered to post was Legendre's Method, and
insinuated by his posting that it was the equivalent of what I'd
shown, when in fact, what he showed does not give a count of primes.

> >
> > > >
> > > > 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*?!
> 

Readers can see that in fact I've been careful and *rational* in my
responses while instead posters like Danny Kodicek and David Ullrich
have lied.

That's more of the *social* aspect of the issue as why else would
Ullrich and Kodicek be posting here to sci.cognitive, sci.physics, and
sci.skeptic, except to convince readers here.

However, the facts are against them, as in fact, what I'm saying is
correct, which is born out by the facts.  However, notice that the
poster believes that all he has to do is deny the obvious, as if *I*
am the unreasonable person.

> >
> > 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.
> 

Difference is still key.  Mathematicians are being caught trying to
deny the value of a discovery, by claiming that it's not new.

Yet readers can see from Danny Kodicek repeated concessions of
differences--striking differences.


> >
> > > > 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.
> 

Which again contradicts his insulting previous post.

The repeated denial of reality is an indication of just how emotional
and important an issue it is to Danny Kodicek.

He wants *you* to believe he's right, against the facts, against his
own behavior, and apparently expects you to do so!!!

> >
> > 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
> 

Here you see more condescension.

> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> 

So I had to repeat a fact, and the poster acts as if his previous
denial doesn't matter.

> >
> > 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.
> 

So now readers are to trust Danny Kodicek when he's been caught
repeatedly in falsehoods?

That would require that you yourself be irrational, but what's in it
for you?

Obviously Danny Kodicek has some emotional investment, but what is
yours?

> >
> > 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).
> 

And now *suddenly* supposedly it was all just show!!!

> > > 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

Yet Danny Kodicek definitely seems *very* interested in trying to
influence your opinion.

Remember, mathematicians are fighting to *dismiss* my discovery, which
means that they wish to throw away the information as unimportant.

Otherwise, it can just go into a math reference, and future
mathematicians could then have the opportunity to consider it as well.


James Harris

"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/