Re: Let's face facts, mathematicians' shame

David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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...

I want to remind readers that was the false claim David Ullrich made,
which is the one I challenged.

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

So I challenged David Ullrich to back up his statement.

> >> >> 
> >> >> See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LegendresFormula.html .
> >> >> Note the formula
> >> >> 
> >> >>   phi(x,a) = phi(x,a-1) - phi(x/p_a, a-1).

That's what he gave, but as I noted, the problem is that it doesn't
count primes.

> >> >
> >> >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...

In response, David Ullrich just lied again, claiming that it *does*
count primes, but notice what came later.

> >
> >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?

So now he claims that readers should chase the link!!!

Now readers who do go to that link will find that what Ullrich gave
does NOT count primes!

He's repeatedly lied, been caught in his lies, but continues to push
lies.

Not exactly the way you thought a math professor would behave, eh?

Kind of a bit much even for Usenet I'd think, unless you think that
math professors need not behave on Usenet.
 
> No, that can't be the reason, must be that I'm trying to hide the
> truth. Or something...
> 

Notice that the math professor is retreating to the likelihood that
you'll not believe that he'd lie so badly, or even lie at all.

However, my point is that a person like David Ullrich is contemptible
to that level that he'd use society and normal expectations against
you.

> >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.
> 

Readers should note that David Ullrich is retreating now to simple
denial having not managed to answer the mathematical issues.

I've seen this behavior from the math professor before, as he is
clearly quite aware of the great respect given to math professors in
our society.

Yet I want readers to realize that he cannot back up his claims
against my discovery, not now, not ever, as in fact, just as I refuted
his claims with the facts here, I can do so in the future.

> >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).
> 

Oh yeah, I think I overstepped there.

What I wanted to point out is the necessity of pi(x) and pi(sqrt(x)). 
That is, the need for *two* prime counts.

> >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.
> 

People don't always chase down links provided in posts.

> >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.

I noted that my discovery counts primes and *finds* them as it
recurses, which is a first in math history.

David Ullrich has not in fact given something that counts primes and
finds them as it recurses, and he didn't even mention finding primes.

He's a liar.  It's that simple.  David Ullrich has not only lied, been
caught in lies, but continued to lie when caught.

 
> 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.
> 

Sound like a math professor to you?

Well, go to the webpage of Oklahoma State University, and see that he
is.

http://www.math.okstate.edu/~ullrich/

If you care to chase a link.

> >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...

I said count and *find* primes, and in fact, David Ullrich didn't
present a difference equation which can be verified by chasing the
link *he* provided.

It's amazing how badly he's lied, but I want you to consider that as a
math professor David Ullrich is use to people not challenging him when
he makes claims!!!

Some people can handle that kind of power, but Ullrich clearly abuses
it.
 
> >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, 

Oh yeah, that should be

dy = 2x + 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

Well, I guess that's all Ullrich had to say besides putting his *name*
behind his statements.

What does your name mean to you?

Would you so casually lie like Ullrich, in such a public way, as if
society couldn't touch you?

Seems kind of dumb, wouldn't you think?

I find it odd, which is why I think Ullrich is showing a social
problem within math society.  Maybe mathematicians as a group have
gotten used to not being challenged.

Power corrupts.


James Harris

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