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]
> > > "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/

Face facts, James. You get insulted partially because you dish out insults.
If you can't take the insults, LEAVE! I seriously doubt that if you had
never dished out an insult, you'd be insulted yourself. You need to grow
some skin and gain more maturity. My 7 year old brother behaves better than
you do. It is you who are irrational for calling our employers on us. You
going to contact my place of business because I use invalid mathematics?

David Moran

David Moran