Re: Prime issue challenge

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Harris) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > On 28 Nov 2003 09:16:10 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Harris) in
> > sci.cognitive wrote:
> > 
> > >Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
> > >keep posting that it's not important at all!
> > >
> > >However, I know exactly how my formula works, so it seems to me that a
> > >good check of others is to see if they do as well.
> > >
> > >So I have a simple challenge.  Posters assertions imply expertise, and
> > >at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
> > >formula works.
> > >
> > >So I'll give them a couple of weeks to try and explain it in this
> > >thread, then if all goes according to plan I'll explain to you how it
> > >works, and you can see who is the real expert.
> > >
> > Let me see if I have the general idea. First you delete sci.cognitive
> > from your address list and then we all agree that the algorithm works
> > whatever it is.
> 
> The relevance to sci.cognitive is that not only does my discovery
> represent an intriguing case of a unique find in a well-worked
> area--as prime numbers are VERY well worked--it also raises questions
> about how human beings think.
> 
> Why did it take so long before anyone found my formula?
> 
> How readily do most people understand something that I'll tell you
> relies on VERY simple ideas?
> 
> Why would mathematicians fight even *recording* it, challenging the
> very values that define them!!!  Like, modern mathematicians make
> claims about beauty and purity in mathematics, where practical
> applications and practical concerns are secondary to the "purity" of
> mathematical knowledge gained for the sake of knowledge itself.
> 
> There are so many issues for the cognitive sciences that I could go on
> and on.
> 
> It's fascinating and exciting as it all plays out.
> 
> Oh yeah, lest readers forget, the point of this thread is to see if
> people claiming my math discovery that can count and *find* prime
> numbers is unimportant and not worth acknowledging can prove expertise
> by managing to explain how it works.
> 
> From my own understanding of how the human brain works, it will be
> difficult for posters to lie about the value, yet manage to accurately
> explain how it works!
> 
> You see, it's like there's a switch in people's heads that goes one
> way or another.  If they're going to lie about my work, they lose
> cognitive function necessary to accurately explain how it works...or
> at least that's my theory.
> 
> 
> James Harris
> 
> "My math discoveries, found for profit"
> http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

fuffy