Re: Let's face facts, mathematicians' shame

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Harris) 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:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >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!!!
> > 
> > Dear God, you're dim.
> 
> Notice Danny Kodicek *began* with an insult.  David Ullrich, an actual
> math professor, has been caught in repeated lies, but this person
> would rather deny the truth.  The problem is, the truth is rather
> obvious here, so the poster *begins* with an insult, expressing anger
> at me, possibly for catching the math professor.
>  
> > 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.  If
> the variable is just eliminated, why did he give what he did, and call
> it Legendre's Method?
>  
> > 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, and notice that in
> fact, what David Ullrich posted is NOT a difference equation.  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.
> 
> 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.
>  
> > > 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.
> 
> Ullrich copied a *piece* because he wanted to convince others of a
> falsehood in an attempt to attack the value of my math discovery.
> 
> 
> > >
> > > > 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.  
> 
> > >
> > > 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).
> 
> However, the fact remains that you have pi(x) *and* pi(sqrt(x)), so
> it's associated with *two* prime counts.
>  
> > > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> That is a fact, which I'd think is rather obvious.
> 
> 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.
> 
> The more he attacks facts, the angrier he's likely to become.
> 
> I think the point of his post was really to express anger at the
> facts, and at David Ullrich, an actual math professor, being caught in
> multiple lies.
> 
> > > 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!!!
> > 
> > Duh
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I won't - but notice how you're using the fact that he included all this
> > stuff as if it's damning somehow. Of course, if he'd deleted it you'd
> > probably complain that he snipped out something terribly important.
> 
> Actually I was pointing out that he was putting his name behind his
> lies.
> 
> A person's name used to mean something.
> 
> But part of my point is that mathematicians are attacking society by
> not doing their jobs.
> 
> They are supposed to record mathematical finds faithfully, not try to
> keep them from being known!!!
> 
> Readers need to understand that it's not like letting them get away
> with it helps anyone, as it only allows a social decline in math
> society.
>  
> > Danny
> > (delurking because I suddenly can't bear to read this crap without saying
> > *something*)
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> It shouldn't require explanation that firsts are normally cheered by
> society.
> 
> Mathematicians have perverted the process.
> 
> Now then, the question by Danny Kodicek is basically, why does society
> celebrate discoverers?
> 
> Anyone out there have an answer?
> 
> 
> James Harris
> 
> "My math discoveries, found for profit"
> http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

fuffy