Re: Prime numbers, my find, and discovery

"Francis Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "James Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I should be a rather happy guy.  After all, over 18 months ago I found
> > this partial difference equation I call dS(x,y), and the sum of dS
> > from dS(x,2) to dS(x,sqrt(x)) is the count of primes up to and
> > including x.
>
> Hey James. You know what? I actually have faith in you. I'm pretty
> sure that if you got some professional help, took your medicine, and then
> signed up for some math courses, you could actually do some
> interesting math. I think you're smart enough.

Well, I'm diagnosed with 'mental illness' and I've been reading a book by,
psychologists Chadwick et al, about 'Cognitive Therapy For Delusions, Voices
and Paranoia'. They propose that the psychiatric concept concerning
delusions is flawed and propose a psychological model for understanding and
modifying 'delusions.'

The psychiatric concept is roughly ( check the DSM and ICD manuals) that
delusions are convictions held by the person that are seen as irrational by
other people in the same culture and that are not open to modification or
reaccessment, despite overwhelming evidence to the contray that the
conviction is false.

They are regarded by most psychiatrists as not being beliefs and in a
separate category to beliefs and are classed as one symptom in some forms of
mental illness. However, to be diagnosed, you generally have to have a
cluster of symptoms, of degree to a greater or lesser extent, that
correspond to a particular syndrome such as schizophrenia, etc. Generally,
psychiatrists( especially biological psychiatrists-biological psychiatry is
the dominant paradigm in psychiatry at the moment) regard these syndromes as
discrete illnesses each indicating a brain pathology with an underlying
physical cause/s, which are not amenable to psychotherapies.

Chadwick et al have empirical evidence that 'delusions' can be weakened or
modified. They conceptualise 'delusions' as being at the extreme end of a
continuum with normal beliefs held by so called normal people in the
population, and thus can be understood within the discourse of psychology.
They say there is evidence that 'delusions' relate to the persons underlying
psychological vulnerabilities that relate to their view of themselves and
their world.

Their technique, to briefly describe it, I hope not simplistically, is
called collaborative empiricism. They create a non threatening relationship
with the person and with the person develop empirical tests to test the
evidence for the 'delusion.'

But, firstly they proceed through stages to gain the confidence of the
person in a non threatening manner. One technique mentioned is called
'Reaction to Hypothetical Contradiction.' This is where they agree with the
person a hypothetical test which would contradict the 'delusion' to see how
they react to contradiction, rather than confronting them directly which
could be counter productive.