Re: Prime numbers, my find, and discovery

"Pat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.'
>
edit: *  not would *could*
> 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 *could* contradict the 'delusion' to see
how
> they react to contradiction, rather than confronting them directly which
> could be counter productive.
>
>