Re: JSH: Not even close

James Harris wrote:

> What makes the story here *extremely* pathetic is that mathematicians
> can't in *any* way approach what I showed you in going from a partial
> difference equation that counts primes, as they don't have one, to a
> continuous function.

A "continuous function" which does exactly what? You have not shown that
it has any bearing whatsoever on the prime counting function. You have
shown *no* results!

> If they can, I'd like to see *anyone* post a demoonstration like mine.

Look at Ullrich's recent post under one of your recent threads.

> I wouldn't be surprised if rank and arrogant posters try to attack
> that posting, but pay careful attention to what they say, and
> remember, despite it's gloried history, nothing even close to that has
> been possible with anything that mathematicians have discovered that
> counts primes in recorded human history.

Puleez! You have made this self-aggrandizing claim countless times. Once
should be enough, at least it would be for a rational person.

[snip umpteenth plus umpteenth diatribe against mathematicians]

James, you are an incredible, hilarious joke. Your gray matter has
decidedly brown tinge to it. Please shut up and go away. Come back when
you crack RSA encryption.

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --
and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com