Author 
Message 
Arturo Magidin science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1838

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:43 am Post subject:
Re: JSH: How can they care?



In article <24371857.1146345776530.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org>,
G.E. Ivey <george.ivey@gallaudet.edu> wrote:
[.snip.]
Quote:  Over and over, you have given us things that you said were
obvious, then berated people for saying you were wrong, then,
eventually, admitted they were right.

I do not believe this is accurate. It has been a very long time since
James has admitted his critics were correct after he berated them. At
least since his "rational and mpmrational part" failed argument of
1998, if not earlier, even when he finally states he was wrong, he
does not acknowledge his critics were correct. He posts "explanations"
for why he was wrong, but they are usually either incorrect
themselves, or else also not even wrong. This has certainly been the
case since he began his current thrust; witness his "surrogate
factoring", where the "errors" he discovers are certainly not the
problems people point out.
Note: this applies if someone says he is wrong, and James accuses that
person of lying and the like; there is never an acknowledgement that
the criticism was valid, or that the mistake pointed out was in fact a
mistake. There is always something else "wrong", and it is always
James himself who discovers this.
The closest he has come lately was when he finally went over the
simple proof that algebraic integers could not be the roots of
nonmonic primitive irreducible polynomials, but even then he hadn't
called people liars for accepting it, he simply had said that just
couldn't be true. And the assertion was not a direct criticism of his
arguments.
Even when he finally accepted the (relative) validity of the simple
computations made by Rick Decker, Dik Winter, and Dale Hall, he simply
rejected all of ring theory rather than accept that his arguments were
wrong; he certainly never withdrew any claims that those who pointed
out errors in his arguments were in fact telling the truth; we were,
and remain, liars.

======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
 Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu 

Back to top 


Jasen Betts science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 176

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:12 am Post subject:
Re: JSH: See what I mean?



On 20060428, jstevh@msn.com <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:
Newsgroups: alt.math.undergrad,alt.math,sci.math
Quote:  I was really excited for a while about this new result, and then the
sci.math'ers started in, like they've done now for years, and you can
see how depressing it all becomes.

why post to sci math then?

Bye.
Jasen 

Back to top 


ugoren@gmail.com science forum beginner
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 14

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:25 am Post subject:
Re: Block Graph



Thank you Brian ! 

Back to top 


David C. Ullrich science forum Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2250

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject:
Re: JSH: More quadratic residues, 2N



On 29 Apr 2006 13:28:30 0700, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
Quote:  Tim Peters wrote:
[added "JSH:" to subject]
[jstevh@msn.com]
So I have the result that given natural numbers n_1 and n_2,
You mean I do  your result was restricted to odd composite naturals ;)
It follows trivially that it works for natural number n_1 and n_2, so
no, you don't get credit, though I do readily admit that I saw that you
pointed that out before I noticed it.
Noticing something that trivial doesn't count the way these things go.
I'd be gracious though, maybe, on that point, as I have so many results
so I don't mind bringing in others as I think it helpsdespite how big
the result may turn out to bebut given your history of trying to
obscure my research and your loyalty to Ullrich,

His loyalty to me? Keen  I didn't realize that _anyone_ had
any "loyalty" to me.
Just for the fun of fuelling your paranoia I'll let you in
on a little secret (not all that secret, it can all be
verified online): There's this programming language called
Python. As it happens Tim Peters is a Very Big Name in the
Python world, for all sorts of reasons. I on the other hand
am an Infinitesmally Small Name in the Python world, but
it _is_ a matter of public record that I'm a user and
very big fan of the language  Tim's aware of this
(unless he's much worse at remembering names than I
suspect, or he thinks there are two David C. Ullrichs
or something).
So probably his loyalty to me comes from the fact
that he knows I think Python is staggeringly great, eh?
Or maybe not. Actually if you look at the record you
can find a place where he showed a shocking lack of
loyalty: Over the years I've developed a large body
of Python code that does various mathematical things
(silly from a practical point of view, since the
questions it answers are all answered by existing
programs like Maple, but it's fun and also fascinating
how this and that aspect of Python makes it easy to
construct things corresponding to surprisingly
abstract mathematical objects...)
I once made a post on a Python group describing
what I thought was a fascinating aspect of the
way my Python math stuff works. Various people
had various comments, none of which showed the
proper sort of amazement at my incredible
brilliance  some people had the audacity to
point out other ways of accomplishing the same
thing! At one point I said something like
"Well, I find it very useful", and Tim butt
in with a reply
"I doubt that anyone else will<wink>",
or words to that effect.
Not the sort of thing a loyal minion is
supposed to say.
(If you're curious what's so brilliant: If
x is a userdefined type and the system sees
an expression like x + y it will try to ask x
what it thinks the value of x + y should be.
The awesome fact about descendants of Data
is that when this happens x will begin by
asking y if it thinks it has a _better_ idea
what x + y should be. The idea being that y
could be an instance of a class defined long
after x was set in stone; this allows x + y
to return the right thing even though x has
no idea what sort of thing y is. Of course
looking back, in an extremely large body
of code I think that this feature has only
been used once...)
<End of true story, fiction starts here:>
Of course a lesser man would have been devastated,
but I was furious instead. I realized that he must
have some ulterior motive for saying something like
that. It was clear that he was just jealous because
he'd never thought of anything so exquisitely clever.
Also clear that he knew somehow that I was not a
professional programmer  obviously he did't want
to acknowledge what a brilliant idea I'd had, if
the word got out that people like me were solving
programming problems that the programmers all found
too hard they'd all lose their jobs!
Since then I've spent a lot of time making posts
to comp.lang.python warning them of the Consequences
when the Truth finally Comes Out, as we Know it
Will eventually. Nobody seems scared  they all
seem to think it's kind of funny. We'll see who's
laughing when they've all been fired.
Why, I've even contacted top Python programmers
about all this! Guido van Rossum stopped replying
to my email long ago, I don't know why.
Quote:  there's no reason for
me to be, and no reason for anyone else to be either.
Sorry, if you want to get in the math textbooks, you'll have to work
harder.
I do wonder if this one is going to get argued out later, maybe by
lawyers?
I hope not.
James Harris

************************
David C. Ullrich 

Back to top 


David C. Ullrich science forum Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2250

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject:
Re: JSH: How can they care?



On 29 Apr 2006 11:28:04 0700, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
Quote:  I'm sure you people want to keep the faith, but come on. How can any
of these people you think are actually competent and excellent
mathematicians keep so quiet if they really were?
I like to try and contact some of those big names every once in a
while, as I try to find a way to break the impasse, which is why Mazur
and Granville got early drafts of a key paper of mine.

That would be one of the "drafts" that _you_ later decided
was wrong, right?
Why don't you ever tell us what they _said_?
Quote:  Recently, I sent them some stuff about n^2  r while I was on my way to
figuring out my latest result, but got no reply THIS time.
They've learned.

Guffaw. You really don't realize how funny it's going to
be when you say this? Yes, we're all certain that they've
learned. But what they've learned is not what you
desperately want to believe they've learned...
Quote:  If they reply, I talk about them on Usenet, when they sit quiet
afterwards.
I fear that they do not give a damn about mathematics, and why should
they?
It's screwed them over.
These people grew up being told mathematical ideas that I can shoot
down with simple quadratic equations were gold.
They built their careers on research that my research shows is invalid.
What do they have left?
They just have the faith of the world, which keeps them in their
positions, and keeps them getting paychecks.
What does Wiles have if the full story comes out?
Not only does he lose credit for proving FLT, but it's likely that ALL
of his research over his entire career goes out, as not being valid
mathematics.
These people get shot back to zero.
More and more I can understand why they would choose to sit quiet as in
their position, would I do any different?
Maybe luckily for me I've been disillusioned so many times in life that
it's hard for me to believe in anything any more, except what I can
personally and simply prove down to basic axioms so that there is
absolutely no room for error.
Then what happened to Wiles, Ribet, Taylor, Granville, Mazur and so
many of you cannot happen.
If you all had gone through your lessons, proving everything back to
basic axioms, you might possibly have found a flaw in ideal theory, and
saved yourselves a lot of grief.
James Harris

************************
David C. Ullrich 

Back to top 


David C. Ullrich science forum Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2250

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject:
Re: JSH: How can they care?



On 29 Apr 2006 17:56:46 0700, "LuckyOne" <gwlucky@nukove.com> wrote:
Quote:  Everyone is a critic. Give it a rest. Your "standard practice" is by
no means the "standard.

Uh, yes it is.
Quote:  If you can't scroll or search then you
shouldn't be criticising. Get over yourself.

************************
David C. Ullrich 

Back to top 


Larry Lard science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 166

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject:
Re: JSH: Tiny FLT proof possible?



jstevh@msn.com wrote:
[emphases mine]
Quote:  My quadratic residue result ****may**** offer the route to a tiny proof of
Fermat's Last Theorem.
[snip]
This quadratic residue result of mine ****may**** be one of the most powerful
in number theory, offering routes to proving Goldbach's conjecture, and
probably all kinds of Diophantine equations [and] a tiny proof of FLT
that is just about as trivially easy as you can get. Kind of strange.

And tomorrow's EuroMillions lottery numbers ****may**** be 3, 16, 23,
35, 47, with lucky stars 1 and 9. I know which event _I_ think more
probable.

Larry Lard
Replies to group please 

Back to top 


mensanator@aol.compost science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 826

Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 4:07 am Post subject:
Re: JSH: Tiny FLT proof possible?



Burton Samograd wrote:
Quote:  "Larry Lard" <larrylard@hotmail.com> writes:
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
[emphases mine]
My quadratic residue result ****may**** offer the route to a tiny proof of
Fermat's Last Theorem.
[snip]
This quadratic residue result of mine ****may**** be one of the
most powerful in number theory, offering routes to proving
Goldbach's conjecture, and probably all kinds of Diophantine
equations [and] a tiny proof of FLT that is just about as trivially
easy as you can get. Kind of strange.
And tomorrow's EuroMillions lottery numbers ****may**** be 3, 16, 23,
35, 47, with lucky stars 1 and 9. I know which event _I_ think more
probable.
Sorry, I'm new here, but I'd like to say 'lay off'. I've seen
a couple of jstevh's posts (the factoring, and now this) and he seems
enthusiastic, why not support his work rather than dissing his use of
"may" (which i know is not the most mathematical of terms, but he does
speek of mathematical experimentation, which is generally incorrect,
but can lead to some interesting results even when it contains
mistakes).

Didn't you see the post where he called you an a*****le?
Quote: 

burton samograd kruhft .at. gmail
kruhft.blogspot.com www.myspace.com/kruhft metashell.blogspot.com 


Back to top 


William Elliot science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1906

Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Ramanujan and Fifth Power Identities



On Fri, 5 May 2006 titus_piezas@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:  Ramanujan gave a set of identities,
a^4 + b^4 + c^4 = 2d^(2k)
That is not an identity. 


Back to top 


Tim Peters science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 426

Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject:
Re: JSH: Tiny FLT proof possible?



[Tim Peters]
Quote:  Heh. I bet you're thinking about February of _this_ year. Take a
peek at a year earlier; this is "worth" quoting at some length because
it shows there's nothing new under the JSH sun:
From: jstevh@msn.com
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: JSH: Nearly done
Date: 23 Jan 2005 16:34:31 0800

....
[José Carlos Santos]
Quote:  Funny, really funny.

Yup, it has to be one of my top 10 favorite JSH posts of all time (including
the future ).
I doubt he thinks it's embarrassing. James is the Hero of his own Myth
(which he explicitly says from time to time). That he's destined to triumph
is part of his myth, and the inevitable destruction of his enemies follows
from that. So he got a few details in his factoring ideas there wrong  so
what? He _will_ crack the problem, the way he does it will be just as
"brilliant" and "beyond brilliant", and the Righteous Warning of the
Infidels will still apply in every respect. That was preaching to be proud
of! You're a fool if you imagine his message was wrong just because some
details didn't work out at the time :)
If Google Groups let him do so, I'm not sure he'd even edit out the "math
parts". Surrogate factoring still lives, although this year in slow motion:
James hasn't been able to get attention for his April 10 "OK, the last one
was wrong after all, but _this_ time it's right" version (posted only in
sci.crypt)  and, of course, refuses to try it himself. 

Back to top 


jstevh@msn.com science forum Guru
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 951

Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Tiny FLT proof possible?



Allex Jones wrote:
Quote:  jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1146750572.504307.24400@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
My quadratic residue result may offer the route to a tiny proof of
Fermat's Last Theorem.
The result is that given naturals n_1, p a prime factor of n_1, n_2, C
= n_1 + n_2, and k a difference of factors of 2*C, it must be true that
(8*n_2 + k^2) is a square modulo p
so with x^n + y^n = z^n, you can let C = z^n, and k is a difference of
factors and there is a set of all such possibles.
The thing is, n_1 and n_2 can be ANY naturals that add to give z^n.
It's trivial to show then that
(8*z^n + k^2) would have to be a square modulo p
for all p, primes less than z^n.
Could you show this please? I do not see that it is trivial.

Oh, it's not, which is why I abandoned this thread. I figured though
that sense you were polite I should elaborate and actually say that
I've abandoned it.
What happened is I woke up one morning convinced that this little
quadratic residue result of mine might be the key to Diophantine
mathematics, and was worried that it offered a route to a short proof
of Fermat's Last Theorem.
I posted to lay stake to the claim, and later realized that I probably
didn't have anything to worry about in that area, but I was going to
leave it, just in case, so that later I could say, if I someone else
thought of a route, that I'd considered that possibility as well.
Oddly enough, I'd just as soon it not lead to a short FLT proof, as I
have other work in that area that took me YEARS to figure out.
It'd kind of upset me to find out there was this short, dinky route to
yet another proof.
But now I'm not worried. This thread is abandoned by me.
James Harris 

Back to top 


RAIS science forum beginner
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject:
Re: JSH: Remarkable quadratic residue result



.....
Ayon kay hale@tulane.edu:
Quote:  jstevh@msn.com wrote:
[cut]
For instance, checking 2 modulo 17, I have 2(4) = 8, if you are not
sure, multiply by 4 again, and you have 4( mod 17 = 15. If you are
not sure, 4(15) mod 17 = 9, and as 9 is a square, it is definite that 2
is as well.
10 = 5^2 mod 15, but checking 10 modulo 15, I have 4*10 mod 15 = 10,
which leads no where. That is, multiplying by 4 just produces the
sequence 10, 10, 10, 10, .... mod 15.
Bill Hale 


Back to top 


Brian M. Scott science forum Guru
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 332

Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Graph theory



On 17 May 2006 03:30:05 0700, Clocker <ugoren@gmail.com>
wrote in
<news:1147861805.753664.33350@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
in alt.math.undergrad:
Quote:  Hello,
I need to prove the following lemma:
Let G=(V,E) be a simple graph (V=n), and let H be the
linegraph of G. and A is the adjecency matrix of H over
the Z2 field.
Prove that Rank(A)=n2 if n is even, and Rank(A) = n1 if
n is odd.

There's something wrong with the statement of the theorem.
Suppose that G has three components, each of which is a
triangle (3cycle). Then H is isomorphic to G, and rank(A)
= 6 != 9  1. Similarly, if G is the disjoint union of two
4cycles, then so is H, and rank(H) = 4 != 8  2. Do you
want G to be connected? (I'm not at all sure that I can
help with this one, but I'd at least like to be sure that
I'm thinking about the right thing first!)
Brian 

Back to top 


ugoren@gmail.com science forum beginner
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 14

Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Graph theory



You're right, I forgot to mention that G is a simple connected graph. 

Back to top 


mareg@mimosa.csv.warwick. science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 211

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 11:53 am Post subject:
Re: Graph theory



In article <1147902034.984619.215610@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"Clocker" <ugoren@gmail.com> writes:
Quote:  G is connected !!!!

All upper case letters are connected  but i and j are disconnected.
Derek Holt. 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:50 pm  All times are GMT

