| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wolf Kirchmeir
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: Bottom line on prime counting issue |
 |
|
On 17 Nov 2003 10:04:07 -0800, James Harris wrote:
[quote]A very small market in today>s world can be worth millions of dollars
US.
[/quote]
IMO, you need to brush up on your arithmetic, too.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll) |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
The Ghost In The Machine
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: Bottom line on prime counting issue |
|
|
In sci.physics, Christian Bau
<christian.bau@cbau.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote
on Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:15:15 +0000
<christian.bau-AA8F3C.10151517112003@slb-newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk>:
[quote]In article <cs8l81-r6e.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>,
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek contest I sponsored 2 months back
that produced a few bizarre results and some interesting
algorithms. (However, Christian Bau has a better one anyway,
although he didn>t submit that particular one for my contest.
Perhaps it was because my contest was unworthy thereof. :-) )
No, it was not finished at that time, and I have to find some spare time
to improve it anyway. What I am quite interested in at the moment is
that there seems to be a substantial improvement possible if you want to
calculate pi (N) for many different values of N, for example
N = k * 10^14 for 1 <= k <= 10000.
My implementation should take about O (N^(2/3)) to find pi (N). However,
it might be possible to find pi (x) for n different values x <= N in
about O (N^(2/3)) * sqrt (n) instead of O (N^(2/3)) * n.
[/quote]
I suppose it might depend in part on the value of max(N_i),
where N_i are the numbers fed into pi(N). I really don>t
know, and haven>t researched the issue.
Good luck. :-)
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It>s still legal to go .sigless. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
James Harris
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 12:04 am Post subject: Re: Bottom line on prime counting issue |
|
|
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hoi2vq6.pminews@news1.sympatico.ca>...
[quote]On 16 Nov 2003 17:43:13 -0800, James Harris wrote:
If mathematicians hadn>t decided to break faith with you and the rest
of the world, probably there>d be a book, some popular work,
explaining the story.
But how can you get that story if mathematicians are playing their
academic games?
Bottom line: What I have works.
So what if I sell my story and get rich.
Psst, James, there is a very small market for stories about mathematics.
Better find some way to work in spies and the CIA, and pretty girl agents,
and such like. And sex. Sex always sells, even when the sex scenes are
separated by boring mathematical explanations. People just skip those.
[/quote]
A very small market in today>s world can be worth millions of dollars
US.
The bottom line is that what I have works, people expect
mathematicians to report on discoveries, but they are not doing their
jobs.
It>s easy to check using Google. Go search on "partial difference
equation" which can verify for you that they are real. Then search on
"prime counting" or "counting primes" to see if ANYONE besides me has
ever used a partial difference equation to count prime numbers.
For those wondering what they might do to help, I think that maybe
sending an email to some news organization might have an impact. For
instance, you can email TIME magazine at letters@time.com, and who
knows what might happen?
James Harris
"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
flip
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:23 am Post subject: Re: Bottom line on prime counting issue |
|
|
"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0311171004.296f42a6@posting.google.com...
[quote]For those wondering what they might do to help, I think that maybe
sending an email to some news organization might have an impact. For
instance, you can email TIME magazine at letters@time.com, and who
knows what might happen?
[/quote]
Dear Time Magazine,
Here is what can happen with education gone bad, a person with delusions of
grandeur, fame and fortune. This individual believes he is one of the
greatest number theorists and analytical researchers of "ALL TIME"!
Can you perhaps run a story on NPD (you have a real-live case here)?
Thank you for any consideration.
Here is a clinical definition of NPD:
<http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm>
***
Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder (cautionary
statement)
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in
a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements
and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate
achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance,
beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people
(or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her
expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to
achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings
and needs of others
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or
her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric
Association
*** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Big Bird
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:55 am Post subject: Re: Bottom line on prime counting issue |
|
|
jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.0311161227.349d907c@posting.google.com>...
[quote]Some of you may have noticed frenetic activity from posters trying to
convince you that there>s nothing sinister about mathematicians doing
their best to downply my find [...]
[/quote]
And again you find it perfectly acceptable to hurl insults at millions
-- while reserving to play the indignant sensitive little flower when
someone hands you a tiny fraction of your insults back.
[quote]of a way to count prime numbers by
integrating a partial difference equation, but what>s the bottom line?
[/quote]
You have yet to present any kind of way to count prime numbers that
actually has anything to do with integration at all.
Hint: a sum is not an integral.
[quote]Does what I found work or not?
[/quote]
It has been conclusively proven that it doesn>t.
I presented the implementation of the exact literal lines you posted
here and you yourself could not find anything wrong with it.
If you had a quarrel with the implementation, you could even simply
have posted your own little fortran or basic or c-routine. No big
deal. But of course you can>t.
It does not work. That is all there is to it.
I have given you thebenefit of the doubt long enough to implement
exactly what you posted here to see for myself whether you>re on to
something or not. That>s called 'science': I go and examine the
evidence myself.
And I have seen with my own eyes that you don>t have anything here
that counts primes. And further *lies* of yours to the contrary will
not sway someone who>s actually examined the evidence himself.
[quote]It does. End of story, so mathematicians should acknowledge it.
[/quote]
Ah: you say so and thus it is so. 'Tis a simple world you live in.
So why does this go for you but not for everybody else on the planet?
Because there>s a lot of people out there that say you stuff doesn>t
work. And contrary to you they have evidence for their claim.
[quote]But they>re fighting to totally ignore it. Translation: Sinister
attempt by academic types to hide something really important.
[/quote]
Ask yourself: how does this line distinguish you from every
run-of-the-mill dime-a-dozen psychotic crackpots with a new "theory of
everything" to sell, without a shred of evidence to present and with
demonstrated lack of grasp of what they>re talking about?
[quote]Otherwise, why go to so much effort to fight me, when a simple way to
shut me up on the issue is just record it somewhere?
[/quote]
Nobody is going to any particular effort "fighting you".
Nobody is going to record anything anywhere because there>s nothing to
record here.
[quote]These posters trying to convince you otherwise are just insulting your
basic intelligence.
[/quote]
Just to clarify for to odd reader out there: I am not "trying to
convince you" of anything at all. (Contrary to Mr. Harris.) Go and see
for yourself, as I did. You>ll see for yourself. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Will Twentyman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:49 am Post subject: Re: Bottom line on prime counting issue |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
[quote]James Harris wrote:
Some of you may have noticed frenetic activity from posters trying to
convince you that there>s nothing sinister about mathematicians doing
their best to downply my find of a way to count prime numbers by
integrating a partial difference equation, but what>s the bottom line?
Does what I found work or not?
Now that is an interesting question, isn>t it!
pssst, hey Harris... your stuff doesn>t work.... but don>t tell anybody...
[/quote]
It works, it just isn>t what he claims it is: new or interesting. He>s
just thinking about it differently.
--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
