Oh hey, after I came up with the Quadratic Diophantine Theorem, I started looking over research on quadratic diophantine equations and it's kind of interesting because hey, looks like my research can help!
Like it will give criteria on Pell's equation, and may even offer a route to generally solving a 2 variable diophantine quadratic as you can just let x=1 to go from the 3 variable expression in the primary theorem.
Such a powerful little result it looks like after a little research, and I was wondering if it would be a big deal as I debated about putting it on my math blog. Oh yeah, proof of the theorem is on my math blog. Turns out it's easy to prove with tautological spaces.
Cool. Ok, going to read up more on quadratic diophantine equation stuff that was already done before my research.
> Oh hey, after I came up with the Quadratic Diophantine Theorem, I > started looking over research on quadratic diophantine equations and > it's kind of interesting because hey, looks like my research can help!
> Like it will give criteria on Pell's equation, and may even offer a > route to generally solving a 2 variable diophantine quadratic as you > can just let x=1 to go from the 3 variable expression in the primary > theorem.
> Such a powerful little result it looks like after a little research, > and I was wondering if it would be a big deal as I debated about > putting it on my math blog. Oh yeah, proof of the theorem is on my > math blog. Turns out it's easy to prove with tautological spaces.
> Cool. Ok, going to read up more on quadratic diophantine equation > stuff that was already done before my research.
> James Harris
Cool, if this finds it's way into a 'peer-reviewed' paper you'll be sure to post the reviewers' comments here won't you? That way we can't go around thinking nobody reviewed it.
> Oh hey, after I came up with the Quadratic Diophantine Theorem, I > started looking over research on quadratic diophantine equations and > it's kind of interesting because hey, looks like my research can help!
Yeah, but can it fight tough baked-on food or a deep-down grease stains?
> Such a powerful little result it looks like after a little research, > and I was wondering if it would be a big deal as I debated about > putting it on my math blog. Oh yeah, proof of the theorem is on my > math blog. Turns out it's easy to prove with tautological spaces.
But of course it's all so trivial...
> Ok, going to read up more on quadratic diophantine equation > stuff that was already done before my research.
Now *that* will be a first : James Harris actually reading what's been done!
> On Sep 5, 4:30 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh hey, after I came up with the Quadratic Diophantine Theorem, I > > started looking over research on quadratic diophantine equations and > > it's kind of interesting because hey, looks like my research can help!
> Yeah, but can it fight tough baked-on food or a deep-down grease > stains?
> > Such a powerful little result it looks like after a little research, > > and I was wondering if it would be a big deal as I debated about > > putting it on my math blog. Oh yeah, proof of the theorem is on my > > math blog. Turns out it's easy to prove with tautological spaces.
> But of course it's all so trivial...
Ease of the proof is important to me in case there are arguments.
> > Ok, going to read up more on quadratic diophantine equation > > stuff that was already done before my research.
> Now *that* will be a first : James Harris actually reading what's been > done!
And I take it, you have not.
This number theory result is distinct in that the theorem gives what has never been given before.
So yes, if you wish, you can stupidly insult me in a case where there cannot be years of denial of basic math, no matter how cleverly posters play politics.
And there can be no denial of the value of the result either.
The "math wars" as I've called them, are, finally, really this time, over.
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:05:57 -0700, JSH wrote: > The "math wars" as I've called them, are, finally, really this time, > over.
Let's see: You have been posting crap and making yourself the laughing stock of this and other groups for, what? Ten years now? And we are to believe that this time you are serious? My prediction is that, as usual, you will play the net's buffoon part.
On Sep 5, 5:17 pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:05:57 -0700, JSH wrote: > > The "math wars" as I've called them, are, finally, really this time, > > over.
> Let's see: You have been posting crap and making yourself the > laughing stock of this and other groups for, what? Ten years now? And we > are to believe that this time you are serious? My prediction is that, as > usual, you will play the net's buffoon part.
But that's not true. Posters have routinely lied about my results for years now.
The difference with the Quadratic Diophantine Theorem is that the lies are not so easy.
My other "pure math" results were either complicated or traveled over previous ground just enough that posters would just claim there wasn't anything important about them, like my prime counting function.
But with this result in an area where there is over a thousand years of research going back to ancient Asia, and the Greeks, and including Fermat and Gauss, there is no other result like this one in terms of reach.
Remarkably though in the initial replies I see an indication of those among you who know very little if any number theory or you'd have some inkling that it's better to wait on this one, as otherwise you look real stupid, if it's correct.
And I can assure you the theorem IS correct.
Those wishing to see the proof can just check my math blog and see how easily it is derived, though it was over a thousand years in the finding.
JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes: > The "math wars" as I've called them, are, finally, really this time, > over.
Again. -- "In a world of ideas there should be a place for people who are not experts [...] to talk out their ideas [...] without facing personal insults. And if they are frustrated[...], why should it be a surprise if they end up contacting news organizations, or Noam Chomsky?" --JSH
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:05:57 -0700, JSH wrote: >> > The "math wars" as I've called them, are, finally, really this time, >> > over.
>> Let's see: You have been posting crap and making yourself the >> laughing stock of this and other groups for, what? Ten years now? And we >> are to believe that this time you are serious? My prediction is that, as >> usual, you will play the net's buffoon part. >But that's not true. Posters have routinely lied about my results for >years now.
Eh, you started it. By lying when you post results.
>The difference with the Quadratic Diophantine Theorem is that the lies >are not so easy.
>My other "pure math" results were either complicated or traveled over >previous ground just enough that posters would just claim there wasn't >anything important about them, like my prime counting function.
agreed, not important, trivial
>But with this result in an area where there is over a thousand years >of research going back to ancient Asia, and the Greeks, and including >Fermat and Gauss, there is no other result like this one in terms of >reach.
Who in Asia?
>Remarkably though in the initial replies I see an indication of those >among you who know very little if any number theory or you'd have some >inkling that it's better to wait on this one, as otherwise you look >real stupid, if it's correct.
>Those wishing to see the proof can just check my math blog and see how >easily it is derived, though it was over a thousand years in the >finding. >History being made. Fun!!!
> On Sep 5, 3:30 pm, junoexpress <MTBrenne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 4:30 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ok, going to read up more on quadratic diophantine equation > > > stuff that was already done before my research.
> > Now *that* will be a first : James Harris actually reading what's been > > done!
> And I take it, you have not.
> James Harris- Hide quoted text -
Just so we are all clear on this matter, by "read" do you mean that you actually intend to open a book and sit down and learn math or are you just going to revert to your old dumpster-diving ways and browse websites?
