Rotwang wrote: > On 6 Sep, 22:09, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You have a new credibility problem with your assertions about perfect >> squares and the Quadratic Diophantine Theorem.
> Heh. You're really in no position to be attacking anybody's > credibility. Did you notice I answered your challenge in the > "Quadratic Diophantine Theorem" thread?
Naturally, JSH pounces on us for making typographical errors, even after we've fixed them. I made a slight error--the result still represented a valid counterexample to his algorithm, just not quite the counterexample I initially was describing--and JSH howled on that until I redid all the math correctly again, despite it still showing his algorithm to be incorrect.
And, of course, the moment we take the same attitude to his typographical errors, he pounces on us for pouncing on him. A bit of a double-standard here.
>> So readers might think that maybe you are lying to try and hide the >> result.
> Huh? In case you haven't noticed, I've said several times that the > result is correct. In fact as far as I've seen I'm the only person to > have publicly agreed with you on this one. Face it: I'm the closest > thing you've got to that invisible grandstand right now. And you show > your gratitude by suggesting I'm a liar. Don't mention it.
Well, obviously JSH is the one true mathematician, and the rest of us are just malevolent beings out to quash his noble, awe-inspiring theorems. Therefore any apparent evidence to the contrary is just a trick.
Or something like that. If there's one thing JSH excels at, it's alienating people who would try to help him. This trait still confounds me.
>> I've often maintained that some posters deliberately lie about what is >> mathematically correct and make political posts designed to obscure >> results.
Right. Probably half your initial thread postings (over time) only mention your findings and provide no explanation as to what those findings are. Deeper down in threads, the ratio is unbelievably skewed in favor of little mention of findings and lots of attack/counterattack drivel. No need to have others obscure your results, then.
And naturally, any attempt to illicit more information on any of your work must be accompanied by strenuous effort on the part of the enquirer. By the way, my requests for information on your factoring method still stand, the intervening year notwithstanding.
>> >>> And I can assure you the theorem IS correct.
>> >> JSH, nobody believes you. You are nothing but a clown, a >> >> pathetic >> >> one at that. That's all you are ever going to achieve. Live with it.
>> > All clowns are pathetic, but you must admit he does inject some >> > humour into this subject.
>> You are right about that. The best part is that this seems >> to be >> beyond his meagre cognitive capabilities.
> >> >>> And I can assure you the theorem IS correct.
> >> >> JSH, nobody believes you. You are nothing but a clown, a > >> >> pathetic > >> >> one at that. That's all you are ever going to achieve. Live with it.
> >> > All clowns are pathetic, but you must admit he does inject some > >> > humour into this subject.
> >> You are right about that. The best part is that this seems > >> to be > >> beyond his meagre cognitive capabilities.
> > [His usual irrelevant drivel.]
> Thanks for providing support to my conjecture.
I have a result on a general Diophantine Equation.
Sure you can dismiss as trivial one result that a few of you in hindsight realized how to derive, but I have a theorem with which I can keep generating results and also, laugh as I do Google searches on Pell's Equation and look for MY solution, which some of you try to dismiss.
It allows you to find solutions for Pell's Equation.
Whether or not its easily derived in hindsight is irrelevant to the issue of newness.
Hindsight can last you for a while. But I can simply shift until I force posters against a wall where they can't dodge without just lying again.
Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> writes: > In fact as far as I've seen I'm the only person to have publicly > agreed with you on this one[...] And you show your gratitude by > suggesting I'm a liar.
You must admit that's pretty good evidence. Given his track record, what're the chances you're telling the truth when you say he's right?
-- Jesse F. Hughes
"Would you please stop talking and start talking?" -- Vincent Price as the Saint
Gib Bogle <g.bo...@auckland.no.spam.ac.nz> writes: > Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> But who could lie about Diophantine equations? I'm with you on this, >> just like I've been with you every time before. The math wars are >> finally and definitely over, just like before.
> Like the war in Iraq?
Hope JSH didn't throw out his personal "Mission Accomplished" banner.
-- "You are beneath contempt because you betray mathematics itself, and spit upon the truth, spit upon decency, and spit upon the intelligence of the world. You betrayed the world, and now it's time for the world to notice." -- James S. Harris awaits Justice for crimes against Math.
oh, the lines; as soon as I can make heads or tails (or even edges) out of your syntax!
maybe, you should go back to "line-numbers," just for our benefit, the enormous Pea-net Gallery (query: is that a reference to G.W.Carver?)
> > Can't you read between the lines?
thus: oh, Sagan did some numbertheory?... well, that'll humanize him a bit; the real Doctor Stranglelove had his own program on PBS!
> That Ramanujan had excellent intuition, but he wasn't always correct.
thus: yes, I'd killfile him if I were better equipt; this is a brief detour from avoiding "HSJ: peristalsis occurreth" threads of my own volition, and thank YOU, HSJ, for the label.
so, you really didn't bother with the resultage, either, but "student-level" seems to be an over-estimate; if a student actually was interested in numbertheory, all of this would ne'er have existed. oh, but, he's no mere student, he's the Queen of Mathematics, himself ... and, what does that make AP?
now, prove Fermat's Little Theorem, some one!... some one, herinat, prove biquadratic reciprocity, and quintic!... I mean, it would not really surprize me, if he actually did prove a new result. but, big magnanimous if/then, he'd be able to explain it in so many words, instead of this unending riffraff of hiphop pseudomathspeak and "social analysis" -- feh, the original soft science, gone all squishy: Foucault/Derrida/Sokal/HSJ/WeAreDevo, could just be a somewhat elaborate hoax; it's all relative to the amount of time, one gives attention to it. I mean, how many online math journals have risen & fallen, with the explcit purpose of publishing his **** for the sake of online mental patients?... "there, but for the grace of ... NO -- I may be kwite krazee but I'm not that stupid!"
all problems are actually, penintimately wordproblemmas, using them which are more powerful than their anagram.... whereas, maybe HSJ has some minor impairment or, like Justice Thomas, a large overlay of the Gullah language to work-through, AP is strictly a hardcore, unrepentant student of "E-prime," the fake language, more foolish than Esperanto, or just a joke; that is to say, pidgen (sp.?).
I am reminded of zee froglegs, because I had finally realized that a) the metaphor applies to me & most Americans, and that b) it may actually be true, since a frog has no experience of temperatures any where near boiling, all reptilean somatic, except at Yellowstone!
> student-level study > with slow but noticeable progress over the years
thus: Cheeny has just launched a diversion from his 3rdBritishInvasionSudan plan, involving contretemps with Mother Russia and Baby Georgia; where is the clock on the God-am Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, now -- a twelveth past twenty-four hundred hours?... I just saw the current issue at the bokstore, and the feature of the issue is bemoaning nuclear power, while the whole planet escapes from our '50s lightwater unfailsafe paradigm, not to mention our late-'50s program of space (at least, it was not unmanned).
so, that paper timepiece is going to be at the whim of the two, new candidates for Imperial Vice P., or simply 4mo'year of Trickier Dick, whether one knows it or knot: the Harry Potter PS of American History from Rhodes Scholarship (Oxford U. Press), insists upon an explicit doctirne of American Imperialism in the vain of Teddy Roosevelt. this was reprezented in the NYTimes of yesterday, letter to editro style, bemoaning Dick's policies, without any acknowledgemnt that it is all legal, all written by sub rosa lawyers in exec.orders (or where ever), and virtual VP Joe's call for US military intervention in Durfar; Dick can now abandon that policy to the Prendergast Machine, Cold War Trumanism etc. ad vomitorium, R&orD!
> On Sep 6, 2:40 pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org> > wrote: >> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:50:20 +1200, Gib Bogle wrote: >>> Jens Stueckelberger wrote: >>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:39:13 -0700, JSH wrote: >>>>> And I can assure you the theorem IS correct. >>>> JSH, nobody believes you. You are nothing but a clown, a pathetic >>>> one at that. That's all you are ever going to achieve. Live with it. >>> All clowns are pathetic, but you must admit he does inject some humour >>> into this subject. >> You are right about that. The best part is that this seems to be >> beyond his meagre cognitive capabilities.
> I have a result covering Pell's Equation using my Quadratic > Diophantine Theorem, which is that for
> x^2 - Dy^2 = 1
> where D is a natural number, for any solution there must exist integer > S such that
> x+y = sqrt((S^2 + D - 1)/D).
Better written as D(x+y)^2+1-D is a square, which translate as "(D+1)x^2+2Dxy -D is a square" (easier to check that way) Thus said, it looks correct...
>>> The "math wars" as I've called them, are, finally, really this time, >>> over. >> Oh! So *now* they are _really_ over. So when you wrote, back in 2006, >> that they were over:
