Innovation, my TSP algorithm and factoring, timelines

[JSH]

Well.

I had only intended a bit of silly wordplay anent Christian's
substitution of "bullocks" for "ballocks", but I seem to have hooked a
much bigger fish that I had set out my bait for. Can we all agree now
that JSH is simply delusional, killfile him, and let the matter go?
Frankly, I have to deal with enough newsgroups already where someone
thinks he's God.

That's part of why I make those posts.

The rest is just the sheer fun of it.


___JSH

 

[JSH]

You return to colonization, of course.  Turkey annexes Jerusalem.
Germany and France split Austria.  The U.S. gets Hong Kong.

Hillary runs as VP on McCain's ticket.

That sort of thing.

Mehran Basti has it all figured out, James.  I know you're proud, but
dammit, you need his help this time.  Reach out!

The United States and Britain never left colonization, they just
pretended and shifted strategies, which is what great wealth allowed.

The reality that nothing had really changed was impressed on the world
with the war against Iraq, under false pretenses, where the occupation
still continues.

The Iraqi lives are considered so worthless in this country that most
Americans have no clue how many Iraqis have been killed though the
number of US soldier deaths, maybe about 1/25 of the Iraqi civilian
death count, is continually pushed in the news.

Class still matters.

Some people are considered less than others and their death is hardly
worth mentioning in the countries that dominate the world and claim to
be democratic, but what happens when the Iraqis try to get the US
soldiers to leave?

Their president said he'd give a timetable and was pushed back. The
Iraqis are never allowed to vote on it.

And this country continues to claim to be a democracy as the new
colonialism is about lying.

There are two ruling countries of the world today: The United States
and Britain.

And if you doubt it far enough, cross them far enough, they will kill
you to remind you who is absolutely in charge.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

If you're talking about your result with the rings that you discussed
with the notable professor, from what you have told us of your actions
with said professor, I get the inclination that he didn't have the heart
to tell you that the key points of your work were factually incorrect.

He didn't even offer to talk to me in person until I forwarded him an
email from Barry Mazur commenting on an early draft of the paper.

Remember, I'd sent him a paper to review for publication in a journal
for which he was an editor, and when I pressed him on acceptance, he
said he couldn't quite understand it.

After I forwarded him Mazur's email, he offered that I could visit and
explain it in person.

Besides it's trivial algebra:

If you have a polynomial P(x), where

P(x) = 1225x^2 - 15x + 14

I figured out a way to creatively factor it, AFTER you multiply by
some constant like 7, so you have

7*P(x) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x)+ 7)

where the a's are the two roots of

a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.

The bored but curious can easily verify those equations work and easy
checks are at two points: x=0 and x=6.

And I got that wacky factorization by creative re-distribution after
multiplying by 7, as you have

7*P(x) = (49x^2 - 14x)5^2 + (7x-1)(7)(5) + 7^2.

I say the distributive property doesn't care about the value of x, so
that you can find how it multiplied through using x=0 and generalize
from that to any value and can SEE that to be true at x=6.

But if that's true it blows up some widely held ideas in number theory
as mathematicians can prove that in something they call the ring of
algebraic integers, NEITHER of the a's can have 7 as a factor if the
functions give a non-rational number which you can see at x=1.

So the result is clever, simple, but revolutionary though easily
proven.

I, as well as numerous others, have looked at the algorithm and found it
wanting. The basic innovation seems... pointless, insufficient, but I'm
willing to accept that it might work. Yet it doesn't. Both algorithms,
and your extensions thereof, have been refuted by counterexamples.
Patricia gave you a program to test stuff with, and I extended it to be
easier to test (and am letting you use it).

Counter example claims have been made against my non-polynomial
factorization research as well.

I know that people can claim more than they can actually show, but
that refuting those claims is often useless, as it's a social issue,
not about what's true.

Extrapolating from your factoring work to elsewhere, you seem to
generate an algorithm, other people show you it doesn't work, you refine
it a little, it still doesn't work, and then people give up when it
becomes clear that you are not going to put any work into attacking it.
At that point you declare it to be correct and are then surprised to
discover that people don't accept this fact. Read the story of the
little boy who cried wolf again, it's very similar.

I have published research which was pulled by the editors after
publication and then the entire freaking mathematical journal died a
little later.

I have comments on my research from the TOP mathematicians in the
mathematical field who did nothing.

I talked about my prime counting function with Bruce Eckel who told me
he'd never seen anything like it and offered that he might put it in
one of his editions...that was years ago.

Once in frustration I contacted a U.S. Attorney's office and they
couldn't quite work themselves around the issue of mathematicians
lying about mathematical research.

I no longer believe at all in the system.

Your claims are meaningless to me because I know from years of
experience how people lie in this area.

And it's not isolated.

In cosmology there is Dr. Halton Arp, who was an assistant to Hubble
who can show with better evidence than those who argue with him that
cosmologists are saying that quasars are farther away than they are,
but they just call him a crackpot.

Besides, no matter what you may believe or not believe your assertions
against my optimal path algorithm have zero impact, so I have no
motivation to consider them relevant.

To get some sense of that just routinely do a search in Google on
"traveling salesman problem" to see where the algorithm you claim you
can show doesn't work, happens to be in the rankings.

It is moving up in those rankings.

The world is saying your are wrong. It's a wonderful reality test.

And what happens later?

Over time it's determined that the algorithm works just fine.

You are just some nobody who mouthed off against it on newsgroups to
no avail, who will probably not even be remembered for even that
error.

I've been in this saga for over a decade. I know who matters and who
does not.

Your comments have no impact.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

The United States and Britain never left colonization, they just
pretended and shifted strategies, which is what great wealth allowed.

The reality that nothing had really changed was impressed on the world
with the war against Iraq, under false pretenses, where the occupation
still continues.

The Iraqi lives are considered so worthless in this country that most
Americans have no clue how many Iraqis have been killed though the
number of US soldier deaths, maybe about 1/25 of the Iraqi civilian
death count, is continually pushed in the news.

Class still matters.

Some people are considered less than others and their death is hardly
worth mentioning in the countries that dominate the world and claim to
be democratic, but what happens when the Iraqis try to get the US
soldiers to leave?

Their president said he'd give a timetable and was pushed back.  The
Iraqis are never allowed to vote on it.

And this country continues to claim to be a democracy as the new
colonialism is about lying.

There are two ruling countries of the world today: The United States
and Britain.

And if you doubt it far enough, cross them far enough, they will kill
you to remind you who is absolutely in charge.

The rest of your countries are servile, no matter what you think.

And there are two classes, along with the dwindling middle class:

The rulers.

And the ruled.


___JSH

 

[JSH]

But in all that decade, has it *ever* worked like you're predicting
now?  Has it ever been the case that, over time, it was determined
that you were right and the others were just nobodies mouthing off on
Usenet?

'Cause I missed that time.

You ignore all evidence.

Like sci.math'ers I'm sure, though I don't remember, didn't like my
definition of mathematical proof.

Yet, as I've noted so many times, it is up there in Google when you
search on "definition of mathematical proof" at #2, only behind the
Wikipedia, which is another surging entity, which has been ripped on
by the establishment.

You're kind of like some old encyclopedia people claiming the
Wikipedia is crap.

New tech escapes you.

So it doesn't matter what I do for you and people like you. You are
trapped in your own belief which reminds me of the books of Narnia.
After Aslan has been resurrected, and is taking out his enemies there
are these certain people who believe they are in the basement of a
building when the building is gone, and a child wonders to Aslan if
they will ever know the truth.

And Aslan says no. They are trapped in their own minds, forever. The
truth is permanently lost to them.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

He didn't even offer to talk to me in person until I forwarded him an
email from Barry Mazur commenting on an early draft of the paper.

Remember, I'd sent him a paper to review for publication in a journal
for which he was an editor, and when I pressed him on acceptance, he
said he couldn't quite understand it.

After I forwarded him Mazur's email, he offered that I could visit and
explain it in person.

Besides it's trivial algebra:

If you have a polynomial P(x), where

P(x) = 1225x^2 - 15x + 14

Correction:

P(x) = 175x^2 - 15x + 2

I figured out a way to creatively factor it, AFTER you multiply by
some constant like 7, so you have

7*P(x) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x)+ 7)

where the a's are the two roots of

a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.

The bored but curious can easily verify those equations work and easy
checks are at two points: x=0 and x=6.

And I got that wacky factorization by creative re-distribution after
multiplying by 7, as you have

7*P(x) = (49x^2 - 14x)5^2 + (7x-1)(7)(5) + 7^2.

I say the distributive property doesn't care about the value of x, so
that you can find how it multiplied through using x=0 and generalize
from that to any value and can SEE that to be true at x=6.

The rest is ok.

Remarkably my proof is one of the simplest in mathematical history
relying on the distributive property which is considered very trivial
and boring.

It is ironic.

The human species has learned to accept social orders over the truth,
which is why it is heading towards its demise because of global
warming.

Deep down many of you believe that if you simply can't accept that
over 6 billion people can have an empty future, then reality cannot
force your demise.

But you are wrong. Reality is greater than 6 billion of you or 6
trillion of you.

And mathematical proof is absolute.


James Harris

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

Besides it's trivial algebra:

So trivial that you messed it up. I checked the math, see:

If you have a polynomial P(x), where

P(x) = 1225x^2 - 15x + 14

You mean P(x) = 175x^2 - 15x + 14? That's the only way any of your other
stuff works (checked via the standard high-school CAS, a TI-89).

Counter example claims have been made against my non-polynomial
factorization research as well.

I know that people can claim more than they can actually show, but
that refuting those claims is often useless, as it's a social issue,
not about what's true.

Where are the counterexamples wrong? You even admitted that your
algorithms were, in fact, incorrect, for TSP.

I have published research which was pulled by the editors after
publication and then the entire freaking mathematical journal died a
little later.

I thought I said no more SWJPAM? Besides, if you seriously think that
you're the only person whose research has been retracted, you have
REALLY missed out on recent scientific advancements.

I have comments on my research from the TOP mathematicians in the
mathematical field who did nothing.

Who? What did they say?

I talked about my prime counting function with Bruce Eckel who told me
he'd never seen anything like it and offered that he might put it in
one of his editions...that was years ago.

This Bruce Eckel: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Eckel>? If that's
not the person than I can hardly say that he's a top mathematician. If
he is the same person, then I doubt he's highly qualified to talk on
prime counting.

Once in frustration I contacted a U.S. Attorney's office and they
couldn't quite work themselves around the issue of mathematicians
lying about mathematical research.

Let me guess what they asked you: "Do you have any evidence?". From what
I've seen of your work, the answer is, in short, "No."

Besides, no matter what you may believe or not believe your assertions
against my optimal path algorithm have zero impact, so I have no
motivation to consider them relevant.

A counterexample is cold, hard proof. You must then show either:
1. The claimed counterexample is invalid.
2. The algorithm works for the claimed counterexample.

You have done neither. Ergo, the algorithm is incorrect.

To get some sense of that just routinely do a search in Google on
"traveling salesman problem" to see where the algorithm you claim you
can show doesn't work, happens to be in the rankings.

It is moving up in those rankings.

First off, we have already established that Google rankings don't
matter. Second, I don't see your results in the top 100. Third, the top
results give me extant solvers that are good for banal usages.

 

[JSH]

So trivial that you messed it up. I checked the math, see:

I make LOTS of mistakes.

You mean P(x) = 175x^2 - 15x + 14? That's the only way any of your other
stuff works (checked via the standard high-school CAS, a TI-89).

P(x) = 175x^2 - 15x + 2

I already posted a correction.

Hmmm...you have something wrong, maybe your CAS is broken?

Where are the counterexamples wrong? You even admitted that your
algorithms were, in fact, incorrect, for TSP.

Did I? If I did I was wrong.

I thought I said no more SWJPAM? Besides, if you seriously think that
you're the only person whose research has been retracted, you have
REALLY missed out on recent scientific advancements.

There is no other case in all of mathematical history.

Oh, you said "scientific" so yet another situation where you slightly
switch the game.

Science is another ball-game to mathematics.

Mathematicians in contrast to scientists who hypothesize and
experiment, claim to use proof exclusively and mathematical proof is
perfect.

Absolute.

Who? What did they say?

LOL. Many things over the years which is the point.

I have years of experience here.

Nothing that is being said here matters in the big picture, which is
my point.

I'm just goofing off.

This Bruce Eckel: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Eckel>? If that's
not the person than I can hardly say that he's a top mathematician. If
he is the same person, then I doubt he's highly qualified to talk on
prime counting.

Bruce Eckel, the java book guy, that's who.

I think I kind of freaked him out.

Regardless he thought my prime counting function was kind of neat and
offered that he might put it in his next edition.

After emailing him I actually contacted...China.

Turns out that Western mathematicians have ripped on the Chinese for
years telling them their mathematical research is inferior.

I thought maybe they might help me, but never got a reply out of that
country.

That was years ago.

Let me guess what they asked you: "Do you have any evidence?". From what
I've seen of your work, the answer is, in short, "No."

Nope. You guessed wrong.

A counterexample is cold, hard proof. You must then show either:
1. The claimed counterexample is invalid.
2. The algorithm works for the claimed counterexample.

You have done neither. Ergo, the algorithm is incorrect.

You did not give a counter-example to the actual algorithm. You DID
give a counter-example to an algorithm I recently presented which I
noted myself was incorrect.

Instead you have SAID you gave a counter-example as if you had done so
to the actual solution, which to me is a bit of dishonesty which is
telling.

First off, we have already established that Google rankings don't
matter. Second, I don't see your results in the top 100. Third, the top
results give me extant solvers that are good for banal usages.

Google results can vary by region. What country are you in?

Your claims of counter-example to the optimal path engine are bogus as
I never saw any presented by you.

You DID present a counter-example to an algorithm that I presented in
posts on the newsgroup, kind of on the fly, which was not the correct
one, which I acknowledged.

Your lying about the details is more telling than anything else and
your repetitive replies indicate attention seeking behavior.

I will play that out as long as you wish but nothing will change.

At the end of it, eventually, you will stop as have so many others
before you.

But your newsgroup will know maybe a little more about you, if they
didn't already.

Your wishes do not make reality.

Present a counter-example to the correct algorithm, if you can.

Or quit lying.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

Well, I suppose that's more honest
than the various (laughable) technical claims
you've made.

   BugBear

I've been doing this for over ten years kid.

I can assure you that there is a method to the madness.


James Harris

 

[gjedwards]

After emailing him I actually contacted...China.

Cool. BTW, what's China's email address?

 

[Lits O'Hate]

I've been doing this for over ten years kid.

Yet you still haven't learned how to use the comma, kid.

I can assure you that there is a method to the madness.

Oh, we know the method: You get drunk, you post stupid
things to Usenet, you sober up, you delete them from
Google, then you claim it's all part of your "method."

 

[Lits O'Hate]

Present a counter-example to the correct algorithm, if you can.

Present the correct algorithm, if you can.

 

[JSH]

Seehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6967/full/426594a.html.

That was a much more publicized retraction of a proof of Hilbert's
16th problem.  Of course, it was all a bit of math theatre to cover up
the novelty of your own experiences.

Who retracted?

I didn't retract my paper.

Oh yeah, for those who don't think Google search result rankings are
meaningless, when I do a search on "definition of mathematical proof"
I have now taken over #1. (Wow.)

And now I'm also showing up on Yahoo! where I've surged up to the #2
position, just behind, yup, the Wikipedia.

For those of you who are living in the real world, the reality is
there is no other human being on the planet who has a personal
definition of something on the order of importance of definition of
mathematical proof that has taken over in the rankings, and Google
search results DO mean something.

And, of course, some of you should consider that BEFORE I was
discussing this issue I was only #2 and I didn't even see myself in
the top 10 on Yahoo! so yes, there is a benefit to me in having these
kinds of discussions.

Those of you trying to limit my impact need to not reply, not keep
replying and replying and replying as the world keeps answering: I'm
more credible than you.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

As far as I can tell, she didn't retract her paper either.  The
editors withdrew it.  

To be sure, the editor who retracted your paper did so in a very
underhanded manner by editing an online journal to make it appear as
if you had decided not to publish.  

Interesting. Oddly enough the dates are the same as well: December
2003

It's not clear to me though if she still claims the paper was correct,
but clearly we are two people in mathematical history with similar
stories, from the same time.

I think it really begs the question of who mathematicians maintain
that their current system should be accepted as valid, if papers can
go through formal peer review only to be retracted after criticism.


James Harris

 

[Alan Morgan]

Oh yeah, for those who don't think Google search result rankings are
meaningless, when I do a search on "definition of mathematical proof"
I have now taken over #1. (Wow.)

The #1 link for "the Next President of the United States" is (currently)
a link to a Mike Gravel video. More importantly, however, Paris Hilton
is the #3 hit for "the next president of the usa".

Of further note, the #1 hit for "bogus prime counting function" (no quotes)
is...

Hey, if you can't trust google, who can you trust?

Alan

 

[JSH]

The #1 link for "the Next President of the United States" is (currently)
a link to a Mike Gravel video.  More importantly, however, Paris Hilton
is the #3 hit for "the next president of the usa".

Those aren't definitions.

Of further note, the #1 hit for "bogus prime counting function" (no quotes)
is...

Hey, if you can't trust google, who can you trust?

Is that a rhetorical question?


___JSH

 

[JSH]

No one has ever claimed that formal peer review was infallible.

Yes. People make mistakes.

And LOTS of people can make mistakes as we've learned through history.

Therefore, claims of mathematicians that depend only on the world of
people cannot be accepted as true on that basis.

That invalidates the entire system currently in place for review of
"pure" mathematical paper which is part of my point and part of the
point I made to the New York Times in an email to them.

We have no way of knowing just because some mathematicians claim a
paper is correct that it actually is.

Because people make mistakes.


James Harris

 

[gjedwards]

Interesting.  Oddly enough the dates are the same as well: December
2003

It's not clear to me though if she still claims the paper was correct,
but clearly we are two people in mathematical history with similar
stories, from the same time.

I think it really begs the question of who mathematicians maintain
that their current system should be accepted as valid, if papers can
go through formal peer review only to be retracted after criticism.

James Harris

You constantly ignore the following request, so I'll give you yet
another opportunity to ignore it and prove your cowardice/
duplicity...here goes:

Where is your evidence that the paper was actually reviewed? It is
highly unusual not to receive reviewers comments. All sane people here
beleive that the paper was never reviewed, a belief strongly supported
by your inability to refute this by posting the reviewers comments.

YOUR PAPER WAS NEVER REVIEWED.

Reviewers comments instantly prove me wrong. Post them here and get
your apology from me.

 

[Lits O'Hate]

Oh yeah, for those who don't think Google search result rankings are
meaningless, when I do a search on "definition of mathematical proof"
I have now taken over #1. (Wow.)

And who could argue with Google?

I think I'll ask Google, "is james harris a crackpot?"

(Wow.)