Re: JSH: Math journals do not just die

tim.peters@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
If p mod 3 is not random, then what are the rules?

What rules beyond 50% probability can you give?

[gjedwards@xxxxxxxxx]
if p mod 3 is 1 then (p+1) mod 3 is more likely to be 2 than 1.
if p mod 3 is 2 then (p+1) mod 3 is more likely to be 1 than 2.

[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
But why?

[Tim Peters]
I'd tell you "read a book", except you'd have to study hard to learn
enough to grasp the real issues here. I summarized them in recent
posts over the past few days, so read those instead if you really care.
To judge from the above, the full story on the distribution of residue
pairs is subtler than you or gjedwards realize so far.

[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
Then I challenge you to give a guiding equation.

Huh? How about you show a sign that you've attempted to understand
even a bit of the considerable good info you've already been given on
this topic. You're like a broken record here, endlessly repeating
"challenges" while ignoring substantive replies.


Last I checked you were making statistical arguments.

However, with prime numbers an excellent example of an area where
things are not completely random is the prime distribution itself,
where 1/(ln x) rules, and that is an example of a guiding equation.

Otherwise there is no REASON for the behavior mathematically.

Part of the problem here is that mathematicians have routinely gotten
away with mathematical gibberish as an argument style, where by
babbling enough of what I call math-ese you can b.s. your way through
and convince people.

So I'm bottom-lining it for people who know that in mathematics you
have equations.

If you are right, give the equations.

I've given the example of 1/(ln x), so you have a guiding expression,
one way to object is to explain why none would exist in this other
area, if some cogent reason can be given.

With the prime distribution itself, 1/(ln x) is approximately the
probability that x is prime when x is a natural number.

The probability that x is prime is 0 or 1, but we can't say which
obtains without knowing the value of x first. If you want to make a
correct statement instead, then the probability that an integer drawn
uniformly at random from 1 through x is prime approaches 1/ln(x) as x
approaches infinity. You don't see the distinction, right? Think it's
just meaningless "math-ese"? Too bad, if so.


Actually, no I do see the distinction. But making the statement more
precise does not answer the question of a similar guiding expression
for p mod 3.

The reality check here is that if you are right, then there should be
equations or expressions like 1/(ln x) where a rule is embodied in
mathematics.

In contrast, saying something like with p mod 3, where p is an odd
prime greater than 3, 1 is followed by 2 60% of the time is rather
empty.

Even non-mathematicians can see that doesn't LOOK like a real
mathematical rule, but maybe something someone is guesing at or hoping
for.

In contrast 1/(ln x) is something a lot more definitive.

I emphasize this as it's crucial to make the point that something is
wrong here, so that people do NOT simply decide that if you keep
disagreeing with me, I must be wrong, and you right, which is an
unfortunate default that often takes place.

I want them to notice you are not really answering the question.

I think that if I am wrong with this p mod 3 thing then there should be
rules, which in mathematics are embodied in equations.

Do you /have/ a coherent claim "with this p mod 3 thing"? If so, what
is it? Don't bother if you want to say "it's random" again. While you
may be deluded enough to actually believe people were "lying" about
this, it's /obviously/ not random by any accepted meaning of the word.
If you need to invoke some private meaning for "random" to get on with
it, then you need to define what you mean by "random" first. Not a
line of BS, but a definition. The sequence isn't random by any
accepted definition.


And that's going to trying to just be convincing.

In mathematics, there are equations.

I say, if you are not just trying to convince people of your position,
then you can give some freaking equations or something versus denial of
randomness or going to statistical arguments.

I'll give yet another example:

Say you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up head 10 times.

By statistical tests the coin is probably flawed, right?

But how can you be sure?

Well, check the damn coin!

Statistics can point in a direction, but it cannot prove.

You actually have to go in and prove something one way or the other.

If p mod 3 is not random then there is a RULE or there are RULES which
would be embodied in MATHEMATICIAL EQUATIONS that would show that it's
not.

As an example, the prime distribution--the count of primes--shows
non-randomness in its close relation to 1/(ln x).

Give the equation or equations.

Huh? The value of your sequence at prime p is mod(p, 3). That makes
it non-random all by itself, just like p^2 isn't random, and plain p
isn't random, and no computable function on primes is random. That
there /is/ "a rule" for computing the value of your sequence is what
makes it obviously non-random (to everyone except, it seems, you -- in
which case you need to sell a different definition or "random", or live
with the plain truth about the accepted definitions).


Random means not predictable.

I think most people can accept that definition.

So p mod 3 is random in that you cannot predict what you will get for a
given odd prime p.

If that is wrong then a guiding equation would hold sway.

As an example of something NOT completely random, the count of primes
up to 100 is roughly given by 100*(1/(ln 100)) which approximately
equals 21.7, when there are 25 primes exactly.

Or up to 1000, where 1000*(1/(ln 1000)) approximately equals 144.76
when there are 168 primes exactly.

So it's not random because you have PREDICTABLE behavior.

We can guess at how many primes there are in a particular range and see
that we get close using the rule that 1/(ln x) is roughly the
probability that x is prime, when x is a natural number.

And the group should remember this thread is about math journals not
just dying.

I had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal.

Yup, the Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, a minor
web-only journal that folded after about 9 years of operation.

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/

I suggest readers go to that page to get some idea of the worldwide
reach of the journal before it died, as that is one of the site
mirrors.

And what electronic journals are very old?

Who said anything about age? /A/ salient point is that it folded.
Another salient point is that SWJPAM was a minor journal with an
unenviable reputation.


Says who? You? Who are you?

Readers who go to the link may find themselves wondering about your
judgement given the reach of the journal.

As a sidepoint, I received an email from Mathematical Reviews, the
organization that keeps up with mathematical papers being published, as
they needed author information on me to update their database.

They didn't say, oh, it's just a minor journal with an unenviable
reputation.

Do you know what Mathematical Reviews is?

Who do they review? Any well-known journals?

Are you questioning their judgement and putting your own above them?

Remember, this is like a court case where I am asking you to consider
the possibility that members of the math community routinely lie to
you.

LOL -- try taking that to a real court and see what happens :-)


The issue is credibility. I want to stress facts and not giving the
benefit of the doubt to people presumed to be right, as I have a
difficult task of convincing people that other people they trust and
may admire, may be lying to them.

And lying quite boldly.

They are not used to being challenged because most people trust them.

Mathematicians are challenged routinely -- that's what proof is all
about. Try reading threads on sci.math other than your own.


But what if mathematicians SAY they go by proof, repeat it over and
over again so that people believe them, then just don't do it when they
choose?

At least some readers might have thought publication in a peer reviewed
mathematical journal meant something, yet you disdain it and abuse a
mathematical journal reviewed by Mathematical Reviews, a major entity
in the mathematical world.


The sci.math newsgroup erupted in fury when they found out.

How come you never give the rest of this story? Like that your
argument had already been refuted on sci.math, yet you tried (& somehow
managed) to get it published anyway.

Easy to say, when it's not true.

What, you didn't get it published? You didn't try to get it published?
It wasn't refuted on sci.math before publication? All three look true
to me.


It was not refuted on sci.math, as if it were, why would I get it
published?

And more importantly, how could I?

It's mathematics right? If I were wrong, why would two people I don't
know review it and pass it on to an editorial staff that published the
paper?

What? They wanted abuse? Wanted to put their journal on the line?

Wanted to look stupid?

It makes more sense that a highly controversial paper that threatens a
lot of mathematicians got censored by social pressure and people trying
to bury the truth, than some group of people I don't know just decided,
hey, let's publish a crackpot paper!

I'm chopping the rest of this, because I've seen this act many times
before, and it doesn't even have novelty value anymore. Readers who
want to see a technical response instead of reams of more BS are
encouraged to read the:

JSH: Forget the lies, my paper

thread, where long-suffering W. Dale Hall has once again been provoked
into defending his good name (which, BTW, there's no actual need to do
-- anyone who swallows James "well, umm, my paper forgot to mention its
real point -- ya, that's the ticket" Harris's line here is probably
someone whose opinion Dale wouldn't care about ;-)).

... [creative history rewriting] ...

There is no re-writing for me, as the history is well laid out.

Trouble is, people like you lie about it, and depend on other people
not checking.

I want sci.skeptic readers to do two things:

1. Check the record on instances of fraud in the mathematical world.
My guess is you'll not find much of anything, which is a red flag.

2. Consider that all this freaking arguing wouldn't be happening if
computers were able to check mathematical arguments claimed to be
proofs--as that would shut down things like some people emailing a math
journal to attack a paper and managing to convince some human being.

Think about that last one.

If my mathematical argument could go through a computer, where would
the people be who spend so much time attacking my research in various
ways?

But notice, in our modern age with so much that has been accomplished
by so many brilliant people, you have to depend on the word of a bunch
of people who went after their own when they published my paper, and
keep chanting over and over again that it was wrong, but make sure to
spend the energy keeping up a highly charged negative smear campaign
against me.

But math journals do not just die.

If you are a reasonable adult, then that point alone should stick in
your mind.

My arguing as much as I have is not to take you beyond that point, but
to show you how dedicated members of the math community are in
convincing you to go against your gut instinct, and how intelligently
they can argue.

And how belligerently they can deny the obvious.

Math journals do not just die.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Subject: JOURNALS - Part (4/5) of UK Nonlinear News
    ... JOURNALS - Part of UK Nonlinear News ... Complex Dynamics. ... Articles that are of general interest to the applied mathematics, ... Journal of Unconventional Computing, ...
    (sci.nonlinear)
  • Re: JSH: Math journals do not just die
    ... probability that x is prime when x is a natural number. ... which in mathematics are embodied in equations. ... it's /obviously/ not random by any accepted meaning of the word. ... And what electronic journals are very old? ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: Pure math cannot win here
    ... I've pushed into areas of pure mathematics where ... > basic algebra, as I have laterally thought so completely out of the ... > and the complexity he tosses in, he has a flawed attack. ... > journals, to attack the process of peer review itself: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math Citation Databases?
    ... Reviews Lookup web page ... Retrodigitized Mathematics Journals and Books ... Mathematical Journals ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: The "Published" paper he dosent what you to know about.
    ... Hey sci.math'ers why don't you start ripping on Mathematical Reviews ... Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics like a real journal ... Just read a few of the papers that appeared there. ... included SWJPAM in its list of reviewed journals is not an implied ...
    (sci.math)
Loading