Re: JSH: Math journals do not just die

tim.peters@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
... [endless repetition of points already covered] ...

I've asked for REASONS.

And you've both been given and pointed at answers. Read Brent's paper
for a start. You not only want a simple answer, but a simple-minded
one, and that's not going to happen.

You're dodged a reality test.

You've made contradictory statements.

I've caught you repeatedly in logical fallacies, and for a while you
just repeated them, and now seem to have switched to just deleting out.

I continue this so that readers can see how dedicated people like you
are.

And then begin to understand problems in other areas of society where
people like you cannot be reasoned with, like with America's current
involvement in Iraq.

People like you will not accept reason, you just have a way of behaving
that you've successfully used to exploit other people, so you just keep
at it until actually shutdown.

It's like your mind can't grasp when you've lost. So you just repeat.

This is all typical with you. When a brief account of theory is given,
you whine about it, complaining that it's "math-ese". When someone
makes a real effort to write a tutorial explaining it all in simple
terms, you whine about that, complaining about "long posts" used as a
"tactic" to "wear you down" or "distract". In neither case do you pay
any attention to the knowledge given to you. You continue to demand
it, and no matter how often it's given to you.


But skeptical readers can go back to the beginning of our discussion
and watch you dodge and weave, including your avoidance of a reality
test.

Yet you post yet again with total confidence as if you're convincing.

That behavior is what I want them to see.

It is, I think, a learned behavior, from exploitations that succeeded,
where the lesson is learned that you just keep at it, hoping the other
person just gives in.

Answer the reality test. Hey, I don't know what will happen. I just
picked x=192 out of the blue. Have you checked already or something
and seen it doesn't support your position?

Oh yeah, for those who haven't followed from the beginning of the
discussion, I just asked for prediction based on the equations the
poster claims rules an area where I think random rules for the first
100 primes past x=192--which I tried to pick randomly--as to what p mod
3 is, where p mod 3 means to subtract 3 from p, the prime numbers, as
many times as you can without it being negative.

With primes that can only give 1 or 2. And without a reason to pick,
the values just flop around like coin flips.

But mathematicians actively research in this area, so what I'm saying
would mean that research is useless, if I'm correct--a complete waste
of time and resources because randomness rules.

The poster has argued with me trying to convince that I'm wrong, and
repeatedly been caught in contradictions, or cheating with logical
fallacies.

And he had dodged my reality check.

Follow the references provided, and try to learn something yourself.
The reasons for you never making progress don't actually have to do
with other people.


Appeal to authority.

...
Yet I picked x=192 and asked you to make predictions on p mod 3 with
the first 100 primes that follow it.

So where is your example?

You've already been given a computer program to make such predictions,
and results of running it have already been posted.


Still dodging the reality check.

...

What if you have 10,000 flips? Is that enough?

Or is the answer still, not enough information?

Same reply as last time:


Non-productive.

You first need to state a specific hypothesis to be tested, and name
the specific test you intend to use. For example, if the hypothesis is
that all possible 1024 outcomes of flipping a coin 10 times occur
uniformly at random, and you want to use a 1024-bin chi-square test,
then a minimum of 1024*6 10-toss trials is good practice, to ensure
that the expected count in each bin is at least 6. The chi-square test
is then equally sensitive to whether 10 heads in row occurs more than 6
times, or /less/ than 6 times. This has all been explained before,
although previously in more detail.

...

How about just checking the coin?

For the last time from me, your "coin" is a computable function, and
therefore cannot be random under any accepted meaning of the word. The
value of your sequence at p is mod(p, 3), and that's wholly determined.
The time between radioactive decays is an example of something
(currently thought to be) truly random.


Non sequitur.

...

I suggest skeptical readers look over the full discussion.

The problem I'm talking about here is huge to the point of being almost
unbelievable.

But look at Iraq to see how powerful these kinds of people can become,
and how difficult even the truth can be against them.

They just keep at it, saying the same things over and over again,
ignoring facts, refusing to do objective tests, and relying on your
blind trust.

After all, you pay their bills.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tussling with kooks. IMIPAK the asian!
    ... mind have given up on "objective reality" and talk only of "subjective ... pride or racial pride is involved. ... same reason, never ask a salesman if you should buy something. ... These references to the Inquisition are making me twitchy. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • OT: The Ass Of God was Re: OT: Desk Attack
    ... Well, infinite ... But Rich, don't you see ... > doing LSD some decades ago partly for that reason). ... Just like any subpart of a larger whole, its subjective reality is ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Scouts, YLs, Sleeping (was Re: Scout at fifteen)
    ... Cold as early morning reality. ... Telling you from the other side - because the other side (closure) is ... We have too many single section Groups in our District. ... There is never just ONE reason why a group should survive or close. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Gross National Happiness
    ... our reason, we can never know the answers. ... time imply that reason leads us into contradiction, therefore reality ... it breaches the fundamental principle of empiricism (all postualtions ... God, we cannot know that there is not a God. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: The Point
    ... Does an "eye for an eye" correspond to reason? ... To reality? ... As well when Baha'u'llah states that disbelievers in God can not be ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)