Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12844Re: [PrimeNumbers] primes and John Harrison

Expand Messages
  • Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho
    Jul 7 3:08 PM
      Hash: SHA1

      On Monday 07 July 2003 18:18, you wrote:
      > --- Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho <decio@...>
      > wrote:
      > Decio didn't even watch the movie "Longitude". If he
      > had, he'd know how silly his arguments were. Let me
      > illustrate.

      Well, of course I didn't. I think everyone on this list has come across a
      Goldbach conjecture proof or a new formula for prime numbers at some time, so
      they know how the drill goes. You're no different.

      > > Quite simple, PUBLISH IT. That's how it's been done
      > > for centuries. If your
      > > work is as good as you claim, you're surely not
      > > going the way of John
      > > Harrison. Further, mathematics is unique in the
      > > sense that, if you display
      > > your formula, prove that it works and rigorously
      > > bound its runtime
      > > complexity, there can be no discussion, as it's been
      > > _demonstrated_.
      > Actually, John Harrison didn't publish his work. He
      > took his work directly to a board of astronomers and
      > demonstrated it for them. Then later, someone else
      > published John Harrison's work. I'm looking for the
      > opportunity to demonstrate as opposed to the
      > opportunity to publish.

      It appears that you don't, as witnessed by this previous post of yours:

      >I'm not going to print my formula here for two reason:
      >first, is security that someone doesn't snatch the
      >credit away, and second, it's too complicated to print
      >in an email message. However, I will go ahead and
      >describe some details about the formula.

      So I'm just assuming you want to keep it to yourself and still obtain funding
      to do your work. Well, good luck.

      > Also, the whole point of the movie was "how rigorously
      > must proof be displayed." John Harrison rigorously
      > displayed his work, complying with all the demands of
      > the board of astronomers, and still, the board of
      > astronomers kept saying that it wasn't enough.

      Physics != mathematics.

      As I said, publish your findings; if you demonstrate everything you claim,
      there'll be no discussion as to your contribution.

      > > Any modern C compiler today can handle 64-bit
      > > numbers (e.g. long long in gcc
      > > or __int64 in MSVC), which is 19-digit numbers. Of
      > > course you could download,
      > > say, gcc or PARI/GP and have access to numbers as
      > > large as you please.
      > As I have said, I don't have access to a modern C
      > compiler, nor can I afford to purchase a computer that
      > can handle a modern C compiler, let alone gcc or
      > PARI/GP. I live just barely above the poverty line.

      If you have an x86-compatible computer, 386 or up, you are eligible for
      running gcc. I believe the same goes for PARI/GP.

      > > No, you're trying to go against the way it's been
      > > done for centuries:
      > > Think about it.
      > Actually, Galileo, Copernicus, John Harrison,
      > Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and many
      > others went against, "the way it's been done for
      > centuries". Sometimes progress requires that we break
      > with tradition.

      I'm not sure if I understand you correctly: are you trying to say Einstein
      didn't publish his findings? Look up “Über einen die Erzeugung und
      Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt,” Annalen
      der Physik (1905) (on the photoelectric effect); "Über die von der
      molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden
      Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen,” in Annalen der Physik (1905) (on
      Brownian motion); "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," in Annalen der Physik
      (1905) (on special relativity); “Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem
      Energieinhalt abhängig?” in Annalen der Physik (1905) (on the equation
      E=mc^2); these are the classical 1905 Einstein papers, surely there are tens
      if not hundreds of others. He published a few books too.

      As for Stephen Hawking, there are 40 papers listed on arXiv.org. Obviously
      these are papers published on a peer-reviewed journal, not books (of which he
      published a lot of them too).

      As for Galileo, Copernicus and Isaac Newton, there were no scientific
      societies in their time, the idea of publishing was usually restricted to
      sending letters to friends.

      I won't even bother to comment on John Harrison.

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic