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

A Fair Trial

Expand Messages
  • physiguy
    All I ask for is a fair trial. Consider this: have I used mean, condescending, words in my discussioon at any point? I would ask those who have not talked to
    Message 1 of 7 , May 1, 2003
      All I ask for is a fair trial. Consider this: have I used mean,
      condescending, words in my discussioon at any point? I would ask
      those who have not talked to me before to look at my previous posts
      to determine if I have done so. You will find none. I ask that you
      please make a post on my behalf, attesting to this fact. When have I
      ever treated anybody on this board with anything other than the
      utmost respect, even if it wasn't given to me. I simply posted two
      proofs both of which I know are in error now, and I admit that,
      however, it was not by the help of anybody on this board that I came
      to that determination. If somebody had said, "yes, you are in error
      here", I would have said thank you. But nobody was able to do that.
      Furthermore, although something similar to what I have developed
      exists I have found nothing exactly the same, which can be extended
      to multiple operators. In addition, I have put more thought into my
      concepts and have been able to develop an interesting relationship
      between the sum of four squares and the operator I have used. I am
      not asking for anything more than not having to treat any person on
      this board as superior to any other. I have no knowledge of anybodys
      credentials and that is what makes the internet such a great place
      to share knowledge, even if it may be in error. Progress is always
      made with trial and error, and no progress with be made otherwise.
      Thank you for considering what I have to say.

      Ehren Biglari
    • Hadley, Thomas H (Tom), ALABS
      ... Those are mean, condescending words. Personally, I wouldn t be in favor of removing him from the list, however. I don t think the level of antagonism has
      Message 2 of 7 , May 2, 2003
        Physiguy (Ehren Biglari) wrote:

        >All I ask for is a fair trial. Consider this: have I used mean,
        >condescending, words in my discussioon at any point? I would ask
        >those who have not talked to me before to look at my previous posts
        >to determine if I have done so. You will find none.

        I beg to differ. Here is a quote from one of his earlier posts:

        >You can't claim you know of competent minds when you yourself don't
        >have one.

        Those are mean, condescending words.

        Personally, I wouldn't be in favor of removing him from the list, however.
        I don't think the level of antagonism has gotten that high, yet.
        Perhaps he'll learn that attacking people will get him no help
        from any of the list members, who have an awful lot to share.

        Tom Hadley
      • Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho
        ... Hash: SHA1 Do not try sounding off as innocent here, because we all know you re not. Here are some examples: Your reply to Nathan Russell, who took his
        Message 3 of 7 , May 2, 2003
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
          Hash: SHA1

          Do not try sounding off as innocent here, because we all know you're not. Here
          are some examples:

          Your reply to Nathan Russell, who took his time to read your post and reply to
          it:

          - ----
          > The mathematicians on this list will probably reply in more
          > detail when they wake up.

          What is that supposed to mean? I'm quite awake, unlike you who
          haven't even opened your eyes.

          > This is only my opinion.

          Indeed.

          ...

          > Most of the rest is over my head.

          ...

          and that's about it really. For a third-year computer science
          student you really should know these already. If not, I would take a
          couple of days and try to learn them, because they are really
          important concepts wherever you go. Good luck.
          - ----

          Now do I sense some lack of respect here?

          Now your response to Mr. J. Berg, which surely has accomplished far more in
          life than you'll ever do, and shouldn't have to deal with: ``But if you
          really want to help yourself, go back to school.'' Or how about your next
          response to him?

          - ----
          > But at age of 50, I think I'll continue dabbling

          dabbling? you mean wasting your time.

          > and not spend the
          > next half dozen years book-learning

          How else do you expect to learn osmosis?

          > - as long as that's okay with
          > you, of course.

          I've known people much older than 50 that have gone back to school.
          It's never to late to learn.
          - ----

          In retrospect I believe Mr. J. Berg treated you far more softly than you
          deserve. Especially given the following lines:

          - ----
          > I think I should be
          > allowed to enjoy my hobby as I see fit.

          I'm not stopping you. Go right ahead. Hey. Some people watch clouds
          as a hobby.

          > And if I might be allowed to make one last point?

          Sure. Go ahead. These are amusing.

          ...

          > However it irks me that you felt a need to tell me that
          > I'm "wasting" my time. Thank you, but I'm quite happy "wasting" my
          > time and frankly don't give two hoots in hell as to your opinion
          > of how to enrich my enjoyment of life!

          Appearantly you do, otherwise you wouldn't have written this.

          > I'm happy with my "time
          > wasting" and that's sufficient thereof.

          You're right about that, if you're happy that's all that counts.
          - ----

          Then there is your reply to Adam, which I'm not even going to comment, since I
          suppose you've got nothing to do with cancer research at all, and I don't
          want to embarass you further by asking you to provide proof. But clearly this
          in instance of unnecessary showing-off (whether real or imagined) and this
          isn't buying you any sympathy from the group.

          On one of next your messages, you stated that ``I have been avoiding doing
          this for a couple of reasons. I didn't want a whole lot of posts by people
          who didn't undestand these concepts'', again trying to sound off as being
          superior to others.

          Or how about this in your answer to Jose Brox? ``I will allow you this
          criticism.'' Who are you to allow or not someone's else criticism? He was
          trying to be polite by saying ``If you allow me to make a criticism,'' then
          you find a way to be rude and gross over this very simple statement.

          Now the story gets to more ridiculous heights; this is your reply to Mike
          Oakes:

          - ----
          > Can I rather belatedly point out that what you get by substituting
          > exclusive-or for addition is nothing other than the algebra of
          polynomials
          > over GF(2) (the unique finite field with 2 elements).

          Oh yes, of course, I should have realized this?? Why don't you read
          the top of one of my original posts where I said exactly this. And
          this is a polynomial over GF(2^n) not GF(2).

          > So, can I suggest to Ehren, in particular, that instead of
          imagining that
          > "nobody else is doing this" he goes back to school for a bit

          No you may not! I have enough education to know this, however, I was
          trying to see if anybody else did. However, this form is much more
          compact and I am relating the polynomials directly to numbers. In
          addition, it doesn't change either proof. They are still both
          correct, and I have added the notation of a b-modulus. Without the b-
          modulus the second proof would be impossible. In fact, I have
          written a publication on using Galios Fields for data encrytion.

          (a prescription I know he approves of)

          Wrong again. You are batting a million today.

          > and studies the vast and deep existing literature in
          > this branch of algebraic number theory.

          Of which you know nothing about appearently. Otherwise you would
          have immediately seen this.

          >
          > Mike Oakes
          >

          I think it is you who need to go back and learn how to read.

          Ehren
          - ----

          Let's forget for a bit that you don't know jack about Galois fields, and
          you've just shown that. After this post, there is no way you can keep trying
          to say that ``When have I ever treated anybody on this board with anything
          other than the utmost respect''; it's clearly a lie that flies on the face of
          everything that happened on this mailing list recently.

          Now how about another reply of yours to Mike Oakes:

          - ----
          >> And
          >> this is a polynomial over GF(2^n) not GF(2).

          > No, they are polynomials over GF(2).

          Ok, you win that one I'm not sure what I was thinking. They are
          polynomials over GF(2).
          - ----

          Do I sense some arrogance here?

          Now the whole phony-FLT-proof thread. Mike Oakes kindly tried to show you the
          path of your error, and by nitpicking you tried to lie to yourself that there
          was nothing wrong. Then I replied, stating the general fact that breaks your
          theorem. Yes, I have attacked you on my reply, and those who have read this
          whole message might agree such an attack was not uncalled for. In your reply,
          you have also attacked me, but the difference is that your message lacks any
          content. Also, while stating ``it is obvious that: (a+b)/2 < c < a+b (and
          please don't ask for a proof of this, it is obvious)'', it didn't seem quite
          obvious to anyone on the list, and since the fact is so obvious, I suppose it
          has a short proof, which you could have stated here instead of repeating that
          it is obvious.

          Now how do you have the balls to state ``If somebody had said, "yes, you are
          in error here", I would have said thank you. But nobody was able to do
          that.'' when you had three different people show you that error? This line of
          yours is surely not getting you any more respect than the little you already
          have on this list.

          Then your last message:

          - ----
          So far I've gotten a whole bunch of complaints about my proofs, of
          which I have refuted all of them (see my previous posts and
          reponses) and NOBODY has yet to find any real (several imagined
          problems have been proposed and all refuted) problems with any of my
          proofs. Are they really that advanced? Come on people, this is basic
          number theory. If you really don't think you can handle checking my
          proofs please say so, so I don't waste any more of my time. If there
          is somebody who thinks there really is an error, by all means tell
          me. But please, no more nitpicking.
          - ----

          Greg put it better than I ever could in his reply: ``First and foremost,
          belittling the people from whom you are seeking assistance is NOT the way to
          receive it! Most 5-year-olds know that.'' This without taking into account
          that you didn't manage to refute anything, which makes your message seem even
          more ridiculous. He put a valid counterexample there, meeting your
          restriction, and still you try to say that you found the error on your own? I
          gotta admit I never came across anyone with as much ego as you have. I know
          it hurts your pride, but it's implicit that you allowed others to criticize
          your post as long as you sent it to a public mailing list. So please accept
          this criticism instead of desperately attempting to rebuke it just to satisfy
          your ego.

          So see, there are ways to offend others without resorting to dirty words. So
          instead of telling others to go back to school, _you_ should learn how to
          behave in public before embarassing yourself even more, and this applies not
          only to this mailing list.

          Décio

          On Thursday 01 May 2003 20:13, physiguy wrote:
          > All I ask for is a fair trial. Consider this: have I used mean,
          > condescending, words in my discussioon at any point? I would ask
          > those who have not talked to me before to look at my previous posts
          > to determine if I have done so. You will find none. I ask that you
          > please make a post on my behalf, attesting to this fact. When have I
          > ever treated anybody on this board with anything other than the
          > utmost respect, even if it wasn't given to me. I simply posted two
          > proofs both of which I know are in error now, and I admit that,
          > however, it was not by the help of anybody on this board that I came
          > to that determination. If somebody had said, "yes, you are in error
          > here", I would have said thank you. But nobody was able to do that.
          > Furthermore, although something similar to what I have developed
          > exists I have found nothing exactly the same, which can be extended
          > to multiple operators. In addition, I have put more thought into my
          > concepts and have been able to develop an interesting relationship
          > between the sum of four squares and the operator I have used. I am
          > not asking for anything more than not having to treat any person on
          > this board as superior to any other. I have no knowledge of anybodys
          > credentials and that is what makes the internet such a great place
          > to share knowledge, even if it may be in error. Progress is always
          > made with trial and error, and no progress with be made otherwise.
          > Thank you for considering what I have to say.
          >
          > Ehren Biglari
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
          Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

          iD8DBQE+snZMce3VljctsGsRAtUUAJ4nZgBJEZJHfPL/d4N5M3J0MELADACgjmD3
          B9HNWffMIeJuOYu2VzA932A=
          =lgLj
          -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
        • Nathan Russell
          --On Friday, May 02, 2003 10:44 AM -0300 Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho ... To be fair, he may not have realized that I was saying that as a college student I stay
          Message 4 of 7 , May 2, 2003
            --On Friday, May 02, 2003 10:44 AM -0300 Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho
            <decio@...> wrote:

            > Do not try sounding off as innocent here, because we all know you're not.
            > Here are some examples:
            >
            > Your reply to Nathan Russell, who took his time to read your post and
            > reply to it:
            >
            > - ----
            >> The mathematicians on this list will probably reply in more
            >> detail when they wake up.
            >
            > What is that supposed to mean? I'm quite awake, unlike you who
            > haven't even opened your eyes.

            To be fair, he may not have realized that I was saying that as a college
            student I stay up later than most Americans and almost all Europeans on the
            list.

            Nathan
          • Jon Perry
            How else do you expect to learn osmosis? Does learning osmosis include letting all knowledge seep out - hence we have a paradox, and it is impossible
            Message 5 of 7 , May 2, 2003
              'How else do you expect to learn osmosis?'

              Does learning osmosis include letting all knowledge seep out - hence we have
              a paradox, and it is impossible therefore to learn osmosis?

              Jon Perry
              perry@...
              http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~perry/maths/
              http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~perry/DIVMenu/
              BrainBench MVP for HTML and JavaScript
              http://www.brainbench.com
            • Jud McCranie
              ... I agree that is responses to Mr. Berg were completely out of line, and I wrote to Mr. Berg privately about that.
              Message 6 of 7 , May 2, 2003
                At 09:44 AM 5/2/2003, Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho wrote:

                >In retrospect I believe Mr. J. Berg treated you far more softly than you
                >deserve.

                I agree that is responses to Mr. Berg were completely out of line, and I
                wrote to Mr. Berg privately about that.
              • j_m_berg
                ... than you ... and I ... My first reaction to the tone he took, was to lash out in reply. That is why I posted my public reply at the time. When he escalated
                Message 7 of 7 , May 2, 2003
                  --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Jud McCranie <judmccr@b...>
                  wrote:
                  > At 09:44 AM 5/2/2003, Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho wrote:
                  >
                  > >In retrospect I believe Mr. J. Berg treated you far more softly
                  than you
                  > >deserve.
                  >
                  > I agree that is responses to Mr. Berg were completely out of line,
                  and I
                  > wrote to Mr. Berg privately about that.

                  My first reaction to the tone he took, was to lash out in reply. That
                  is why I posted my public reply at the time. When he escalated the
                  tone even further, I immediately stopped and gave it 24 hours to cool
                  off before going further. The next day I realized that a flame war
                  was not called for on this board, given what we are attempting to use
                  it for. So, I attempted to drop the issue and went on with
                  my "dabbling". But at the same time, I decided to limit my public
                  posts for awhile.

                  Frankly I don't feel like dropping to his level and playing his
                  games. Nor do I think anyone else should. If you dislike his
                  behavior, simply don't acknowledge that he even exists. If/when
                  enough people give someone a cold shoulder, the person usually gives
                  up and goes elsewhere. I've found that doing anything else usually
                  escalates the problem until it ruins everything.

                  Let's focus on numbers and ignore people short on social skills.
                  While I'm certain he's a very talented person in his field, I think
                  we can all agree that he is still young and still learning how to
                  interact with people. And, I think we can also all agree that this is
                  not the right place to be trying to "teach" anyone how to behave in
                  public.

                  Still dabbling,
                  Jay Berg
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.