-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
> 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.
> 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
> Can I rather belatedly point out that what you get by substituting
> exclusive-or for addition is nothing other than the algebra of
> 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
> "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.
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:
>> 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
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.
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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----