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

Re: the guys at Dr. Math like them...

Expand Messages
  • David Broadhurst
    ... So they too saw the obvious errors in your QED postings. Neither sigma nor eulerphi is non-decreasing. Hence all your postings where you used them
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 20 8:01 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
      "leavemsg1" <leavemsg1@...> wrote:

      > they just want me to use an alternate function instead
      > of the *simga* so I can work around the 'monotonic' confusion.

      So they too saw the obvious errors in your "QED" postings.

      Neither sigma nor eulerphi is non-decreasing.
      Hence all your postings where you used them "again"
      were patently worthless, as remarked, for example, here:

      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primeform/message/9524

      It won't help to go running randomly round 4 lists in
      the hope that someone might fail to spot that you have
      said nothing of value about either sigma or eulerphi.

      What is worse, is that you seem to be proud of your
      lack of understanding of these number-theoretic functions:

      > I don't even have to acknowledge the true definition
      > of what phi() really is

      > use an alternate function instead of the *simga* so
      > I can work around the 'monotonic' confusion

      There are folk on the lists that you have been
      bombarding who could help, if you were only able to listen.

      Please, Bill, try to be a bit more modest and to learn from
      your mistakes. The rest of us do so and even find it quite
      enjoyable to be rescued from error.

      Sincerely,

      David
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.