Re: Caldwell conjectured #Wieferich primes = finite?
- --- In email@example.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
>--I just saw it in wikipedia, not elsewhere. I did not "elevate" it,
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> Chris Caldwell <caldwell@> wrote:
> > First, Caldwell (if that means me) made no such "conjecture."
> > Folks are too lose with that word.
> Indeed. It was an "obiter dictum", now changed in
> to the converse remark. Neither then nor now should Warren,
> or others, seek to elevate it to a "conjecture" by Chris.
I simply "reported what wikipedia said, and asked about it, in
a concise way."
> I have found Warren's contributions fruitful enough to set--i am not being "combative." I was being "inquisitive."
> aside his unfortunate tone in communicating them. Yet I am
> still puzzled why he seems to need to be so combative in
YOU, however, are being combative. Right now.
> what is, quite frankly, a place where he should not expect--look David, you seem to make a habit of complaining about my "tone".
> the type of serious review that he might gain by taking the
> trouble to write up his ideas in an appropriate form for
> scrutiny by a more rigorous mathematical community.
> In any case, thanks Warren, for the maths.
> David (not a mathematician)
But your usual complaint-method omits actually explaining what the problem is.
In the rare cases where you do explain, such as here... I find it unjustified.
Here, for reference, was my entire damn post, in full, verbatim:
"What is the reasoning behind this conjecture?
(Wikipedia says Caldwell conjectured this.)"
end. full stop. I am satisfied with the answer I got to this enquiry (though I was expecting something deeper :)
Quite frankly, I find it puzzling why David seems to need constantly to be so
worried about others' tone, and/or why -- given that he does feel that need --
he feels the urge to be so mysterious about it when he does so.
Indeed, the very word "tone" is a very mysterious one. Anyhow, let me conjecture
that, similarly to the way some appreciate Beethoven's symphonies, while others who
are "tone deaf" (also called "amusic") hear nothing but somewhat annoying noise --
I do not perceive a vast symphony of something, that apparently is so obvious to David Broadhurst, that he cannot stop complaining about it, but at the same time it is so obvious to him that he sees no reason to actually explain instances.
Perhaps Broadhurst should take this conjecture into account before/during
his issuings of future complaints. I would assume the amusic are annoyed at being subjected to Beethoven, but even more annoyed about being harangued about it by Beethoven-lovers.
- --- In email@example.com,
"WarrenS" <warren.wds@...> wrote:
> --look David, you seem to make a habit of complaining aboutTwice (on this list) is hardly a habit.
> my "tone".
Phil has done so once:
> You might also consider moderating your tone. I know fromThanks again, Warren, for the maths, both on-list
> your private e-mails that you find that hard, but can you
> please try harder on-list?
and in your private emails to Phil and me.