Innovation, my TSP algorithm and factoring, timelines

#51 08-28-2008, 12:19 AM

JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> writes:

> I think it really begs the question of who mathematicians maintain
> that their current system should be accepted as valid, if papers can
> go through formal peer review only to be retracted after criticism.

No one has ever claimed that formal peer review was infallible.

In fact, I've seen its faults many times. Every time I've received
rejections, it's been clear that the system has failed.

For you, it was the other way around. It happens.

Seriously: unpaid and anonymous reviewers make mistakes. Of course,
you never received any reviews, so whether it was a peer review
mistake or an editorial mistake and coverup is still unclear.

--
"You are beneath contempt because you betray mathematics itself, and
spit upon the truth, spit upon decency, and spit upon the intelligence
of the world. You betrayed the world, and now it's time for the world
to notice." -- James S. Harris awaits Justice for crimes against Math.

#52 08-28-2008, 12:23 AM

On Aug 27, 7:54*pm, amor...@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
> In article <c1ed5502-df02-4220-a71e-5100fc05d...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> JSH *<jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Oh yeah, for those who don't think Google search result rankings are
> >meaningless, when I do a search on "definition of mathematical proof"
> >I have now taken over #1. *(Wow.)
>
> The #1 link for "the Next President of the United States" is (currently)
> a link to a Mike Gravel video. *More importantly, however, Paris Hilton
> is the #3 hit for "the next president of the usa".

Those aren't definitions.

> Of further note, the #1 hit for "bogus prime counting function" (no quotes)
> is...
>
> Hey, if you can't trust google, who can you trust?

Is that a rhetorical question?

___JSH

#53 08-28-2008, 12:26 AM

On Aug 27, 9:19*pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I think it really begs the question of who mathematicians maintain
> > that their current system should be accepted as valid, if papers can
> > go through formal peer review only to be retracted after criticism.
>
> No one has ever claimed that formal peer review was infallible.

Yes. People make mistakes.

And LOTS of people can make mistakes as we've learned through history.

Therefore, claims of mathematicians that depend only on the world of
people cannot be accepted as true on that basis.

That invalidates the entire system currently in place for review of
"pure" mathematical paper which is part of my point and part of the
point I made to the New York Times in an email to them.

We have no way of knowing just because some mathematicians claim a
paper is correct that it actually is.

Because people make mistakes.

James Harris

#54 08-28-2008, 08:53 AM

On 28 Aug, 03:53, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 7:21*pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Aug 27, 4:47*am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> > >> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> > On Aug 26, 6:47*pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...@verizon.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >> I thought I said no more SWJPAM? Besides, if you seriously think that
> > >> >> you're the only person whose research has been retracted, you have
> > >> >> REALLY missed out on recent scientific advancements.
>
> > >> > There is no other case in all of mathematical history.
>
> > >> > Oh, you said "scientific" so yet another situation where you slightly
> > >> > switch the game.
>
> > >> > Science is another ball-game to mathematics.
>
> > >> > Mathematicians in contrast to scientists who hypothesize and
> > >> > experiment, claim to use proof exclusively and mathematical proof is
> > >> > perfect.
>
> > >> > Absolute.
>
> > >> Seehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6967/full/426594a.html..
>
> > >> That was a much more publicized retraction of a proof of Hilbert's
> > >> 16th problem. *Of course, it was all a bit of math theatre to cover up
> > >> the novelty of your own experiences.
>
> > > Who retracted?
>
> > > I didn't retract my paper.
>
> > As far as I can tell, she didn't retract her paper either. *The
> > editors withdrew it. *
>
> > To be sure, the editor who retracted your paper did so in a very
> > underhanded manner by editing an online journal to make it appear as
> > if you had decided not to publish. *
>
> Interesting. *Oddly enough the dates are the same as well: December
> 2003
>
> It's not clear to me though if she still claims the paper was correct,
> but clearly we are two people in mathematical history with similar
> stories, from the same time.
>
> I think it really begs the question of who mathematicians maintain
> that their current system should be accepted as valid, if papers can
> go through formal peer review only to be retracted after criticism.
>
> James Harris

You constantly ignore the following request, so I'll give you yet
another opportunity to ignore it and prove your cowardice/
duplicity...here goes:

Where is your evidence that the paper was actually reviewed? It is
highly unusual not to receive reviewers comments. All sane people here
beleive that the paper was never reviewed, a belief strongly supported
by your inability to refute this by posting the reviewers comments.

YOUR PAPER WAS NEVER REVIEWED.

Reviewers comments instantly prove me wrong. Post them here and get
your apology from me.

#55 08-28-2008, 05:41 PM

In article <g95413$dat$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU>,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>
> Of further note, the #1 hit for "bogus prime counting function" (no quotes)
> is...
>
> Hey, if you can't trust google, who can you trust?

Your observation changed the system. The number one hit (in fact, the
*only* hit) now for the phrase "bogus prime counting function" is your
above post. :-)

(Of course, my posting about it might change it again!).

--
--Tim Smith

#56 08-28-2008, 07:34 PM

On Aug 27, 8:30 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yeah, for those who don't think Google search result rankings are
> meaningless, when I do a search on "definition of mathematical proof"
> I have now taken over #1. (Wow.)

And who could argue with Google?

I think I'll ask Google, "is james harris a crackpot?"

(Wow.)

--
"...one man who understand the Internet, I think, far better
than any of you can possibly come close to comprehending, with,
your, I'm afraid, um, limited intellects. " -- James Harris

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode