Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art
From: KeithK (me_at_nomail.com)
Date: 02/25/05
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "SF: Back to theory"
- Previous message: Hank Oredson: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- In reply to: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Reply: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:10:28 -0700
"Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho" <decio@decpp.removethis.net> wrote in message
news:386kdhF5janolU1@individual.net...
> KeithK wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > I haven't seen James respond to the following, which I quote from 'flip'
> > Feb
> > 18 RE: in the thread Factoring, sf,and reasonable requests. But note
> > James' sudden interest in complex numbers in this thread.
> >
> > <quote>
> > "These equations were previously published in the 1930's by Ivan Melch,
in
> > a
> > German book titled "Functions Theory" by Fischkopf Press. Melch has
them
> > as only a side note on page 137 as part of his derivation of the famous
> > Gebratener Speck theory. Melch uses Z, a complex quantity instead of the
> > oversimplified real number A. The equations were also shown to be
> > irrelevant for either surrogate factoring, or random number generation.
> >
> > Claims by "James Harris" that he "invented them" are unfounded.
> > Unfortunately, he made several mistakes as he copied the equations out
of
> > the book, such as overlooking the complex to real number, which further
> > makes them useless."
> > <unquote>
>
> I have reason to believe this was pulled out of flip's ass. Try to search
> Amazon.com or Google for Ivan Melch.
>
> I will publicly retreat this accusation if presented with a scan of this
> book supporting flip's claim.
>
> It's unbelievable how low people would sink to attack James Harris. It's
> easy enough to attack his mathematics, why bother with personal attacks?
>
I agree, and I do not like the posts that simply attack him with all those
smart aleck comments. I was only noting that he didn't respond to or refute
flip's quote, which was a show stopper if true. And if the quote did emerge
from the orifice you suspect, my apologies to James and I should have known
better, coming from flip..
I occasionally respond to his math and in general am sympathetic to James,
an amateur math enthusiast whom I regard as truly excited about his math
ventures, albeit incapable of properly framing a proof or of abiding (or
perhaps understanding) a mathematical refutation when it shows errors in his
math. He usually ignores the flippant remarks, but visciously attacks the
three or four skilled mathematicians who try conscientiously to help him
with the math.
KeithK
> Décio
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "SF: Back to theory"
- Previous message: Hank Oredson: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- In reply to: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Reply: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
