Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art
mensanator_at_aol.compost
Date: 02/25/05
- Next message: Bryan Olson: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring explained"
- In reply to: KeithK: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 24 Feb 2005 19:30:11 -0800
KeithK wrote:
> "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.
You're no fun.
> 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.
Which is why he gets smart aleck comments. Duh.
>
> KeithK
>
> > Décio
- Next message: Bryan Olson: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring explained"
- In reply to: KeithK: "Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
