Saturday, April 15, 2006
Prime research, emphasis on the obvious
Now, once I again, I remind of an experiment where I wrote the first prime counting function on the Wikipedia, now available in the history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
I wrote the entire article, while there are a couple of minor edits by others.
There you can see a p(x,y) function defined, where you see a summation.
That summation is different from any other summation you see in any other prime counting research (except maybe brute force techniques) as it is NOT a summation over primes.
That's because within the summation is a partial difference equation, so it's not a sieve method.
Because of that it directly links the prime distribution to a straight mathematical function, for the first time ever.
Not with a hypothesis, but with a direct equation, which is a difference equation.
Ok, so it's a difference equation, but it's still the first time the prime distribution has been linked to any equations directly, where in this case, importantly, there is this constraint that
p(x,y) = p(x,sqrt(x))
if y>sqrt(x)
where it is important as without it the COUNT IS NOT EXACT so you have this difference that steps in, which is the BEST EXPLANATION for why there is an error range given by the prime number theorem.
These are facts.
So why won't mathematicians acknowledge my research?
Because modern supposedly top mathematicians are assholes who care about themselves first and foremost and have been spoiled by a system that lets them get away with giving in to their silly little freaking egos.
And yes I am bitter.
These idiots have turned the system upside down, where a unique discovery is a means for the discoverer to face ridicule!
I want them publicly flogged. Yes, so yes, I am bitter.
It's so damn easy to see the truth here but while you little sycophants forget about mathematical proof and forget about giving a damn about the truth, these dumbass academic shits can get away with it!!!
So I blame YOU and I blame them.
If only any of you gave a damn about mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
I wrote the entire article, while there are a couple of minor edits by others.
There you can see a p(x,y) function defined, where you see a summation.
That summation is different from any other summation you see in any other prime counting research (except maybe brute force techniques) as it is NOT a summation over primes.
That's because within the summation is a partial difference equation, so it's not a sieve method.
Because of that it directly links the prime distribution to a straight mathematical function, for the first time ever.
Not with a hypothesis, but with a direct equation, which is a difference equation.
Ok, so it's a difference equation, but it's still the first time the prime distribution has been linked to any equations directly, where in this case, importantly, there is this constraint that
p(x,y) = p(x,sqrt(x))
if y>sqrt(x)
where it is important as without it the COUNT IS NOT EXACT so you have this difference that steps in, which is the BEST EXPLANATION for why there is an error range given by the prime number theorem.
These are facts.
So why won't mathematicians acknowledge my research?
Because modern supposedly top mathematicians are assholes who care about themselves first and foremost and have been spoiled by a system that lets them get away with giving in to their silly little freaking egos.
And yes I am bitter.
These idiots have turned the system upside down, where a unique discovery is a means for the discoverer to face ridicule!
I want them publicly flogged. Yes, so yes, I am bitter.
It's so damn easy to see the truth here but while you little sycophants forget about mathematical proof and forget about giving a damn about the truth, these dumbass academic shits can get away with it!!!
So I blame YOU and I blame them.
If only any of you gave a damn about mathematics.
# posted by James Harris @ 00:53 
