Saturday, April 15, 2006
Prime research, how can people so easily lie?
I am just caught up on this question of how is it possible for me to show something in the area of prime numbers like my prime counting function:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
People can look at it, compare it with what's known, and nothing else uses a partial difference equation.
But some stupid people can just lie in posts and it's believed.
If they are not lying, let one of them, any one of them, put up a link here, to where people can see that my research is not new.
It's that easy. I'm giving a link to what I have. Someone needs to put up a link to some other research where a partial difference equation is being summed to get a count of prime numbers.
Lying about mathematis is SUPPOSED to be a stupid and worthless thing, as in mathematics you can just put up the facts, show the result and that IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!!!
But here you let people get away with making claims that cannot be supported by the facts, so you break the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249
People can look at it, compare it with what's known, and nothing else uses a partial difference equation.
But some stupid people can just lie in posts and it's believed.
If they are not lying, let one of them, any one of them, put up a link here, to where people can see that my research is not new.
It's that easy. I'm giving a link to what I have. Someone needs to put up a link to some other research where a partial difference equation is being summed to get a count of prime numbers.
Lying about mathematis is SUPPOSED to be a stupid and worthless thing, as in mathematics you can just put up the facts, show the result and that IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!!!
But here you let people get away with making claims that cannot be supported by the facts, so you break the system.
# posted by James Harris @ 10:50 
