Harristotelian Logic

counting function, which I'll give in its sieve form:

With natural numbers x and n, where p_i is the i_th prime:

:<math>P(x,n) = x - 1 -\sum_{i=2}^n {(P(x/p_i,i-1) - (i-1))}</math>

where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including <math>\sqrt{x}</math> then n is reset to that count.

That is not only the shortest form known for a sieve prime counting function it's also rather fast, and is faster than Legendre's Method.

Simplicity. Speed. Beauty.

None of that has mattered to the mathematical world as I've been talking about my prime counting function for several years.

Yes, if you look into it, you can see similarities with what is previously known, but hey, it counts the SAME PRIMES so of course it must mathematically be relatable to other sieve prime counting functions.

I usually like to give the fully mathematicized version which shows the partial difference equation, but posters rip on that mathematics freely and with too much success. It's too complicated, long, and the implementation is slow, so I'm going to talk more about the less easily attacked sieve form.

Reality check. Look for my prime counting function. Look for anything else that short.

And remember, it could be you—if you discovered something. They'd crush you too.

These math people aren't just picking on me, they're picking on the discoveries—blocking them.

And people like you let them, and then to show how completely gullible you are, you buy the books that pay their way, feed into their lies, and call people who can't hold a candle to a real discoverer, brilliant.

This world simply has no taste, and no respect for real discovery. No wonder it is filling up with garbage and people who eat it and call it caviar.

---

Oh, the LaTex wasn't processed through Usenet. To see the equations as they are meant to be seen I suggest you go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prime_counting_function

where you can also see how math people truly are.

That equation is near the bottom, but read through that discussion page and then go over and look at the main page to see what mathematicians are willing to accept.

And to think, like many of you, I used to admire them, thought they were these brilliant people. Maybe a little strange, often socially inept, but at least…brilliant.

Now I know they are not—past mathematicians were—but modern mathematicians are brilliant actors, having learned how to ACT like they are something they are not, and then show a complete contempt for their predecessors and the wonder that is mathematics by attacking people who threaten that charade.

They are contemptible people. Read that Wikipedia page and just begin to learn how contemptible.

The structured and highly coordinated verbal assaults that you see from posters on Usenet are just the tip of the iceberg.

You in your deluded trust are worth millions of dollars to people who don't give a damn about mathematics, but they do care about your opinion of them, which is what I'm going after.

I'm pushing you to see how they are making a fool out of you, just for money and power like people have done so many times throughout history.

You are just another patsy in just another con.