Quoting axn:
[QUOTE]
Is your coder friend running his own (slow)
code or the one provided by xilman?
[/QUOTE]

I don't know the details, but I'm sure
that xilman's work helped a lot.

Don.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;256720]I don't know the details, but I'm sure that xilman's work helped a lot.

Don.[/QUOTE]Glad to be of service.

I'd be interested to learn about how your assistant coded the problem originally, given that my version seems to run hundreds of times faster.

I'd also be interested to learn whether your assistant understands my algorithm. The code has been optimized to the point where it's no longer entirely obvious what is going on.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;256721]Glad to be of service.

I'd be interested to learn about how your assistant coded the problem originally, given that my version seems to run hundreds of times faster.

I'd also be interested to learn whether your assistant understands my algorithm. The code has been optimized to the point where it's no longer entirely obvious what is going on.

Paul[/QUOTE]

Given his attitude,ignorant arrogance, outrageous claims and other crank
behavior, I would not be a bit surprised if this "assistant" were purely
imaginary.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;256677]Yes it does, but the [B][I]important[/I][/B] thing to note is that
there is only one [B]unique[/B] value of [TEX]\alpha[/TEX] for which this is true.[/QUOTE]

I believe that statement, but you haven't proven it.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;256677]How would you know?
You claim that you never calculated [TEX]\varpi(10^{14})[/TEX].[/QUOTE]

Call it mathematical intuition.

If you'd like to reinstate our bet...

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;256677]However, this does not mean that you should now
compare scientists and physicists to "astrologers" and "channelers".[/QUOTE]

I'm not, I'm comparing *you*.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;256677]Then and only then can we use alpha to estimate [TEX]\varpi(x)[/TEX].[/QUOTE]

It will be a long while before the value of [TEX]\alpha[/TEX] is known precisely enough to show that you're wrong about the linear term. Determining physical constants to high precision is hard.

On the other hand, it's already known well enough to show that you're far off on the square root term.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;256677]Why... with all the distinguished and esteemed mathemticians
continuously and predictably "sticking their feet in their mouths",
"shooting themselves in the foot" and in general "stepping in it",
while trying in vain to refute my work, this thread has become
"more fun than a barrel of monkeys"![/QUOTE]

I've seen at least half a dozen refutations of your work. I won't attempt to give another, because I've already explained it to the limits of my patience. You are quite unwilling to listen to people who challenge your point of view.

I haven't seen any 'try in vain'. If you can point me to a distinguished mathematician who has attempted to disprove your conjecture but failed -- in his professional view, not yours -- I'd love to hear about it. I'll drop him an email (or perhaps drop by his office, if he's nearby).

I wish you'd stick to issues surrounding polygonal numbers where you have a plausible conjecture backed by computation (it's almost surely not *correct*, but it's an excellent approximation). When you talk about the TZ conjecture you just make yourself seem a fool, and that makes your fine work on polygonal numbers less likely to be taken seriously.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;256677]Well, there are other, even more reliable indicators of how crazy someone is.

For instance, only a very, [B][I]very[/I][/B] crazy person would waste precious time
posting on a thread that contains ideas which are either wrong or boring.
(Notice that I have never posted on any of your threads.) :wink:[/QUOTE]

Actually, my friends *do* think I'm crazy for discussing crank theories -- see, e.g., [url=http://mymathforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=19563&start=15]here[/url]. I do this a lot -- I've discussed at least half a dozen 'proofs' of the twin prime conjecture, about as many 'proofs' of one of Goldbach's conjectures, a 'proof' that P = NP, several 'proofs' of Beal's conjecture, a few reproofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, and a four-color proof. All the proofs were flawed. Some were sufficiently illucid that I could only point out the general area that was wrong; others were well-written enough that I could point to a particular step and say that it was the first error in the proof.

Most of the cranks simply won't accept that they're wrong. Some admit that what I say was wrong and write a new proof (which is also flawed). One recognized (after about 100 posts) that he was wrong. I consider that my shining success: one person became wiser and understood the problem (in this case, the twin prime conjecture) more deeply. I don't think it's likely that this person will go on to solve the problem, but now that he properly understands the problem and why his approach will not work, he can at least explore more fruitful methods.

So yes, you could say that I am crazy. I prefer to think of myself as being a truth-seeker, willing to crawl through the muck of the flawed proofs in hopes of finding a gem.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;256730]Given his attitude,ignorant arrogance, outrageous claims and other crank
behavior, I would not be a bit surprised if this "assistant" were purely
imaginary.[/QUOTE]

I believe in the assistant -- I don't think Blazys is a programmer.

[QUOTE=jasonp;256678]On the one hand I think it's pretty neat that we can make mention of someone and then poof! they show up. On the other hand it's not completely fair to assign a huge crank score here; I imagine if the same had happened and [i]Archimedes Plutonium[/i] had shown up instead, we would all be wishing fondly for threads that are only as cranky as this one.[/QUOTE]

If you had to estimate, what crank scores would you assign to Archimedes Plutonium, Blazys, and myself? (I would hope to score solidly in the negatives.)

Plutonium's crank score is off the proverbial scale; look at archives of sci.math from the mid to late late 1990s and be very afraid. I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone else because I've composed maybe one or two mathematical proofs myself in total, it's just not something engineers are expected to do.

[QUOTE=jasonp;256678]On the one hand I think it's pretty neat that we can make mention of someone and then poof! they show up. On the other hand it's not completely fair to assign a huge crank score here; I imagine if the same had happened and [I]Archimedes Plutonium[/I] had shown up instead, we would all be wishing fondly for threads that are only as cranky as this one.

(If you're not familiar with Mr Plutonium, imagine a guy who could singlehandedly make all of usenet unbearable)[/QUOTE]Now there's a blast from the past!

I've not heard from/about Archimedes Plutonium for many many years. Is he/she/it still around, or is he/she/it not now allowed any form of communication other than a wax crayon and a nicely padded wall?


Archimedes Plutonium: Usenet's analogue of Cage, Stockhausen and Berg but without the benefit of tuneful melodies.

Paul

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;256731]So yes, you could say that I am crazy. I prefer to think of myself as being a truth-seeker, willing to crawl through the muck of the flawed proofs in hopes of finding a gem.[/QUOTE]

I'm semi this just not smart enough to know the muck.

Paul: there are archived threads containing posts as late as 2007 written by someone that sounds very much like him. He apparently used to have a wikipedia page which has since been deleted.

[QUOTE=xilman;256753]Now there's a blast from the past!

I've not heard from/about Archimedes Plutonium for many many years. Is he/she/it still around, or is he/she/it not now allowed any form of communication other than a wax crayon and a nicely padded wall?


Archimedes Plutonium: Usenet's analogue of Cage, Stockhausen and Berg but without the benefit of tuneful melodies.

Paul[/QUOTE]

He is still very active in sci.math. sci.math is almost totally
inundated with a (variety of) cranks.