A Study of Primes Through Non-Resonant Sine Waves

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

I've known Bob for about twenty years now. In my experience he has invariably acknowedged his errors whenever they have been pointed out to him.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Here is a minor contra-example.

Here is a non-trival example:

Originally Posted by EdH

Thank you again for your words, but I do have a minor contention with the above statement. In my original post I said:


Further, the title block clearly had:


Perhaps "draft" should have actually been within the title instead of under it.

Bob quoted and replied to the last post and failed to acknowledge the points that were brought out. He was shown that his statements were false, he did not "invariably acknowedged his errors".

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthr...man#post209972

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

He was shown that his statements were false, he did not "invariably acknowedged his errors".

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthr...man#post209972

My statements were not false and I made no error.
The only error was in your limited mind.

[alexhiggins732]

Originally Posted by fivemack

But even that would still be vastly slower than the division. Multiplying a number by pi and then using a convoluted method for dividing by pi to check whether the number you started with was an integer is obviously absurd.

I am here to learn but this statement confuses me on so many levels:

Do we not apply the same method (or even a derivative there of) in our fastest factoring and multiplication algorithms.

and when sieving we take just that the log of the factor base of primes?

For Fast Fourier transforms we again take the primitive roots of unity noting "that i4 = 1, 4 log i can be defined as 2πi, or 10πi or −6 πi, and so on."

Complex numbers... the list of trigonometrical goes one...

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

My statements were not false and I made no error.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The OP simply presented a paper as a finished work.

That statement is false, as has already been pointed out twice earlier in this thread.

The OP explictly declared that what he presented was "in its unfinished form."

You have not only made a false statement about the OP; you've now also made a false statement about your own statements, and have so far failed to acknowledge your error about the OP paper status after it was pointed out.

[philmoore]

In my experience, he has always had trouble admitting errors. An error of notation, he will freely admit to, but an error of judgment, not so quick to acknowledge, if ever. But in his defense, why would he want to admit to something that makes him look less than arrogant? Give the guy a break, for goodness sake!

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by philmoore

In my experience, he has always had trouble admitting errors. An error of notation, he will freely admit to, but an error of judgment, not so quick to acknowledge, if ever. But in his defense, why would he want to admit to something that makes him look less than arrogant? Give the guy a break, for goodness sake!

So what is this supposed error that I am failing to acknowledge>

[CRGreathouse]

I don't mean to be rude, but can we end this inquisition or at least move it to another thread? This is far off topic.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

So what is this supposed error that I am failing to acknowledge>

(Is it possible that 10metreh, EdH and I are all on your ignore list?)

See posts #39, 40 and 48.

Note that other errors followed as consequences of your unfinished/finished and draft/not-a-draft errors.

- - -

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I don't mean to be rude, but can we end this inquisition or at least move it to another thread? This is far off topic.

It's just a simple on-topic misunderstanding that has been strangely resistant to quick correction. It could be cleared up in a flash at any time.

(OTOH, that's how the malpractice performed on me in 1992 started, too: a simple misunderstanding compounded by refusal of a doctor to consider the possibility that he'd made a mistake, followed by more serious errors as consequences.)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

See posts #39, 40 and 48.

And see this post in a different thread.

[10metreh]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

(Is it possible that 10metreh, EdH and I are all on your ignore list?)

You can find out whether you are on someone's ignore list. Try sending them a PM.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

And see this post in a different thread.

That had a link, or was supposed to:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=209972