Is this guy for real?

[science_man_88]

for(x=200,400,print((prime(x+1)-prime(x))/(log(prime(x))^2)/(log(log(prime(x))))))

but I'll have to do a double check on the range I did as I thought I saw 3 in a row with the same c.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by AntonVrba

If a person is black, white, yellow, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, genius, idiot, Harvard educated, junior high school drop out, vegetarian or alcoholic is completely immaterial

I believe all 12 of the features you list were first brought into this thread by you. Apparently no one else thought they mattered; why bring this up?

Originally Posted by AntonVrba

Just read what you wrote (I put it in bold).

I see nothing wrong with what I wrote. If you're referring to my use of "proved" for "purported to prove", it's a typical courtesy; see e.g.
http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm

Originally Posted by AntonVrba

Mathematical logic only tells us that the attempted proof's are flawed or in error, but that does not prove the persons to be a crank or a convincing troll or any of the types listed in the opening sentence!

Of course I have made no claims about any person being in one of the 12 classes you list. I agree that mathematical logic alone is insufficient to determine if a person is a crank, but that doesn't make it impossible!

Originally Posted by AntonVrba

Your statements put you into exactly same league and company as the persons you label.

If you feel that's true, I advise you to avoid my posts, as I think it would be wise to ignore cranks. Of course I don't feel that it is, but it's your prerogative to so label people.

[AntonVrba]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I believe all 12 of the features you list were first brought into this thread by you. Apparently no one else thought they mattered; why bring this up?

and how do these 12 descriptions differ to crank or troll - none of these 14 matter - it is just disrespectful to label people in a public forum.

By the way the author of the paper in question of this thread is employed by the York College of the City University of New York, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Studies so I safely assume he knows a bit more about the subject than we suspect.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by AntonVrba

and how do these 12 descriptions differ to crank or troll - none of these 14 matter - it is just disrespectful to label people in a public forum.

I'm looking for truth, whatever it is. As I've said, I have come to no conclusion on this particular author.

As to the difference? The others have no or little bearing on whether I am willing to spend time carefully checking the papers.

Originally Posted by AntonVrba

By the way the author of the paper in question of this thread is employed by the York College of the City University of New York, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Studies so I safely assume he knows a bit more about the subject than we suspect.

Really? This is him?
http://www.york.cuny.edu/portal_college/ncarella

Perhaps I'll drop him an email.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I agree that mathematical logic alone is insufficient to determine if a person is a crank, but that doesn't make it impossible!


.

In some cases I disagree with the sentiment given above. Sometimes
an argument is so full of gibberish/nonsense that it is hard to conclude
anything except that the presenter is a crank. Especially when the
presenter claims something that others have not been able to achieve.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

In some cases I disagree with the sentiment given above. Sometimes
an argument is so full of gibberish/nonsense that it is hard to conclude
anything except that the presenter is a crank. Especially when the
presenter claims something that others have not been able to achieve.

I don't think we have an essential disagreement. I think that situation is common, but I don't consider the skill of making that determination is mathematics at all (though of course it is *informed* by our understanding of math).

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

In some cases I disagree with the sentiment given above. Sometimes
an argument is so full of gibberish/nonsense that it is hard to conclude
anything except that the presenter is a crank. Especially when the
presenter claims something that others have not been able to achieve.

every discovery is something others haven't been able to achieve until after it was stated with proof. hence everyone who explores new possibilities is a crank by that definition alone.

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

every discovery is something others haven't been able to achieve until after it was stated with proof. hence everyone who explores new possibilities is a crank by that definition alone.

That is not at all what Bob said. He said "full of gibberish/nonsense" ... "Especially when ..."

or approximately:

Bob: (G and U) implies C
SM: U implies C

[science_man_88]

what do you think they thought in the day ? they probably thought nonsense.

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

what do you think they thought in the day ? they probably thought nonsense.

I disagree. There is a real difference between reasonably formulated "arguments" (supporting some theory), even if they are flawed, and nonsense.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by Wacky

I disagree. There is a real difference between reasonably formulated "arguments" (supporting some theory), even if they are flawed, and nonsense.

Precisely. There have been many flawed, yet non-nonsense, papers published over the years.