h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Julzes, now that I have read your claims about your zip code, your birthday and so on, I will have to change my mind. You are seriously delusional. Crackpot was the right word after all.

There are a number of doctors among the Researchers of h2g2, but I don't know whether any of them have experience with mental problems.

Ok, I take back that you did not call me a crackpot. I've already said what I have to to you (for quite a while, at least).

I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm trying to help.

You too are probably quite busy with your 9-to-5, so do what you like. I feel I have a responsibility in regards to the coincidences I deal with that is in direct contradiction to your prejudice.

I'm trying to think of some way of proving to you that these numbers are just coincidences.

How many google searches have you done in the last year? How many of them have produced a number of results that were a five-digit number? And how many of those five-digit numbers were your zip code?

It's a gestalt I haven't given full information on yet, anyway. Why don't you settle down and accept that you are using anecdotes where statistics are needed and recognize that I recognize that I have been doing the same thing but to a lesser degree. I was an Associate in the Society of Actuaries with high grades, and I can handle the matter. You can't prove what you want to, because it's not true.

I don't want to prove anything. You are the one who claims you have discovered something remarkable, but have not yet presented anything remarkable.

I can see I'm getting nowhere with this, so I'm not going to talk with you on this topic any more. If you wish to write on any other aspect of mathematics, which do not involve your "discoveries", I'll be more than willing to help, advise or proof-read.

Since you can't understand why you are not getting anywhere, and it is my impression that I know more than you do on the areas I will be contributing to, I won't be asking your advice on anything; and I will be telling my friends how dense and thoughtless you have seemed at times. There is an ocean between us, literally and figuratively, so it shouldn't hurt too much for you to handle.

You're losing a valuable resource, then, as I have a very good understanding of mathematics, and I'm also considered one of the best writers on this site.

I didn't understand some of what you wrote because you are so bad at presenting what you obviously understand. I made the effort to understand it, which is more than anybody else did, and continually asked you to explain in the hope that you might actually state clearly what you were talking about. But I've given up now.

Thoughtless - if you mean I'm insensitive to your feelings, then possibly yes. I try to tell the truth, and can't find any easy way to tell someone they're on the wrong path without offending them.

It does hurt me that someone with such obvious abilities as yourself should be so misguided, but I'll get over it.

Gnomon, I don't think either of us has given full consideration to the fact that I am single-mindedly involved in this, while you are more motivated to simply move me to a different topic, as you stated quite clearly and early. I understand that there is a lot of more standard stuff that hasn't been written, but you have to consider how I walk in is how I walk in. Why am I so devoted to the subject? You have to admit that you would be making assumptions to know for sure just simply as something of a solecistic reality. I repeat: You said, "I remain convinced" and I said that more open-minded would be that you "remain unconvinced" of the contrary. You ignored it, plainly, and went on about my ignoring your criticisms despite my saying that your examples would have to be considered.

I don't think I ignored anything really. I'm waiting for you to present something remarkable.

Gnomon, you are obviously* stuck on the idea that your opinion is better than doing some sort of test. You have failed to comment on numerous critical points and exaggerate the degree of your involvement in those that you have looked at, where you generally have made the not-that-useful "try this other fact" approach rather than "this fact is remarkable in another way, and my measure of it is ..." approach that would lend more credence to your criticism.
"365.25" is far from finished. My space is filling out. The new article belongs in peer review with the attached caveat on the prior two facts.

>>this fact is remarkable in another way, and my measure of it is

What are you talking about? There have not yet been any remarkable facts presented. When there are, someone can come with a test of how remarkable they are.

As far as I can tell, not a single person on h2g2 other than yourself has found anything interesting in anything you have said. Those that understand mathematics have either tried to point this out or have stood back in disbelief. Those that are put off even by basic arithemetic, which is all we're talking here, have welcomed you but have said they don't understand the significance of what you are doing. They certainly haven't said that they find it interesting.

Come on, tell me something interesting.

From Christopher: "Please don't remove form peer review," "great stuff" is how I recall it. Perhaps you came in late, but "as far as I can tell" is an exaggeration/lie.

One thing I am not going to do is get into a pissing match with you over how good our maths is, but I have seen no evidence that I would not win if I did. You seem to be very interested in the standard stuff, so why don't you go back to it. Mine is troubling me over being tricky to maneuver through, and you have given up entirely.

I didn't see that comment from Christopher and can't find it. Christopher did not comment in Peer Review.

>>You seem to be very interested in the standard stuff, so why don't you go back to it.

I have regularly written Entries on "the standard stuff" as you call it. I haven't abandoned it.

I've no doubt you're good at mathematics, while I'm a bit rusty. But you haven't presented any advanced mathematics. All you've done is present some basic doodling and have claimed it is significant without any indication of why.

I'm getting nowhere here. Dudley's study of cranks said that there is rarely any point in trying to discuss things with cranks. I can see that he was right.

I'm going to unsubscribe from this conversation. Since you are new to h2g2, I'll explain that this means that if you answer this post I will not see your answer or any further postings.

I know I haven't gotten around to detailing my research and improving upon it in the ways that seem to be warranted yet, okay?

Now things are back on track.