Date: Oct 12, 2000 2:17 PM
Author: david_ullrich@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Pertti I need help..



In article <39E5D8C6.9B211DF0@pp.htv.fi>,
  Pertti Lounesto <plounest@pp.htv.fi> wrote:
> David Ullrich wrote:
>
> >       Have you noticed that you're the only one here who
> > thinks that the point to sci.math is to trap people and to
> > demonstrate that you're smarter than everyone else? Ok,
> > there are others, but none among the other competent
> > mathematicians. Everyone else is interested more in talking
> > about mathematics.
>
> The above is written by Ullrich, who has for long tried to
> argue that Lounesto made some mistake, which he did not do.
> Why is it important for Ullrich to try to trap Lounesto of a non-
> existing mistake, and blaim Lounesto for trying to trap others?

     You should ask yourself that question. Considering that
I have no interest at all in "non-existent" mistakes of anyone
else. Why would that be, would you think?

> Lounesto's non-existing mistakes, invented by Ullrich:
>
> 1. Ullrich claimed Lounesto was wrong about convergence.
>
> 1a. Lounesto did not mention convergence

     And Lounesto is the _only_ person who does not
agree that failing to mention convergence there was
an error.

      You're also the only person I've ever seen quote
Nazis on sci.math, to the effect that one must repeat a
lie so often that one believes it oneself. And I don't
think that's a coincidence - if you had anything remotely
like an objective view of these things you'd say yes, it
was wrong to give that formula without stating where it
converged.

> of when he showed
> Virgil wrong by expressing inv(A+B) in terms of A, B, inv(A),
> inv(B) as inv(A+B) = inv(A)-inv(A) B inv(A)+-...  The focus
> was on expressibility, not on convergence.

     Of course. Because nobody but you considered the
infinite series an "expression" - the notion of
convergence doesn't come up with finite expressions
of the sort the original poster was looking for.
     Which is not to say that there is no merit to
pointing out the infinite series "expression" - that's
why at least two people did, one correctly (including
a discussion of convergence) and one incorrectly
(that would be you, a little later).

     Before you start raving about WHO was the first
to give YOUR solution recall that this is the issue
you made a _disgusting_ spectacle of yourself over,
comparing sci.math to a bunch of Nazis because of
their silence on my "lie" about WHO was the FIRST.
Recall as well that when someone finally _did_ do
the search you'd been saying would show I was
lying it was determined that I had been speaking the
truth (again, everyone but you agreed to this).

> 1b. After focusing himself on convergence,

    When you bring infinite series into the picture
without mentioning convergence someone's supposed to
bring it up.

> Ullrich failed to
> detect the mistake on convergence of Killingbeck.  Instead,
> Lounesto detected Killingbeck's mistake.  Killingbeck made
> her mistake, because she was not familiar with the concept
> of "spectral radius".
>
> 1c. By not being able to detect Killingbeck's mistake, due to
> lack of knowledge of "spectral radius", Ullrich revealed that
> he is not fluent enough with "spectral radius" to be able to
> detect mistakes on "spectral radii".

      Read what you just wrote. By the same reasoning it
follows that you are unable to find any errors in Harris'
proof of FLT. And it follows that you believed the formula
(I - A)^(-1) = I + A^(-1) + A^(-2) + ... was correct until
ZK pointed out otherwise.

> 2. Ullrich claimed Lounesto was wrong about "spectral radius".

     "Claimed"?

> 2a. Lounesto admittedly used incorrectly the term, after first
> catching Killingbeck of making a mistake about "spectral radius",
> before Ullrich.

     You stated that the spectral radius is a norm. It is
not. What does that have to do with who "caught" this
"error" of Killingbeck's?

> 2b. How can Lounesto first catch Killingbeck about a mistake
> on "spectral radius", before Ullrich, and then suddenly be less
> knowledgeable about "spectral radius" than Ullrich?

      Who said you were less knowledgeable about spectral
radius than me? You're more knowlegeable about _everything_
than _anyone_ - everyone knows this. You know more about
my thesis than I do - you know more about the topics on
which you boast of your ignorance than almost anyone.
Why, when you ask what is quadratic reciprocity that
indicates that you're such a great...

      Of course you're more knowlegeable about spectral
radius than I. Silly me, I didn't even know it was a norm.
Just like I didn't know (I - A)^(-1) = I + A^(-1) + A^(-2) + ...

      You know more about inverses of symmetric nilpotent
matrices than anyone on the planet, would be my guess.

> Like Johannes Andersen said:  the circle is endless.
>
>

--
Oh, dejanews lets you add a sig - that's useful...


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.