|
|
On 29 Apr 2006 13:28:30 -0700, jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
>Tim Peters wrote:
>> [added "JSH:" to subject]
>>
>> [jstevh@xxxxxxx]
>> > So I have the result that given natural numbers n_1 and n_2,
>>
>> You mean I do -- your result was restricted to odd composite naturals ;-)
>>
>
>It follows trivially that it works for natural number n_1 and n_2, so
>no, you don't get credit, though I do readily admit that I saw that you
>pointed that out before I noticed it.
>
>Noticing something that trivial doesn't count the way these things go.
>
>I'd be gracious though, maybe, on that point, as I have so many results
>so I don't mind bringing in others as I think it helps--despite how big
>the result may turn out to be--but given your history of trying to
>obscure my research and your loyalty to Ullrich,
His loyalty to me? Keen - I didn't realize that _anyone_ had
any "loyalty" to me.
Just for the fun of fuelling your paranoia I'll let you in
on a little secret (not all that secret, it can all be
verified online): There's this programming language called
Python. As it happens Tim Peters is a Very Big Name in the
Python world, for all sorts of reasons. I on the other hand
am an Infinitesmally Small Name in the Python world, but
it _is_ a matter of public record that I'm a user and
very big fan of the language - Tim's aware of this
(unless he's much worse at remembering names than I
suspect, or he thinks there are two David C. Ullrichs
or something).
So probably his loyalty to me comes from the fact
that he knows I think Python is staggeringly great, eh?
Or maybe not. Actually if you look at the record you
can find a place where he showed a shocking lack of
loyalty: Over the years I've developed a large body
of Python code that does various mathematical things
(silly from a practical point of view, since the
questions it answers are all answered by existing
programs like Maple, but it's fun and also fascinating
how this and that aspect of Python makes it easy to
construct things corresponding to surprisingly
abstract mathematical objects...)
I once made a post on a Python group describing
what I thought was a fascinating aspect of the
way my Python math stuff works. Various people
had various comments, none of which showed the
proper sort of amazement at my incredible
brilliance - some people had the audacity to
point out other ways of accomplishing the same
thing! At one point I said something like
"Well, I find it very useful", and Tim butt
in with a reply
"I doubt that anyone else will<wink>",
or words to that effect.
Not the sort of thing a loyal minion is
supposed to say.
(If you're curious what's so brilliant: If
x is a user-defined type and the system sees
an expression like x + y it will try to ask x
what it thinks the value of x + y should be.
The awesome fact about descendants of Data
is that when this happens x will begin by
asking y if it thinks it has a _better_ idea
what x + y should be. The idea being that y
could be an instance of a class defined long
after x was set in stone; this allows x + y
to return the right thing even though x has
no idea what sort of thing y is. Of course
looking back, in an extremely large body
of code I think that this feature has only
been used once...)
<End of true story, fiction starts here:>
Of course a lesser man would have been devastated,
but I was furious instead. I realized that he must
have some ulterior motive for saying something like
that. It was clear that he was just jealous because
he'd never thought of anything so exquisitely clever.
Also clear that he knew somehow that I was not a
professional programmer - obviously he did't want
to acknowledge what a brilliant idea I'd had, if
the word got out that people like me were solving
programming problems that the programmers all found
too hard they'd all lose their jobs!
Since then I've spent a lot of time making posts
to comp.lang.python warning them of the Consequences
when the Truth finally Comes Out, as we Know it
Will eventually. Nobody seems scared - they all
seem to think it's kind of funny. We'll see who's
laughing when they've all been fired.
Why, I've even contacted top Python programmers
about all this! Guido van Rossum stopped replying
to my email long ago, I don't know why.
> there's no reason for
>me to be, and no reason for anyone else to be either.
>
>Sorry, if you want to get in the math textbooks, you'll have to work
>harder.
>
>I do wonder if this one is going to get argued out later, maybe by
>lawyers?
>
>I hope not.
>
>
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
|
|