mccanney science hour

[Large Sarge]

covers generated super storm sandy

marijuana, and how it provides anticancer benefits

plus more

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/JamesMcCanneyScienceHour_November_08_2012.mp3

[osoab]

McCanney claims that he worked with the Russians in the 90's to use lasers to direct hurricanes. Says that the original idea was to steer them away from population centers. He says that the technology is now being used to create havoc on population centers.

[Katmandu]

McCanney claims that he worked with the Russians in the 90's to use lasers to direct hurricanes. Says that the original idea was to steer them away from population centers. He says that the technology is now being used to create havoc on population centers.

Did he say that in the link above? If so do you know roughly where he said it? (I don't have time right now for the whole one hour mp3, but would like to listen to that section).

[osoab]

Don't say I never did anything for you. :D

Start at 9:25 minutes in.

The best part is when McCanney says not to vote, @ 27:30

[Katmandu]

There is something about McCanney that does not sit right with me, regardless of the fact that he talks about the corruption of presidential elections (true) and the evils of the NWO (true).

I can't put my finger on it yet. I have listened very sporadically to him for a few years, and the more I listen, the more my radar goes up.

I do believe that there is weather modification going on, but there is something about his statement of using lasers on satellites to steer hurricanes that is smelling fishy. I will have to dig a little further to find out why.

He has appeared on the John Moore show on RBN quite frequently. John is proponent of upcoming earth changes, and emphatically stated back in 2009 and 2010 that the Mayan 2012 end of the world stuff was a diversion, in the way that the earth changes SHTF would be hitting BEFORE 2012 (rapidly rising ocean levels, 200 mph winds, etc).

[PatColo]

McCanney's the unlikely guest on Charles Giuliani's show today. I've been listening awhile now, too many topics to list, but always interesting. 2 hrs, if a topic bores you just jump ahead a little and it'll be a different topic.




Truth Hertz: The Strange World of Conspiracies (12-22-15) (http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-the-strange-world-of-conspiracies-12-22-15/)http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/media/IlluminatiWatcherDotCom-Illuminati-Owl-Kids-Choice-Awards-150x150.jpg

Click here to listen (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/truthhertzradio/2015/12/22/truth-hertz-with-charles-giuliani)

Charles speaks to a guest about a lot of topics.
...full post & comments. (http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-the-strange-world-of-conspiracies-12-22-15/)

[cheka.]

let's get something straight

sandy was not even a cat 1 piss-ant hurricane when it came ashore

that's why nyc media created the name 'superstorm' instead of what it really was: the lowly tropical storm....and a tiny one at that -- very small

they used this hype to bilk tens of billions from US taxpayers

[Jerrylynnb]

I used to listen to John Moore and Jim Mckanney, but, I am satisfied neither one is genuine. John Moore kept on insisting, back in 2005-2006, that the water level would rise several hundred feet - never happened.

Jim Mckanney insisted that he had derived a formula for computing the prime numbers, and, he was selling an expensive book which he claimed had the formula in it. He said that his formula made all encryption techniques breakable because they all use some form of very large prime numbers. I wasn't willing to pay the high price, but, I read online (years ago, now) that real mathematicians had gotten a copy of his book and his "formula" (so-called) was impossible to follow from the book alone, and, he was quick to cut off any serious questions from serious mathematicians wanting to prove, or disprove, whatever his theory was.

I don't like writing people off, but, when they can't make good the checks they write, I got no choice.

I used to be entertained (before I knew they couldn't back up what they claimed), but, once you know someone is just talking out their ass, then you can't find it entertaining anymore, unless you just like being made an ass of - I don't.

[PatColo]

let's get something straight

sandy was not even a cat 1 piss-ant hurricane when it came ashore

that's why nyc media created the name 'superstorm' instead of what it really was: the lowly tropical storm....and a tiny one at that -- very small

they used this hype to bilk tens of billions from US taxpayers

bear in mind too, Sarge posted the OP mentioning super storm sandy on 11/11/12, just over a month before the 12/14/12 sandy hook school shooting hoax. Coulda been some predictive programming in play there.

[Bigjon]

I used to listen to John Moore and Jim Mckanney, but, I am satisfied neither one is genuine. John Moore kept on insisting, back in 2005-2006, that the water level would rise several hundred feet - never happened.

Jim Mckanney insisted that he had derived a formula for computing the prime numbers, and, he was selling an expensive book which he claimed had the formula in it. He said that his formula made all encryption techniques breakable because they all use some form of very large prime numbers. I wasn't willing to pay the high price, but, I read online (years ago, now) that real mathematicians had gotten a copy of his book and his "formula" (so-called) was impossible to follow from the book alone, and, he was quick to cut off any serious questions from serious mathematicians wanting to prove, or disprove, whatever his theory was.

I don't like writing people off, but, when they can't make good the checks they write, I got no choice.

I used to be entertained (before I knew they couldn't back up what they claimed), but, once you know someone is just talking out their ass, then you can't find it entertaining anymore, unless you just like being made an ass of - I don't.

Well the book is NOT expensive, unless you are some sort of pauper.

29.90

I think you are a paid shill and full of shit.

Still at the original price.
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/SecWebOrderPg.htm

"Calculate Primes" only available in print form with 3 hour DVD lecture ... this is not included in the eBook library (it is included in the print book set) $24.95 + $4.95 shipping = $29.90 (includes free shipping to the 50 states) ... foreign orders shipping will be billed to your credit card at the time of shipping

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/calculateprimes.HTM (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/CalculatePrimesCoversandTableofContents.HTM)

It can't be linked, because McCanney's website is a disaster zone where he brags that he does it all by himself.

[Amanda]

FWIW, I actually like McCanney, though I never agree with anyone 100%. I'm actually inland NJ (close to PA) and it was a pretty powerful storm for us here. Never visited the coast to check out the damage.

[PatColo]

$30 bones is a spendy book! But it's been years since I bought a normal book; spoiled now, expect everything as free PDF! :D

can surely find a file of the book on bittorrent for free.

Thread: Forbidden/'Thought-Crime' books to download & save offline now (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?54647-Forbidden-Thought-Crime-books-to-download-amp-save-offline-now)

[Dogman]

I used to listen to John Moore and Jim Mckanney, but, I am satisfied neither one is genuine. John Moore kept on insisting, back in 2005-2006, that the water level would rise several hundred feet - never happened.

Jim Mckanney insisted that he had derived a formula for computing the prime numbers, and, he was selling an expensive book which he claimed had the formula in it. He said that his formula made all encryption techniques breakable because they all use some form of very large prime numbers. I wasn't willing to pay the high price, but, I read online (years ago, now) that real mathematicians had gotten a copy of his book and his "formula" (so-called) was impossible to follow from the book alone, and, he was quick to cut off any serious questions from serious mathematicians wanting to prove, or disprove, whatever his theory was.

I don't like writing people off, but, when they can't make good the checks they write, I got no choice.

I used to be entertained (before I knew they couldn't back up what they claimed), but, once you know someone is just talking out their ass, then you can't find it entertaining anymore, unless you just like being made an ass of - I don't.

Agreed !

Some idiots will spend their money or resources on pure crap and be self righteous in their opinions.

https://www.google.com/#q=Jim+Mckanney+prime+numbers

But it does take an idiot to believe another one , especially when there is no academic proof at all.

So their only defense is to mount an attack by name calling and smearing any thought out response or thoughts on the subject at hand.

Shows their huge ability to be a mental pygmy.

But that kind of thing is common on this forum and others,

[mick silver]

L S been gone for some time now , hope he come back some time

[Bigjon]

Agreed !

Some idiots will spend their money or resources on pure crap and be self righteous in their opinions.

https://www.google.com/#q=Jim+Mckanney+prime+numbers

But it does take an idiot to believe another one , especially when there is no academic proof at all.

So their only defense is to mount an attack by name calling and smearing any thought out response or thoughts on the subject at hand.

Shows their huge ability to be a mental pygmy.

But that kind of thing is common on this forum and others,

A perfect example that you provide of just BS.

Who are these people who deride McCanney, more no account worthless shills like yourself.

[Dogman]

What ever dude, enjoy your life.

Is everyone a shill that disagrees with your line of thinking?

Sad !

They that resort to name calling right out of the box, looses the debate, because they have nothing to intellectually back up their argument.

That book is a piece of crap....

The ones on the link I suspect are academically more learned in math than anyone on this forum.
But 'gasp' anyone that are mathematicians are not to be trusted.

[Bigjon]

What ever dude, enjoy your life.

Is everyone a shill that disagrees with your line of thinking?

Sad !

They that resort to name calling right out of the box, looses the debate, because they have nothing to intellectually back up their argument.

That book is a piece of crap....

You have always been a jewish shill, nothing new there. So you admit to having bought and read the book and have a counter-example that shows it to be false.

Or you're just as full of shit as your sock-puppet.

[Dogman]

You have always been a jewish shill, nothing new there. So you admit to having bought and read the book and have a counter-example that shows it to be false.

Or you're just as full of shit as your sock-puppet. Lmao...!

I love you too....

I would not waste my time or cash for anything pseudoscience like that book is nor any respect to the author...

My oh my... you do have issues, seeing the way you are attacking me.

Thanks for the hoot, now I know not to pay any attention to you.

Any one that attacks and smears, instantly like you do must have an agenda that I probably will not care for.

Happy holidays to you.

Merry Christmas to all the rest..

Manges is that you?

lol

[osoab]

Wow. Seems a little harsh.

I haven't listened to JM for quite some time. Is he still selling corn?

[Bigjon]

Lmao...!

I love you too....

I would not waste my time or cash for anything pseudoscience like that book is nor any respect to the author...

My oh my... you do have issues, seeing the way you are attacking me.

Thanks for the hoot, now I know not to pay any attention to you.

Any one that attacks and smears, instantly like you do must have an agenda that I probably will not care for.

Happy holidays to you.

Merry Christmas to all the rest..

Manges is that you?

lol

Here you are admitting you are full of shit.

[Bigjon]

Wow. Seems a little harsh.

I haven't listened to JM for quite some time. Is he still selling corn?

I bought some of that corn and gave it to two organic farmers I know. I haven't heard from the guy in Illinois, but the guy just down the road in Minnesota says he only had one complaint it is too tall and might be subject to wind damage. He got 160 bu/acre, which is pretty good for a non-hybrid.

[Dogman]

Here you are admitting you are full of shit. Be careful you are showing your compensation and intelligence here bud.

I am done with you..if that is all you got.

Attacking and name calling...school yard level crap..

Too-da-loo

[Bigjon]

Be careful you are showing your compensation and intelligence here bud.

I am done with you..if that is all you got.

Attacking and name calling...school yard level crap..

Too-da-loo

Well pot meet kettle. lol

Look in the mirror, you idiot.

[Bigjon]

McCanney's book provides a mathematical proof of his method of calculating prime numbers.

Until someone presents a case using his proof that shows it presents a false example the proof stands as true and accurate.

If you surf the net as dodge-man shows you will find all kinds of critiques, like McCanney's grammar is atrocious he makes spelling mistakes, there are every manner of criticism except for one, there are NO counter-examples.

No mathematical proof his method does not work.

[Dogman]

Sad !

May your life get better, why do you hide?

Feel guilty about something?

Out of this one.. the level of intelligence hurts in the lack of..

;)

[Jerrylynnb]

BigJohn, I'll be the first to swallow humble pie if Mckanney has a formula that will compute all the prime numbers, in the order that they come. If you got it, and understand it, just put the formula in a response - I'll reduce it to a computer program and start computing them - after the first 1000 or so, I'll start to reckon that McKanney is a genius. But, until then, it is just a bombastic claim, with nothing to back it up.

For your advisement, there are several math problems that have been around for decades, if not centuries. Finding a well-defined (one that doesn't require any special hidden insight, but a straight-forward ability to compute) formula for computing each and every prime number, in the order that they come in sequence, is a question that has been asked for a long time, and, the general *belief* among mathematicians is that there is none, but, being scholars, they would all applaud McKanney if he really had come up with such a formula.

Another age-old problem is to simply prove that there are an infinite number of twin primes (such as [5,7], [11,13], [17,19], etc.), but so far, no number theorist has yet to prove that these twin primes go on forever - although, they have used big IBM mainframes to compute the density of twin primes as the numbers get larger, and, the density increases, leading to the reasonable speculation that they go on forever.

Another number theory problem that eluded mathematicians for a long time was Fermat's last theorem, that is, that there is no set of whole numbers (also called, natural numbers) such that a**n + b**n = c**n, where n is greater than 2. But then, a few years ago, a phd candidate from India allegedly proved it, and, the proof was very involved and deep, but, was free to read about in the math journals.

So, if Mckanney is a true scholar, and has truly figured out a way to compute all the primes in the order that they come, why wouldn't he publish it in a widely distributed math journal, for study by other mathematicians who could prove, or disprove, his contention. That is the way scholars behave - Mckanney is behaving like a carnival barker who doesn't want anyone to review too critically his claims - that is something only faith-based followers ("sheep") will accept without question.

So, Bigjohn, please give us that formula, I am a mathematician of sorts, I am also a computer programmer, I promise I'll reduce the formula to a computer program and start computing the prime numbers by that formula and report back if it truly does derive ALL the prime numbers in the order that they come.

Now, if Mckanney is only claiming to have a formula that derives *SOME* of the primes, but not all, then, his announcement is almost worthless - there have been formulas for finding a prime for decades: such as, take all the primes up to a certain point, such as 1, 3, 5,7,11,13,17,19, and, multiply them all together and add 1, then, your answer is definitely another PRIME, but, you will miss many many primes between the highest one in your set (19) and the prime you derive.

I hope I haven't bored you with my detailed objections to Mckanney's claim - it would be like a charlatan claiming he knows how to reverse the aging process - if he is for real, let the world know about it. Got that?

I am not a paid shill (or else, where's my money), and, if I am full of it (as you allege), my employers didn't think so for the 40 years I hired out as a computer programmer. I wonder what is your gripe?

[Hitch]

McCanney's book provides a mathematical proof of his method of calculating prime numbers.

No mathematical proof his method does not work.

Seems the question is that his book doesn't provide clear mathematical proof, since actually mathematicians read his book and couldn't make anything out of his forumlas.

It is generally up to the person making a claim, to prove that claim, in this case formula. You can't just claim something, and say it's true and leave the responsibility to others to disprove you. It's even worse if you make that claim and charge others to buy your book, to disprove your claim. That's just an outright scam.

[Bigjon]

Buy the book, you cheapskates, and then provide a counter-example. Anything less is just bull shit.

McCanney claims that by keeping his copyright, the work stays intact and uncontaminated as once in the public domain unscrupulous people could introduce errors into his proof and thereby discredit it.

No counter-example will coming from this crowd of bs'ers.

[Dogman]

Shill !

In the truest sense of the word!

Any integrity claimed has just got proven wrong!

;)

Sent from my Nexus 7

[Dogman]

Buy the book, you cheapskates, and then provide a counter-example. Anything less is just bull shit.

McCanney claims that by keeping his copyright, the work stays intact and uncontaminated as once in the public domain unscrupulous people could introduce errors into his proof and thereby discredit it.

No counter-example will coming from this crowd of bs'ers.

Refer to post above!

;D

(Quoted for non editing)

Sent from my Nexus 7

[cheka.]

burning question for you numbers guys

can infinity be expressed as such: -0 (the opposite of zero)

[Dogman]

burning question for you numbers guys

can infinity be expressed as such: -0 (the opposite of zero)

Not sure how to express it , but -0 methinks is not it!

More like a number with out end !

~ is a bitch !

Tho all things will become one with forever + one day !

Tho dividing by 0 will drive a computer nuts!

;d

Sent from my Nexus 7

[Jerrylynnb]

Have you ever heard of Runge-Kutta? They were two german mathematicians who derived an enhancement to Newton's iterative method of approximating the answer to an non-invertable formula (that is one where if you start with "x", there is a straightforward computation to get your "y" answer, but, if you start with "y", there is no straightforward way to compute the "x" that would give you that exact "y" as an answer - eg:

suppose y = (X**2 + Sqrt(x))/sin(x/(x+0.1));

if you pick any positive x, it is easy to compute the y answer. But if you pick a "y", there is no way to directly compute the "X" that would give you your chosen "Y" - you would need to "invert" the formula, and, this is one of the many many formulas that are NOT invertable)..

Newton had figured out a way to iteratively compute subsequent answers for "x" to get as close the correct "Y" as you wanted, but, Runga and Kutta went further and gave a much better method where you get your answer in way fewer iterations.

I know about this because we had to use Runga Kutta to figure out how much thrust, for how long, and in what direction, to wind up close enough to a lunar orbit to avoid crashing, on the one hand, or flying off to the infinite on the other hand. And we badly needed Runga Kutta because of the computing power, back in the late 60's was strained even using Runga Kutta (which improved several fold over Newton's method).

Well, guess what, Runge and Kutta PUBLISHED their very valuable method in the math journals of their day, and, guess what else, NOBODY has "contaminated" their formulas. You are not being mature when you cite that kind of fear - if Mckanney was a true scholar, and had a true method for computing all the primes in their natural order, it wouldn't make sense for anybody to "contaminate" it, since, that kind of a formula would be as widely hailed as has been the Runge-Kutta method.

And I am not asking for Mckanney's "proof", but, for the formula itself. Just write it down. Any average computer programmer can take that and write a "C" program to start computing the primes, and, we won't have to "prove" anything - the answers the formula yields will be sufficient proof - if it accurately yields the first 1000, or 10000 prime numbers, then, that is enough proof for just about any number theorist.

So, don't worry about buying a book - just write down the formula and let one of we programmers (we're a dime a dozen) generate a computer program to start using it to compute all the primes - that is the proof in the pudding.

Since I am starting to doubt whether or not you yourself know what the formula is, I am wondering why you are so adamant that there even is such a formula. If Mckanney had actually derived such a formula, he'd be the first one to go public with it and, I promise you, he'd be a giant in the math world.
Nobody's got any motive for "contaminating" good math formulas (check out the CRC's green book of math tables - 'been around over 100 years and I never heard of anyone wanting to "contaminate" any part of it - that is NUTS!).

Grow up, Bigjohn, you are being taken for a ride. And you needn't be so nasty about it.
We all just want to get at the truth here, right?

[Bigjon]

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/NewVisitorSUB-PAGE.HTM

Towards the middle of this page McCanney offers a free copy of his rigorous 7 part proof for credentialed professionals.

I will find no truth here, only bs from shills who wish to destroy the truth.

[Bigjon]

Seems the question is that his book doesn't provide clear mathematical proof, since actually mathematicians read his book and couldn't make anything out of his forumlas.

It is generally up to the person making a claim, to prove that claim, in this case formula. You can't just claim something, and say it's true and leave the responsibility to others to disprove you. It's even worse if you make that claim and charge others to buy your book, to disprove your claim. That's just an outright scam.

McCanney says he has a way to directly calculate prime numbers and he has written a proof.

He is not calling for people to disprove it, all of you are saying you have the proof it does not work.

But I have not seen anybody provide such a proof. I have seen an extraordinary amount of bullshit claiming one thing or the other, but no proof.

He will provide a free copy for any math professional and I'm sure he would love to have it published in a math journal, but from what I've seen no math journals seem willing to print it or even acknowledge it exists.


As for buying his book, do you think he should give it away free to all? Do you pay for the books that you read or do you steal them?

[cheka.]

Not sure how to express it , but -0 methinks is not it!

More like a number with out end !

~ is a bitch !

Tho all things will become one with forever + one day !

Tho dividing by 0 will drive a computer nuts!

;d

Sent from my Nexus 7

if one could convert the infinity symbol to -0, would that eliminate a variable in computations that are stuck with an infinity character mucking things up?

[Jerrylynnb]

Bigjohn, please focus on the MAIN POINT:

you say,

"McCanney says he has a way to directly calculate prime numbers and he has written a proof."

Forget about the "proof" and just spell out the "way". Anybody can then use that "way" and start computing the primes - then we'll see which primes his "way" yields. Why don't you FOCUS ON THAT! What is his "way"?

I would call that a FORMULA.

Also, answer directly the question as to does he claim his "way" yields ALL THE PRIMES in the natural order they appear? Such as, 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19, etc., or, does his "way" merely yields SOME of the primes? That question is of PARAMOUNT importance, because, if his "way" only yields SOME of the primes, then, it is hardly worth even mentioning, because those "ways" have been around forever, and, they are practically useless since these "ways" skip over (miss) some of the primes.

Get specific, BigJohn, what is his "WAY".

The point I made in my initial post was that several real mathematicians read his book and were not able to decipher ANY FORMULA for computing each and every prime in the order that they appear.

Have you got it now? The "proof" (so-called) is of NO IMPORTANCE. The method ("way") for computing all the primes is of paramount importance - cough it up if you got it, or, at least be honest and admit you go no idea what his "way" is and you can't find out.

[Bigjon]

Bigjohn, please focus on the MAIN POINT:

you say,

"McCanney says he has a way to directly calculate prime numbers and he has written a proof."

Forget about the "proof" and just spell out the "way". Anybody can then use that "way" and start computing the primes - then we'll see which primes his "way" yields. Why don't you FOCUS ON THAT! What is his "way"?

I would call that a FORMULA.

Also, answer directly the question as to does he claim his "way" yields ALL THE PRIMES in the natural order they appear? Such as, 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19, etc., or, does his "way" merely yields SOME of the primes? That question is of PARAMOUNT importance, because, if his "way" only yields SOME of the primes, then, it is hardly worth even mentioning, because those "ways" have been around forever, and, they are practically useless since these "ways" skip over (miss) some of the primes.

Get specific, BigJohn, what is his "WAY".

The point I made in my initial post was that several real mathematicians read his book and were not able to decipher ANY FORMULA for computing each and every prime in the order that they appear.

Have you got it now? The "proof" (so-called) is of NO IMPORTANCE. The method ("way") for computing all the primes is of paramount importance - cough it up if you got it, or, at least be honest and admit you go no idea what his "way" is and you can't find out.


blablabla sums up to bullshit.

No counter-example.

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/calculateprimes.HTM

[Jerrylynnb]

Okay, Bigjohn, I can safely assume you got NO IDEA how Mckanney's "way" to yield all the prime numbers in their natural order. If you did, you could just spell it out here in a response.

So, you are demanding someone give you a counter example to something you don't yourself even know what it is! You listened to Mckanney, maybe bought his book, got no idea as to any details, but swallowed his bullcrap and you just spew out some of the same on this board. You've been taken in and you know it.

Just try to get Mckanney to reveal his "method" to you (NOT the "proof" - that is off NO VALUE). He's got no method whatsoever, but, you became a disciple to a charlatan and you'll fight like a manure covered swine to hang onto your blind faith. I am reminded of Mark Twain's observation about how easy it is to be deceived, and how hard it is to show someone they have been deceived.

I am through with this thread - you are unreachable.

[Glass]

not 100% sure but I think -0 would probably be dealt with as null. In programming zero is a value and the starting point for iterative programming. Null is also a value or more correctly "is not null" is a value. where as "null" might be a nothing-ness. Empty. In progamming you often want to know if something is there, for efficiency there is no need to do a whole lot of processing, if there is no value there to process.

Is empty = infinity?

[Bigjon]

Okay, Bigjohn, I can safely assume you got NO IDEA how Mckanney's "way" to yield all the prime numbers in their natural order. If you did, you could just spell it out here in a response.

So, you are demanding someone give you a counter example to something you don't yourself even know what it is! You listened to Mckanney, maybe bought his book, got no idea as to any details, but swallowed his bullcrap and you just spew out some of the same on this board. You've been taken in and you know it.

Just try to get Mckanney to reveal his "method" to you (NOT the "proof" - that is off NO VALUE). He's got no method whatsoever, but, you became a disciple to a charlatan and you'll fight like a manure covered swine to hang onto your blind faith. I am reminded of Mark Twain's observation about how easy it is to be deceived, and how hard it is to show someone they have been deceived.

I am through with this thread - you are unreachable.

LOL

What a crock of bullshit.

You are asking me to hang my ass out on the line by breaking the law.
Since you admit you have never read the book, you have no idea what you are talking about.
McCanney's method is not an elegant formula, that math people want, it is instead a new concept that he calls a generator function. The primes conform to a clear and definable pattern that changes in a predictable way. Using his generator function all the primes can be calculated with simple use of those same primes and simple addition.

This notice is at the end of the link
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/calculateprimes.HTM


Copyright - Patent - Trademark - Notice
All materials on this web page and book / DVD lecture are copyrighted and numerous Patents and Trademarks apply. Materials including Conceptual Ideas cannot be copied or posted on the internet or on any medium in whole or in part in any format or form. Any use requires specific written agreement. The information on this web page, book and lecture DVD cannot be transferred, rebroadcast, transformed or transcribed in whole or in part in any form or copied on any medium for distribution. If you wish to refer to this material please list the URLwww.jmccanneyscience.com/calculateprimes.htm (http://www.calculateprimes.com/). For patent and trademark allowed usage information contact the legal staff at info@calculateprimes.com (info@calculateprimes.com) (professional inquiries only).
return to home page ---> www.jmccanneyscience.com (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/)
copyright 2006, 2007, 2012

[Santa]

LOL

What a crock of bullshit.

You are asking me to hang my ass out on the line by breaking the law.
Since you admit you have never read the book, you have no idea what you are talking about.
McCanney's method is not an elegant formula, that math people want, it is instead a new concept that he calls a generator function. The primes conform to a clear and definable pattern that changes in a predictable way. Using his generator function all the primes can be calculated with simple use of those same primes and simple addition.

This notice is at the end of the link
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/calculateprimes.HTM

Oops, the bolded part of your response to Jerrylynnb looks like a 'conceptual idea' to me. I hope Mccanney doesn't sic his patent attorneys on you. :o

[Bigjon]

Oops, the bolded part of your response to Jerrylynnb looks like a 'conceptual idea' to me. I hope Mccanney doesn't sic his patent attorneys on you. :o

Yes, I pondered whether or not to put up even that much from his site, but it is now my knowledge from reading his book and my interpretation of the knowledge his book imparts.

In my book McCanney is sort of nuts when it comes to disseminating his ideas. He gets all kinds of real bad publicity, which he could leverage into a larger audience if he let up a little on the you can't use any of my material warnings. Most people upon hearing about him are intrigued enough to look for themselves and decide for themselves.

And I could care less if someone honestly came forth with a proof that his proof is wrong.

[Glass]

Was going to start a new thread, remembering some other dicussion on it. It seems that this guy was really on to something.

Perhaps these mathemetician guys are trying to claim his work or discovery.

My post: K-TUPLE Prime Confusion
I think I've heard the term. I partially grasp what it means.

The situation seems to be that mathemeticians have discovered some kind of pattern in prime number where previously it was believed they were random.

I don't know what random means in the context. I think it means that there are easy prime numbers, divisible by 1 and themselves only. These are the ones you can discover with simple maths and pursue others with more complicated maths.

It seems that larger primes are considered hard to find. Until now. Now it looks like there is a pattern that can help indicate primes?? maybe thats the story.

Mathematicians stunned by 'unrandomness' discovery of prime numbers

The infinite world of prime numbers just got a little more finite, after a pair of mathematicians discovered the prime number sequence isn't as random as once thought.
Primes hate to repeat themselves, the researchers from Stanford University, California have found.

It's a prime 'conspiracy' (https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-discover-prime-conspiracy/) that has stunned mathematicians with its elegant simplicity.

Stretch your memory back to the gridded pages of your primary school maths book and you'll remember primes are numbers that are only divisible by themselves and 1.
The first few are easy: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and so on.
<image here>

But eventually they get tricky, until even the brightest theorists and most complicated algorithms can't predict the next number in the prime sequence. They're completely random… or so we thought.
Professor Kannan Soundararajan and Dr Robert Lemke Oliver at Stanford University discovered a strange property embedded among the integers that prove there's a distinctly un-random pattern at play.
Aside from the first two prime numbers 2 and 5, all primes end in 1, 3, 7 or 9. And each ending is just as likely as the others to appear in a prime number.
But sifting through the first hundred million primes, the two researchers discovered primes ending in 1 were less likely to be followed by another prime ending in 1.
If they were truly random, primes ending in 1 would be followed by a prime ending in one 25% of this time, instead the mathematicians found this order occurred in only 18.5 per cent of cases.


The chance of a prime ending in 1 being followed by a prime ending in 3 or 7 was about 30 per cent, and about 22 per cent for 9.
Primes "really hate to repeat themselves," Dr Lemke Oliver told Quanta Magazine (https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-discover-prime-conspiracy/).
"It was very weird," Professor Soundararajan said.




The reaction?"We've been studying primes for a long time, and no one spotted this before," Professor Andrew Granville, a number theorist at the University of Montreal who wasn't involved in the study, told Quanta magazine.

"It's crazy."
"I was very surprised," Dr James Maynard from the University of Oxford told New Scientist.
"I somehow needed to see it for myself to really believe it," he said, adding he dashed back to his office to perform his own calculations.



Story @ the Age

(http://www.theage.com.au/world/mathematicians-stunned-by-unrandomness-discovery-of-prime-numbers-20160315-gnjvcu.html)Reading what jerrylynnb wrote a couple years back... maybe the guy is onto it, maybe not. He says it has implications for cracking Cryptography

Jim Mckanney insisted that he had derived a formula for computing the prime numbers, and, he was selling an expensive book which he claimed had the formula in it. He said that his formula made all encryption techniques breakable because they all use some form of very large prime numbers. I wasn't willing to pay the high price, but, I read online (years ago, now) that real mathematicians had gotten a copy of his book and his "formula" (so-called) was impossible to follow from the book alone, and, he was quick to cut off any serious questions from serious mathematicians wanting to prove, or disprove, whatever his theory was.

[Bigjon]

Was going to start a new thread, remembering some other dicussion on it. It seems that this guy was really on to something.

Perhaps these mathemetician guys are trying to claim his work or discovery.

My post: K-TUPLE Prime Confusion
I think I've heard the term. I partially grasp what it means.

The situation seems to be that mathemeticians have discovered some kind of pattern in prime number where previously it was believed they were random.

I don't know what random means in the context. I think it means that there are easy prime numbers, divisible by 1 and themselves only. These are the ones you can discover with simple maths and pursue others with more complicated maths.

It seems that larger primes are considered hard to find. Until now. Now it looks like there is a pattern that can help indicate primes?? maybe thats the story.




Story @ the Age

(http://www.theage.com.au/world/mathematicians-stunned-by-unrandomness-discovery-of-prime-numbers-20160315-gnjvcu.html)Reading what jerrylynnb wrote a couple years back... maybe the guy is onto it, maybe not. He says it has implications for cracking Cryptography

I don't understand why you would chose to quote from jerrylynn, but whatever his post contains at least one lie.

here is my reply:


Well the book is NOT expensive, unless you are some sort of pauper.

29.90

I think you are a paid shill and full of shit.

Still at the original price.
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/SecWebOrderPg.htm

"Calculate Primes" only available in print form with 3 hour DVD lecture ... this is not included in the eBook library (it is included in the print book set) $24.95 + $4.95 shipping = $29.90 (includes free shipping to the 50 states) ... foreign orders shipping will be billed to your credit card at the time of shipping

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/calculateprimes.HTM (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/CalculatePrimesCoversandTableofContents.HTM)

It can't be linked, because McCanney's website is a disaster zone where he brags that he does it all by himself.

[Glass]

I don't understand why you would chose to quote from jerrylynn,

I can see that. Not sure why that is the case though. It was intended as a contrast.


And I could care less if someone honestly came forth with a proof that his proof is wrong.

Could you care more if some one came forward with proof or the first signs of proof that his proof is not wrong?

I'm usually interested in out of the box ideas, even if they are presented as a jumble because sometimes the stuff just has to come out and it comes out as a flash flood. What matters is it gets out. Where others can sift it and filter it. Review it as new stuff comes forward. So long as we have it.

I always thinks it is interesting when main stream adopts one of these "fringe" (to them) concepts.