Monday, January 27, 2003


Pioneer data highlights my concerns

For a while now many of you have swallowed the label placed on me of being a "crank" or "crackpot", which is somewhat understandable I guess as I make plenty of posts that can be considered nutty from a particular point of view.

And I'm no longer apologetic about it.

What should bother at least some of you though (or at least intrigue you a bit) is the sheer size of the hostility generated by someone like me doing just a few things:
  1. I look for interesting but simple math results in important areas like primes and post my results and thoughts.

  2. I question the status quo in the math and science fields in my posts.

  3. I make posts questioning the morals and honesty of mathematicians.

For doing those three things I've faced quite a lot of verbal assault, primarily from the math community, including getting the "crank" and "crackpot" labels.

Sure you may figure mathematicians reasonably don't like it when people question their morals, but then again, how do you prove someone questioning your morals wrong by verbal assaults like calling them names, questioning their sanity, or calling them subhuman?


So why do I think anyone on sci.physics or alt.writing might be interested?

Well this Pioneer 10 and 11 drag data is rather direct and simple, and it highlights the kind of corruption that may be spilling over into other fields from the mathematical community.

Basically we have space probes way out there in space which are behaving as if they're going through a somewhat soupy environment as they're slowing down slightly.

Here's a quote from a link at an American Astronomical Society webpage:

"In the absence of any physical theory that predicts such an acceleration, the primary candidate remains systematic error generated by spacecraft systems. However, neither we nor anyone else has been able to find a viable spacecraft systematic that is both large enough and constant enough to explain the anomaly."

You may feel compelled to shrug if you're a writer and wonder why it matters, as scientists are always coming up with anomalies which defy explanation.

That's what they do.

Well, yes, but what's not normal is for most of them to simply ignore data that could challenge some of the more established theories about the origins and fate of our local universe.

That's new.

That's not good.

Now you may be wondering how that relates to mathematicians, and my issues with the lack of ethics within the mathematical community.

Well mathematicians are kind of different from others because of a key claim they make about their discipline—they claim it's revolution proof.

That is, mathematicians claim that what they believe is true in their field is proven to be true, and is an absolute which cannot be questioned.

The only recent revolution, if you can call it that, was the revelation by Goedel that mathematicians couldn't encompass all of mathematics as they couldn't prove consistency for infinite sized systems within mathematics.

Which basically just says that mathematics is an infinite subject.

Now the problem is that mathematics IS an infinite subject, and while it may be true that while it was simple, a "proof" was a proof—that is, once mathematicians accepted a math proof as correct, it was correct—today mathematical arguments are increasingly complex.

That is, mathematics is no longer so simple.

However, human beings are still relying on human opinion, and mathematicians refuse to admit that they can simply screw up and make human mistakes.

It is my strong opinion that this refusal to acknowledge growing complexity in mathematics with the concomitant inevitability of human error with the rising complexity is the reason for the corruption of the mathematical field.

Consider the recent claims of proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, where a single mathematician hid his activity for seven years (why hide?), and managed to produce one of the densest most incomprehensible documents in human history.

It's long too.

So why can't mathematicians simply acknowledge that maybe, someway, somehow that increasing complexity means that they can't be so sure about "proof"?

They have. But why haven't you heard about it? Well, few have admitted it.

Meanwhile physics has become dominated by tweaking of mathematical equations, and physicists, and other scientists, trained by mathematicians, or trained as mathematicians, are carrying over dogmatic viewpoints where they increasingly refuse to challenge accepted theories—in defiance of the evidence.

The trouble is that while most mathematicians refuse to recognize that the inevitable rise in complexity of mathematical work brings with it a loss of certainty, their viewpoint colors research in areas where mathematics is heavily used, and we may be entering a dark age when it comes to fundamental research.

Now it looks like it's primarily physics, but it could spread to any math dominated field.

And mathematicians become increasingly corrupt as their denial of the truth twists their viewpoints, and leads them to accept more and more than is more convenient than true.

Go back now and please check that link if you haven't and wonder why that data hasn't made headlines, and ask yourself if you care if scientists aren't caring so much about following the data anymore, as they become too involved with at least looking right, than in being right, simply because mathematicians, a relatively small group, refuses to acknowledge that it can make mistakes.

And if that doesn't convince you, ask yourself how a nice guy like me became such a target for posting my viewpoints. It's as if certain people think emotional abuse for opinions like mine is not only the right thing to do, but is what society wants them to do.

That is, these people are rather twisted.

Sunday, January 26, 2003


Tick tock

So far so good. Expect delivery. Transition noted. Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3.

I'm out.

Have fun and don't cause too much trouble please.

There's a future to consider.


aka The Destroyer

Saturday, January 18, 2003


Factoring numbers, Java program, word on ethical concerns

A while back I posted that I was staying away from research in factoring large numbers because I wasn't sure about the ethics of it. But someone else made a post about the ethics of finding some way to factor large numbers rapidly, and I read posts there and thought better of my position. Besides, there's no guarantee I can figure out away to factor numbers rapidly enough to endanger RSA, and even if I can, if I can figure it, so could someone else.

With all of the above said, it also occurs to me, yet again, that a breakthrough with factoring numbers would end the current logjam where my research on prime numbers and my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem are not gaining their proper recognition. Sure, reporters don't care about prime number researcch or some guy claiming to have proven FLT, but a fast factoring program will definitely get their attention.

With that said I'm including my latest Java program for factoring. It's in rough form as usual and doesn't necessarily give you a clean factorization, but I won't explain further because obviously, I'd just as soon not give out all details in case I figure out how to solve the RSA Challenge and get the prize money for myself. This program
clearly can't do the job, but at least it's better than what I last posted. James Harris


//Copyright James Harris All Rights Reserved 2003.
//Rough Java factoring program, still slow, but simple

import java.math.*;

public class Factor {

private BigInteger r,prevr, M;
private long n, rcalcs, loops, iterations;
private int count, next, next2;

private int[] nums =

public void factor(BigInteger incoming){

next = (int)((incoming.toString()).length()/2);

r = (BigInteger.valueOf(10)).pow(next);

BigInteger res, diff, r1, r2, alpha=BigInteger.ONE;

//alpha = BigInteger.valueOf(1200000);

BigInteger temp1, temp2;

M = incoming.shiftLeft(2);

for (int i=0; i<100000; i++){

temp1 = M.multiply(alpha);

temp2 = (SqCalc(temp1).add(BigInteger.ONE)).pow(2);

diff = temp2.subtract(temp1);
if (checkLast(diff.intValue())) {

res = SqCalc(diff);

// System.out.println("result="+result);
// System.out.println("res="+res);

if (diff.subtract(res.pow(2))==BigInteger.ZERO) {

System.out.println("Number of iterations equals "+i);


temp2 = SqCalc(temp2);

r1 = res.add(temp2).shiftRight(1);
r2 = res.subtract(temp2).shiftRight(1);

System.out.println("r1 is "+ r1+"/"+alpha);
System.out.println("r2 is "+ r2+"/"+alpha);

alpha = alpha.add(BigInteger.ONE);

System.out.println("Didn't find it.");


public static void main(String[] args) {

Factor myFactorer = new Factor();


BigInteger incoming = new BigInteger(args[0]);

long time1 = System.currentTimeMillis();


System.out.println("In coming is "+incoming);

System.out.println("Processing time:

System.out.println("Number of digits: "+args[0].length());

catch (Exception e){e.printStackTrace();}


private BigInteger SqCalc(BigInteger z){

for (count=0; count<256; count++){


prevr = ((z.divide(r)).add(r)).shiftRight(1);

if (prevr.compareTo(r)==0){

return r;



System.out.println("Exceeded count square root may be invalid.");

return r;


private boolean checkLast(int in){

next = in&0xF;

if (next==0||next==1||next==4||next==9){

next2 = in&0xFF;

for (count = 0; count<nums.length; count++){

if (nums[count]==next2) return true;


return false;


return false;



Wednesday, January 01, 2003


JSH: A word of appreciation to Magidin

I felt a need to thank Magidin for pointing out the mistakes in my early efforts at demonstrating a key result from my FLT proof with the polynomial x^3 - -3x - 2sqrt(2), as he saved me a bit of time and gave me some perspective.

That is, over the years as I've searched, sometimes desperately, for a mathematical proof, I've found myself with erroneous arguments, which at times it took me some time to realize. With his replies Magidin saved me that time here, and I was able to get to the correct demonstration yesterday.

More than that though I realized in looking back that the work has been extraordinarily difficult not just to find these proofs, but to understand them fully and then to trust them.

I know that the mathematician's dogma may be that a proof as an absolute is just to be accepted, but I understand the human need when faced with extraordinary results to see additional evidence.

So I'm saying I understand how mathematicians, without being malicious or conspiratorial, could have not seen the correctness of my FLT proof, as their minds probably could not let go of some sense of wrongness, despite not being able to find an error in the argument.

Having produced many "proofs" of my own in the past, I can also see how Magidin might have presented erroneous arguments to support his belief that I was wrong, without doing so with malicious intent, or because of incompetence. Our minds control our perceptions of reality, and that's just it.

And the personal things…well, things get heated when people get passionate about their work. The hope is that professionalism rules the day, but conflict can lead to people cutting corners, and breaking social rules, which is not justification, just a statement of reality.

So moving forward, now that I have the demonstration, which I will be talking about more in posts today, both in reply to Magidin, as I noticed he has a reply to the correct argument, and in correcting previous posts, I'd like to remind everyone that it is not like a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem gets found everyday, so the fact that there's been a lot of drama with this one is not a surprise.

So now I can thank Magidin for the positive in the negative, which was pointing out errors that saved me time in finding the demonstration that I realized was necessary. Sure, it'd have been nice to get recognition a year ago, but I'm dealing with reality and we human beings for all our faults aren't that bad, so now I can give people
more evidence, to be considered with the other proofs.

For those who wonder about the errors Magidin pointed out, they were sign errors that wrecked the arguments. I kept making sign errors all over the place, and I keep wondering if it wasn't from fear that I was in actuality wrong, despite my knowledge of the proof meaning I couldn't be wrong. Who knows, not worth thinking about now.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?