### Wednesday, July 30, 2003

## Math argument, round and round

I have a math proof. That math proof highlights an error made by mathematicians long ago with methods that also lead to a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Rather than deal with the argument, posters go to conclusions from the error in their math, and claim I'm wrong because of their error!!!

Round and round it goes.

So I wrote a paper and I've been sending it to math journals, and I'm now waiting to hear from the latest one.

However, in the meantime I find it interesting to talk about my work, and repeatedly posters on math newsgroups keep trotting out the same things.

Yet there is a math proof, which if wrong, would have an error.

They all run from the proof and talk around it.

Round and round it goes.

Why would mathematicians or at least posters on a math newsgroup run away from an actual short argument that uses basic algebra?

Good question.

Round and round it goes.

Mathematicians are here under fire from me because they're betraying their own discipline. Repeatedly I say I have a proof, and I can step through it point-by-point, but they ignore that fact, and keep trying to produce side arguments.

That's not mathematics, that's b.s. and it's a shame to the discipline for them to behave that way.

I have a proof. I can step through that proof logical step, by logical step, from beginning to end.

I'm putting it to you plainly: if mathematicians can lie here then you must consider that they can lie elsewhere about mathematics.

My CHALLENGE to mathematicians is to play by rules and try and meet me in a point-by-point step through my proof.

It's basic algebra after all.

Stop the running in circles.

Round and round it goes.

So I wrote a paper and I've been sending it to math journals, and I'm now waiting to hear from the latest one.

However, in the meantime I find it interesting to talk about my work, and repeatedly posters on math newsgroups keep trotting out the same things.

Yet there is a math proof, which if wrong, would have an error.

They all run from the proof and talk around it.

Round and round it goes.

Why would mathematicians or at least posters on a math newsgroup run away from an actual short argument that uses basic algebra?

Good question.

Round and round it goes.

Mathematicians are here under fire from me because they're betraying their own discipline. Repeatedly I say I have a proof, and I can step through it point-by-point, but they ignore that fact, and keep trying to produce side arguments.

That's not mathematics, that's b.s. and it's a shame to the discipline for them to behave that way.

I have a proof. I can step through that proof logical step, by logical step, from beginning to end.

I'm putting it to you plainly: if mathematicians can lie here then you must consider that they can lie elsewhere about mathematics.

My CHALLENGE to mathematicians is to play by rules and try and meet me in a point-by-point step through my proof.

It's basic algebra after all.

Stop the running in circles.

### Tuesday, July 15, 2003

## Reply from German editor about my paper

Well looks like I got bit on the "factor of" versus "factors in common with" controversy as a reply I just received from the chief editor of a German journal talks as if I'm saying that none of the a's has a factor of 5, that is 5. He also thought my lemma was a trivial result and he mentioned polynomial factors. Then he put me on a spam block, which I discovered when I tried to reply back to him.

Hmmm…I guess I'll not get much leeway from Germans.

In any event, if I'm facing real problems with the is "factor of" thing I'd just as soon change it, so I'll be evaluating my paper today to see about making changes to be more in line with common usage. I'll also consider the "coprime" part, which confused a mathematician at Cal-Tech, and I'm kind of sure there was at least one other that said so, which may mean that others were confused but never admitted

it.

It seems that mathematicians are kind of fragile on this terminology thing, so I'll try and get closer to standard usage, and then I'll find yet another journal. I say that as saying "3 has a factor of 12" is actually correct, as 3 has itself as a factor and 3 is a factor of 12, but mathematicians have gotten themselves stuck one way, and there's no point in fighting their slang.

I'm curious about what will come up next.

Hmmm…I guess I'll not get much leeway from Germans.

In any event, if I'm facing real problems with the is "factor of" thing I'd just as soon change it, so I'll be evaluating my paper today to see about making changes to be more in line with common usage. I'll also consider the "coprime" part, which confused a mathematician at Cal-Tech, and I'm kind of sure there was at least one other that said so, which may mean that others were confused but never admitted

it.

It seems that mathematicians are kind of fragile on this terminology thing, so I'll try and get closer to standard usage, and then I'll find yet another journal. I say that as saying "3 has a factor of 12" is actually correct, as 3 has itself as a factor and 3 is a factor of 12, but mathematicians have gotten themselves stuck one way, and there's no point in fighting their slang.

I'm curious about what will come up next.