### Wednesday, December 24, 2003

## New yahoo group, important works available

Much of my important work has been explained in greater detail through files available through the MSN group I had set up for Amateur Mathematicans.

In the past, some of you have complained about MSN, and the requirement of implementing the MSN passport in order to access this body of work.

Now I have addressed such objections by creating a new group on Yahoo, which should be easier to access. The address for the new group is

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trollsareus/

Nevermind the group name, this was chosen in mock irony during a moment of realization that the group names on Yahoo simply can not be as descriptive as those on MSN due to space limitations.

I have been thinking about resuming chat discussion sessions, and will base my decision in part on the interest this new group garners over the upcoming weeks.

[A reply to Arturo Magidin.]

Note that Arturo Magidin is an incompetent liar and a chronic newsgroup stalker.

Not too long ago I made a post stepping through my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for p=3 that's not that much different from my Part 2. I felt that it was clearly interesting enough mathematics that a competent mathematician or an honest one would have to admit the truth, so that's what I said.

I ended that post by saying that only an incompetent mathematician or a liar could post against it. I said that because the argument is so simple, direct, and especially because it has to do with Fermat's Last Theorem.

Yet Magidin posted against it. He insinuated that the argument was false, and continued that position through repeated posts, only to finally claim that he would not discuss things further as he was killfiling me.

Some of you may think I call Magidin a liar because of the question of whether or not rational numbers find their way into the ring I use in my proof.

I'm not such an amateur or so stupid that I will be pushed off of a correct proof by a meaningless objection.

I maintain that Magidin is indeed either incompetent as a mathematician, or more likely a liar, or both.

In the past, some of you have complained about MSN, and the requirement of implementing the MSN passport in order to access this body of work.

Now I have addressed such objections by creating a new group on Yahoo, which should be easier to access. The address for the new group is

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trollsareus/

Nevermind the group name, this was chosen in mock irony during a moment of realization that the group names on Yahoo simply can not be as descriptive as those on MSN due to space limitations.

I have been thinking about resuming chat discussion sessions, and will base my decision in part on the interest this new group garners over the upcoming weeks.

[A reply to Arturo Magidin.]

Note that Arturo Magidin is an incompetent liar and a chronic newsgroup stalker.

Not too long ago I made a post stepping through my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for p=3 that's not that much different from my Part 2. I felt that it was clearly interesting enough mathematics that a competent mathematician or an honest one would have to admit the truth, so that's what I said.

I ended that post by saying that only an incompetent mathematician or a liar could post against it. I said that because the argument is so simple, direct, and especially because it has to do with Fermat's Last Theorem.

Yet Magidin posted against it. He insinuated that the argument was false, and continued that position through repeated posts, only to finally claim that he would not discuss things further as he was killfiling me.

Some of you may think I call Magidin a liar because of the question of whether or not rational numbers find their way into the ring I use in my proof.

I'm not such an amateur or so stupid that I will be pushed off of a correct proof by a meaningless objection.

I maintain that Magidin is indeed either incompetent as a mathematician, or more likely a liar, or both.

### Sunday, December 07, 2003

## JSH: Consider Crank.net

If you do a Google Search on my name "James Harris" and math, like you put in "James Harris" math, you'll currently see a link to www.crank.net coming up third, and I don't know how many of you know that site is run by a guy named Erik Max Francis who used to be a regular sci.math poster.

I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what makes me a crackpot.

Can

Some people talk about going to look for something like an important math result, and others try quietly. So I talk about my efforts on Usenet.

What's so wrong with that? Why do I rate such an intense and active reaction from the math community?

Why do mathematicians and math groupies spend so much time and effort, create webpages, etc. to bother with my attempts at finding some important math?

What gives?

Can any of you explain their behavior to me?

I'm curious.

I want you to do that search, look at what he has on me, and please explain to me exactly why this person is calling me names, like, what makes me a crackpot.

Can

**any**of you go there to what he has and tell me what's supposed to be so bad about what I'm doing?Some people talk about going to look for something like an important math result, and others try quietly. So I talk about my efforts on Usenet.

What's so wrong with that? Why do I rate such an intense and active reaction from the math community?

Why do mathematicians and math groupies spend so much time and effort, create webpages, etc. to bother with my attempts at finding some important math?

What gives?

Can any of you explain their behavior to me?

I'm curious.

### Wednesday, December 03, 2003

## JSH: Not even close

What makes the story here

If they can, I'd like to see

I wouldn't be surprised if rank and arrogant posters try to attack that posting, but pay careful attention to what they say, and remember, despite it's gloried history, nothing even close to that has been possible with anything that mathematicians have discovered that counts primes in recorded human history.

That more than anything else is what you can use to realize that I have a first-find and a significant one, as nothing they have can approach what can be done with my discovery.

Mathematicians are here flat on their backs and not even in the ballpark.

So why would they fight such a discovery?

Good question.

Any ideas?

Mathematicians aren't even close, yet they keep posturing and fighting against mathematics itself.

If they continue, mathematics will destroy them.

Isn't that ironic, don't you think?

**extremely**pathetic is that mathematicians can't in**any**way approach what I showed you in going from a partial difference equation that counts primes, as they don't have one, to a continuous function.If they can, I'd like to see

**anyone**post a demoonstration like mine.I wouldn't be surprised if rank and arrogant posters try to attack that posting, but pay careful attention to what they say, and remember, despite it's gloried history, nothing even close to that has been possible with anything that mathematicians have discovered that counts primes in recorded human history.

That more than anything else is what you can use to realize that I have a first-find and a significant one, as nothing they have can approach what can be done with my discovery.

Mathematicians are here flat on their backs and not even in the ballpark.

So why would they fight such a discovery?

Good question.

Any ideas?

Mathematicians aren't even close, yet they keep posturing and fighting against mathematics itself.

If they continue, mathematics will destroy them.

Isn't that ironic, don't you think?