### Tuesday, June 29, 2004

## Approaching a twin primes conjecture proof

The twin primes conjecture is that there are an infinity of twin primes which are primes separated by 2. For instance, 5 and 7 are twin primes, as 7-5 = 2.

Here's an idea that's a variant on the proof of the infinitude of primes, might not be new, but why not throw it out there?

Multiply every prime

The result is either divisible by 3 or has a residue of -1 or 1 with respect to 3.

If the result is not divisible by 3 it is prime.

If the result is has a resdiue of -1, then when you add 2 to it, the result is prime, so you have a paired prime.

Now then, all you have to do is prove that there will be a continuous cycling between possibilities of 0, -1 and 1 residues with respect to 3.

Example:

2(5) = 10 + 1 = 11 = -1 mod 3, and 13 is prime

Now then, someone out there who wants worldwide fame in math circles just needs to prove that you will always find a product P of a series of primes with 3 left out such that P = -1 mod 3.

Have fun!

Here's an idea that's a variant on the proof of the infinitude of primes, might not be new, but why not throw it out there?

Multiply every prime

**except**3 up to some arbitrary j-th prime. Now add 1.The result is either divisible by 3 or has a residue of -1 or 1 with respect to 3.

If the result is not divisible by 3 it is prime.

If the result is has a resdiue of -1, then when you add 2 to it, the result is prime, so you have a paired prime.

Now then, all you have to do is prove that there will be a continuous cycling between possibilities of 0, -1 and 1 residues with respect to 3.

Example:

2(5) = 10 + 1 = 11 = -1 mod 3, and 13 is prime

Now then, someone out there who wants worldwide fame in math circles just needs to prove that you will always find a product P of a series of primes with 3 left out such that P = -1 mod 3.

Have fun!

### Saturday, June 26, 2004

## JSH: Current situation, suggestion

I have some papers at math journals now, so I'm just kind of goofing off on sci.math partly because I'm bored, and mostly because I can.

Now, various posters can choose to jump in and continue to reply to me, or you can wander off.

It's your choice.

Now I currently have several major results and decided that I'm more interested now in getting to some good discussions as I think the mathematics is fairly interesting, versus using the antagonistic process I pioneered mostly here on the sci.math newsgroup.

Antagonistic processes—head-to-head argumentation—is GREAT with mathematics because mathematics is distinguished in that either you're right, or you're wrong.

That is, if you have a particular result, it's either true or false.

There's no debate about it, no committee, and no one gets to vote.

Mathematical truth is totaly apolitical, cares nothing for social issues, and doesn't give a damn about convention or what you had for breakfast this morning.

I love it.

Basically I can be a rather, um, not nice person, with few people in the world liking me, and could even be really ugly and mean, but if I find a math result, none of that matters.

It's either true, or it's false without regard to whether or not people care for a particular result.

Now I knocked the "math establishment" for a while, but now I realize that I'd hung out too long on Usenet which is NOT the math establishment.

Like, these days, when I send a paper to a math journal, they review it.

It's a good thing. I like it. I've decided that the math establishment might not be so bad, but sci.math is kind of weird and posters here can be annoying because they're irrational.

And sci.math posters clearly HATE algebra, which I find bizarre, and it annoys me.

In any event, I'm just kind of hanging out here now, waiting on math papers on the fast track, unlike with that journal SWJPAM which sat on a paper of mine for over nine months!

Life is good.

Now, various posters can choose to jump in and continue to reply to me, or you can wander off.

It's your choice.

Now I currently have several major results and decided that I'm more interested now in getting to some good discussions as I think the mathematics is fairly interesting, versus using the antagonistic process I pioneered mostly here on the sci.math newsgroup.

Antagonistic processes—head-to-head argumentation—is GREAT with mathematics because mathematics is distinguished in that either you're right, or you're wrong.

That is, if you have a particular result, it's either true or false.

There's no debate about it, no committee, and no one gets to vote.

Mathematical truth is totaly apolitical, cares nothing for social issues, and doesn't give a damn about convention or what you had for breakfast this morning.

I love it.

Basically I can be a rather, um, not nice person, with few people in the world liking me, and could even be really ugly and mean, but if I find a math result, none of that matters.

It's either true, or it's false without regard to whether or not people care for a particular result.

Now I knocked the "math establishment" for a while, but now I realize that I'd hung out too long on Usenet which is NOT the math establishment.

Like, these days, when I send a paper to a math journal, they review it.

It's a good thing. I like it. I've decided that the math establishment might not be so bad, but sci.math is kind of weird and posters here can be annoying because they're irrational.

And sci.math posters clearly HATE algebra, which I find bizarre, and it annoys me.

In any event, I'm just kind of hanging out here now, waiting on math papers on the fast track, unlike with that journal SWJPAM which sat on a paper of mine for over nine months!

Life is good.

### Thursday, June 17, 2004

## JSH: The Hammer is coming

I have my prime counting function and the paper Advanced Polynomial Factorization and those are my minor results, small enough that enough people can understand them to break through the barriers I face.

But I have two bigger results, and one is The Hammer.

The Hammer is coming, and when I finally fully unleash it, then the establishment will come down.

And some of you seem to have thought that it mattered that you seemed to win for so long, as you thought I was gone, beaten, put down and defeated, until that paper showed up in the Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics.

But you see, few of you were smart enough to understand that time is on my side.

Time is on my side.

But I have two bigger results, and one is The Hammer.

The Hammer is coming, and when I finally fully unleash it, then the establishment will come down.

And some of you seem to have thought that it mattered that you seemed to win for so long, as you thought I was gone, beaten, put down and defeated, until that paper showed up in the Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics.

But you see, few of you were smart enough to understand that time is on my side.

Time is on my side.

### Wednesday, June 16, 2004

## My results, concrete and real

If you go to my blog

http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

you can see a pure math result, beautiful and rather fascinating.

If you go to

http://rattler.cameron.edu/swjpam/vol2-03.html

you can see where a

I found a way to count prime numbers and LOOK AT IT and then look at the literature and see if you can find it there. It's short, it's concise and it counts prime numbers.

It uses a partial difference equation like no other.

My paper on algebraic integers uses BASIC ALGEBRA, and it passed peer review.

No human being on this planet has ever shown an error in that paper.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that evil posters like Arturo Magidin, W. Dale Hall, and Rick Decker DO NOT EVEN TRY!!!!!!!

The reason there's debate about any of these results is that they are pure math results.

If I could only just figure out a way to factor big numbers there'd be no debate, as that's a practical result.

Don't any of you see that at the end of the day, no matter how long it takes, when the correct mathematics wins as should happen that mathematicians pay the price for any delay?

The lesson to the world is that mathematicians can and will lie about pure math results. That all that talk about beauty and the joy of math for its own sake is just talk.

I've sent a version of that paper that passed peer review by Barry Mazur, who commented on it, not saying he said it was ok, but he didn't point out any error. But where is he now?

Andrew Granville got a version and passed up on the decision of publication referring it to his chief editor at the New York Journal of Mathematics, who claimed it didn't fit their format!

Are you people so stupid that you don't think there's a price to pay for such shenanigans?

Or don't you believe you'll ever have your day? Do NONE of you believe that you will ever have your own significant results? Do NONE of you believe that you'll ever have research you want the world to notice?

If you do then you'll stop people like Magidin, Hall and Decker, people who probably know they'll never have that day, and as they work to fight my results, they work to fight future results down the line.

They work to make sure that people around the world learn not to believe mathematicians.

My results are concrete and real. Like my prime counting function freaking counts primes!!!

You can LOOK AT IT at

http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

and ask yourself if you really want to be the black spot in mathematical history, with mathematicians in the future cursing your names and existence as they fight, like I'm fighting now, to be believed when they have correct and important math results.

[A reply to Rick Dekker, who spotted an error at the paper.]

That's the conclusion.

How in the hell do you claim to attack a math proof by just jumping to the end of a paper which has the proof, and just say the conclusion is wrong?

That's NOT SANE, it's NOT RATIONAL, it's just not playing by rules.

Anyone can do that Decker.

Someone can jump to the end of Wiles's paper and just say the conclusion is wrong.

You can do that to ANY paper!!!

Reviewers tasked with determining the paper's correctness said it was correct.

The paper was properly to be published, but sci.math posters, including you, conspired in public against it, coming up with the idea of an email campaign, which worked with the chief editor Ioannis Argyros, who panicked, and immediately yanked the paper, never even giving me a chance to defend against the sci.math email assault.

It's just so stupid that you people have gotten away with your stupid behavior for so long when you JUST JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION AND CLAIM IT'S WRONG!!!!!

What about the rest of the paper Decker?

Oh wait, you're evil. Why bother worrying about you behaving now?

Relate your claims specifically to my paper. Quit trying to get away with being fuzzy.

Go in detail, and explicitly define "coprime" as well.

I want people to see the dance.

You can't disprove a proof by attacking the conclusion!

The fact that the logical argument is clearly correct should be obvious to those of you who are serious mathematicians, as it'd be easier with a short paper to not go on and on about other supposed proofs against it if you could just attack the logical argument.

Math proofs don't duel.

A math proof begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then MUST BE TRUE!!!

If the logical argument in my paper is correct, yet the conclusion is false, then mathematics is inconsistent.

I don't know why anyone would argue that mathematic is inconsistent, as it is NOT, but if you believe people like Decker, Hall and Magidin, then you're arguing that mathematics is inconsistent.

Why do you think these people stay away from the argument in the paper, choosing instead to just declare the conclusion is wrong, and claim to have proven that it is wrong?

I've explained enough times what's going on that they must be deliberately trying to hide the truth, as well as their insistence that mathematics is inconsistent.

If my paper were wrong, then the logical argument in it would be wrong.

You have consistently refused to acknowledge the mathematical details when I've given them, and insisted on making false claims.

Now you claim you don't have time to consider the actual paper itself?

Too busy just attacking the conclusion?

What about all that time you've spent up to now?

What about that website you created at Hamilton College?

You're a bad liar Rick Decker, and stupid besides, as fighting math proofs is just that, stupid.

So for a while you and your crew got away with it, what makes you think that can go on indefinitely?

http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

you can see a pure math result, beautiful and rather fascinating.

If you go to

http://rattler.cameron.edu/swjpam/vol2-03.html

you can see where a

**short**paper on algebraic integers was successfully censored by a coordinated email attack by some of**your**sci.math posters who some of you have claimed are such wonderful people.I found a way to count prime numbers and LOOK AT IT and then look at the literature and see if you can find it there. It's short, it's concise and it counts prime numbers.

It uses a partial difference equation like no other.

My paper on algebraic integers uses BASIC ALGEBRA, and it passed peer review.

No human being on this planet has ever shown an error in that paper.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that evil posters like Arturo Magidin, W. Dale Hall, and Rick Decker DO NOT EVEN TRY!!!!!!!

The reason there's debate about any of these results is that they are pure math results.

If I could only just figure out a way to factor big numbers there'd be no debate, as that's a practical result.

Don't any of you see that at the end of the day, no matter how long it takes, when the correct mathematics wins as should happen that mathematicians pay the price for any delay?

The lesson to the world is that mathematicians can and will lie about pure math results. That all that talk about beauty and the joy of math for its own sake is just talk.

I've sent a version of that paper that passed peer review by Barry Mazur, who commented on it, not saying he said it was ok, but he didn't point out any error. But where is he now?

Andrew Granville got a version and passed up on the decision of publication referring it to his chief editor at the New York Journal of Mathematics, who claimed it didn't fit their format!

Are you people so stupid that you don't think there's a price to pay for such shenanigans?

Or don't you believe you'll ever have your day? Do NONE of you believe that you will ever have your own significant results? Do NONE of you believe that you'll ever have research you want the world to notice?

If you do then you'll stop people like Magidin, Hall and Decker, people who probably know they'll never have that day, and as they work to fight my results, they work to fight future results down the line.

They work to make sure that people around the world learn not to believe mathematicians.

My results are concrete and real. Like my prime counting function freaking counts primes!!!

You can LOOK AT IT at

http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

and ask yourself if you really want to be the black spot in mathematical history, with mathematicians in the future cursing your names and existence as they fight, like I'm fighting now, to be believed when they have correct and important math results.

[A reply to Rick Dekker, who spotted an error at the paper.]

That's the conclusion.

How in the hell do you claim to attack a math proof by just jumping to the end of a paper which has the proof, and just say the conclusion is wrong?

That's NOT SANE, it's NOT RATIONAL, it's just not playing by rules.

Anyone can do that Decker.

Someone can jump to the end of Wiles's paper and just say the conclusion is wrong.

You can do that to ANY paper!!!

Reviewers tasked with determining the paper's correctness said it was correct.

The paper was properly to be published, but sci.math posters, including you, conspired in public against it, coming up with the idea of an email campaign, which worked with the chief editor Ioannis Argyros, who panicked, and immediately yanked the paper, never even giving me a chance to defend against the sci.math email assault.

It's just so stupid that you people have gotten away with your stupid behavior for so long when you JUST JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION AND CLAIM IT'S WRONG!!!!!

What about the rest of the paper Decker?

Oh wait, you're evil. Why bother worrying about you behaving now?

Relate your claims specifically to my paper. Quit trying to get away with being fuzzy.

Go in detail, and explicitly define "coprime" as well.

I want people to see the dance.

You can't disprove a proof by attacking the conclusion!

The fact that the logical argument is clearly correct should be obvious to those of you who are serious mathematicians, as it'd be easier with a short paper to not go on and on about other supposed proofs against it if you could just attack the logical argument.

Math proofs don't duel.

A math proof begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then MUST BE TRUE!!!

If the logical argument in my paper is correct, yet the conclusion is false, then mathematics is inconsistent.

I don't know why anyone would argue that mathematic is inconsistent, as it is NOT, but if you believe people like Decker, Hall and Magidin, then you're arguing that mathematics is inconsistent.

Why do you think these people stay away from the argument in the paper, choosing instead to just declare the conclusion is wrong, and claim to have proven that it is wrong?

I've explained enough times what's going on that they must be deliberately trying to hide the truth, as well as their insistence that mathematics is inconsistent.

If my paper were wrong, then the logical argument in it would be wrong.

You have consistently refused to acknowledge the mathematical details when I've given them, and insisted on making false claims.

Now you claim you don't have time to consider the actual paper itself?

Too busy just attacking the conclusion?

What about all that time you've spent up to now?

What about that website you created at Hamilton College?

You're a bad liar Rick Decker, and stupid besides, as fighting math proofs is just that, stupid.

So for a while you and your crew got away with it, what makes you think that can go on indefinitely?

### Sunday, June 13, 2004

## Factoring paper is wrong

My apologies but the paper that I thought solved the factoring problem had a dumb mistake in it, as in a key place while I properly had h_1 h_2 = T^4, in my derivation I was actually using h_1 h_2 = T, which is how I got what looked to me like a spectacular result.

The error is non-fixable in terms of that approach.

The factoring method itself does work, but so far I haven't gotten it to work well for decent bitlengths as so far at best it works for bitlengths of 40 and under, so it's useless at this point for even approaching RSA.

The problem is determining s, so at this point, my approach of using surrogate factoring is just a curiousity.

The error is non-fixable in terms of that approach.

The factoring method itself does work, but so far I haven't gotten it to work well for decent bitlengths as so far at best it works for bitlengths of 40 and under, so it's useless at this point for even approaching RSA.

The problem is determining s, so at this point, my approach of using surrogate factoring is just a curiousity.

### Friday, June 11, 2004

## JSH: Weird "mathematicians"

It tooks me a little while to figure out that many of you on this newsgroup, and a surprising number of mathematicians that I contacted, actually hate mathematics and especially algebra.

After all, mathematical results are

One of the more bizarre things for me a while back was when I'd step through arguments in such detail that it was like I was teaching basic arithmetic and some poster would come back and act like I hadn't said anything that made sense.

For a while I almost started to doubt myself until that pivotal day last August when I went and talked to Professor McKenzie

Then I knew: some of you

For you mathematics is a social game. You work to please a committee that you want to sign off on your math papers, but you don't actually believe in mathematics.

Now "pure math" makes sense as well as clearly it's a peacock game, where some of you see it as a way to show you as being highly intelligent and thus more desirable to women.

That "useless" aspect of "pure math" is important to you, just like it's important to the male peacock that his large tail is useless, except for getting female peacocks.

Ultimately your society got screwed by one major thing: you said factoring was a hard problem.

If it weren't for that then you could probably have gone on for another hundred years or more with massively screwed up works accepted because so many of you are like male peacocks trying to impress…someone…even other males!

But no, you told the world factoring was a hard problem so the end here was never really in doubt, as you see, the math doesn't care about your feelings or your need to impress others.

All I ever had to do was just handle the factoring thing, and it doesn't matter what you say. Some of you will probably reply to this post as if all that matters is what you say.

But in a little while the world will come for you. The clock is now ticking, and your fate is sealed.

You shouldn't hate Mother Mathematics. Hating mathematics is just a sure way to ruin. And hating mathematics while taking on the title mathematician, is just plain suicidal.

After all, mathematical results are

**hard**in that you can't wish them away, or change them, so it amazed me for quite some time that so many of you would fight against results that I could prove with a rigor far outside of most mathematical works.One of the more bizarre things for me a while back was when I'd step through arguments in such detail that it was like I was teaching basic arithmetic and some poster would come back and act like I hadn't said anything that made sense.

For a while I almost started to doubt myself until that pivotal day last August when I went and talked to Professor McKenzie

**in person**at Vanderbilt University, and could watch him as I explained.Then I knew: some of you

**hate**algebra.For you mathematics is a social game. You work to please a committee that you want to sign off on your math papers, but you don't actually believe in mathematics.

Now "pure math" makes sense as well as clearly it's a peacock game, where some of you see it as a way to show you as being highly intelligent and thus more desirable to women.

That "useless" aspect of "pure math" is important to you, just like it's important to the male peacock that his large tail is useless, except for getting female peacocks.

Ultimately your society got screwed by one major thing: you said factoring was a hard problem.

If it weren't for that then you could probably have gone on for another hundred years or more with massively screwed up works accepted because so many of you are like male peacocks trying to impress…someone…even other males!

But no, you told the world factoring was a hard problem so the end here was never really in doubt, as you see, the math doesn't care about your feelings or your need to impress others.

All I ever had to do was just handle the factoring thing, and it doesn't matter what you say. Some of you will probably reply to this post as if all that matters is what you say.

But in a little while the world will come for you. The clock is now ticking, and your fate is sealed.

You shouldn't hate Mother Mathematics. Hating mathematics is just a sure way to ruin. And hating mathematics while taking on the title mathematician, is just plain suicidal.