Harristotelian Logic

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.