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 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?
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?
# posted by James Harris @ 17:53 
