### Thursday, December 16, 2004

## JSH: Those Ullrich defenders

Repeatedly over some years I've kept seeing posters claiming that I tried to get David Ullrich fired, or that I call people's employers about newsgroup postings, as these Ullrich defenders try to make a case against me, by never telling the full story.

The real story is that YEARS ago, in the usual back-and-forth, and actually rather dumb arguments that have flared up around my posts, I said that David Ullrich acted as my lapdog in an instance.

Over a year later in yet another one of the flare-ups, Ullrich responded that more than a year before when I'd said that he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, he'd gotten angry, thought a racial slur was the appropriate reply, but been talked out of delivering it.

Importantly, back when I had said he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, I picked up from his postings—as they got even weirder than normal—that he was very upset, so I APOLOGIZED to Ullrich about the lapdog comment.

It was over a year later from the time of the comment and my apology when Ullrich made his comments, where HE introduced the subject of racial slurs.

Now I know that many of you don't want to be troubled with the facts, but here they are anyway, though I find it amazing how little many of you seem to care about facts.

So I thought about it more and more, and eventually complained to Ullrich's school as he's a professor at Oklahoma State University, and I happen to think that his behavior reflected badly on his school and on academics.

I think those who defend Ullrich wish Usenet to be a place where you can say anything you want without any consequences.

My making a complaint scares them because it challenges their anarchist position.

Why else would anarchist types defend a racist statement for so long and with so much effort?

As make no mistake, Ullrich's delivery doesn't leave much doubt. Hinting at calling someone by a racial slur by talking about wanting to deliver it, calling it an appropriate reply, and then saying you were talked out of it, isn't even really subtle.

Why would Usenet posters react so consistently in Ullrich's defense?

Why do posters keep bringing it up even now?

I say becaue they fight to be able to say anything on Usenet, without consequences.

Now here's where it gets really interesting, as a complaint is one thing, but Ullrich is the one who informed the newsgroup.

He has tenure people.

I don't know how stupid many of you are, but professors with tenure don't typically need to worry about a single complaint.

IF Ullrich were actually worried, why would HE bring it up on Usenet?

Why would Ullrich be the one to publicize a complaint, if he actually had concerns about his job?

Instead he

I'm sure Ullrich was quite satisfied and probably thought he had his revenge on me for daring to say he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance.

Now think about that, as Ullrich has acted as if saying someone acted as your lapdog in an instance is a grievous insult. And I actually apologized soon after making the comment!

You people are used by this person in stuff that isn't even very clever, and definitely isn't really defensible.

The reality is that Ullrich used you as his lapdogs in a bizarre need to come after me, where he picked race, and many of you defended him, and STILL defend him.

Supposedly, it's nothing if he didn't actually deliver a racial slur. Just talking about thinking about delivering a racial slur but not doing it, shouldn't be ground for a complaint.

But hey, Ullrich's thoughts were his own, until HE gave them in a public post.

Don't think your thoughts matter if you publicize them?

Why don't you go tell some Secret Service agent that you'd been thinking about killing President Bush, but been talked out of it?

Ask yourselves one question, why, over a year after the event, would Ullrich feel a need to inform me and the newsgroup what he says he

The real story is that YEARS ago, in the usual back-and-forth, and actually rather dumb arguments that have flared up around my posts, I said that David Ullrich acted as my lapdog in an instance.

Over a year later in yet another one of the flare-ups, Ullrich responded that more than a year before when I'd said that he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, he'd gotten angry, thought a racial slur was the appropriate reply, but been talked out of delivering it.

Importantly, back when I had said he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, I picked up from his postings—as they got even weirder than normal—that he was very upset, so I APOLOGIZED to Ullrich about the lapdog comment.

It was over a year later from the time of the comment and my apology when Ullrich made his comments, where HE introduced the subject of racial slurs.

Now I know that many of you don't want to be troubled with the facts, but here they are anyway, though I find it amazing how little many of you seem to care about facts.

So I thought about it more and more, and eventually complained to Ullrich's school as he's a professor at Oklahoma State University, and I happen to think that his behavior reflected badly on his school and on academics.

I think those who defend Ullrich wish Usenet to be a place where you can say anything you want without any consequences.

My making a complaint scares them because it challenges their anarchist position.

Why else would anarchist types defend a racist statement for so long and with so much effort?

As make no mistake, Ullrich's delivery doesn't leave much doubt. Hinting at calling someone by a racial slur by talking about wanting to deliver it, calling it an appropriate reply, and then saying you were talked out of it, isn't even really subtle.

Why would Usenet posters react so consistently in Ullrich's defense?

Why do posters keep bringing it up even now?

I say becaue they fight to be able to say anything on Usenet, without consequences.

Now here's where it gets really interesting, as a complaint is one thing, but Ullrich is the one who informed the newsgroup.

He has tenure people.

I don't know how stupid many of you are, but professors with tenure don't typically need to worry about a single complaint.

IF Ullrich were actually worried, why would HE bring it up on Usenet?

Why would Ullrich be the one to publicize a complaint, if he actually had concerns about his job?

Instead he

**claimed**to be worried, which fueled a firestorm on the newsgroup, with lots of people calling me names, including some actual racial slurs.I'm sure Ullrich was quite satisfied and probably thought he had his revenge on me for daring to say he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance.

Now think about that, as Ullrich has acted as if saying someone acted as your lapdog in an instance is a grievous insult. And I actually apologized soon after making the comment!

You people are used by this person in stuff that isn't even very clever, and definitely isn't really defensible.

The reality is that Ullrich used you as his lapdogs in a bizarre need to come after me, where he picked race, and many of you defended him, and STILL defend him.

Supposedly, it's nothing if he didn't actually deliver a racial slur. Just talking about thinking about delivering a racial slur but not doing it, shouldn't be ground for a complaint.

But hey, Ullrich's thoughts were his own, until HE gave them in a public post.

Don't think your thoughts matter if you publicize them?

Why don't you go tell some Secret Service agent that you'd been thinking about killing President Bush, but been talked out of it?

Ask yourselves one question, why, over a year after the event, would Ullrich feel a need to inform me and the newsgroup what he says he

**thought**a year earlier?### Friday, December 03, 2004

## JSH: Simply fascinating

The math here is so readily understandable that it's actually almost as interesting watching how people react to it, as anything else.

For instance, I've given a polynomial P(x) repeatedly where I factor it into three factors.

I point out that the factors must include factors of the constant term of the polynomial P(x).

I note that the factors of the constant term are independent of x, as they are, in fact, constant.

Mathematically it's easy to show:

g_1(x) g_2(x) g_3(x) = P(x)

and

g_1(0) g_2(0) g_3(0) = P(0)

as P(0) gives the constant term of the polynomial, and since the polynomial results from multiplying together the three factors which I've called g_1(x), g_2(x), and g_3(x), then you can get the factors of the constant term, by setting x=0.

It's that simple.

Notice (1) you have the factors of P(x), (2) the constant term of P(x) is determinable by setting x=0, (3) you also get the factors of the constant term.

Mathematically, it's simple to the point of trivial.

Now then, if you have

You have x, as the variable. Besides x there are just these numbers. If you clear out x, then what's left are constants. Letting x=0, clears it out, leaving the constants visible.

Some may say, yeah, sure, at x=0, but what about when x doesn't equal 0?

Um, if the numbers are constant, and so are independent of x, then, duh, why should it matter what value x has?

The logic is inescapable.

In terms of difficulty, my proof is about as easy as it gets in algebraic number theory, in terms of the actual mathematics.

But the concepts are where there is a problem, and the social hang-up is in accepting that there's this simple technique that shows a BIG problem, which can invalidate claims of proof for, well, over a hundred plus years.

So the mathemtics is EASY for a trained mathematician to follow. The social implications are hard, if social stuff is important to you, and clearly from what I've seen it is to many of you.

For instance, at this point I've removed all objections raised in detail. Like I can explain supposed counter examples to my work. I can give an actual example where you can see the factorization play out—just as the theory shows it must. And you probably know that my research is the work that can be said to have gone to a journal which at least claims it does formal peer review.

They thanked me for the paper said the reviewers liked it, and then some sci.math'ers got together—actually literally conspiring online in posts on sci.math—sent them emails and the editors yanked my papers THE NEXT DAY.

They had it for nine months. I'd corresponded with them for a while, even corrected them when they called me Dr. Harris as I don't have a Ph.d, and I told them I was an independent researcher with concerns about how my work would be handled. They kept saying no problem, ok, all that matters is what's correct.

Then they yanked my paper after sci.math'ers emailed them:

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html

All the pertinent facts are in my favor.

So what's the hold-up?

My research shows that some mistakes were made over a hundred years ago, and a lot of people missed them, and gave "proofs" which were not, and are not proofs.

Mathematics is unforgiving. It doesn't care about the social implications of the truth. So it doesn't matter mathematically that a LOT of people out there are terribly dependent on the false beliefs and incorrect results, but it DOES matter a lot to those people!

I call their behavior passive-aggessive, as by dragging their feet, taking as long as possible before acknowledging my research, or worse, hoping to NEVER acknowledge it at all, they are passively hoping to escape mathematical truth, in what amounts to a very aggressive way.

I liken their behavior to judges at a race, who watch a runner break a world record, and then lie about his time, refuse to admit he even finished the race, and some even call him names!!!

They're turning the way it's supposed to work with a major discovery, upside down.

And it's silly behavior as eventually the truth will come out, and you know what I'll do then?

Probably go to the beach. I'll also hang out in some bars. Yup, I'll definitely hang out in some bars, preferably near a beach.

Yup, you guessed it, I'll do my best to forget about them, as why bother worrying about silly people who do silly things.

Life's too short.

For instance, I've given a polynomial P(x) repeatedly where I factor it into three factors.

I point out that the factors must include factors of the constant term of the polynomial P(x).

I note that the factors of the constant term are independent of x, as they are, in fact, constant.

Mathematically it's easy to show:

g_1(x) g_2(x) g_3(x) = P(x)

and

g_1(0) g_2(0) g_3(0) = P(0)

as P(0) gives the constant term of the polynomial, and since the polynomial results from multiplying together the three factors which I've called g_1(x), g_2(x), and g_3(x), then you can get the factors of the constant term, by setting x=0.

It's that simple.

Notice (1) you have the factors of P(x), (2) the constant term of P(x) is determinable by setting x=0, (3) you also get the factors of the constant term.

Mathematically, it's simple to the point of trivial.

Now then, if you have

**constants**which are factors of another constant then why would anyone try to argue that they are actually variables?You have x, as the variable. Besides x there are just these numbers. If you clear out x, then what's left are constants. Letting x=0, clears it out, leaving the constants visible.

Some may say, yeah, sure, at x=0, but what about when x doesn't equal 0?

Um, if the numbers are constant, and so are independent of x, then, duh, why should it matter what value x has?

The logic is inescapable.

In terms of difficulty, my proof is about as easy as it gets in algebraic number theory, in terms of the actual mathematics.

But the concepts are where there is a problem, and the social hang-up is in accepting that there's this simple technique that shows a BIG problem, which can invalidate claims of proof for, well, over a hundred plus years.

So the mathemtics is EASY for a trained mathematician to follow. The social implications are hard, if social stuff is important to you, and clearly from what I've seen it is to many of you.

For instance, at this point I've removed all objections raised in detail. Like I can explain supposed counter examples to my work. I can give an actual example where you can see the factorization play out—just as the theory shows it must. And you probably know that my research is the work that can be said to have gone to a journal which at least claims it does formal peer review.

They thanked me for the paper said the reviewers liked it, and then some sci.math'ers got together—actually literally conspiring online in posts on sci.math—sent them emails and the editors yanked my papers THE NEXT DAY.

They had it for nine months. I'd corresponded with them for a while, even corrected them when they called me Dr. Harris as I don't have a Ph.d, and I told them I was an independent researcher with concerns about how my work would be handled. They kept saying no problem, ok, all that matters is what's correct.

Then they yanked my paper after sci.math'ers emailed them:

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html

All the pertinent facts are in my favor.

So what's the hold-up?

My research shows that some mistakes were made over a hundred years ago, and a lot of people missed them, and gave "proofs" which were not, and are not proofs.

Mathematics is unforgiving. It doesn't care about the social implications of the truth. So it doesn't matter mathematically that a LOT of people out there are terribly dependent on the false beliefs and incorrect results, but it DOES matter a lot to those people!

I call their behavior passive-aggessive, as by dragging their feet, taking as long as possible before acknowledging my research, or worse, hoping to NEVER acknowledge it at all, they are passively hoping to escape mathematical truth, in what amounts to a very aggressive way.

I liken their behavior to judges at a race, who watch a runner break a world record, and then lie about his time, refuse to admit he even finished the race, and some even call him names!!!

They're turning the way it's supposed to work with a major discovery, upside down.

And it's silly behavior as eventually the truth will come out, and you know what I'll do then?

Probably go to the beach. I'll also hang out in some bars. Yup, I'll definitely hang out in some bars, preferably near a beach.

Yup, you guessed it, I'll do my best to forget about them, as why bother worrying about silly people who do silly things.

Life's too short.