### 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.