### Saturday, April 30, 2005

## JSH: A theorem can't be wrong

It seems odd that I need to remind that a theorem cannot be wrong.

So the surrogate factoring theorem (SFT) cannot be wrong.

Now the issue of how well it factors can be raised, but that's separate from it's "pure" validity as a theorem.

That's an important point as the SFT is a theorem unlike any other in that it is a general solution to the difference of squares.

No such solution has ever been given in human history.

I like pushing away from the factoring problem to focus on the SFT being a theorem because there I can talk about absolutes.

Working out factoring algorithms is a practical matter that can have a lot of reasons for variations in efficacy, including human error, or dumb implementation.

Now then, so what? What does it mean for the SFT to be perfectly right?

What does it mean for any mathematics to be perfectly right?

Here it's a bit of a social thing I think that I need to focus--on a math newsgroup--on the pure math aspect of the SFT.

Before there's the practicality, there is the perfection of a theorem.

So the surrogate factoring theorem (SFT) cannot be wrong.

Now the issue of how well it factors can be raised, but that's separate from it's "pure" validity as a theorem.

That's an important point as the SFT is a theorem unlike any other in that it is a general solution to the difference of squares.

No such solution has ever been given in human history.

I like pushing away from the factoring problem to focus on the SFT being a theorem because there I can talk about absolutes.

Working out factoring algorithms is a practical matter that can have a lot of reasons for variations in efficacy, including human error, or dumb implementation.

Now then, so what? What does it mean for the SFT to be perfectly right?

What does it mean for any mathematics to be perfectly right?

Here it's a bit of a social thing I think that I need to focus--on a math newsgroup--on the pure math aspect of the SFT.

Before there's the practicality, there is the perfection of a theorem.

### Monday, April 25, 2005

## Proof against a corrupted math society

The supposed answer to someone claiming fraud is for them to prove it. And with mathematics it should be easy, put out a mathematical proof.

But who does society expect to check it?

Mathematicians.

So, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that widespread fraud and corruption were now a part of math society--just for the sake of argument--and say that someone were trying to expose this fraud, and they said they had proof.

Well, who would check it?

Mathematicians.

Get it now?

Yes, physicists could be tasked to check such a proof, but they'd have to be so tasked.

Now I know how hard it is to push this position as I do have proofs. One paper of mine actually did get past the gatekeepers and was published in an electronic math journal.

Someone posted that on the sci.math newsgroup and members of that Usenet community got together, posting out a strategy of emailing the journal, and when they did, the journal yanked my paper.

There is a lot wrong with that story.

Supposedly the journal process has a certain amount of solidity associated with it, but my paper was yanked overnight, immediately after some emails from sci.math posters.

That speaks of social power in math society.

The journal had my paper for nine months, but yanked it overnight?

That journal is now gone, which is also weird, but you can see some evidence still on one of its mirror sites:

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

And why did the journal shutdown?

A few months after the incident with my paper, they did.

My problem isn't that I don't have proof. My problem is that I have proof of corruption in math society, and mathematicians have to evaluate that proof.

And they have an enormous amount of social power.

Like consider what I call my prime counting function.

That's research in the area of prime numbers where I can actually show to a layperson the differences between my work and what mathematicians before me had, as well as even explain rather simply how it counts prime numbers!

That's with prime numbers.

People not mathematicians buy books about prime numbers.

They're buying into the mythos, as well as the knowledge.

Society says that mathematicians say what's true and important, the mathematicians make various declarations about prime numbers, much of it proven yes, but is it all?

And people buy on the basis of what they're told.

I can prove important mathematical research, and as long as other mathematicians refuse to acknowledge it, people sit back.

My latest research covers number theory that relates to factoring.

I've been arguing about it on Usenet for a while now, and some posters are settling into the position that if I have a key result in the factoring area, why haven't break-in's started on the Internet? Why aren't there successful mass hacker attacks against the Internet?

But again, I have proof of the results themselves, and the common sense position that sometimes it takes time.

And math society is going to give those people time.

It's the kind of behavior that's most puzzling, as some of you may think, well, ok, maybe mathematicians are corrupted in some way, but if really pushed, they'd do the right thing, notify society of something important, and just accept their fate.

Nope. They're waiting. The research I have is real. It does impact the factoring problem, and soon enough it may mean hordes of hackers and others persuing your personal data as easily as you cut on the television set to watch a show.

And mathematicians are clearly going to wait, hold out as long as they can, and wait until circumstances are forced on us all.

I still say that it's mostly society's fault, that you don't give people that kind of power, tell them to police themselves, and not expect some catastrophe down the road.

And it seems to me—from what I have proven—that we're coming up on the end of that road.

But who does society expect to check it?

Mathematicians.

So, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that widespread fraud and corruption were now a part of math society--just for the sake of argument--and say that someone were trying to expose this fraud, and they said they had proof.

Well, who would check it?

Mathematicians.

Get it now?

Yes, physicists could be tasked to check such a proof, but they'd have to be so tasked.

Now I know how hard it is to push this position as I do have proofs. One paper of mine actually did get past the gatekeepers and was published in an electronic math journal.

Someone posted that on the sci.math newsgroup and members of that Usenet community got together, posting out a strategy of emailing the journal, and when they did, the journal yanked my paper.

There is a lot wrong with that story.

Supposedly the journal process has a certain amount of solidity associated with it, but my paper was yanked overnight, immediately after some emails from sci.math posters.

That speaks of social power in math society.

The journal had my paper for nine months, but yanked it overnight?

That journal is now gone, which is also weird, but you can see some evidence still on one of its mirror sites:

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

And why did the journal shutdown?

A few months after the incident with my paper, they did.

My problem isn't that I don't have proof. My problem is that I have proof of corruption in math society, and mathematicians have to evaluate that proof.

And they have an enormous amount of social power.

Like consider what I call my prime counting function.

That's research in the area of prime numbers where I can actually show to a layperson the differences between my work and what mathematicians before me had, as well as even explain rather simply how it counts prime numbers!

That's with prime numbers.

People not mathematicians buy books about prime numbers.

They're buying into the mythos, as well as the knowledge.

Society says that mathematicians say what's true and important, the mathematicians make various declarations about prime numbers, much of it proven yes, but is it all?

And people buy on the basis of what they're told.

I can prove important mathematical research, and as long as other mathematicians refuse to acknowledge it, people sit back.

My latest research covers number theory that relates to factoring.

I've been arguing about it on Usenet for a while now, and some posters are settling into the position that if I have a key result in the factoring area, why haven't break-in's started on the Internet? Why aren't there successful mass hacker attacks against the Internet?

But again, I have proof of the results themselves, and the common sense position that sometimes it takes time.

And math society is going to give those people time.

It's the kind of behavior that's most puzzling, as some of you may think, well, ok, maybe mathematicians are corrupted in some way, but if really pushed, they'd do the right thing, notify society of something important, and just accept their fate.

Nope. They're waiting. The research I have is real. It does impact the factoring problem, and soon enough it may mean hordes of hackers and others persuing your personal data as easily as you cut on the television set to watch a show.

And mathematicians are clearly going to wait, hold out as long as they can, and wait until circumstances are forced on us all.

I still say that it's mostly society's fault, that you don't give people that kind of power, tell them to police themselves, and not expect some catastrophe down the road.

And it seems to me—from what I have proven—that we're coming up on the end of that road.

### Sunday, April 24, 2005

## JSH: Why would mathematicians lie?

Some of you may see all the smoke and wonder if there's fire: are mathematicians lying to suppress major discoveries that upset the status quo?

I can tell you, yes, but then there's the question, of why.

There's also the question of how.

First off, how would you know if a mathematician were lying to you about mathematics?

That's an important question.

Let's say some professional mathematician, a professor at a major university were talking to you about some mathematics, and lying to you quite boldly about that mathematics, how would you know?

For most of you I suspect the answer would be, you need another mathematician!

You'd need another mathematician to tell you if that person were lying through their teeth to you, or was telling you the truth.

So then, on to how math society is supposedly policed: mathematicians police themselves and each other.

What do I mean by "policed"?

Well, in any society, you have those knuckleheads who don't like playing by the rules, who lie, cheat and steal, so other people have to be on the lookout for them or they really muck up society.

Like, one of those knuckleheads might lie to you about mathematics, for some social gain, like maybe, just to impress you, you know?

So your protection is, what?

Your protection from a lying mathematician has to come from other mathematicians, as they police themselves.

So then, why would they lie?

Why do any people lie?

I do have more to it than that as guess what?

Mathematics is a difficult discipline.

It is difficult to understand many parts of it, takes a lot of work for most people to learn, and it is VERY difficult to make a major discovery, or even anything other than a minor discovery.

Most "mathematicians" will fail in their careers to make any major discovery.

We're talking about the majority of mathematicians.

But what if they fudge?

What if, they kind of just

The answer, mathematicians police themselves, so then, one would expect another mathematician or group of mathematicians to catch them.

But what if they don't?

I dare any of you to do a Google search on "math fraud" or "fraud in mathematics" or anything about fraud and mathematics, and see what you find.

You will find a field that appears to be pristine, perfect.

Mathematicians will appear to be beautifully, almost divine in their perfection, and lack of fraud, based on that search.

Succinctly, you won't find any cases.

I'm not saying few case. I'm saying you will not find ANY cases of caught fraud in the mathematics field.

Zero. None. Nil.

If you are a naive human being you will believe that mathematicians police themselves perfectly.

My degree is in physics as a I have a B.Sc. from Vanderbilt University.

So I'm like a quasi-physicists as I don't have a high enough degree to lay claim to the wonderful title: physicists.

But I have some training in the field and an interest in it.

Recently headlines were made about some researcher making up research.

He got caught.

Yes, you can find cases of fraud in the physics field, and the field of medicine, and probably just about any other field that you can think of, like even English Literature…but not in the field of mathematics.

So how do they get away with it?

Yes, I'm telling you that there must be fraud in that field, as mathematicians are human beings, whether you wish to believe it or not.

So how do they get away with it?

Well, if a mathematician is lying to you about mathematics, how do you tell?

Get it, yet?

If you had a job, where you and others in your job could lie, and make money, and get social prestige, where no one seemed capable of figuring it out because they thought of your field as too damn hard, might you not be tempted?

What if you gave in, and no police came, no one busted down your door, and you were not thrown ouf the field in disgrace?

What if instead, you got tenure, lots of young students to teach, and maybe wrote a textbook?

Society has given math society a license to steal by not policing it.

Do that search. If you're a true skeptic then you won't believe that mathematicians are saints.

You'll recognize that something is amiss in math land.

I can tell you, yes, but then there's the question, of why.

There's also the question of how.

First off, how would you know if a mathematician were lying to you about mathematics?

That's an important question.

Let's say some professional mathematician, a professor at a major university were talking to you about some mathematics, and lying to you quite boldly about that mathematics, how would you know?

For most of you I suspect the answer would be, you need another mathematician!

You'd need another mathematician to tell you if that person were lying through their teeth to you, or was telling you the truth.

So then, on to how math society is supposedly policed: mathematicians police themselves and each other.

What do I mean by "policed"?

Well, in any society, you have those knuckleheads who don't like playing by the rules, who lie, cheat and steal, so other people have to be on the lookout for them or they really muck up society.

Like, one of those knuckleheads might lie to you about mathematics, for some social gain, like maybe, just to impress you, you know?

So your protection is, what?

Your protection from a lying mathematician has to come from other mathematicians, as they police themselves.

So then, why would they lie?

Why do any people lie?

I do have more to it than that as guess what?

Mathematics is a difficult discipline.

It is difficult to understand many parts of it, takes a lot of work for most people to learn, and it is VERY difficult to make a major discovery, or even anything other than a minor discovery.

Most "mathematicians" will fail in their careers to make any major discovery.

We're talking about the majority of mathematicians.

But what if they fudge?

What if, they kind of just

**SAY**they have an important discovery, and then go from there? How can anybody tell?The answer, mathematicians police themselves, so then, one would expect another mathematician or group of mathematicians to catch them.

But what if they don't?

I dare any of you to do a Google search on "math fraud" or "fraud in mathematics" or anything about fraud and mathematics, and see what you find.

You will find a field that appears to be pristine, perfect.

Mathematicians will appear to be beautifully, almost divine in their perfection, and lack of fraud, based on that search.

Succinctly, you won't find any cases.

I'm not saying few case. I'm saying you will not find ANY cases of caught fraud in the mathematics field.

Zero. None. Nil.

If you are a naive human being you will believe that mathematicians police themselves perfectly.

My degree is in physics as a I have a B.Sc. from Vanderbilt University.

So I'm like a quasi-physicists as I don't have a high enough degree to lay claim to the wonderful title: physicists.

But I have some training in the field and an interest in it.

Recently headlines were made about some researcher making up research.

He got caught.

Yes, you can find cases of fraud in the physics field, and the field of medicine, and probably just about any other field that you can think of, like even English Literature…but not in the field of mathematics.

So how do they get away with it?

Yes, I'm telling you that there must be fraud in that field, as mathematicians are human beings, whether you wish to believe it or not.

So how do they get away with it?

Well, if a mathematician is lying to you about mathematics, how do you tell?

Get it, yet?

If you had a job, where you and others in your job could lie, and make money, and get social prestige, where no one seemed capable of figuring it out because they thought of your field as too damn hard, might you not be tempted?

What if you gave in, and no police came, no one busted down your door, and you were not thrown ouf the field in disgrace?

What if instead, you got tenure, lots of young students to teach, and maybe wrote a textbook?

Society has given math society a license to steal by not policing it.

Do that search. If you're a true skeptic then you won't believe that mathematicians are saints.

You'll recognize that something is amiss in math land.

## JSH: Why would mathematicians lie?

Some of you may see all the smoke and wonder if there's fire: are mathematicians lying to suppress major discoveries that upset the status quo?

I can tell you, yes, but then there's the question, of why.

There's also the question of how.

First off, how would you know if a mathematician were lying to you about mathematics?

That's an important question.

Let's say some professional mathematician, a professor at a major university were talking to you about some mathematics, and lying to you quite boldly about that mathematics, how would you know?

For most of you I suspect the answer would be, you need another mathematician!

You'd need another mathematician to tell you if that person were lying through their teeth to you, or was telling you the truth.

So then, on to how math society is supposedly policed: mathematicians police themselves and each other.

What do I mean by "policed"?

Well, in any society, you have those knuckleheads who don't like playing by the rules, who lie, cheat and steal, so other people have to be on the lookout for them or they really muck up society.

Like, one of those knuckleheads might lie to you about mathematics, for some social gain, like maybe, just to impress you, you know?

So your protection is, what?

Your protection from a lying mathematician has to come from other mathematicians, as they police themselves.

So then, why would they lie?

Why do any people lie?

I do have more to it than that as guess what?

Mathematics is a difficult discipline.

It is difficult to understand many parts of it, takes a lot of work for most people to learn, and it is VERY difficult to make a major discovery, or even anything other than a minor discovery.

Most "mathematicians" will fail in their careers to make any major discovery.

We're talking about the majority of mathematicians.

But what if they fudge?

What if, they kind of just

The answer, mathematicians police themselves, so then, one would expect another mathematician or group of mathematicians to catch them.

But what if they don't?

I dare any of you to do a Google search on "math fraud" or "fraud in mathematics" or anything about fraud and mathematics, and see what you find.

You will find a field that appears to be pristine, perfect.

Mathematicians will appear to be beautifully, almost divine in their perfection, and lack of fraud, based on that search.

Succinctly, you won't find any cases.

I'm not saying few case. I'm saying you will not find ANY cases of caught fraud in the mathematics field.

Zero. None. Nil.

If you are a naive human being you will believe that mathematicians police themselves perfectly.

My degree is in physics as a I have a B.Sc. from Vanderbilt University.

So I'm like a quasi-physicists as I don't have a high enough degree to lay claim to the wonderful title: physicists.

But I have some training in the field and an interest in it.

Recently headlines were made about some researcher making up research.

He got caught.

Yes, you can find cases of fraud in the physics field, and the field of medicine, and probably just about any other field that you can think of, like even English Literature…but not in the field of mathematics.

So how do they get away with it?

Yes, I'm telling you that there must be fraud in that field, as mathematicians are human beings, whether you wish to believe it or not.

So how do they get away with it?

Well, if a mathematician is lying to you about mathematics, how do you tell?

Get it, yet?

If you had a job, where you and others in your job could lie, and make money, and get social prestige, where no one seemed capable of figuring it out because they thought of your field as too damn hard, might you not be tempted?

What if you gave in, and no police came, no one busted down your door, and you were not thrown ouf the field in disgrace?

What if instead, you got tenure, lots of young students to teach, and maybe wrote a textbook?

Society has given math society a license to steal by not policing it.

Do that search. If you're a true skeptic then you won't believe that mathematicians are saints.

You'll recognize that something is amiss in math land.

I can tell you, yes, but then there's the question, of why.

There's also the question of how.

First off, how would you know if a mathematician were lying to you about mathematics?

That's an important question.

Let's say some professional mathematician, a professor at a major university were talking to you about some mathematics, and lying to you quite boldly about that mathematics, how would you know?

For most of you I suspect the answer would be, you need another mathematician!

You'd need another mathematician to tell you if that person were lying through their teeth to you, or was telling you the truth.

So then, on to how math society is supposedly policed: mathematicians police themselves and each other.

What do I mean by "policed"?

Well, in any society, you have those knuckleheads who don't like playing by the rules, who lie, cheat and steal, so other people have to be on the lookout for them or they really muck up society.

Like, one of those knuckleheads might lie to you about mathematics, for some social gain, like maybe, just to impress you, you know?

So your protection is, what?

Your protection from a lying mathematician has to come from other mathematicians, as they police themselves.

So then, why would they lie?

Why do any people lie?

I do have more to it than that as guess what?

Mathematics is a difficult discipline.

It is difficult to understand many parts of it, takes a lot of work for most people to learn, and it is VERY difficult to make a major discovery, or even anything other than a minor discovery.

Most "mathematicians" will fail in their careers to make any major discovery.

We're talking about the majority of mathematicians.

But what if they fudge?

What if, they kind of just

**SAY**they have an important discovery, and then go from there? How can anybody tell?The answer, mathematicians police themselves, so then, one would expect another mathematician or group of mathematicians to catch them.

But what if they don't?

I dare any of you to do a Google search on "math fraud" or "fraud in mathematics" or anything about fraud and mathematics, and see what you find.

You will find a field that appears to be pristine, perfect.

Mathematicians will appear to be beautifully, almost divine in their perfection, and lack of fraud, based on that search.

Succinctly, you won't find any cases.

I'm not saying few case. I'm saying you will not find ANY cases of caught fraud in the mathematics field.

Zero. None. Nil.

If you are a naive human being you will believe that mathematicians police themselves perfectly.

My degree is in physics as a I have a B.Sc. from Vanderbilt University.

So I'm like a quasi-physicists as I don't have a high enough degree to lay claim to the wonderful title: physicists.

But I have some training in the field and an interest in it.

Recently headlines were made about some researcher making up research.

He got caught.

Yes, you can find cases of fraud in the physics field, and the field of medicine, and probably just about any other field that you can think of, like even English Literature…but not in the field of mathematics.

So how do they get away with it?

Yes, I'm telling you that there must be fraud in that field, as mathematicians are human beings, whether you wish to believe it or not.

So how do they get away with it?

Well, if a mathematician is lying to you about mathematics, how do you tell?

Get it, yet?

If you had a job, where you and others in your job could lie, and make money, and get social prestige, where no one seemed capable of figuring it out because they thought of your field as too damn hard, might you not be tempted?

What if you gave in, and no police came, no one busted down your door, and you were not thrown ouf the field in disgrace?

What if instead, you got tenure, lots of young students to teach, and maybe wrote a textbook?

Society has given math society a license to steal by not policing it.

Do that search. If you're a true skeptic then you won't believe that mathematicians are saints.

You'll recognize that something is amiss in math land.

### Tuesday, April 19, 2005

## Surrogate factoring, mapping, hyperbolas

A sci.math poster has turned to just outright lying, putting up a thread claiming that surrogate factoring has completely failed.

Such behavior is the mark of desperation, and I figure I should be so kind as to just shut down avenues for rational claims against the SFT, so that you can see that those people arguing with me are basically, well, you come up with the word.

The surrogate factoring theorem (SFT) maps factors in rationals, which some have made a big deal out of, but those of you who know your mathematics, know that a factorization into two factors is just a hyperbola.

So when I have

f_1 f_2 = M^2 (M^2 - j^2)

and graph f_1 and f_2, I get a hyperbola, where by making them rationals, I just gap it, but not in a visible way. That is, the hyperbola is not continuous, but if you graph it, it looks continuous, even with just rationals.

Now the other number is

g_1 g_2 = j^2 (M^2 - j^2)

and again, you get a hyperbola, just like before.

The SFT maps f_1 and f_2 to g_1 and g_2, so guess what?

For each f_1 and f_2, you can put a dot on your graph, and you get g_1 and g_2, so you can put a dot for them as well.

If you trace out the graphs you get two hyperbolas.

The theorem requires that you get the full hyperbolas over rationals, and the most astute of you can look at the theorem and see that actually it would work over complex numbers to map two hyperbolas together over the complex plane.

So it's not rational to claim that you only get one type of factor that matters to human beings, as the connection is between two hyperbolas.

Posters are just lying, and in looking at the lying, I've found it fascinating not only that they do it, but that they seem to be confident in their lies.

Now for some of you visualization will be key, as mapping two hyperbolas, you can ask yourselves how can one hyperbola, map to another, perfectly, yet somehow be picky?

Such behavior is the mark of desperation, and I figure I should be so kind as to just shut down avenues for rational claims against the SFT, so that you can see that those people arguing with me are basically, well, you come up with the word.

The surrogate factoring theorem (SFT) maps factors in rationals, which some have made a big deal out of, but those of you who know your mathematics, know that a factorization into two factors is just a hyperbola.

So when I have

f_1 f_2 = M^2 (M^2 - j^2)

and graph f_1 and f_2, I get a hyperbola, where by making them rationals, I just gap it, but not in a visible way. That is, the hyperbola is not continuous, but if you graph it, it looks continuous, even with just rationals.

Now the other number is

g_1 g_2 = j^2 (M^2 - j^2)

and again, you get a hyperbola, just like before.

The SFT maps f_1 and f_2 to g_1 and g_2, so guess what?

For each f_1 and f_2, you can put a dot on your graph, and you get g_1 and g_2, so you can put a dot for them as well.

If you trace out the graphs you get two hyperbolas.

The theorem requires that you get the full hyperbolas over rationals, and the most astute of you can look at the theorem and see that actually it would work over complex numbers to map two hyperbolas together over the complex plane.

So it's not rational to claim that you only get one type of factor that matters to human beings, as the connection is between two hyperbolas.

Posters are just lying, and in looking at the lying, I've found it fascinating not only that they do it, but that they seem to be confident in their lies.

Now for some of you visualization will be key, as mapping two hyperbolas, you can ask yourselves how can one hyperbola, map to another, perfectly, yet somehow be picky?

### Friday, April 15, 2005

## JSH: No cover at the end

I explained years ago that I would shake the entire discipline of mathematics worldwide, at its foundations.

Some of you still don't seem to understand what that means.

I'm hitting at all the key areas by which modern "mathematicians" have defined themselves over the years and one of the big areas is "pure math".

I'm exposing the "pure math" lie.

My reason for doing so is that math people have used that as an excuse to come up with "proofs" that are not correct, which are accepted as being correct as the results are judged by committee.

Without the real world to force the issue, such results have sat in the body of mathematics now for over a hundred years.

Years ago it might have been hard to see how I'd so greatly impact the foundations of math society, but today you have all the tools in sight, and they are being engaged.

Three key results across number theory, near full deployment, and ready to be totally unleashed, at my command.

The end is in sight.

Some of you still don't seem to understand what that means.

I'm hitting at all the key areas by which modern "mathematicians" have defined themselves over the years and one of the big areas is "pure math".

I'm exposing the "pure math" lie.

My reason for doing so is that math people have used that as an excuse to come up with "proofs" that are not correct, which are accepted as being correct as the results are judged by committee.

Without the real world to force the issue, such results have sat in the body of mathematics now for over a hundred years.

Years ago it might have been hard to see how I'd so greatly impact the foundations of math society, but today you have all the tools in sight, and they are being engaged.

Three key results across number theory, near full deployment, and ready to be totally unleashed, at my command.

The end is in sight.

### Tuesday, April 12, 2005

## Crossing boundaries, math people invade

I mentioned that I had a blog called mathforprofit which I deleted a few months ago, and some person took it over, and started posting as me. They also named a city and copied a photo from the web and put it up.

They also put links on the blog to some various website that attack me or my work, including Crank.net, which is a website put up by Erik Max Francis, a former regular on the sci.math newsgroup, who used to argue with me, years ago.

They cross boundaries and invade in ways that most people would find sick.

That's the real math world, and it's not something you can easily just look away from, as it's behavior that could happen to you if you post a lot on Usenet.

They are mapping out a way to stalk and harass a Usenet poster who doesn't do what some group wants.

And what do they want?

The posters on sci.math have made it very clear that they want me to stop posting on the newsgroup.

Over the years they have gotten more and more creative in finding ways to push me to not post.

Some of them claim that I'm the one who crosses boundaries, but mostly I criticize the math community, pointing out that math people, including mathematicians are not who you think they are.

Often they'll put up the case of David Ullrich, where I contacted Oklahoma State University in response to some of his posts, to claim that I am the one crossing boundaries.

But David Ullrich introduced race in a post claiming he'd been angry at a post of mine and had thought a racial slur was the "perfectly appropriate reply" but been talked out of it.

So what if I tell you that I think a racial slur is an appropriate reply to a post of yours but someone talked me out of it?

Come on, adults aren't taken in by such childish games.

But the sci.math people have argued about it for

Introducing race in Usenet discussions as a tactic is crossing boundaries.

And remember, the problem here for these people is my posting.

So what if they say it's not that I post but what I post?

Usenet is about being able to speak your mind. I talk math, and math people come after me for it, in ever more creative ways.

If you are naive then you will believe that they are just doing this for no reason, but people do not invade for no reason.

They do not go after one person year after year after year just because that person is mouthing off and criticizing mathematicians.

I think some of you are fatalistic on the subject, believing that I may be another case of some "genius" who is hounded while he is alive, maybe only to be known for the reality of the importance of his work when he is dead.

Yes, it's a sad world. Here Usenet is a place where groups of people congregate to work out their strategy and hound one particular person, both on Usenet and off, and somehow no one will do anything about it.

I was really surprised when Google replied to me that they would do nothing about someone posting as me.

But that's the world we live in.

[A reply to someone who wrote that nobody has had any success in talking sense or even common decency into James.]

I post on math newsgroups and in response people from those newsgroups go on the web to put up flame websites, sci.math'ers have emailed a journal that was publishing a paper of mine, posters from sci.math have tracked me to other forums to harass my postings with their replies, and now some person has taken over a blog name to post as me.

It's a war.

So you put up the "bad things" from your view that I've done.

And I put up the invasive tactics that sci.math'ers are currently engaging in and both sides say they're right.

What's the difference between any other war?

You say I'm wrong and your tactics are justified.

I say I'm right and my tactics are justified.

The problem I see though is that math people are escalating the war, and given human nature, it's problematic where they might go.

And remember, the main problem here is that I post on math newsgroups and certain regulars on those newsgroups think they can manage them.

I refuse to be managed and they've escalated over the years in their tactics meant to stop me from posting.

Yup, the big war over the math really is about my posting despite repeated requests from certain newsgroup regulars for me to stop posting in what they see as their newsgroup, where sci.math is the hotspot.

It goes to what I say about math people making up their own rules.

So to them, it makes sense that they can control Usenet, and decide who can post or not. If you refuse to follow their rules they get creative in coming after you.

I'm just increasingly worried about how creative the math people will get in their quest.

They also put links on the blog to some various website that attack me or my work, including Crank.net, which is a website put up by Erik Max Francis, a former regular on the sci.math newsgroup, who used to argue with me, years ago.

They cross boundaries and invade in ways that most people would find sick.

That's the real math world, and it's not something you can easily just look away from, as it's behavior that could happen to you if you post a lot on Usenet.

They are mapping out a way to stalk and harass a Usenet poster who doesn't do what some group wants.

And what do they want?

The posters on sci.math have made it very clear that they want me to stop posting on the newsgroup.

Over the years they have gotten more and more creative in finding ways to push me to not post.

Some of them claim that I'm the one who crosses boundaries, but mostly I criticize the math community, pointing out that math people, including mathematicians are not who you think they are.

Often they'll put up the case of David Ullrich, where I contacted Oklahoma State University in response to some of his posts, to claim that I am the one crossing boundaries.

But David Ullrich introduced race in a post claiming he'd been angry at a post of mine and had thought a racial slur was the "perfectly appropriate reply" but been talked out of it.

So what if I tell you that I think a racial slur is an appropriate reply to a post of yours but someone talked me out of it?

Come on, adults aren't taken in by such childish games.

But the sci.math people have argued about it for

**YEARS**, defending the math professor, and at times hurling the case out of the blue against me.Introducing race in Usenet discussions as a tactic is crossing boundaries.

And remember, the problem here for these people is my posting.

So what if they say it's not that I post but what I post?

Usenet is about being able to speak your mind. I talk math, and math people come after me for it, in ever more creative ways.

If you are naive then you will believe that they are just doing this for no reason, but people do not invade for no reason.

They do not go after one person year after year after year just because that person is mouthing off and criticizing mathematicians.

I think some of you are fatalistic on the subject, believing that I may be another case of some "genius" who is hounded while he is alive, maybe only to be known for the reality of the importance of his work when he is dead.

Yes, it's a sad world. Here Usenet is a place where groups of people congregate to work out their strategy and hound one particular person, both on Usenet and off, and somehow no one will do anything about it.

I was really surprised when Google replied to me that they would do nothing about someone posting as me.

But that's the world we live in.

[A reply to someone who wrote that nobody has had any success in talking sense or even common decency into James.]

I post on math newsgroups and in response people from those newsgroups go on the web to put up flame websites, sci.math'ers have emailed a journal that was publishing a paper of mine, posters from sci.math have tracked me to other forums to harass my postings with their replies, and now some person has taken over a blog name to post as me.

It's a war.

So you put up the "bad things" from your view that I've done.

And I put up the invasive tactics that sci.math'ers are currently engaging in and both sides say they're right.

What's the difference between any other war?

You say I'm wrong and your tactics are justified.

I say I'm right and my tactics are justified.

The problem I see though is that math people are escalating the war, and given human nature, it's problematic where they might go.

And remember, the main problem here is that I post on math newsgroups and certain regulars on those newsgroups think they can manage them.

I refuse to be managed and they've escalated over the years in their tactics meant to stop me from posting.

Yup, the big war over the math really is about my posting despite repeated requests from certain newsgroup regulars for me to stop posting in what they see as their newsgroup, where sci.math is the hotspot.

It goes to what I say about math people making up their own rules.

So to them, it makes sense that they can control Usenet, and decide who can post or not. If you refuse to follow their rules they get creative in coming after you.

I'm just increasingly worried about how creative the math people will get in their quest.

### Sunday, April 10, 2005

## JSH: What's happening now?

As I've said many times, I use Usenet to brainstorm, and I tried using it to do a thorough critique for a while, but went back to brainstorming when I finally had the surrogate factoring theorem.

I promptly wrote a paper covering the surrogate factoring theorem, but haven't presented it to a journal yet, as I'm still musing.

I am looking for any objections that find a serious problem with it, as well as just finding that I'm spending time wondering about it and wondering about it and wondering about it.

Posters have very little impact in terms of the big picture.

Like I did contact the NSA months ago, when they weren't very interested, but now I might contact them again, except I'm still not sure about that, as I don't want to piss them off!!!

You don't mess with the NSA, and I feel hesitant about being pushy with them.

Then again, I may just sit on it for a while and think, before sending it off to some journal.

More than anything else, I find myself curious, as it's sort of odd to go over carefully the mathematics, not see anything wrong, and not see the expected reaction from the world.

By now someone should have realized that it could work and something, I don't know exactly what, but something, should have happened.

With the surrogate factoring theorem, it's not even hard, so basically, anyone with a little knowledge can try it.

It seems to me that it's Fate, as if this research is what I think it is, then it will open the Internet wide, forcing new methods for security, and basically changing the entire Internet.

But it could take a while before the information is absorbed as the belief that RSA is a secure technique is so strong.

Social beliefs have a real power, and for now, I feel confident that the world is more or less secure because people believe it is secure, without regard to the mathematical reality.

There is what is mathematically true, and there is what people believe is mathematically true, and these can be two different things.

While people believe in RSA, then it will to some extent still work.

Except with people like me, who, if it's easy to work out, can now use the surrogate factoring theorem and factor really big numbers.

So the people who believe won't try or check, while the people who don't may, and the world will keep turning, either way.

I promptly wrote a paper covering the surrogate factoring theorem, but haven't presented it to a journal yet, as I'm still musing.

I am looking for any objections that find a serious problem with it, as well as just finding that I'm spending time wondering about it and wondering about it and wondering about it.

Posters have very little impact in terms of the big picture.

Like I did contact the NSA months ago, when they weren't very interested, but now I might contact them again, except I'm still not sure about that, as I don't want to piss them off!!!

You don't mess with the NSA, and I feel hesitant about being pushy with them.

Then again, I may just sit on it for a while and think, before sending it off to some journal.

More than anything else, I find myself curious, as it's sort of odd to go over carefully the mathematics, not see anything wrong, and not see the expected reaction from the world.

By now someone should have realized that it could work and something, I don't know exactly what, but something, should have happened.

With the surrogate factoring theorem, it's not even hard, so basically, anyone with a little knowledge can try it.

It seems to me that it's Fate, as if this research is what I think it is, then it will open the Internet wide, forcing new methods for security, and basically changing the entire Internet.

But it could take a while before the information is absorbed as the belief that RSA is a secure technique is so strong.

Social beliefs have a real power, and for now, I feel confident that the world is more or less secure because people believe it is secure, without regard to the mathematical reality.

There is what is mathematically true, and there is what people believe is mathematically true, and these can be two different things.

While people believe in RSA, then it will to some extent still work.

Except with people like me, who, if it's easy to work out, can now use the surrogate factoring theorem and factor really big numbers.

So the people who believe won't try or check, while the people who don't may, and the world will keep turning, either way.

### Friday, April 01, 2005

## JSH: It's over

The surrogate factoring theorem allows you to factor one number by factoring another in a direct connection.

That theorem allows people who believe it's true to crack RSA, crack encryption and basically wreak havoc at will upon the world.

There's an odd situation here though, as mathematicians as a body are incapable of accepting that truth, so they will fight that truth, and help hackers and others who exploit it.

They will fight any suggestion that RSA is broken, and will explain away cases that indicate it is.

The end result of all of this will be a complete collapse of the US economy, which will, oddly enough, lead to an economic boom for the rest of the world.

It's a surgical operation. The precision of it is unfathomable.

At the end of the process, the world will be turned upside down, with the US on the bottom, with US scientists, engineers and mathematicians at the bottom of the heap, while the rest of the world will experience a renaissance.

As we speak, puzzled hackers around the world are easily breaking into computer systems relying on RSA encryption—puzzled that no one is reacting, no headlines, no trumpeting around the world that RSA is broken.

My message to them is—the US is brain dead. George W. Bush is a symptom of a deeper problem, and the country is basically no longer thinking.

To me it is a time of deep sadness, as my country had been my life, my inheritance, my hope for the future, a place that to me represented the best and the worst, but most importantly hope.

My mathematical experiences have shown me that truth has left here, and must now go to other shores for the hope of the future.

I still cannot quite believe it. The pain of it is immense, but I refuse to give up. What America represented can live on, despite the loss.

It must live on.

The future is tomorrow, and not even a day.

And that future is bright.

That theorem allows people who believe it's true to crack RSA, crack encryption and basically wreak havoc at will upon the world.

There's an odd situation here though, as mathematicians as a body are incapable of accepting that truth, so they will fight that truth, and help hackers and others who exploit it.

They will fight any suggestion that RSA is broken, and will explain away cases that indicate it is.

The end result of all of this will be a complete collapse of the US economy, which will, oddly enough, lead to an economic boom for the rest of the world.

It's a surgical operation. The precision of it is unfathomable.

At the end of the process, the world will be turned upside down, with the US on the bottom, with US scientists, engineers and mathematicians at the bottom of the heap, while the rest of the world will experience a renaissance.

As we speak, puzzled hackers around the world are easily breaking into computer systems relying on RSA encryption—puzzled that no one is reacting, no headlines, no trumpeting around the world that RSA is broken.

My message to them is—the US is brain dead. George W. Bush is a symptom of a deeper problem, and the country is basically no longer thinking.

To me it is a time of deep sadness, as my country had been my life, my inheritance, my hope for the future, a place that to me represented the best and the worst, but most importantly hope.

My mathematical experiences have shown me that truth has left here, and must now go to other shores for the hope of the future.

I still cannot quite believe it. The pain of it is immense, but I refuse to give up. What America represented can live on, despite the loss.

It must live on.

The future is tomorrow, and not even a day.

And that future is bright.