Friday, January 27, 2006


Cancels and google

Well I can see this cancel attack thing someone was talking about as it looks like Google accepts the cancels so a lot of posts aren't showing up in Google groups though I suspect they are showing up for people who have other systems.

Oh well, I'm not that excited about it. This story for me is so weird already that the weird elements are just par for the course.

I've been talking about this for years now, and various odd people with their agendas come and go.

Years ago on sci.math some person thought it brilliant to have a robot program reply to all my posts deleting out what I said to flame me and later post a link to a flame website.

The weirdest thing to me was not even that the sci.math newsgroup cheered that program and the unknown to me person who did it, but when someone came along and questioned the decency of it, they attacked him en masse, and that wasn't what was weird to me.

What was weird was, he caved, and conceded to the group.

So he went back on what he posted before to suddenly say that having some robot program stalking a poster was an ok thing.

That to me says a lot about the mathematical world, the power of the group to force people to go against what they profess to believe.

I see mathematicians as groupthink people. They believe what they tell each other to believe.

Monday, January 23, 2006


What will happen

Eventually as they look for an integer counterexample, or lie claiming they have one, or try to use mathematical ideas I've proven wrong to say I'm wrong, and I challenge them to stick with integers, the posters on sci.math will quiet down, and eventually stop, except for a few of the diehards who will reply with mostly nonsense.

That's the pattern I've seen repeatedly, which is why this newsgroup is part of the discussion.

You can decide that there's no way I can be right, and go with the quiet.

Remember, I communicated with Barry Mazur, sent him an early draft of the paper that was published and then yanked in that bizarre tale where the math journal died.

He commented on it, encouraged me a bit, asked a question about the mathematics to which I replied and he didn't reply back.

An early version of the paper went to Andrew Granville to consider for publication in the New York Journal of Mathematics. He said it was up to his chief editor who said the paper was too short for their journal.

I explained the ideas in person at my alma mater to a Ralph McKenzie.

I have mathematical proof. I have a peer reviewed and published result.

But what mathematician wants to step up to the rest of his colleagues and say the theory of ideals has been proven wrong?

Do you? Would you? Could you?

Over a hundred years of mathematical effort, down the toilet.

Papers thought brilliant—trash.

Entire textbooks, worthless.

What about poor Andrew Wiles? Can you imagine being him?

Why not feel the humanity? Why not be what mathematics never can be—warm and caring about human reality?

But that's mathematics. If you didn't understand mathematics fully before then understand it now.

Your feelings do NOT matter. Your needs DO NOT MATTER..

What is mathematically correct is true despite your needs and feelings.

If you wish to switch to something else other than mathematics, then fine, be religious.

Practice mathematics as a religion and not as a working reality.

Most people do.

Few can tolerate the reality of the mathematical world, no matter what people say.

That's why people like me are so few in history. Most people can't survive the brutal reality of absolute truth.

At the end of the day, deep down you hope that mathematics cares about you personally and feels your human needs, when She just doesn't give a damn.

[A reply to someone who asked why, according to James, Barry Mazur did not reply.]

Actually as a sidepoint I think it was because of the Barry Mazur's email that Ralph McKenzie agreed to meet with me, though being an alumnus probably helped as well.

I forwarded the email to him after he claimed puzzlement with my original paper.

He still claimed puzzlement but said that we could work it out on the chalkboard, so I went to Nashville and explained it to him.

What's the point of Barry Mazur seeing an early draft of my paper and commenting on it?

Well, if he's brilliant, then there's no way he could have missed the implications. If he saw an error then he should have either said so, or at least—not replied.

His reply showed that he'd read over the result and had at least some grasp of it, and IF HE IS BRILLIANT then he loses plausible deniability.

His best defense is that he's not brilliant, and was too stupid to grasp the full implications of the result.

If I were him, I'd use that defense as the alternatives are kind of grim.

And make no mistake, I mention his name quite deliberately as from where I sit, soon enough, his career is over, in disgrace.


JSH: Facts don't lie

The sci.math newsgroup relies on social tools.

That's why you needed an email campagin to shoot down my paper.

That's why so many of you use insults and namecalling.

I've watched the group behavior here for years.

You follow standard herd behavior.

There are a few posters you follow as leaders, and you have some standard beliefs that you hold onto no matter what.

A lot of your reactions are mindless and knee-jerk, reflexive.

What made any of you think that you are mathematicians?

Notice how I am, see how little social crap affects me?

Notice my ability to function under the kind of social pressure that would force most of you to curl up into a little ball and cry.

Why? How can I do that?

Any clue? Any?

Um, what if it's because actually having mathematical proof means you know that you are right no matter what people say or believe?

What if knowing that numbers will behave according to theory you've found gives you that confidence that can infuriate people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND mathematics?

You are social animals. What do you know of truth?

Sunday, January 22, 2006


JSH: Communication breakdown

Yuck. I hate feeling a need to come back to Usenet to push forward the reality that a simple counterexample would exist against my work--if it were wrong--but I'm dealing with few options.

That shutting down of an entire math journal was a good display of power of this newsgroup.

You people killed a math journal, sure, only an electronic one, but still...

And there goes the problem. I am FURIOUS about this situation.

There has been a communication breakdown for some years now and I find myself making angry postings and regretting them later, as the situation makes me so angry.

The purpose of this brief return to Usenet was to highlight the reality that no true counterexample to my research exists, and to point out an area where lots of supporting examples exist--where sci.math'ers themselves found one years ago--but also emphasize that sci.math'ers and mathematicians in general are ignoring the truth here.

But the reality is that I don't have a lot of options. Publication in the math field is political. I got one through, but math editors are on guard now, and the defense of the field is total.

The evidence that would refute me is just a single integer, but it's mathematics. Mathematical proof is perfect, so there is no counterexample, meaning that posters have to rely on social crap, as I call it.

So the impasse remains.

And every once in a while I get really, really mad and make posts that reflect that deep anger, but that's not constructive.

There is almost a total communication breakdown here.

It's time for me to use willpower and move on until the next time.

I've made my point.

My equation

a^3 + 3(-1+xf^2)a^2 - f^2(x^3 f^4 - 3x^2 f^2 + 3x) = 0

reveals the truth. You people can't actually make an objective reply, but you'll keep lying anyway, as nothing there has changed.

And I'll still be angry, but I'll do my best to quit posting again, as I've achieved my objective.

I can do this at will, after some months or even years to keep pointing out the truth, and maybe it won't matter, but at least it's something I can do, and not feel completely powerless here.

Mathematical proof hasn't mattered.

Publication in a math journal hasn't mattered.

Direct contacts with supposedly top mathematicians like Barry Mazur and Andrew Granville hasn't mattered.

Contacting a "leading" mathematician at my own school, visiting him and explaining in person getting agreement on all the key points hasn't mattered.

And maybe most importantly, getting a grad student to go through the argument and re-work it in his own words--supposedly the last defense against what is happening happening, going to grad students--hasn't mattered. I hope the Cornell University math department is proud of their notoriety.

I wonder if any of them wonder who the grad student is?

I doubt it. Human denial in the face of unwanted truths is a proven commodity.

Time to exercise some will power and stop posting for a while, until the next time, and the next gesture against the thundering herd.


JSH: Power of prediction

Having correct mathematics means you can say something based on mathematical proof without concern that the mathematical realities won't follow that proof.

Mathematics is a perfect field. If you are correct, you are perfectly correct.

Your predictions are then absolutely perfect, through infinity.

It's power like no other.

It's part of what gives for some an aura of mysticism and power to the mathematical field: perfect prediction.

So I have the ability, since I have the correct mathematics, to point out an area of perfect prediction, and you can, because you're flawed people, fight, as people have often fought, against mathematical absolutes.

I think it telling that no one still will give the example that sci.math'ers themselves came up with years ago with

a^3 + 3(-1+xf^2)a^2 - f^2(x^3 f^4 - 3x^2 f^2 + 3x) = 0

where you people found a rational solution, looking for a counterexample, and yes, one of the letters was different as I used m instead of x, but you know that doesn't matter, as I see it as proof that some of you deliberately lie.

The posts are out there. Somewhere. Someone can find them and show them, so why not just post the example now versus waiting?

Because you are trying to fight against mathematical absolutes. Funny.

You know you lie. You know that the mathematics supports me. But you know that the group supports you and wants to believe you.

But I can slowly chip away at you for years with the facts. The mathematics won't change, and eventually people may realize you're lying to them, and get upset.

Or they may not. Who cares? The mathematics is mine. THAT knowledge gives me that confidence that it has given real mathematicians throughout history.

You can fake being a mathematician if you wish. You can come here and lie all you want, and get people who cheer you and boo me, but that's why you have those stories of mathematicians who don't give a damn about what society thinks of them because they have mathematical proof.

Some of you may have noticed that I seem to get a sort of giddy joy out of posting on sci.math when there are all sorts of negatives tossed at me and a lot of social crap as I call it.

What gives? Imagine you found people who were willing to argue with you about 2+2=4, and you could count out on your fingers or count out on their fingers and show over and over again that 2+2=4, but they ridiculed you and made fun of you about this simple thing because they couldn't get it.

What if you just got a kick out of poking them? And watching them go through their gyrations?

One of the greatest fears of those with real power is the abuse of that power. I have the correct mathematics and not a lot of reason to care one way or the other about playing by the rules that a lot of people do. I can poke you people and watch you dance.

And I can do it when I want, and wonder about you, as I do a lot. You seem to value this social crap. You need to have that group feeling and you think it matters when you make these posts calling me names or saying I'm wrong when I can prove I'm right.

I try to escape the fascination with you, but I find myself still poking you, like now.

It's like, you're these weird primitives that I can't quite get enough of.

There's something flawed about your brains. Or your brains are too limited to fully grasp the situation.

I find you, fascinating.


So why lie?

For many of you none of this will seem possible until I explain why mathematicians would think they could ignore or lie about a result proving the theory of ideals is flawed, and get away with it.

If you look at all into this story you see a Who's Who of names like Barry Mazur, Andrew Granville, and Ralph McKenzie at my alma mater Vanderbilit University. Or Ioannis Argyros the chief editor who gave in to the sci.math'ers and even mention of a math grad student at Cornell University who so far I've kept anonymous.

How could all those people along with so many others on the sci.math newsgroup work to hide a huge result, and think they could get away with it?

The answer to that question is important and the relevance to this group is, I think, that mathematics is important to the field of cryptology and you are, I think, a more practical group, with a lot of powerful math software you're quite adept with, and less reason to fight to hold on to something like the theory of ideals.

But I know you need to know why and how.

The best explanation I have is that they didn't think it possible for me to prove that I'm right in such a way that I couldn't be ignored by reasonable people, not number theorists.

And why has a lot to do with the ambiguity in expressing irrational solutions to polynomials.

The easiest way to explain that is with a simple example:


Since -2 or 2 is a solution to sqrt(4), it is true that there are two solution to that expression and they are 3 and -1.

And, of course, I could just as easily use


as it has the exact same solutions.

With integer solutions you can solve and see but with irrationals, like


there is no such resolution.

My result covers irrational solutions where it's impossible to resolve radicals to actually see the answer directly, so mathematicians who know this could suppose that as long as the proofs were ignored, I couldn't provide any other evidence to prove my case.

They would be safe because no one could SEE my results directly, because with irrationals, it's usually impossible to directly see factors, unless it's something trivial like sqrt(6), because you can't resolve the radicals, like with the square root function because it has two solutions.

But, if that was their reasoning—I am speculating—they didn't pay enough attention to the full theory I have as it covers rational solutions as well, so someone can directly show the result, using integers.

Why didn't it occur to them?

I don't know. They focus on irrationals. The failure in the theory they have is with irrationals and not rationals. The cross-over from my more powerful theory didn't jump out at them, or something else.

I'm speculating. I found their behavior peculiar.

For a long time I actually believed that I could just present the proof and SOME mathematician somewhere would just go with mathematical proof, but years have gone by, a math journal is dead, and so far there has still been this refusal to follow the rules.

So I'm on sci.crypt because I have a sense that here things are a bit different than sci.math and I'm stuck. I have gone to journals. I have gone directly to mathematicians.

I had freaking Barry Mazur and Andrew Granville looking over this research.

One huge surprise for me was when the editors at the Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics published my paper and I naively thought it was finally over.

I figured, the journal followed the rules and published the paper, so maybe now there can be some movement on this, and then some sci.math'ers got it yanked by an email campaign—something that's not supposed to be possible.

It is an extraordinary situation because it is so huge. Over a hundred years of number theory are affected by my result, where the wrong ideas could flower because they covered irrationals.

So mathematicians could make claims about numbers where the claims were false, but how do you check?

What's so freaking brilliant about my mathematical tools? How are they so goddamn powerful?

Back to my simple example:


It has two solutions where one has 3 as a factor and one is coprime to 3, as the solutions are 3 and -1.

What if someone figured out analytical tools that allowed you to prove that without having to resolve the square root?

Then without even bothering with sqrt(4) = +/- 2 you could prove that one root had 3 as a factor while one is coprime to 3.

My research is a way to ask questions about factors of irrational roots without having to resolve things like the square root, and for that reason it has cross-over, as it applies when you CAN resolve solutions as well.

That's a crucial point: the theory applies to BOTH rational and irrational solutions without caring about such things.

So what it says CAN be checked, and that's why I'm pushing that now. Some people, if they reasoned as I think they did, miscalculated by not taking that into account.

So with

a^3 + 3(-1+xf^2)a^2 - f^2(x^3 f^4 - 3x^2 f^2 + 3x) = 0

you can find integer solutions where f is a non-zero non-unit algebraic integer coprime to x which is a non-zero algebraic integer, and SEE directly that my theory works!

Note, I have the mathematical proof. The problem here is that the mathematics I've found uproots over a hundred years of number theory showing it to be invalid, which is an impact on the mathematical field like no other in its entire history.

Easy to dismiss such a claim and lots of social reasons to try and hide it.

One immediate impact of this result is to take away some rather dramatic claims of proof, like, well, like that Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem, as the tools he used are shown to be, useless.

My understanding is that Barry Mazur is a friend of Andrew Wiles.

Human nature is human nature. People can do the damndest things when they don't think it all the way through, and here, notice how hard it is for me to push this result, despite mathematical proof.

The sad reality is that if those people made that calculation, if Barry Mazur or Andrew Granville or any number of others thought about the odds of my getting it across that the theory of ideals is flawed, and concluded that the truth was unlikely to be known, then so far the reality has shown the odds are indeed long.

But in situations like these it is often about time. But once you make one bad decision, you can feel trapped by it, and keep playing the odds.

I have gone to the journals. Hell, one died. I have talked to mathematicians directly.

I can talk and talk and talk but if people trust the wrong people, or just can't accept that there could be a hundred year plus problem that escaped everyone, then yeah, the odds are long.

But such odds have been beaten before. History shows that the truth comes out, so my best guess is that they're playing for time.

If it takes decades then they could be retired and well away before the real fallout begins.

Just speculation, but I'm dealing with an extraordinary situation where I managed to contact the right people and put the information in front of them, and they didn't do what they were supposed to do.

You people have the tools to put up the evidence to end this, and force the situation.

Sometimes I wonder if it isn't better to just let the flawed mathematics stay in place.

Humanity got by for over a hundred years with number theory over irrationals that was wrong, so maybe that field is just not important enough for all the drama.

Maybe not. Maybe what's the real story here is that certain fields in mathematics are NOT actually all that important, so it really doesn't matter to the world what people in those particular fields believe, wrong or right.


JSH: Why wait?

So now you know. I can compile a list of examples using

a^3 + 3(-1+xf^2)a^2 - f^2(x^3 f^4 - 3x^2 f^2 + 3x) = 0

with INTEGERS where my research is shown to be correct.

Sure, people could claim that I'm cherrypicking and wouldn't show a counter example, or just dismiss saying examples do not prove.

But what if I did have a thousand, or a hundred thousand cases piled up showing that my theory worked in every one and you could show none?

So why not do it? Why not at least try and end this?

You still don't get it, do you?

Some of you still have jobs as math professors now because I let you.

I will continue to let you, indefinitely.

But one day, I'll decide that my vacation is over and I'm ready to actually step onto the world stage and take the position that is now mine because of these discoveries.

And when I feel mature enough and ready for that burden, then I will end this, and for some of you that day will be the end of your careers.

I don't think it could possibly take me more than five more years to get a handle on all of this and finally be able to accept the burden.

So, appreciate the time I'm giving you, or don't, if you're too stupid to realize that it is time I'm giving you. But stay out of my way, and I'll, for the moment, stay out of yours.

I'm done posting for now, though I'll check back to see if someone dares to try and post some examples, as they will only show I am right.

I kind of wonder about you people though, as your future is in my hands. And it's not really that surprising that given the opportunity to sit back and mature versus dealing with a tremendous crush of world attention, I let you go on as I do.

But how do you live with that? How do you go on, make plans for your future and your families knowing that the reason you can is that I am still working on growing up?

That I just don't feel like dealing with the really big stuff yet?

I think replies here will be eery to people in the future, as some of you post big and proud and they read what you said, here, when they know that I was telling the truth, and they know what happens to some of you.

Maybe that's the point of this post.

I want them to see those replies.

To the future.

Saturday, January 21, 2006


Brutal result, actually unanswerable

The reality for those who actually checked me on the mathematics has been clear for a while as there's just no mathematical support for those who disagree with me--I did discover a massive problem in the number theory field and proved it with rather basic algebra.

My results have gone to a peer reviewed math journal and been published--but then sci.math'ers did mount an email campaign against the paper which worked on the chief editor, a mathematician named Ioannis Argyros, who was convinced enough to immediately yank my paper from a published edition, which he could do as it was electronic. Site mirrors slowly complied with his action, so the paper was censored off by sci.math'ers who used a back-door of social protest through emails, claiming the paper was false.

The entire journal later died, quietly.

Its site mirrors slowly dropped it until now there is only one left:

But the result that follows from the argument is easily checkable by those of you with some expertise using math software as it covers rationals as well as irrationals where with rational solutions with the equation

a^3 + 3(-1+xf^2)a^2 - f^2(x^3 f^4 - 3x^2 f^2 + 3x) = 0

when you find integer solutions with non-zero nonunit integer f and non-zero integer x coprime to f, those solutions will either have f itself as a factor, or be coprime to f, for instance, if f = 81, and you find a rational root that root would have either 81 as a factor or be coprime to it.

Anything else and I'd be proven wrong.

Having 3 as a factor but being coprime to 9 would prove me wrong, or if f = 42336 or ANY composite and the prime factors separated out for an integer solution versus clumping as I predict then that would prove me wrong.

Such a disproof of my claims would shut me down completely in this area, leaving me no room to make the bold claim that mathematicians not only have this error in their discipline, but are trying to hide it by ignoring my research, which I remind is PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED research.

Notice that my earlier thread has already been taken over by sci.math'ers posting nonsense in an effort to distract where they are using tactics which have worked before.

They do not argue objectively. They do not rely on facts. They rely on ridicule and distraction.

They avoid the real mathematical issues and try to use herd mentality.

That HAS CONSISTENTLY WORKED BEFORE so they are using strategies that have proven effective for them in the past.

My results here are YEARS old. What they are doing is an effective technique to hide a published and dramatic mathematical result which has massive social implications.

Distraction has worked here for years.

My hope is that some of you check, and some of you actually want correct mathematics which you can use in your own research versus allowing flawed mathematics which does not actually work to remain just because a LOT of people have built their careers on it.

Remember at the end of the day it is about the mathematics. The wrong mathematical ideas do not work. That people think they work is a lot about the complexity of society and the ability for a lot of people to be fooled for a long time.

If I am wrong the true counterexample is just an integer.

One integer proves me wrong, while if you do the checks you will find as many cases as you can get which prove me right. Run the checks and see hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of cases where the mathematics behaves as I predict.

And then go look at the easy theory which proves my case and remember that I always had the mathematical proof.

Demonstration is required because others are lying here and refusing to acknowledge mathematical proof, even publication is being dismissed.

They are breaking ALL the rules because the result is that big.

[A reply to someone who wrote that James should start by proving that there are examples as he claims.]

I prove algebraically with a very basic proof where I step out in such detail that I note the use of the distributive property that two of the roots of the cubic have f as a factor.

When you have rational roots which are, of course, integer roots, you can SEE that they follow the theory, which makes sense as it is mathematics, so of course, actual numbers will follow the mathematical proof.

HOWEVER, with irrational roots it can be shown that in the ring of algebraic integers if all the roots are irrational it's impossible for ANY of the roots to have f as a factor in that ring, which is an apparent contradiction.

So I can easily prove one thing algebraically, but you can find a special case with irrational solutions where you can prove something apparently in direct contradiction.

The resolution of the contradiction proves that the theory of ideals is false and the ring of algebraic integers is flawed in a special way.

Those looking for more explanation can check out my blog:

It turns out that the theory of ideals is kind of a big deal, and the flaw that I've found entered the mathematical field over a hundred years ago.

So how is that possible? How can it not have been noticed?

Well, the errors are with irrationals and you can say all kinds of wrong things about irrationals and get away with it without special analysis tools to probe into those irrational numbers.

I found those tools. I've probed deeper than mathematicians could before, and revealed the error.

With radicals you end up with multiple solutions whether you want them or not, so something like

(-1 + sqrt(-3))/2

represents TWO numbers and cannot represent just one. So irrationals are obscured in a special way so that there could be an error in understanding them which wasn't revealed without special analysis tools.

A great example for those looking for a quick explanation of how there can be a problem is with sqrt(4) which has TWO solutions: -2 and 2.

Now consider 1+sqrt(4) which has as solutions 3 and -1.

ONE solutions has 3 as a factor while the other is coprime to 3.

Of course you can just SEE that by solving out the radical, but what if there were mathematical tools that could prove that without you having to solve it?

Then you could prove that ONE SOLUTION has 3 as a factor while one does not without having to resolve 1+sqrt(4) into those solutions.

I found analysis tools which allow you to probe roots as to factors without directly looking at them. My results are peer reviewed and published and then, it so happens, the math journal yanked my paper after an email campaign by sci.math'ers who, not surprisingly, claim that it yanked the paper because it was false.

But you can do the research yourselves on the expression I've shown repeatedly, and see that the mathematics behaves as my research says it must.

Mathematics is a great discipline—when people follow rules.

By the rules there should no longer be discussion over my results. They are peer reviewed and published. They are HUGE in terms of impact, and easily checkable.

I have mathematical proof. Why do I have to deal with endless debate?

Because human nature makes it so. I deal with reality.

It's a brutal reality. But it's the only one we've got. And people like me, do what it takes.

I'm part of a long line of discoverers. So I do what it takes.

I will not fail as I have a very high standard to live up to, the standard of those who came before me, to be an example to those who will come after, as it has always been since the beginning.

We are the ones who move history.

And We support each other throughout time.

Friday, January 20, 2006


Proof of fraud, flawed number theory still taught

Some years ago I figured out a new technique in algebraic analysis. The techniques I developed were developed by me to try to prove Fermat's Last Theorem and I didn't realize that I'd stumbled across proof of this massive error in the number theory field, though as people argued and argued with me, I figured that out and came to
understand just how massive it was.

The gist of it is that I've found a flaw that takes out just about the entire field of modern number theory.

Since I claim to have the correct mathematics it's just common sense that if I am right then my research results show what the flawed number theory cannot.

Quite simply, with my mathematical ideas that actually work, I can make predictions in number theory which are absolutely perfect, where the flawed number theory is useless or wrong.

I did so years ago. No one has shown me wrong, but it's easy to do so if I am, so I thought I'd remind you of how easy it is, in case some of you are suffering under the delusion that you are actually highly intelligent and using correct mathematics, when in fact, you are part of a group that is deliberately refusing to use correct mathematics.

My theories show that given

a^3 + 3(-1+xf^2)a^2 - f^2(x^3 f^4 - 3x^2 f^2 + 3x) = 0

with non-zero non-unit integer f and non-zero integer x coprime to f, it must be true that only two of the roots of the resulting cubic have f as a factor, while one is coprime to f.

For example, with x=1 and f=7 you get the result

a^3 + 144a^2 - 110593 = 0

and that cubic's roots must follow my theory in that only two have 7 as a factor while one is coprime to 7, though not in the ring of algebraic integers.

That theory works without regard to whether or not the roots are rational or irrational, which is why my ideas are easily testable, as if I'm wrong, it's just a matter of finding an f and x where you get a rational root and it doesn't fit with my predictions.

It needs to be a rational solution as it is easy to prove as I have that it does not matter what is true in the ring of algebraic integers, so claims that my work is refuted by irrationals that do not have f as a factor in the ring of algebraic integers are specious.

That is, posters are then relying on the very flaw I've outlined to try and attack my work, which is the kind of stupid crap that has worked for years to my amazement.

So RATIONAL solutions are key here.

So you could use some math software, write a script and let your computer crunch for a while finding f's and x's where you get a cubic with a rational solution or more than one rational solution and see if that solution has f as a factor or is coprime to f.

If in a single instance it is not, then I am wrong.

But I know what the math shows so you will not find that single instance, but you may find people who will reject hundreds or hundreds of thousands of cases proving I'm right because they themselves are the problem--they don't care about what's true.

But for some of you, a hundred thousand or more cases showing I'm right with none showing I'm wrong will mean something, I hope.

Remember, it only takes ONE case to show I'm wrong.

That way to refute my work has been around for years. Posters shy away from it. People criticizing me make damn sure not to talk about it, and people have lied about it, as it's a test they can't win.

After all, it's mathematics. What's true is absolutely true. Since I am absolutely correct, going to an area where the math behaves perfectly as I say it does is just a way to lose a social battle, where people arguing with me, so far, have won, by keeping it social and hiding from the truth.

I like sci.crypt for this post as you guys are a little more no-nonsense and of course you do use number theory, a lot of which does work, but if you have used some of the supposedly advanced number theory and been baffled by it not working as you'd thought it should, then now you can find out why--it's wrong.

The test is an easy one, but I'm sure posters will reply to this with more social crap and distractions as they've done--quite successfully--for years.

But maybe some of you will get out your math software and run the scripts and post the truth. And maybe, it will mean something to somebody who actually cares about correct mathematics.

Math professors keep teaching the wrong ideas despite my having proven them wrong years ago, in what I see as an expression of contempt for their students and their society. I keep wondering why, but all I can see is that some people despise the truth--when it hurts their bottom line.

So for a math professor, what price their student's minds? Seems to be a few years salary waiting until I forced the issue, which is rather cheap to me.

But that's the choice they made.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?