### Saturday, January 21, 2006

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:

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/

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:

http://mymath.blogspot.com/

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.