Sunday, February 26, 2006
JSH: Clock is ticking
This time, unlike before, years will not go by, if I am right about the factoring piece of my research, while you can see that I've shutdown the specious objections that worked on these newsgroups with a result from the complex plane.
But I never got objections from outside the newsgroups.
No math journal has ever put forward those objections.
Top mathematicians don't need that trivial result from the complex plane to know that I am right.
So I am not that hopeful that the truth will win out just yet based on my ability to directly show that some of you were dumb enough to fight the distributive property.
Barry Mazur didn't fight it. Neither did Andrew Granville. And Ralph McKenzie didn't either.
What puts you in the real bind is the question, is the factoring piece correct?
I used the same set of equations with which I get my factoring results to put up the quadratic generator that follows from my reseearch:
a^2 -(1+fx)a + (f^2 x^2 + 2fx) = 0
And notice the quiet, as when I made changes before, posters leapt at the chance to put up "counterexamples" with equations that didn't follow from my research, but were just being made up in what turns out to be a naive and clumsy way.
The mathematics here requires a special form for you to remain in what I call the ring of objects.
And with that form, counterexamples cannot be found, as they would require refutation of, the distributive property.
So the research overturns over a century of mathematical ideas WITHOUT the factoring piece, but you people don't seem to like reason, so you may only respond to force.
The paper by Plotnikov is from 1996. Mathematicians may have deliberately avoided key mathematical results through all that time in some short-sighted need to promote themselves or something as I think about it and wonder exactly what you people have been thinking.
If it does work, then you set up the world for some solution like mine, but why?
If people had known the system could just be broken then protections could have been put in place (hopefully they have been, and I am hoping on that, just in case).
Why set things up as you did? Who has been pulling your strings?
The mystery is still one I'm puzzling over.
But I never got objections from outside the newsgroups.
No math journal has ever put forward those objections.
Top mathematicians don't need that trivial result from the complex plane to know that I am right.
So I am not that hopeful that the truth will win out just yet based on my ability to directly show that some of you were dumb enough to fight the distributive property.
Barry Mazur didn't fight it. Neither did Andrew Granville. And Ralph McKenzie didn't either.
What puts you in the real bind is the question, is the factoring piece correct?
I used the same set of equations with which I get my factoring results to put up the quadratic generator that follows from my reseearch:
a^2 -(1+fx)a + (f^2 x^2 + 2fx) = 0
And notice the quiet, as when I made changes before, posters leapt at the chance to put up "counterexamples" with equations that didn't follow from my research, but were just being made up in what turns out to be a naive and clumsy way.
The mathematics here requires a special form for you to remain in what I call the ring of objects.
And with that form, counterexamples cannot be found, as they would require refutation of, the distributive property.
So the research overturns over a century of mathematical ideas WITHOUT the factoring piece, but you people don't seem to like reason, so you may only respond to force.
The paper by Plotnikov is from 1996. Mathematicians may have deliberately avoided key mathematical results through all that time in some short-sighted need to promote themselves or something as I think about it and wonder exactly what you people have been thinking.
If it does work, then you set up the world for some solution like mine, but why?
If people had known the system could just be broken then protections could have been put in place (hopefully they have been, and I am hoping on that, just in case).
Why set things up as you did? Who has been pulling your strings?
The mystery is still one I'm puzzling over.
# posted by James Harris @ 21:57 
