Harristotelian Logic

If you look at a few things that I've done, it's impossible not to wonder what's going on here that people are getting away with calling me a crackpot, and acting as if I've accomplished nothing.

For instance, I have an open source project. It's a tool for Java programmers that lets them look up class information. I think it's a useful thing for coding.

You can see how it ranks worldwide in its category:

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/Java/Development_Tools/Code_Exploring_and_Managing/

I have a B.Sc. in physics from Vanderbilt University, but you can read people deriding a physics degree in reply to me.

I have an article I wrote for the Wikipedia, giving it the first prime counting function article, now available in the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_counting_function&oldid=9142249

The prime counting function there while similar in important ways to what was known before me, is also different in crucial ways, and come on, it's one of the smallest bits of mathematics for counting prime numbers ever seen.

Just go look at anything on prime counting and look at what else is out there.

And I got a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal which had been around for over nine years before I came along and some sci.math'ers came along, and showed just how weak the current journal system in mathematics is.

Rationalizations.

Faced with a volume of accomplishments like few others and real mathematical results like nothing ever before seen in the world, people call me names.

And they get away with it.

Why?

Because the current math field has been taken over by people who figured out a long time ago that they can just SAY things, without worrying about actually proving them, as the concept of mathematical proof is an ideal, which people can fail to achieve, yet claim they have done so.

I've been in arguments for years about the distributrive property, where I point out that, you know, well, if you multiply something, it gets multiplied whatever it's value--even if it's a function.

The arguments are absurd in a real way, but they go on because math society is a society of style over substance, where people who cannot achieve real mathematical proof, found out they could claim it, and get rewards.

The cons took over the system.

Some of you need to look up Britney Gallivan. She came up with a nifty mathematical argument that covers paper folding. She got some news articles, mentioned on television, but what has the math community done?

She's been snubbed.

Your world is controlled by people who cannot who are afraid of the people like me who can--or Britney Gallivan.

And they are stupid, or they'd throw a bone here and there, so that I wouldn't be able to step out here and point out the obvious.

So why do people let them lie?

Why did people let Bush lie?

And that's about life and blood.

This is just mathematics.

You people live in your lie as long as you think you can, and when it is revealed and the consequences come down, there will be no mercy because people will read post after post, where people here from the math community, showed their true colors.

Remember with Enron? Remember the taped phone calls?

Well, your posts here are the equivalent.

Your public statements are not only freely available for use by reporters around the world, but they are also admissable in courts of law around the world.

My role here has been, investigator for the prosecution.

My role was to use whatever means were necessary that were ethical and within the bounds of the law to fully reveal the full extent of the corruption within the math field.

The most important thing in any prosecution is an air-tight case.

I needed as much on the record as possible, as the best witnesses are mathematicians themselves.

You are my voice. Your posts here are my work product.