Harristotelian Logic

I am not a happy person about this, as I have all kinds of facts that back me up, but I live in a world where mathematicians have built up a reputation, when it was past mathematicians who did the work, and a small number of applied mathematicians who still actually do provably correct and valuable work.

But most mathematicians today focus on what they call "pure math".

It is distinguished by being impractical and uncheckable except by other mathematicians.

There is no real world test of the work.

And I have been able to prove errors, show them to mathematicians, and watch them just walk away.

I had a paper published in a formally peer reviewed mathematical journal, a small electronic one, but hey, it was a legitimate math journal. I say was as the journal died.

A little while after publishing my paper readers of sci.math heard about it, some of them emailed the journal convincing the editors my paper was wrong, and they yanked it:

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

That link is to a site mirror, which is the last one still standing as there used to be somewhere around 10, but the rest dropped when the main site dropped, when the journal just shut down.

I posted a bit earlier about a letter I wrote to TIME magazine in the run-up to war with Iraq, and talked about how the editors changed what I said, toning it down in places, and removing some of the analysis, which isn't a big surprise, for those who know something about how the world works.

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

I have an open source project called Class Viewer and you can find it easily enough by doing a google search on "Class Viewer" as it comes up number one.

That's just a slice.

Oh, one other thing, I wrote the first prime counting function article for the Wikipedia, because I was frustrated by mathematicians lying about my prime number research, and that writing is now in the history of the page:

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

I have been searching for over three years for a simple solution to the factoring problem as the means of proving that mathematicians do lie.

I think most of you though will not care about facts that don't matter to you because you have your beliefs, and I know that calling yourself a skeptic is nothing like actually being one.

But this time, reality can cost you money.

The system is at fault when it comes to mathematicians as the world gave a bunch of people a system where they needed each other above anyone else, and could not be checked except by each other, so they learned to value the opinion of each other—above all else.

They protect each other. Their lies about mathematical research put paychecks in each other's pockets. They know who they need and depend on.

And it's not you, if you're not a mathematician.

The mathematicians are victims in a sense of a world that should have known better.

Today computers offer the means to have even "pure" results that have no practical value, checked.

Computers can check mathematical arguments claimed to be proofs, when the work is done to build the expert systems.

That work is way behind now, and I suggest to you it is behind because mathematicians are invested in their current system, so they block, halting research in computer science if they can that would lead to proof checking by computer.

And they will sit on my factoring research until there is no way for them to sit.

And the pressure may be your accounts broken into, or your company's, or someone you know who gets victimized in some way, until that happens well above the level that people can blame anything other than the actual system protecting the Internet.

Sit back. It could take a while. I know from experience.

I have major mathematical research going back over three years.

These people can sit quietly, and wait. They'll wait for you or someone like you to hurt, to feel pain, and cry out loud enough, for the world to pay attention.

So we wait with them.

[A reply to someone who wrote that he would never have guessed that James is not happy about all this.]

Who would be?

Think about it, you take the time to go out and figure out some major new thing—a major accomplishment—and then you find that math professors ignore your research for political reasons, wouldn't you be upset?

So your reward for all the effort and pain is more pain, as society sits by while some people abuse you and call you a crackpot?

And it's so stupid too that mathematicians get away with just having their WORD trusted in these 'pure math' areas, when they push those areas where you just trust, over the important ones where the damn mathematics has to actually work, as proven by being useful in the real world, like to build better atomic weaponry.

A little dark humor there, but if my research were about nuclear weapons there wouldn't be any debate, none of this "crackpot" nonsense, and people would be fallng all over themselves to make sure I wasn't some very angry person, looking for ways to fight an academic world gone bad.

Consider that people.

If my research were about building better bombs there would not be this nonsense.

But because it's not, you can sit back and think it ok for some major discoverer to get punished for success, and what I say here is just ranting to you, comfortable where you might be.

And no computers able to check.

Think about it. If computer checking were around I could just put my resarch through it and all these people who fight my research would be undone, just like that.

Pure intellectual pursuits have this little problem that if people want to ignore you, they can.

But even with that, why do you people trust mathematicians in these "pure" areas, so that research like that of Andrew Wiles is just looked at by some people who claim it's correct, and you have no other way to check?

How can so many people around the world be so trusting given what we know about how readily even large groups of people—yes, math professors are human and can lie as a group—can just get things wrong?

Why do mathematicians get this blind trust in this day and age?

---

The problem is the possibility—which rational adults will acknowledge—that given a lack of outside checking, mathematicians can as a group miss errors in mathematical arguments that are just looked over by people, as people can make mistakes.

I think that many who recognize that mathematics is such an important area where we could not have the technology that we do without it, assume that there is some kind of other checking that goes on when they see in the news that this or that mathematician has a major discovery.

But the mathematics needed to get a working computer, or to make planes, or build a laser is different from the mathematics where some person just writes something up, for some other people to look at, and they all call it "pure math".

We as a society simply cannot just hope—hope that human nature is somehow purified in mathematics so that people can be trusted.

Did any of you know that Nobel did not create a math prize, so the people who run the Nobel prizes recently created one they call the Abel prize?

Any of you know how much that prize is?

Yet people can win with work that has no applicability in the real world, with research that has only been checked by human eyes, when their colleagues—other mathematicians—are the ones doing the checking.

And I'm not just griping here where there is no solution.

I firmly believe that computers can be programmed to check mathematical arguments.

It is up to us as a world community to push the development.

And it is past time to act like we are intelligent adults who value our mathematical world.

Can any of you rationally deny the importance of this field?

Then why are we leaving it to possibly rot?

It's up to us to force the changes—expert systems backing up human beings, looking over these arguments that can net people millions of dollars.