Harristotelian Logic

I am desperately in need of understanding how some people can lie so easily about mathematics, so they reply to me as if it only matters that they disagree!!!

Of course with my other research that could be effective.

But how could anyone reasonably expect simply disagreeing with me and calling me names to stop people from noticing a possible solution to the factoring problem?

What kind of thought process is going on here?

I do know that some mathematicians show signs of mental breakdowns when confronted with my proofs in such a way that they cannot simply deny.

Is that it? Simply some kind of bizarrre mental break?

How long can it last? And what happens when mathematical reality and social reality—as the factoring problem is of major social importance to the point that lies of this type cannot long succeed—forces through?

---

Actually the behavior is like that of an angry child in this case.

Some kind of reduction to the infantile by the pressure of the results?

But why exactly?

And why would this poster think his behavior ok on this forum?

Is it not at least somewhat embarrassing?

The discussion is in no way like that of adult conversation. I think that is at least quasi deliberate, but maybe it is more real than the poster is willing to admit?

Possibly my research makes others feel less about themselves?

[A reply to someone who said that james had insulted everyone in the sci.math newsgroup.]

Everyone? How do you know I didn't miss a person here or there?

That's not really meant to be humorous as your use of the word "everyone" is so obviously non-logical that it perturbs me.

What deludes you to think that you've covered everyone in this newsgroup?

I present proofs. I found that in arguing out proofs I'd get replies that simply ignored them, or lied about them, while the group went along.

Even getting a paper published wasn't enough to stop you people.

You simply used social forces against the publication and then rationalized that it happened.

But you can lie about a factoring result, rationalize, ignore it, or politicize it and it just won't change the reality that if it is correct it will eventually get picked up and used by people who will recognize it as correct.

The mystery to me though is how do you maintain this behavior?

What are you gaining from it anyway?

I'm puzzled. While I'm puzzled and the gap is spinning out, there is time for you.

When the gap is complete, then something should happen…

[A reply to someone who said that nobody has ever verified James' work as correct.]

That's not true. I even had a paper published in a peer reviewed math journal—the journal later retracted—after some sci.math'ers sent some emails claiming it false, but it was peer reviewed and verified.

Also I have research that no one claims is incorect like my prime counting function.

You aren't really worth replying to, but my problem is that people like you make statements like that and you're believed.

It's a sad state of affairs but it's why this is a war—the math wars I call them—as it's a political war where I face people who say false things about my research—and are believed.

These math wars will go on until I break math society, or it quits playing politics with mathematics.

At the rate things are going, it will probably be me breaking the society completely, as I see little evidence that mathematicians have given up on the political tools they obviously treasure—so I will have to prove to them what mathematics truly is and how powerful it actually is, over social stuff—and then I will sweep through cleaning house and that should end the politics, at least for a while.

[A reply to someone who said that the paper was “withdrawn” and that this means it was found full of mistakes.]

Nope. The chief editor Ionnis Argyros just yanked it immediately after he got emails that sounded good to him. I communicated with a colleague of his by email and that person also an editor said that he'd had cases of reviewers who screwed up, and probably Argyros figured that's what happened. Remember the sci.math people emailing him were putting Ph.D in mathematics in their emails. And, um, yeah I guess they have them, but still, that's more than enough intimidation, but still Argyros should have held a bit.

But he knew I was just an amateur as I told them that before they published, and with Ph.D's in mathematics emailing him like that, why wouldn't he have a serious gut check?

He just pulled it at first, leaving a gap, so the page numbers didn't work right, so they put in various things, until they settled on "Withdrawn" which is unfortunate as some may think I withdrew it, when I did not.

The journal managed one more edition before it quietly shut down—dead as a freaking dodo.

So part of this saga is a dead goddamn math journal.

The story doesn't end there as the Annals of Mathematics makes a freaky appearance later on, but that's another tale, for another post…