Sunday, September 10, 2006
JSH: Why wasn't proof enough?
So I started with
P(x) = (f(x) + 1)*(g(x) + 1)
in a post where I stepped through an example to show how the ring of algebraic integers is NOT sufficient.
With P(x) a polynomial and x an algebraic integer, follow that argument out and you get to easily defined functions, which if algebraic integer functions reach back to block f(x) and g(x) from being algebraic integers, only if f(x) and g(x) are non-rational.
I built up versus working backwards which is how I usually prove the result.
And remember, I have mathematical proof, have had it for years, yet a few people—names many of you know who post regularly on sci.math—repeating over and over again that they refuted a mathematical proof convinced the majority of you, or you just sat despite knowing the truth.
How many people? Not really many. You people got beaten by a few names, Dik Winter, Arturo Magidin among others, saying a mathematical proof was wrong.
Your delusion is in believing you could not be so easily controlled.
You were.
Even publication in a peer reviewed mathematical journal did not matter.
How is that? How can that kind of power exist? How did those few people control so many of you so easily?
Some of you might have put your lives on the line versus accepting the mathematical truth, just because you had a few people—just a few is all it took—telling you something was wrong when it was right.
Follow that thread where I build up from
P(x) = (f(x) + 1)*(g(x) + 1)
to show the rather remarkable flaw deep in "core" of number theory.
That flaw takes away ideal theory, changes the view and usage of Galois Theory, and revolutionizes mathematics.
Who knows what massive intellectual accomplishments not possible with the wrong mathematical ideas are now possible.
This saga is one of the biggest events in the intellectual history of humanity.
And most of you picked the wrong side.
But why? Why was mathematical proof not enough?
Going forward if the truth sinks in, I want some attempts at honest answers about why so many of you were convinced when most of the mathematics here is basic algebra.
Why wasn't mathematical proof enough?
P(x) = (f(x) + 1)*(g(x) + 1)
in a post where I stepped through an example to show how the ring of algebraic integers is NOT sufficient.
With P(x) a polynomial and x an algebraic integer, follow that argument out and you get to easily defined functions, which if algebraic integer functions reach back to block f(x) and g(x) from being algebraic integers, only if f(x) and g(x) are non-rational.
I built up versus working backwards which is how I usually prove the result.
And remember, I have mathematical proof, have had it for years, yet a few people—names many of you know who post regularly on sci.math—repeating over and over again that they refuted a mathematical proof convinced the majority of you, or you just sat despite knowing the truth.
How many people? Not really many. You people got beaten by a few names, Dik Winter, Arturo Magidin among others, saying a mathematical proof was wrong.
Your delusion is in believing you could not be so easily controlled.
You were.
Even publication in a peer reviewed mathematical journal did not matter.
How is that? How can that kind of power exist? How did those few people control so many of you so easily?
Some of you might have put your lives on the line versus accepting the mathematical truth, just because you had a few people—just a few is all it took—telling you something was wrong when it was right.
Follow that thread where I build up from
P(x) = (f(x) + 1)*(g(x) + 1)
to show the rather remarkable flaw deep in "core" of number theory.
That flaw takes away ideal theory, changes the view and usage of Galois Theory, and revolutionizes mathematics.
Who knows what massive intellectual accomplishments not possible with the wrong mathematical ideas are now possible.
This saga is one of the biggest events in the intellectual history of humanity.
And most of you picked the wrong side.
But why? Why was mathematical proof not enough?
Going forward if the truth sinks in, I want some attempts at honest answers about why so many of you were convinced when most of the mathematics here is basic algebra.
Why wasn't mathematical proof enough?
# posted by James Harris @ 12:38 
