Thursday, October 05, 2006
JSH: See? Now they play dumb
So I showed this nifty way to factor which brings into question a LOT of mathematical ideas, well actually it brings them crashing down, and I like to focus on class number so that you can quickly move to understanding how Galois Theory is different than it is taught, though I don't prove it wrong!!!
Here's the neat factorization from my post yesterday:
With x^2 - x + 1 = 0
and
y^2 - 5y + 1 = 0
I know the roots are units for both quadratics, and from my generalized factorization result I have
(y + x - 1)*(y-x) = 4y
where I start using
y = (5 + sqrt(21))/2 and x = (1 + sqrt(-3))/2
so
(3 + (sqrt(21) + sqrt(-3))/2)*(2 + (sqrt(21) - sqrt(-3))/2) = 4((5 + sqrt(21))/2)
and because y is a unit, I can just divide both sides by it, and get
(5 - sqrt(21))/2)(3 + (sqrt(21) + sqrt(-3))/2)*(2 + (sqrt(21) - sqrt(-3))/2) = 4
where you have this extraordinary factorization of 4.
Notice too I didn't use +/- as it was easier to just use plusses except when I divided by y.
So this simple idea of mine can be used to get these funky factorizations of integers, with the weird thing that you have non-rationals that are NOT roots of the same polynomial with integer coefficients irreducible over Q.
That has never before been seen and it chops up a lot of crap that math professors are STILL teaching their poor pitiful students.
Yep, you are pathetic if you're absorbing that crap when I've disproven it multiple ways.
Now go read up on class number and see how wrong mathematicians got it before.
Oh, yeah, that resut can be used to figure out how factors of 4 distribute!!! But that's next as I have to draw this out as you see—there are math people DELIBERATELY lying about these issues.
I need to draw them out, so you can understand that they want to do this, and are doing it fully consciously and with malice aforethought.
[A reply to someone who wanted to know which accepted results are wrong.]
I figured out a way to factor integers into factors that are not roots of the same monic polynomial with integer coefficients irreducible over Q.
Damn hard thing to figure out how to do as I've been working on it for years.
By accomplishing it, I show that the standard view of Galois Theory is wrong, and class number is meaningless as a useful concept.
Easy. Why don't you find the polynomials with integer coefficients for the examples I've given?
That's a start. Oh, part of the reason for starting there is that then you can consider what you think you know about how factors of 4 will distribute between the roots.
And then see why that's wrong.
[A reply to Rick Decker, who wanted to know how did James know that these results had never before been seen.]
Because I'm a real mathematician, and you're not.
Answer my question, which two roots multiply to give 4 as a factor?
And remember Decker at the end of this you are not a university professor.
Not only do you not deserve that position, but because your school backed you with your stupid webapge attacking my work, I go after the school as well.
How about $100 million dollars as a lawsuit?
I think that's kind of low, but it's a start.
Here's the neat factorization from my post yesterday:
With x^2 - x + 1 = 0
and
y^2 - 5y + 1 = 0
I know the roots are units for both quadratics, and from my generalized factorization result I have
(y + x - 1)*(y-x) = 4y
where I start using
y = (5 + sqrt(21))/2 and x = (1 + sqrt(-3))/2
so
(3 + (sqrt(21) + sqrt(-3))/2)*(2 + (sqrt(21) - sqrt(-3))/2) = 4((5 + sqrt(21))/2)
and because y is a unit, I can just divide both sides by it, and get
(5 - sqrt(21))/2)(3 + (sqrt(21) + sqrt(-3))/2)*(2 + (sqrt(21) - sqrt(-3))/2) = 4
where you have this extraordinary factorization of 4.
Notice too I didn't use +/- as it was easier to just use plusses except when I divided by y.
So this simple idea of mine can be used to get these funky factorizations of integers, with the weird thing that you have non-rationals that are NOT roots of the same polynomial with integer coefficients irreducible over Q.
That has never before been seen and it chops up a lot of crap that math professors are STILL teaching their poor pitiful students.
Yep, you are pathetic if you're absorbing that crap when I've disproven it multiple ways.
Now go read up on class number and see how wrong mathematicians got it before.
Oh, yeah, that resut can be used to figure out how factors of 4 distribute!!! But that's next as I have to draw this out as you see—there are math people DELIBERATELY lying about these issues.
I need to draw them out, so you can understand that they want to do this, and are doing it fully consciously and with malice aforethought.
[A reply to someone who wanted to know which accepted results are wrong.]
I figured out a way to factor integers into factors that are not roots of the same monic polynomial with integer coefficients irreducible over Q.
Damn hard thing to figure out how to do as I've been working on it for years.
By accomplishing it, I show that the standard view of Galois Theory is wrong, and class number is meaningless as a useful concept.
Easy. Why don't you find the polynomials with integer coefficients for the examples I've given?
That's a start. Oh, part of the reason for starting there is that then you can consider what you think you know about how factors of 4 will distribute between the roots.
And then see why that's wrong.
[A reply to Rick Decker, who wanted to know how did James know that these results had never before been seen.]
Because I'm a real mathematician, and you're not.
Answer my question, which two roots multiply to give 4 as a factor?
And remember Decker at the end of this you are not a university professor.
Not only do you not deserve that position, but because your school backed you with your stupid webapge attacking my work, I go after the school as well.
How about $100 million dollars as a lawsuit?
I think that's kind of low, but it's a start.
# posted by James Harris @ 20:18 
