Harristotelian Logic

So I note that Wiles' work fails the null test, which involves assuming the opposite of what he claims to have proven at the outset and tracing through his paper trying to find a contradiction.

So how does he or anyone else think the argument proves Taniyama-Shimura?

That goes back to the problem with the ring of algebraic integers!!!

That ring is quirky and has a coverage problem so you can come up with arguments that just don't work, and can do weird things like appear to prove something when you look at them one way, and then logically fail in various ways, like failing a null test.

So I have two ways of knowing that Wiles failed:

1. The logical error Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.


2. From non-polynomial factorization and the demonstration of the coverage problem with the ring of algebraic integers.

What is remarkable about how mathematics works is that you get one thing wrong and all kinds of things fall apart in other places.

So yes, the coverage problem of the ring of algebraic integers is a big deal, and you can connect my research back to issues with major papers in current number theory.

And that's just one piece of my research.

If you go to prime counting and start working through implications there you end up questioning the Riemann hypothesis, which is why the partial difference equation and partial differential equation that follow from it are such a big deal.

And if you look over some of my recent musings on considering p_1 mod p_2, that is, taking the residues of one prime modulo another, and considering that the result is random, you can answer the Twin Primes Conjecture, and refute Goldbach's Conjecture.

Taken all together my research has a huge impact over number theory.

In considering resistance to my research you can keep running into the same reality of demonstrated results with my research, like the sieve form of my prime counting function being VERY short and VERY fast, versus the political behavior of opponents to that research.

They lie, mislead and ignore direct evidence, while engaging in smear tactics and coordinated group behavior meant to convince people by making it appear that a large crowd—it's about a dozen of them—have substantive disagreements with my research.

And then somehow an entire math journal keeling over and dying after publishing a paper of mine, only to pull it when sci.math'ers do an email assault is evidence against me, according to these people.

Political parties here in America could learn a thing or two from them!!!

Math journals do not just die. And a crappy math journal would be LESS likely to take a risk with an admitted amateur mathematician. And a vanity journal wouldn't open the doors to some unknown.

Reality is that only a top-notch journal with a brave (briefly though) editorial board would publish a HUGE paper that lead down the line to unseating major players in the field like Andrew Wiles.

The revolution in mathematics on the verge of taking place is possibly the hugest in its history as there is a shift in the understanding of numbers themselves with one of the greatest events in the intellectual history of our world being the gaining of the knowledge of what I call the object ring.

Here and now it's difficult to grasp how huge it all is, or how important it all is to the intellectual future of our world, but I can assure you that no matter how effective some of you think you are in blocking this mathematical revolution, you have not the power to halt something on this big of a scale.

Without mathematics making this revolution, the scientific and technological progress of humanity itself has nearly reached a ceiling.

Mathematics is that important. Without this revolution there is no future.