Friday, November 24, 2006
JSH: Under review
I wrote another paper and sent it to the Annals of Mathematics which verified receipt.
A version of the paper is at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/MultiPrime.pdf
and in keeping with the philosophy of extreme mathematics, I would appreciate comments.
The paper is under review as Princeton verified receipt. Uh, yeah that surprised even me.
This thread is for comments on the paper.
And yes, this paper could end it all. If Princeton does what it should then it doesn't matter what any of you say, as you know and I know that Princeton trumps every last one of you.
I especially welcome comments from posters who argue with me regularly.
I am curious though. Read the paper, and come back and post as confidently as you've done.
What gives you that faith?
[A reply to someone who wrote that, when the paper is rejected, James will blame the sinister cadre of sci.math again.]
No. I know and you know that Princeton doesn't give a damn what you think.
There is only one case where sci.math definitely interfered and killed a journal and that is with SWJPAM.
There is no way that Princeton would fall in the same way.
You people can't kill the Annals of Mathematics.
I dare you to try. Send your emails. Just try.
[A reply to someone who explained to James how uninteresting and dishonest his paper is.]
The replies in this thread reek of fear.
What I actually did was go from a prime counting sieve function, to a constrained summation of a partial difference equation that counts primes, to the partial differential equation that follows from it.
The three forms connect the dots from the discrete count of primes to a continuous function directly, for the first time in mathematical history, showing how the count of primes connects to continuous functions, and accomplishing what notables like Gauss and Riemann set out to do so long ago.
That is done in just two pages, and is an accomplishment at the pinnacle of human achievement in mathematics, but it's also an accomplishment members of the sci.math newsgroup have enviously and jealously fought to disparage.
It is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of human thought.
It is more than a great enough accomplishment to merit publication in one of the world's top math journals.
A version of the paper is at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/MultiPrime.pdf
and in keeping with the philosophy of extreme mathematics, I would appreciate comments.
The paper is under review as Princeton verified receipt. Uh, yeah that surprised even me.
This thread is for comments on the paper.
And yes, this paper could end it all. If Princeton does what it should then it doesn't matter what any of you say, as you know and I know that Princeton trumps every last one of you.
I especially welcome comments from posters who argue with me regularly.
I am curious though. Read the paper, and come back and post as confidently as you've done.
What gives you that faith?
[A reply to someone who wrote that, when the paper is rejected, James will blame the sinister cadre of sci.math again.]
No. I know and you know that Princeton doesn't give a damn what you think.
There is only one case where sci.math definitely interfered and killed a journal and that is with SWJPAM.
There is no way that Princeton would fall in the same way.
You people can't kill the Annals of Mathematics.
I dare you to try. Send your emails. Just try.
[A reply to someone who explained to James how uninteresting and dishonest his paper is.]
The replies in this thread reek of fear.
What I actually did was go from a prime counting sieve function, to a constrained summation of a partial difference equation that counts primes, to the partial differential equation that follows from it.
The three forms connect the dots from the discrete count of primes to a continuous function directly, for the first time in mathematical history, showing how the count of primes connects to continuous functions, and accomplishing what notables like Gauss and Riemann set out to do so long ago.
That is done in just two pages, and is an accomplishment at the pinnacle of human achievement in mathematics, but it's also an accomplishment members of the sci.math newsgroup have enviously and jealously fought to disparage.
It is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of human thought.
It is more than a great enough accomplishment to merit publication in one of the world's top math journals.
# posted by James Harris @ 01:16 
