Harristotelian Logic

I will admit I'm at a loss on what to do with this situation as it is so far outside of the boundaries of what I thought was possible, as I've managed to communicate with quite a few mathematicians over the years about my research.

Only on the newsgroups is it this nasty and vicious kind of thing—as Usenet is a place where some people behave in ways they can't get away with in the regular world.

Most communications have been cordial. I've even more than once received encouragement.

But the typical scenario will be after a little bit of explaining, I will be told that what I have is kind of interesting and maybe that I should try to get it published, and that will be it.

After that they just walk away.

If I push a bit, then they just shut off and won't talk to me any more as usually communication is by email.

I've enlisted the help of family and friends of the family and one story is a telling one, as a professor at a school in California thought he could just go to a colleague with my research on prime counting, and that colleague said he'd get back to him—and went on sabbatical for six months.

When he got back he claimed to not remember ever saying he'd do anything, and didn't offer any further help.

And, of course, there is the reality that I did get some of my research published—only to have the journal crumble with some sci.math'ers managing censorship with a few emails to those editors.

So what to do?

I can prove that what I say is true, and have done so repeatedly. I can simply explain and even demonstrate.

I can show uniqueness and relate to some of the hottest topics out there with primes and possibly giving alternate approaches to the Riemann Hypothesis, and mathematicians can willfully just avoid.

One of my favorite examples to show the complexity of the situation is that of a math grad at Cornell University, who decided to email me and see if he could be more convincing by email than posters had been on the newsgroups.

I asked what was in it for me to work with him, and he claimed that if I could convince him, then he could go to his department and I'd have the backing of Cornell University.

But I found out he promised big because he thought I was wrong, as I just simply sent him one of my simpler arguments on non-polynomial factorization, something like what is currently the lead post on my math blog, and let him work his own way through it.

He started fast, re-writing the first pieces in his own words, and then his emails came at longer intervals, and I just went about my business as I have all kinds of things I do anyway, and I've learned not to expect a lot from any particular source.

Well after over three months, he finally go to the end, having re-worked the entire argument in his own words, and then begged off, claiming he needed to go do research on algebraic integers.

And that was that.

I've emailed him a few times since then and most he's done is to express some displeasure with me bringing him up all the time as an example, and somehow he seems to have forgotten the offer of help if I could convince him, or even his own excuse about needing to read up on algebraic integers.

Yet supposedly if he'd followed through and helped champion the clearly correct mathematics—he'd verified it himself—he could have been one of the most famous people in math history.

So why wouldn't he do it?

I think the simplest answer goes back to the triviality of the disproof of Wiles' approach to the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture, as I can find problems with it all kinds of ways, and can explain to a non-mathematician why it can't work because it has just this trivial logical fallacy that takes it apart.

Or I can suggest that a mathematician just trace through his paper—as it's not even hard if you know a bit of number theory and you don't have to get into the really complicated stuff to find this—and just assume that the conclusion of his paper is false and try to find a contradiction with that assumption at any point in his paper.

I call that the null test and Wiles's paper fails it.

So you have supposedly one of the great achievements of humanity, this research by Wiles which is easily shown to be crap by multiple ways, contrasted with my ability not only to simply prove very important things, but demonstrate and explain to math people—and have them do nothing.

I think that grad student walked away because he knew what his society would do if he did try to go with the math. After all, Wiles's mistake is rather obvious and dumb, yet mathematicians have put him forward as this great researcher with this important research that solves Fermat's Last Theorem.

So the grad student knows that his society will not go with the truth, so it's pointless, even if he can work it all through himself and figure out that I'm right, as modern math people are not about what is right.

The other side of it, of course, is that one of my simpler approaches and techniques easily explained does it turns out lead to a rather short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which is why there has been so much controversy and why so much energy is directed against my paper on non-polynomial factorization.

You see, I decided I'd try to get my research across in stages, so I pulled out the most important techniques in my proof of FLT, and wrote a paper covering them, sent that paper to various journals and it was published:

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html

There you see just this blurb that it was withdrawn—yeah, by the editors and not by me.

See: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/

for more information about the now defunct journal as I'm linking to a site mirror.

You can find the copy they deleted at my Extreme Mathematics group:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/2.pdf

That's the original pdf file that was on the web at that point.

So neat trick, eh? I'd pull out the key part of my proof of FLT and get it published, and then come back to show the whole thing with the heart of it anchored by this published result.

And those sci.math people busted that plan up, and busted up a math journal along the way.

To get a full sense of how far gone modern math society is, I suggest you read:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/extrememathematics/web/non-polynomial-factorization-paper

There you can also get a link to the revision I made to that original paper and sent to the Annals of Mathematics at Princeton, and also see what they did.

Think of that grad student at Cornell. Probably a very smart kid at one of the premiere institutions in the United States, having proven to himself that some of the most dramatic claims in mathematical history were true, and all he had to do was help that research get known, and he could have gone down in math history.

His name in textbooks and people talking about him as an example of how the system should work.

But now I keep him anonymous, and use him as an example of a system so broken that a person would walk away from accolades and important mathematics rather than dare test his superiors who have gone so far away from mathematical truth that their own students don't even dare to try.