Friday, November 10, 2006
Prime numbers, counting tells it all
So notice there is no debate about correctness.
I found that you can count prime numbers using a short and simple method, which I call my prime counting function.
Easiest way to read about it now is to go to the Wikipedia and the talk pages of the prime counting function, where you can also see at the bottom the short sieve form:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prime_counting_function
My prime counting function is actually most closely related to something discovered by Meissel and at its top iterations is equivalent to that, and sieve forms—in the top iterations—are equivalent to the fastest known in the world as all the top algorithms do that part the same way.
If you do not know those things then consider how little you actually know despite how much you may think you know on the subject.
Regardless, even if it were just a re-hash mostly, the shortness and simplicity of my prime counting function in its sieve form would make it worth noting and teaching with, as it's just easier to learn about prime counting using it and a lot easier to program it than other methods.
So why do these people not only keep fighting me about my research in this area but manage to keep getting important details wrong?
Simple answer is that the math field is now corrupted. Some people learned that they could do a lot by acting at being mathematicians because they could just support each other—claiming that they succeeded—when they actually failed to find proofs.
Such a system has one fatal flaw—real discoverers mess things up.
So these people use various ways to attack real discoverers.
And you can consider that prime counting function in its shortness and simplicity having to be shown on the Wikipedia in talk page as proof of how powerful they are and how ruthless.
Of course my research covers a lot more than just counting primes, and that's where these people really have a lot to fear.
Reality is that "pure math" as it is now implemented is a communal system relying on the opinion of one group to claim that some person or person's have perfect mathematical arguments, otherwise known as mathematical proofs.
It is a great system for fraud, as long as you have a critical mass of people willing to just agree with what they are supposed to, which is why it's so hard for a discoverer like me to break it because they TRAIN you all to agree, and think consensus is a great thing, which allows them to lie about mathematics and hide research from discoverers.
So no Andrew Wiles did not prove Fermat's Last Theorem. But he can rely on supporters around the world claiming he did no matter how many ways you prove he failed. Their word against the mathematics.
How could people do such a thing?
Easy. People around the world routinely do much worse if you hadn't noticed.
But how do you know they are doing such a thing?
You go to the Wikipedia talk page on the prime counting function and look at that short, simple little prime counting function, my prime counting function in its short form and realize just how far they will go, and how dangerous they really are.
These people do fake math, for their own gain. They make money. Gain prestige, and they are ruthless.
Count the primes. Step back to think objectively about the smear campaign that is used against my research. Ask yourself how a highly creative individual who could make major discoveries would actually react to coming upon stinking corruption.
And start ending the con.
These people depend on your trust, following a system they have managed, and on you just being dumb about basics, like how I point out that computers aren't used to check mathematical arguments.
They will block anything they can. Including progress at using computers to check claims of mathematical proof.
They have to to survive. For our species to survive you have to look at the truth.
[A reply to someone who wished to know why, if it is true that James proved Fermat's last theorem and destroyed the foundations of number theory, he is particularly worried about prime counting.]
I have LOTS of research in multiple areas while the easiest area to attack is research related to FLT as mathematicians have a field day with comparing you to crackpots and cranks through the ages who have hacked at the problem.
In contrast counting prime numbers is as direct and real as you get with numbers and it has a very intuitive aspect.
Also, my prime counting function in its sieve form just looks dramatic, as it's so short.
People who compare that with what they see on the main prime counting function page of the Wikipedia can feel deep in their bones that something must be wrong.
And there is no other good explanation except that the math field is corrupted by people who pretend they are making major discoveries, supported by other people who pretend, and they all get paid that way.
Which is why computers are a threat as well so they have to keep coming up with excuses for why computers can't check all those supposed proofs, even though mathematics is a logical subject.
These people are slime of the earth.
They found a way to suck the life out of humanity by attaching themselves in an important but vulnerable area as "pure math" opened the door for them, and now it's just hard getting them out.
Like trying to burn leeches off of a patient covered with them.
The mathematical world is full of parasites who have figured out a way to beat the system, but they have to block out real discoverers to do it—and computers as well.
My prime counting function is a way to help people see the parasites for what they are, and the parasites can't react to it, as in accepting it, because they know that I won't stop there, so there is a pause.
I found that you can count prime numbers using a short and simple method, which I call my prime counting function.
Easiest way to read about it now is to go to the Wikipedia and the talk pages of the prime counting function, where you can also see at the bottom the short sieve form:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prime_counting_function
My prime counting function is actually most closely related to something discovered by Meissel and at its top iterations is equivalent to that, and sieve forms—in the top iterations—are equivalent to the fastest known in the world as all the top algorithms do that part the same way.
If you do not know those things then consider how little you actually know despite how much you may think you know on the subject.
Regardless, even if it were just a re-hash mostly, the shortness and simplicity of my prime counting function in its sieve form would make it worth noting and teaching with, as it's just easier to learn about prime counting using it and a lot easier to program it than other methods.
So why do these people not only keep fighting me about my research in this area but manage to keep getting important details wrong?
Simple answer is that the math field is now corrupted. Some people learned that they could do a lot by acting at being mathematicians because they could just support each other—claiming that they succeeded—when they actually failed to find proofs.
Such a system has one fatal flaw—real discoverers mess things up.
So these people use various ways to attack real discoverers.
And you can consider that prime counting function in its shortness and simplicity having to be shown on the Wikipedia in talk page as proof of how powerful they are and how ruthless.
Of course my research covers a lot more than just counting primes, and that's where these people really have a lot to fear.
Reality is that "pure math" as it is now implemented is a communal system relying on the opinion of one group to claim that some person or person's have perfect mathematical arguments, otherwise known as mathematical proofs.
It is a great system for fraud, as long as you have a critical mass of people willing to just agree with what they are supposed to, which is why it's so hard for a discoverer like me to break it because they TRAIN you all to agree, and think consensus is a great thing, which allows them to lie about mathematics and hide research from discoverers.
So no Andrew Wiles did not prove Fermat's Last Theorem. But he can rely on supporters around the world claiming he did no matter how many ways you prove he failed. Their word against the mathematics.
How could people do such a thing?
Easy. People around the world routinely do much worse if you hadn't noticed.
But how do you know they are doing such a thing?
You go to the Wikipedia talk page on the prime counting function and look at that short, simple little prime counting function, my prime counting function in its short form and realize just how far they will go, and how dangerous they really are.
These people do fake math, for their own gain. They make money. Gain prestige, and they are ruthless.
Count the primes. Step back to think objectively about the smear campaign that is used against my research. Ask yourself how a highly creative individual who could make major discoveries would actually react to coming upon stinking corruption.
And start ending the con.
These people depend on your trust, following a system they have managed, and on you just being dumb about basics, like how I point out that computers aren't used to check mathematical arguments.
They will block anything they can. Including progress at using computers to check claims of mathematical proof.
They have to to survive. For our species to survive you have to look at the truth.
[A reply to someone who wished to know why, if it is true that James proved Fermat's last theorem and destroyed the foundations of number theory, he is particularly worried about prime counting.]
I have LOTS of research in multiple areas while the easiest area to attack is research related to FLT as mathematicians have a field day with comparing you to crackpots and cranks through the ages who have hacked at the problem.
In contrast counting prime numbers is as direct and real as you get with numbers and it has a very intuitive aspect.
Also, my prime counting function in its sieve form just looks dramatic, as it's so short.
People who compare that with what they see on the main prime counting function page of the Wikipedia can feel deep in their bones that something must be wrong.
And there is no other good explanation except that the math field is corrupted by people who pretend they are making major discoveries, supported by other people who pretend, and they all get paid that way.
Which is why computers are a threat as well so they have to keep coming up with excuses for why computers can't check all those supposed proofs, even though mathematics is a logical subject.
These people are slime of the earth.
They found a way to suck the life out of humanity by attaching themselves in an important but vulnerable area as "pure math" opened the door for them, and now it's just hard getting them out.
Like trying to burn leeches off of a patient covered with them.
The mathematical world is full of parasites who have figured out a way to beat the system, but they have to block out real discoverers to do it—and computers as well.
My prime counting function is a way to help people see the parasites for what they are, and the parasites can't react to it, as in accepting it, because they know that I won't stop there, so there is a pause.
# posted by James Harris @ 00:05 
