Harristotelian Logic

Repeatedly posters arguing with me shift the discussion back to the reality of relationships between my research and past research, where a lot of things have been worked out over the centuries that people have been looking at prime numbers, and it's not like my research changes all of that history.

What it does do is put certain things about the prime distribution in a new light.

Remember, past mathematicians were enthralled by the puzzling relationship between the discrete count of primes and functions like x/ln(x), as why? Why should there be this link between a discrete value and these other functions that are continuous?

Well, my research says the simple reason for the link is that the prime count is close to the output of the summation of a partial difference equation—close, but not exact to it.

And that's it.

Hundreds of years of history in trying to understand primes and it turns out that there is this almost trivial relationship that can explain everything that intrigued mathematicians over the years.

So, in a way, yes, posters are right about the simplicity of my ideas and that most of what is found in my prime counting function was previously known, but it's where it's new that things get interesting—and kind of boring.

A partial difference equation is not a sieve function. Sieves require people help them in special ways, like with phi(x,a), you need to have a list of primes.

My prime counting function has a sieve form, but it also has a partial difference equation form, where it doesn't need a list of primes and from that you can get to a partial differential equation, where of course, lists of primes are useless.

All of that spells simplicity.

The explanations for the prime distribution that come from my research could fit in a paper.

Now one paper does not a department of mathematicians support, let alone a world full of people who need to be able to write papers to survive in an academic world that is about, writing papers, as much as anything else.

So the why of a conspiracy to block my research—deny things like the partial difference equation being a first in prime counting—is that my work simplifies to a degree that I am the one person who gets most of the use out of it.

Same thing happens with my other research like non-polynomial factorization. There I find neat analysis tools that show that all those rings that mathematicians use are just extra stuff.

And with my research you just have one ring.

Again, simplicity does not support math departments.

My research shrivels up a lot of math areas so that you have a lot less extra stuff.

Now that should be a good thing!!!

Certainly building from the simplifications people can find lots of complexity again over time, and great strides in human knowledge, but that makes it a young person's game.

Do you think old mathematicians with established careers and a big body of work that has just been out-dated want to start all over?

There are two key things with my prime counting research:

1. A prime counting function that recursively calls itself—never before seen in mathematical history.


2. As a result of that ability to call itself, you have a partial difference equation, so that sieving is eliminated, as the prime counting function can find its own primes.

Yes, a lot of the basic mathematics is simple, and a lot of older mathematics looks like my equations, especially in certain form, and my equations in their sieve forms—note, not their difference equation or differential equation forms—can be related back to the old sieve functions—all of them, and not just phi(x,a) though that is a favorite.

Math people are people too. And a lot of them worked very hard thinking they were at the cutting edge of knowledge—and they were for their time.

I am the future, with advanced techniques that befuddle math people as you can see on these newsgroups as they belittle brainstorming.

My research takes away the easy road for them, starts them over with much more powerful tools for analysis that more simply answer some of the biggest questions they grew up with, and rather than embrace the work necessary in dealing with the new reality, they hold on to the old.