Harristotelian Logic

I can easily prove the correctness of some of my more dramatic mathematical research as it counts prime numbers, and I can just show what it looks like versus what mathematicians had before, and what it leads to, versus what they had before, and it's easy to do all of that.

Yet over four years since I first saw my computer screen fill up with prime numbers I'm still labeled a crackpot, my research is not taught, and mathematicians seem to have no need to fear that this situation will change.

But why not?

Quite simply, they have the power to ignore results they don't like, and my results challenge some well-established views that mathematicians have built careers upon.

So they are committing fraud with very little fear of consequences.

And this is with mathematics, where it's easy to show what I have, that it is correct, that it is different from what was known before in crucial and unique ways—while being simpler in many aspects as well—and there's nothing I can do but whine about it on Usenet.

They have that kind of power.

And with results like mine that would just change the landscape in a huge way, they have the motivation—if they ignore the importance to humanity of advancements in knowledge and our understanding.

And why shouldn't they?

Why should they care about how we advance as a species if that means they are diminished?

Why should a professor with years of experience believing things he worked hard to learn accept it when some outsider makes discoveries that challenge what he was taught, when doing so could impact his own income?

Would you?

I don't think you would.

I think it's nice to talk about ideals and the importance to humanity of this or that, but you need to eat, to feed your family, and you like status.

Why accept changes to all of that when you can just go on with your world as it is, as if the advancement of this species means anything?

Isn't your ability to do it proof that it means nothing at all?

Isn't the capacity of mathematicians to avoid research that is this clearly unique and important to protect themselves proof that they are right in doing what they do?

And wouldn't you do the same.

[A reply to someone who wanted to know if James' post meant that the Annals of Mathematics had rejected his paper.]

No. It is still under review.

But it might help you to know that for a long time I haven't wanted to be bothered with a lot of civil litigations, but increasingly I'm just tired of this situation.

And yes, if Princeton accepts the paper then your legal defense would be that much harder.

And your identities can be pulled so that you can be litigated against.

But Usenet would change I'm afraid. Maybe if Princeton does accept the paper I'll go back to my earlier disdain for personally using the courts, but I'm gearing up just in case.

It's past time to end this situation and if I have to do it with a civil case in front of a jury, then so be it.