Harristotelian Logic

The standard argument against "crackpots" should be that what they have does not work.

It also should be that they have no support for their arguments from experts in the field.

Given a situation where you find a person labeled a crackpot where neither of those applies, there is a puzzle, whether people acknowledge it or not, as you have a situation without explanation.

Did you know that opposition in posts and websites against me exploded after December 1999 when I came up with a crucial yet simple way to analyze algebraic expressions which I typically call tautological spaces?

Over three years ago when I started talking about figuring out a way to count prime numbers on Usenet, I was facing the usual ridicule and nasty replies in posts that maybe I unfortunately have just gotten too used to, as it's expected behavior.

For a couple of weeks I tried various ideas, which did not work as I started from scratch figuring out a way to count prime numbers and posting about my research—part of a process I call extreme mathematics.

Posters dutifully—yeah, I know kind of odd—checked these various ideas I came up with, and there was derision as they did not work, and then one day I posted something I knew had to work.

I knew it worked as I was puzzling over my approach and trying out various ideas with a computer program, and suddenly with one change, the test output was nothing but prime numbers.

So my screen filled up with prime numbers and I knew I had succeeded.

I posted. There was some derision, then quiet as some posters noted that it worked.

Then someone claimed it was nothing new and the derision began again.

I had some other mathematical research published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal.

Someone posted that my paper was published—not me—and there was this outpouring of hatred on sci.math and they went after the journal.

I mean they went after that journal in post after post after post, ripping on it, until a couple of posters had the brilliant idea of emailing the journal claiming they had refutations to the mathematical proof it contained.

The bushwhacked editors—as I didn't realize I needed to warn them that Usenet posters might make false claims in emails attacking the paper—simply yanked my paper.

It was an electronic journal so they just pulled it from its position as the second paper published, as if they just wanted to erase it completely, but eventually they put the title back with "Withdrawn" underneath.

Posters on sci.math ripped on the journal.

They also berated it when later it quietly shut down after just one more edition.

Posters berated the now dead journal.

To me the one consistent thing in what I face from math society is their recognition that nothing happens unless they accept a result.

It does not matter what you can prove.

They have to accept the proof, or it's like you have nothing at all, no matter what happens.

[A reply to someone who asked if James' life is really so pathetic that he has nothing better to do than to waste it.]

Tell it to the judge as they say.

I'm tired of this situation and looking to get a lot more serious.

One option is to make a case that proper acceptance of my work would be worth a certain amount of dollars and go convince some attorneys to take up a precedent setting case.

The biggest problem I see is with the international scope of this thing in terms of going after some of you, but for the people in the US, all that matters is I find some attorneys willing to take the case.