Harristotelian Logic

I think that a problem many of you have is that you think you are very experienced with what you may perceive as a threat of a libel lawsuit. While I think libel is definitely a potential area for consideration of a civil action it is not the only one.

I am not a legal expert but I have read that the law recognizes various duties and responsibilities that all citizens have in actions towards each other and also can give people designated "expert" special responsibilities.

In talking with mathematicians I have sensed a belief that a mathematician need not concern himself with mathematical research that does not promote that particular person's career, which may be an attitude at odds with the law.

That means that civil actions may take more complex forms than a simple libel suit and may, though this post is not meant to declare they will, include a wider array of potential tortfeasors, which can include universities.

I will say though that I would not think it likely that a civil action could be made attractive to attorneys without the potential of bringing in defendants like universities, and it is my belief that legal precedent can be set on the basis of common law, specifically good faith.

That is, there is an expectation that mathematicians are bound by social contracts that would expect that in acting with good faith they would report on mathematical research that is important WITHOUT REGARD to its value to their own research or careers and that failure to do so is a BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, and more specifically is an act of bad faith, which can be seen as a tort against an individual who is harmed by such behavior, where such harm can be specific and/or general.

Under that legal principle both the mathematicians and their universities could be brought into a civil action, which asserts there is a great social good to be had from holding such institutions and their members responsible at a level commensurate with the great trust and prestige which is accorded to them in good faith by a society that expects the same in return.

In short, I am talking about a case I'd guess is unlike anything you have heard of before.

I read a lot so I can mention some legal stuff without asserting expertise or claiming necessarily that the principles mentioned would actually hold in any courts of law. But I suggest that those of you who think you know about threats of libel suits and how difficult those are, re-think and possibly send a copy of this post to an actual legal expert.

In my view our academic world has clear flaws which have been shown by this situation, and it may take court action which could impact how academics is done.

That is not just a case about libel.

[A reply to someone who wrote that it would be an interesting world if courts felt themselves obliged or able to rule on whether mathematical research was correct or interesting.]

Yup and I argue that mathematicians clearly feel confident that because of that they can ignore provably important research.

So the legal challenge would be proving that my research is important and that mathematicians are ignoring it because it does not help their own careers, possibly relying on their knowledge that the system trusts them to not do so.

That is the breach of the public trust which would allow me to not only pursue civil actions against mathematicians but against their universities as well, and pursue mathematicians who have made no public statements about my research.

If I won those cases which would be the big ones, where the heavy fighting would be done, I'd come back to the libel cases AFTERWARDS, and quickly mop those up, internationally pursuing certain Usenet posters and others who made libelous public statements, like on web pages.

May be some fights there like even with civil liberties groups but I think I could convince them that this is a special situation with a huge abuse of the public trust by people who felt certain they could not be held accountable because of the past difficulty in punishing abuses on Usenet and the web.

It'd change the landscape by creating a way to make it worthwhile for attorneys to pursue such cases.

So yes, I'd think libel would come up, but later. First I'd be going after universities.

And yes, if I succeed it'd change the system, opening up for the courts an area that has previously been left alone—and fraud has festered as society's dubious reward—which is why it is crucial that I pursue every other option first so that the egregious nature of the situation makes it clear that going to court is the only option left.

Four years plus have gone by since my computer screen filled up with prime numbers—the situation is clearly egregious.

[A reply to someone who wrote that James would have to pursue civil actions against every single mathematician in the world, except for those few who actually had a word to say about his research.]

To make a legal case I'd need to show they had every opportunity so that would mean mathematicians who could be proven to have known, for instance, because I contacted them.

Making the case could involve a paid expert on the stand testifying about my research versus what was previously known.

If you were someone who was of interest you could be called to the stand and forced to testify under oath about specific features of my research.

So no, you wouldn't be able to make a global statement against it, but like you'd face a question like, was anything like this previously known?

Or you could be asked, is there any other known multi-dimensional prime counting function?

Is there any other known prime counting function that recursively calls itself?

Can any other known prime counting function lead to a partial differential equation?

Under oath and before a judge or jury, all the childish replies that work on Usenet would just be shut down, and if you lied, you could face perjury charges and that's just you.

You're just one person as I'd have a gamut of people that could be called to the stand or deposed and forced to testify under oath.

Since no one would be able to claim my research is not of major interest without being impeached and maybe even facing perjury charges that aspect of a legal case is the easy part.

To interest attorneys I have to convince that someone could pay penalties, and that someone would be universities.

For instance, Harvard University alone has an over $2 billion US endowment.