Harristotelian Logic

I want to know why any of you would think that I am wrong at this point.

This is very important.

Why would any of you given what has happened from the publication in the math journal, to my having this neat prime counting function find, to a very simple explanation with a second proof that removes any mathematical doubt about my research, think I'm wrong?

Or if you don't think any of that is true, why not?

Why do you think people argue with me all the time when it's usually the same people replying to similar arguments over a period of literally years?

How do you explain all of that thinking I am wrong?

What do you think is actually going on here?

Your answers are very important.

I need to know how you are thinking here.

[A reply to someone who said that if James has the intention of convincing anyone that he knows what he is doing, then he must challenge himself to learn the language of proofs.]

Groupthink.

One of the most important events for me was getting to talk to a leading mathematician at my alma mater Vanderbilt University where I could hash it all out on the chalkboard, which was done at his request.

I drove over four hours from Atlanta at his request so that I could explain it in person—on the chalkboard.

Only took a couple of hours and we were in agreement on all of the major points, but inexplicably to me, he just went home and sent me an email later about how much he had enjoyed the conversation!

In reply I went off on him, and yup, I guess I ranted a bit as I could not comprehend how I could explain every point, get agreement on the math, and him just go on about his business like nothing.

Oh yeah, he did say I lacked "polish" which goes back to that learn the lingo thing, but when a mathematician can understand what I'm saying and follow the math, then "polish" is really just about style, now isn't it?

And why in the modern math world is style so much more important than anything else, even proof?

Or even publication?

So AFTER I had that drive to Nashville and that conversation, and the long drive back home wondering what in the hell had happened that I could explain, get agreement and then nothing, I kept at sending my paper to journals and SWJPAM published!!!

I thought it was finally over.

But the sci.math newsgroup erupted, as publication meant NOTHING to them.

NOTHING.

Publication in a peer reviewed math journal meant absolutely NOTHING to sci.math'ers.

There is no way to convince you people, as groupthink rules you.

Nothing means anything to you, not stepped through proof, not publication, not knowing that the hammer is about to fall as I have nice simple explanations and am back to writing papers.

Even knowing that the hammer will fall this time, and that you can't get away again with bushwhacking a journal to get a paper censored, you people blissfully chant nonsense, as if the real world doesn't exist.

But it does. And in the real world, publication does mean something. Proof does matter, and though it can take a while to convince people, once they are convinced, they act.

[A reply to someone who said that the fact that James' paper was accepted shows that the journal's reviewing was inadequate.]

Well either this newsgroup will get down on its knees and beg for forgiveness for destroying that journal or sci.math will cease to exist.

Some of you Usenetters forget that you get to post for free because a lot of other people are paying the bills.

Seems to me that sci.math is giving a lot of reason to re-think the current system.

Gotcha.

You people just don't think far enough ahead.

Part of the endgame is not only the end of sci.math but changing all of Usenet.

Free is not always good.