Saturday, December 09, 2006

 

JSH: Simpler explanation important as to motive

So I figured out a little while back that I could start differently to prove my non-polynomial factorization result:

175x^2 - 15x + 2 = (f(x) + 2)*(g(x) + 1)

I went to quadratics for simplicity, and start with a very simple looking factorization.

BUT posters still kept objecting claiming that g(x) was somehow a fraction to handle the part in the method where I multiply it by 7, to keep claiming that old ideas were ok, despite the reality that 7 is not a factor in the ring of algebraic integers.

And then I realized that the 2 could be moved so I switched to

175x^2 - 15x + 2 = (g'(x) + 1)*(f'(x) + 2)

where

g'(x) = f(x)/2 and f'(x) = 2g(x)

and you get the same result, of course, where intriguingly the reason you can divide one factor by 2 while multiplying the other and still get algebraic integers is that the 175x^2 - 15x + 2 is always even when x is an integer.

Now that takes away the ability to claim that g(x) can be dramatically different from f(x) and ends any room whatsoever for even the appearance of a rational objection.

Yet there are posters still objecting, and posters still insulting me.

But the methods I use, which were checked by peer review by a math journal that used two reviewers, and where I have now find a second proof to take away any options for the appearance of rational disagreement, represent advancements on techniques for mathematical analysis.

So fighting them is fighting the progress of mathematics itself.

Yet the bulk of posters on this newsgroup remain uncaring while a few still get away with lying about the math and attacking the discoverer.

There is no way that can happen if you people actually cared about mathematics.

No way.

And importantly later I can show that clearly your motives were hostile when the question comes up about whether or not any of you were just confused or not sure about what you were doing.

You have to know exactly what you are doing, from Magidin, to Ullrich, to Hughes, to Rupert and the rest of you, where for Magidin and Ullrich, importantly, and people like them who are academics the most important consequence of your behavior here will be the end of your academic careers.

And no, Ullrich and Magidin, you do not have the option to stay quiet now and try to claim you just didn't pay attention. Your silence is an admission of guilt as well with math this simple.

And consequences—very important—will be making sure you never teach college students again.
There is no choice there at this point as the one question has been—are posters REALLY deliberately lying about important mathematics?

Confusion or not quite understanding was an explanation that I considered for years now as I've looked for simpler and simpler explanation of the primary results.

But with a math proof that removes all areas of confusion now out there, there is no room for that defense and now no doubt whatsoever that people like W. Dale Hall, Arturo Magidin, and David Ullrich are fighting mathematical results that are clear, obvious and supremely important.

W. Dale Hall and Magidin fought the results in emails and now by keeping quiet they can keep up the appearance that there is doubt, when if they were confused before, the simplest and most important thing to do now would be to apologize.

But I think they're waiting to see if anyone will realize the truth, and if it looks like no one will, they think they can just keep doing what they were doing.

So in case you were wondering, part of the reason for me to keep posting simpler and simpler explanations was to determine whether people were just confused or actually were deliberately acting against the discipline of mathematics.

If Magidin and Ullrich are deliberately attacking the discipline itself, then how can they be trusted with young minds?





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?