Harristotelian Logic

So if I am correct I am an amateur mathematician with some of the most dramatic results in mathematical history—some of them formally peer reviewed and published--who for years has had a mathematical community denying his results.

But why?

My best guess considering the nature of my results is that I simplified a HUGE swath of number theory.

Like with my prime counting function, compare the simple definition I have, for either the sieve form or the fully mathematicized form with the partial difference equation, to just about any page on prime counting you'd find anywhere else, and it's just more compact.

And yes, still no word from Princeton. I may bug them early February if the quiet continues, and ask what's going on.

So think about it people—results posters on sci.math have proclaimed boring or meaningless re-writes of Legendre's have been at Princeton University for over a month, even subtracting for the holidays.

You have already been shown up by one of the top schools in the world, as your newsgroup's blanket dismissal has been rejected.

Partial difference equation.

Posters on sci.math say stuff about the subject of difference equations that is childishly wrong, as in, it's so dumb you get embarrassed looking at it.

But a partial difference equation is just the discrete version of a partial differential equation.

They are interchangeable depending on the ring. One is in the ring of integers, the other is in the full field of complex numbers.

Yet posters here can say bizarrely dumb things about the partial difference equation from the full form of my prime counting function, but this newsgroup follows along.

But why? Why are editors at a journal yet again at odds with the newsgroup?

They are supposed to follow rules, that's why.

By the rules the paper should be considered on its merits without regard to anything outside of mathematics, which is what the Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics was faced with years ago with my other paper.

By the rules the mathematics should be judged only by its merits.

So yeah, I'm sure there are readers here who think it matters if I talk about the paper being at Princeton as if that should influence what happens.

By the rules it should not.

You forget that sci.math doesn't have rules.

Usenet is not about rules.

Mathematical journals are about rules.

Here it's a free-for-all, and many posters clearly don't fear being held accountable for what they say.

So, yeah, the secret is that journals are different environments.

To break their rules editors at journals have to lose their society, lose their structure—lose their civilization.

You people in contrast lose nothing here because this environment is not about rules.

In contrast, editors get broken by a failure to follow the rules, which is how your newsgroup killed SWJPAM as the editors broke down under social pressure, and then could not continue.

So the journal died.

If the editors at the Annals didn't follow the rules, they could find themselves unable to continue as well.

It could end their careers as editors, just like that, as something inside would get lost.

But Usenet posters can babble on without concern no matter how wrong they are. It's the nature of the environment.

It's a place to babble on.