Thursday, January 11, 2007
JSH: What did I do?
Maybe it'd help if I told you all the bigger picture of what I actually accomplished over four years ago.
Yes, I found my prime counting function, but did so right after finishing a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem using some creative new analytical tools based on what I call tautological spaces.
Arguing about the proof of Fermat's I realized posters were focusing on one area, so I pulled that area out and wrote a paper on it, which is the paper that got published, then retracted by the editors, and then the journal died.
That paper was expanded from a couple of sentences in the full proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but it shows a subtle error in a huge part of number theory.
So the big picture is that my research resets the way mathematicians around the world look at themselves.
I simplified a HUGE amount of number theory with some interesting new techniques.
One dead math journal is NOTHING compared to the big picture.
I think nothing like this has happened in history before.
[A reply to someone who wondered why people bothered with a clown like James.]
Yeah, if I were wrong, then they could do that, but I'm right so they can't.
It's simple.
Why did the entire sci.math newsgroup erupt in a fury when I got published, and go after the paper?
Because it was wrong?
Why not then be puzzled at it getting through? Why not just a little bit of self-reflection to be sure that maybe it wasn't right? Why go hot after the paper IMMEDIATELY?
But instead the newsgroup did not pause, did not consider but jumped to verbal attacks and then an email assault because deep down THEY KNOW IT IS RIGHT!!!
There is no need to reflect or pause when they know the real answer is they are wrong, my research is correct and that is why they are angry.
The anger is over the math. They hate what is mathematically correct.
An analogy would be if physicists had decided they couldn't stand quantum mechanics and hounded after people who talked about it.
Here is the mathematical revolution that can't occur because members of the math community hate the next step, like if physics people had hated to oddity and quirkiness of QM, then we could have had a drama like this one in that area.
Yes, I found my prime counting function, but did so right after finishing a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem using some creative new analytical tools based on what I call tautological spaces.
Arguing about the proof of Fermat's I realized posters were focusing on one area, so I pulled that area out and wrote a paper on it, which is the paper that got published, then retracted by the editors, and then the journal died.
That paper was expanded from a couple of sentences in the full proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but it shows a subtle error in a huge part of number theory.
So the big picture is that my research resets the way mathematicians around the world look at themselves.
I simplified a HUGE amount of number theory with some interesting new techniques.
One dead math journal is NOTHING compared to the big picture.
I think nothing like this has happened in history before.
[A reply to someone who wondered why people bothered with a clown like James.]
Yeah, if I were wrong, then they could do that, but I'm right so they can't.
It's simple.
Why did the entire sci.math newsgroup erupt in a fury when I got published, and go after the paper?
Because it was wrong?
Why not then be puzzled at it getting through? Why not just a little bit of self-reflection to be sure that maybe it wasn't right? Why go hot after the paper IMMEDIATELY?
But instead the newsgroup did not pause, did not consider but jumped to verbal attacks and then an email assault because deep down THEY KNOW IT IS RIGHT!!!
There is no need to reflect or pause when they know the real answer is they are wrong, my research is correct and that is why they are angry.
The anger is over the math. They hate what is mathematically correct.
An analogy would be if physicists had decided they couldn't stand quantum mechanics and hounded after people who talked about it.
Here is the mathematical revolution that can't occur because members of the math community hate the next step, like if physics people had hated to oddity and quirkiness of QM, then we could have had a drama like this one in that area.
# posted by James Harris @ 21:48 
