### Tuesday, July 31, 2007

## JSH: Why wrappers? Example with the why.

So I've been going on lately about what I call wrappers in the ring of algebraic integers, and clearly I'm excited about the explanation, but what does it actually mean? Researchers can be opaque at times in areas worked for years so I'm going to try and explain for those of you who haven't been pondering non-polynomial factorization for years.

It turns out that you can go beyond boring polynomial factorizations like

P(x) = x2 + 3x + 2 = (x+2)*(x+1)

into a wider world that I call non-polynomial factorization where you factor some polynomial into other than polynomial factors, excluding trivial extensions like

P(x) = x+1 = (sqrt(x) + 1)(sqrt(x) - 1)

which is still too close to a known polynomial factorization (you can see exclusions of such factorizations in my previous post on wrappers).

So is that even possible? How can you even have non-polynomial factorizations of polynomials? Just sounds odd, right?

So here's an example of one:

7*P(x) = 7*(175x2 − 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)*(5a_2(x) + 7)

where one of an infinity of possible solutions for the a's is as roots of

a2 − (7x + 4)*a + (49x2 − 14x − 7) = 0.

So now you can see how the a's are not themselves polynomials nor are they square roots of polynomials and the major issue for years about examples like the above when I argue with other people has been, what happens if you divide 7 off from both sides?

Well, the answer from my latest posts so that you can get a handle on the meaning is that you cannot divide the 7 off in general in the ring of algebraic integers.

So like you can't get to something like

P(x) = x2 + 3x + 2 = (x+2)*(x+1)

where you just have P(x) factored, and it turns out that you cannot show a factorization of P(x) in the ring of algebraic integers with these weird non-polynomial factorizations without multiplying it times some number like I did with 7.

The wrapper theorem I've been working on explains what the ring of algebraic integers does if you try.

One of the claims by people arguing with me is that the 7 is the product of two functions, forced by the quirkiness of the ring, which is an intriguing idea but it can't save you from being unable to show the factorization in general, and these people have dodged the issue by instead just saying that for any particular value of x, you can find numbers in the ring of algebraic integers to divide off.

ONE simple challenge, of course to those who claim the ring of algebraic integers is NOT blocking the factorization is to simply give the solution when the 7 is divided off.

Remember the non-polynomial factorization is

7*P(x) = 7*(175x2 − 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)*(5a_2(x) + 7)

where one of an infinity of possible solutions for the a's is as roots of

a2 − (7x + 4)*a + (49x2 − 14x − 7) = 0

and by the wrapper theorem you cannot in general divide the 7 off and give a solution for the result.

You may pick some value for x to appear to divide it off for a particular value but that is allowed by what I call wrappers, which have to shift from number to number so there is no general solution.

I call them wrappers because they multiply times the actual factors, wrapping them up in such a way that you can remain in the ring of algebraic integers, but they only work once.

You need new wrappers as you keep changing x.

I say wrapper theorem meaning that it is an absolute truth, so the clearest way to show I am wrong in that belief is to divide the 7 off with the solution I have for the a's in the ring of algebraic integers.

The wrapper theorem says it cannot be done in the ring of algebraic integers.

So it cannot be done in that ring. That is the absolute in front of you.

It turns out that you can go beyond boring polynomial factorizations like

P(x) = x2 + 3x + 2 = (x+2)*(x+1)

into a wider world that I call non-polynomial factorization where you factor some polynomial into other than polynomial factors, excluding trivial extensions like

P(x) = x+1 = (sqrt(x) + 1)(sqrt(x) - 1)

which is still too close to a known polynomial factorization (you can see exclusions of such factorizations in my previous post on wrappers).

So is that even possible? How can you even have non-polynomial factorizations of polynomials? Just sounds odd, right?

So here's an example of one:

7*P(x) = 7*(175x2 − 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)*(5a_2(x) + 7)

where one of an infinity of possible solutions for the a's is as roots of

a2 − (7x + 4)*a + (49x2 − 14x − 7) = 0.

So now you can see how the a's are not themselves polynomials nor are they square roots of polynomials and the major issue for years about examples like the above when I argue with other people has been, what happens if you divide 7 off from both sides?

Well, the answer from my latest posts so that you can get a handle on the meaning is that you cannot divide the 7 off in general in the ring of algebraic integers.

So like you can't get to something like

P(x) = x2 + 3x + 2 = (x+2)*(x+1)

where you just have P(x) factored, and it turns out that you cannot show a factorization of P(x) in the ring of algebraic integers with these weird non-polynomial factorizations without multiplying it times some number like I did with 7.

The wrapper theorem I've been working on explains what the ring of algebraic integers does if you try.

One of the claims by people arguing with me is that the 7 is the product of two functions, forced by the quirkiness of the ring, which is an intriguing idea but it can't save you from being unable to show the factorization in general, and these people have dodged the issue by instead just saying that for any particular value of x, you can find numbers in the ring of algebraic integers to divide off.

ONE simple challenge, of course to those who claim the ring of algebraic integers is NOT blocking the factorization is to simply give the solution when the 7 is divided off.

Remember the non-polynomial factorization is

7*P(x) = 7*(175x2 − 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)*(5a_2(x) + 7)

where one of an infinity of possible solutions for the a's is as roots of

a2 − (7x + 4)*a + (49x2 − 14x − 7) = 0

and by the wrapper theorem you cannot in general divide the 7 off and give a solution for the result.

You may pick some value for x to appear to divide it off for a particular value but that is allowed by what I call wrappers, which have to shift from number to number so there is no general solution.

I call them wrappers because they multiply times the actual factors, wrapping them up in such a way that you can remain in the ring of algebraic integers, but they only work once.

You need new wrappers as you keep changing x.

I say wrapper theorem meaning that it is an absolute truth, so the clearest way to show I am wrong in that belief is to divide the 7 off with the solution I have for the a's in the ring of algebraic integers.

The wrapper theorem says it cannot be done in the ring of algebraic integers.

So it cannot be done in that ring. That is the absolute in front of you.

## JSH: Blocking and ring of algebraic integers

Brainstorming out a new research approach can difficult in that corrections are needed to cover errors, omissions or missed logical steps.

So I'm doing a new post which has the full result with correction necessitated by counterexamples to previous ones and omissions that I noticed.

Turns out that the key to all that freaking arguing over the years was noting that if you have a polynomial with integer coefficients and a positive leading coefficient in an integral domain then the factorization

P(x) = (g_1(x) + 1)*(g_2(x) + 1)

where g_1(0) = g_2(0) = 0, is BLOCKED if the g's are not polynomials nor are they square roots of polynomials, which is just this remarkable, odd little result that NO ONE would notice unless they went looking for it, as you cannot see it with polynomial factorizations, of course.

So now you get this odd thing with the distributive property as then

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (p_1*g_1(x) + p_1)*(p_2*g_2(x) + p_2)

where the p's are differing prime numbers is blocked from the ring of algebraic integers as well, when the g's are non-rational with non-zero rational x.

But it gets weirder!!!

Because you CAN have the factorization

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + p_1)*(f_2(x) + p_2)

in the ring of algebraic integers with the f's not polynomials nor square roots of polynomials as long as they are not both equal to 0 when x =0.

And you can because you can keep substituting to get to

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (h_1(x) + p_1*p_2)*(h_2(x) + p_1*p_2)

and get the symmetry that the ring of algebraic integers is requiring if the functions are non-rational with rational non-zero x.

As then the h's can be algebraic integer functions, being roots of a monic polynomial expression with integer coefficients as I've often demonstrated with what I call non-polynomial factorization!

What a story! What a wacky ring! It is so cool. So oddly quirky.

No wonder mathematicians like the ring of algebraic integers so much—it's almost human in its peculiarities!!!

Notice that the requirements on the functions is to prevent them from being polynomial or close enough to polynomial functions that the result is obscured.

Without them, for instance

P(x) = -x+1 = (-sqrt(x) + 1)*(sqrt(x) + 1)

is a simple counterexample.

So I'm doing a new post which has the full result with correction necessitated by counterexamples to previous ones and omissions that I noticed.

Turns out that the key to all that freaking arguing over the years was noting that if you have a polynomial with integer coefficients and a positive leading coefficient in an integral domain then the factorization

P(x) = (g_1(x) + 1)*(g_2(x) + 1)

where g_1(0) = g_2(0) = 0, is BLOCKED if the g's are not polynomials nor are they square roots of polynomials, which is just this remarkable, odd little result that NO ONE would notice unless they went looking for it, as you cannot see it with polynomial factorizations, of course.

So now you get this odd thing with the distributive property as then

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (p_1*g_1(x) + p_1)*(p_2*g_2(x) + p_2)

where the p's are differing prime numbers is blocked from the ring of algebraic integers as well, when the g's are non-rational with non-zero rational x.

But it gets weirder!!!

Because you CAN have the factorization

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + p_1)*(f_2(x) + p_2)

in the ring of algebraic integers with the f's not polynomials nor square roots of polynomials as long as they are not both equal to 0 when x =0.

And you can because you can keep substituting to get to

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (h_1(x) + p_1*p_2)*(h_2(x) + p_1*p_2)

and get the symmetry that the ring of algebraic integers is requiring if the functions are non-rational with rational non-zero x.

As then the h's can be algebraic integer functions, being roots of a monic polynomial expression with integer coefficients as I've often demonstrated with what I call non-polynomial factorization!

What a story! What a wacky ring! It is so cool. So oddly quirky.

No wonder mathematicians like the ring of algebraic integers so much—it's almost human in its peculiarities!!!

Notice that the requirements on the functions is to prevent them from being polynomial or close enough to polynomial functions that the result is obscured.

Without them, for instance

P(x) = -x+1 = (-sqrt(x) + 1)*(sqrt(x) + 1)

is a simple counterexample.

### Monday, July 30, 2007

## JSH: Weird but fascinating

Whew! Quite a bit of work from yesterday to today when I finally realized I was brainstorming out a proof that I now call the wrapper theorem. Turns out that the key to all that freaking arguing over the years was noting that if you have a polynomial with integer coefficients in an integral domain then the factorization

P(x) = (g_1(x) + 1)*(g_2(x) + 1)

is BLOCKED when with non-zero integer x, the g's are non-rational, which is just this remarkable, odd little result that NO ONE would notice unless they went looking for it, as you cannot see it with polynomial factorizations, of course.

So now you get this odd thing with the distributive property as then

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (p_1*g_1(x) + p_1)*(p_2*g_2(x) + p_2)

where the p's are differing prime numbers is blocked from the ring of algebraic integers as well, when the g's are non-rational with non-zero rational x.

But it gets weirder!!!

Because you CAN have the factorization

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + p_1)*(f_2(x) + p_2)

in the ring of algebraic integers with the f's being non-rational with non-zero rational x.

And you can because you can keep substituting to get to

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (h_1(x) + p_1*p_2)*(h_2(x) + p_1*p_2)

and get the symmetry that the ring of algebraic integers is requiring if the functions are non-rational with rational non-zero x.

As then the h's can be algebraic integer functions, being roots of a monic polynomial expression with integer coefficients as I've often demonstrated with what I call non-polynomial factorization!

What a story! What a wacky ring! It is so cool. So oddly quirky.

No wonder mathematicians like the ring of algebraic integers so much, it's almost human in its peculiarities!!!

P(x) = (g_1(x) + 1)*(g_2(x) + 1)

is BLOCKED when with non-zero integer x, the g's are non-rational, which is just this remarkable, odd little result that NO ONE would notice unless they went looking for it, as you cannot see it with polynomial factorizations, of course.

So now you get this odd thing with the distributive property as then

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (p_1*g_1(x) + p_1)*(p_2*g_2(x) + p_2)

where the p's are differing prime numbers is blocked from the ring of algebraic integers as well, when the g's are non-rational with non-zero rational x.

But it gets weirder!!!

Because you CAN have the factorization

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + p_1)*(f_2(x) + p_2)

in the ring of algebraic integers with the f's being non-rational with non-zero rational x.

And you can because you can keep substituting to get to

p_1*p_2*P(x) = (h_1(x) + p_1*p_2)*(h_2(x) + p_1*p_2)

and get the symmetry that the ring of algebraic integers is requiring if the functions are non-rational with rational non-zero x.

As then the h's can be algebraic integer functions, being roots of a monic polynomial expression with integer coefficients as I've often demonstrated with what I call non-polynomial factorization!

What a story! What a wacky ring! It is so cool. So oddly quirky.

No wonder mathematicians like the ring of algebraic integers so much, it's almost human in its peculiarities!!!

## JSH: Wrappers in ring of algebraic integers

I've been brainstorming yet another approach to explaining how the ring of algebraic integers is different and now can explain in a rather straightforward way how certain things have to work in that ring and why, as well as why the distributive property is key.

Consider in an integral domain let

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + d_1)*(f_2(x) + d_2)

where the d's are non-zero integers, P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients where P(0) is coprime to d_1 and d_2, and where f_1(0) = f_2(0) = 0.

In every known major ring that is an integral domain EXCEPT the ring of algebraic integers there will always exist g_1(x) and g_2(x) such that

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (d_1*g_1(x) + d_1)*(d_2*g_2(x) + d_2)

where d_1*g_1(x) = f_1(x) and d_2*g_2(x) = f_2(x).

The ring of algebraic integer must have exception cases because if, for instance, the f's are non-rational roots of a monic quadratic with integer coefficients then it is not possible in the ring of algebraic integers for one to have a prime factor that the other does not! So if the d's have differing prime factors the g's cannot exist in that ring.

So the ring of algebraic integers applies wrappers around the the d's, which I'll call w_1 and w_2, so that you have

d_1*d_2*P(x) = ((w_1*d_1)*(w_1*g_1(x)) + (w_1)^2*d_1)*((w_2*d_2)*(w_2*g_2(x)) + (w_2)^2*d_2)

where w_1*d_1 and w_2*d_2 are roots of a monic polynomial with integer coefficients.

The wrappers are forced by the inability of non-rational roots of a monic polynomial with integer coefficients to have differing prime factors.

IN my ring of objects the wrappers are units and w_1*w_2 = 1 or -1.

To emphasize how different the ring of algebraic integers is, consider trying to start with

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (d_1*g_1(x) + d_1)*(d_2*g_2(x) + d_2)

where I remind that the d's are non-zero integers, P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients where P(0) is coprime to the d's.

It turns out that construct CANNOT EXIST in the ring of algebraic integers if g_1(x) and g_2(x) have any non-rational values with an integer x, and the d's do not share all the same prime factors!!!

That ring specifically blocks the distributive property itself in certain instances.

Consider in an integral domain let

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + d_1)*(f_2(x) + d_2)

where the d's are non-zero integers, P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients where P(0) is coprime to d_1 and d_2, and where f_1(0) = f_2(0) = 0.

In every known major ring that is an integral domain EXCEPT the ring of algebraic integers there will always exist g_1(x) and g_2(x) such that

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (d_1*g_1(x) + d_1)*(d_2*g_2(x) + d_2)

where d_1*g_1(x) = f_1(x) and d_2*g_2(x) = f_2(x).

The ring of algebraic integer must have exception cases because if, for instance, the f's are non-rational roots of a monic quadratic with integer coefficients then it is not possible in the ring of algebraic integers for one to have a prime factor that the other does not! So if the d's have differing prime factors the g's cannot exist in that ring.

So the ring of algebraic integers applies wrappers around the the d's, which I'll call w_1 and w_2, so that you have

d_1*d_2*P(x) = ((w_1*d_1)*(w_1*g_1(x)) + (w_1)^2*d_1)*((w_2*d_2)*(w_2*g_2(x)) + (w_2)^2*d_2)

where w_1*d_1 and w_2*d_2 are roots of a monic polynomial with integer coefficients.

The wrappers are forced by the inability of non-rational roots of a monic polynomial with integer coefficients to have differing prime factors.

IN my ring of objects the wrappers are units and w_1*w_2 = 1 or -1.

To emphasize how different the ring of algebraic integers is, consider trying to start with

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (d_1*g_1(x) + d_1)*(d_2*g_2(x) + d_2)

where I remind that the d's are non-zero integers, P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients where P(0) is coprime to the d's.

It turns out that construct CANNOT EXIST in the ring of algebraic integers if g_1(x) and g_2(x) have any non-rational values with an integer x, and the d's do not share all the same prime factors!!!

That ring specifically blocks the distributive property itself in certain instances.

### Sunday, July 29, 2007

## Council of Concerned College Graduates

I want to put the idea out there that college graduates have a responsibility to the academic system worldwide to help maintain a healthy one, and to that end I propose the creation of an organization called the Council of Concerned College Graduates or the CCCG.

The primary issue I think with academia is truth:

How do we know when published results are correct?

How do we know that what is taught in colleges and universities around the world is correct?

What independent measures can be established to counteract fraud or other human weakness?

As a college graduate I am very grateful for the education I received from Vanderbilt University, and to me a precious commodity is one that is protected.

It seems to me that those who have gone through the system but now are outside of it may be the best guardians of it.

But that is just an idea so I put it here on this site, to release it to the world.

The primary issue I think with academia is truth:

How do we know when published results are correct?

How do we know that what is taught in colleges and universities around the world is correct?

What independent measures can be established to counteract fraud or other human weakness?

As a college graduate I am very grateful for the education I received from Vanderbilt University, and to me a precious commodity is one that is protected.

It seems to me that those who have gone through the system but now are outside of it may be the best guardians of it.

But that is just an idea so I put it here on this site, to release it to the world.

## JSH: Update on DMESE and how they lie

Convincing others that a group of people are lying can be a difficult task, so it helps to be creative.

I can now hopefully convince some of the more open minded of you that sci.math'ers do routinely lie about my research by again mentioning one of my more recent ideas that I call DMESE which is an acronym for Digital Media Equipment Self-Encryption.

I thought it up one day while musing about some people casually sharing copies of a movie, where the idea is that if you buy a DVD, you can make copies, but your copies are encrypted by your copying equipment so that only it can read them without a key.

There have been sci.math'ers attacking the idea since I posted about it, where I started on the sci.crypt newsgroup, and recently when I noted evidence of world interest from web search results there were attacks on that evidence.

One poster cited a long search string of his own as evidence against, while another made up a short random string as his evidence, and another created a spam posting attacking.

I suggest interested readers do a search on DMESE in a major search engine today.

Now the naive among you may believe that hard evidence from the real world matters to these people but I have been arguing with them for years now and know it does not which is why I need an example like this one to help some of you understand how they operate.

Whether or not the idea is viable or is picked up by the entertainment industry—I project it could save them tens of millions US in a single year—why would sci.math'ers even care to attack it?

Why bother?

Because they convince people by SAYING I'm wrong no matter what, so they go after anything that might convince people otherwise because they have an absolute strategy of working to convince that I'm just a crackpot.

Consider recent discussions where I cite the distributive property. Here's an example of a simple expression that I think is kind of obvious as to the proper conclusion:

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + d_1)*(f_2(x) + d_2)

where d_1 and d_2 are non-zero integers, P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients, and P(0) is coprime to d_1 and d_2, and f_1(0) = f_2(0) = 0.

I say it follows by the distributive property that there exists functions g_1(x) and g_2(x) such that

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (d_1*g_1(x) + d_1)*(d_2*g_2(x) + d_2)

and you may ask, in what ring?

Well, it turns out that you are ok in almost any integral domain, so the ring of integers: ok.

That will also work in fields, so it works in the field of complex numbers.

Going back to rings, it will work in the ring of gaussian integers.

But I can construct examples where it will NOT always work in the ring of algebraic integers.

Why not? Because you can find cases where g_1(x) and g_2(x) cannot both be algebraic integers with algebraic integer x, while

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + d_1)*(f_2(x) + d_2)

is in the ring as all its elements are in the ring.

Now that is just rather curious! But if you accept the mathematical truth, like if you consider that maybe DMESE has value, then it's hard to just discount my research as just crackpot nonsense.

Now if DMESE were viable and implemented you could, say, buy the movie "Transformers" when it comes out on DVD, make a copy for regular use, and store the original in a safe place, all legally.

Why would sci.math'ers knee-jerk fight an idea that could offer a simple benefit to people worldwide?

I say because they lie about so much, and lie about lying until they are buried so deep in the lies that there is nothing beyond them, which is why I need something practical to make it make sense to you not only that they do lie, but how they do it.

But you may still wonder, why lie?

I think some of it is American class warfare that is hard to explain, but some of it is also about that simple result with the distributive property unseating a lot of mathematical ideas, showing that quite a few mathematicians may not have ANY valid discoveries in their entire careers. So they get money for nothing.

Odd that something so simple can mean so much but remember, we're talking about mathematics where small mistakes in the foundations can have HUGE consequences.

Yes I can come up with hundred million dollar ideas and yes I have found an error in what modern mathematicians currently use that is a lot of motivation for unscrupulous people who know how much trust matters even against hard evidence to use just denying mathematical proof to keep going—doing nothing of value.

Understanding lying in the United States can be a complex affair but the value in understanding it can be considered by the continuing war in Iraq. If you are in Iraq, then yeah, you know the value already. If you are in other countries who could bear the brunt of NOT understanding how lying in this country works, then you could find yourself severely disadvantaged in the near future.

There are people here who lie because they get something for nothing by doing so.

And that is not complete either, now is it? These people do worse than nothing, as, for instance, in attacking DMESE, if their attacks mattered against a viable idea so that you could not legally copy your DVD's this Christmas, did they achieve only nothing?

Or did they not also achieve a negative?

I suggest to you that these types of human beings are a net negative on the world as a whole, and they know it on some level, so lying and lying about lying is for them, a way for survival itself.

Dare think George W. Bush is going to wake up any day soon and suddenly decide that telling the truth is a good thing?

They are fighting for their livelihoods, and the ability to get something for negatives.

They get paid to make your life worse by getting you to just, trust them.

I can now hopefully convince some of the more open minded of you that sci.math'ers do routinely lie about my research by again mentioning one of my more recent ideas that I call DMESE which is an acronym for Digital Media Equipment Self-Encryption.

I thought it up one day while musing about some people casually sharing copies of a movie, where the idea is that if you buy a DVD, you can make copies, but your copies are encrypted by your copying equipment so that only it can read them without a key.

There have been sci.math'ers attacking the idea since I posted about it, where I started on the sci.crypt newsgroup, and recently when I noted evidence of world interest from web search results there were attacks on that evidence.

One poster cited a long search string of his own as evidence against, while another made up a short random string as his evidence, and another created a spam posting attacking.

I suggest interested readers do a search on DMESE in a major search engine today.

Now the naive among you may believe that hard evidence from the real world matters to these people but I have been arguing with them for years now and know it does not which is why I need an example like this one to help some of you understand how they operate.

Whether or not the idea is viable or is picked up by the entertainment industry—I project it could save them tens of millions US in a single year—why would sci.math'ers even care to attack it?

Why bother?

Because they convince people by SAYING I'm wrong no matter what, so they go after anything that might convince people otherwise because they have an absolute strategy of working to convince that I'm just a crackpot.

Consider recent discussions where I cite the distributive property. Here's an example of a simple expression that I think is kind of obvious as to the proper conclusion:

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + d_1)*(f_2(x) + d_2)

where d_1 and d_2 are non-zero integers, P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients, and P(0) is coprime to d_1 and d_2, and f_1(0) = f_2(0) = 0.

I say it follows by the distributive property that there exists functions g_1(x) and g_2(x) such that

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (d_1*g_1(x) + d_1)*(d_2*g_2(x) + d_2)

and you may ask, in what ring?

Well, it turns out that you are ok in almost any integral domain, so the ring of integers: ok.

That will also work in fields, so it works in the field of complex numbers.

Going back to rings, it will work in the ring of gaussian integers.

But I can construct examples where it will NOT always work in the ring of algebraic integers.

Why not? Because you can find cases where g_1(x) and g_2(x) cannot both be algebraic integers with algebraic integer x, while

d_1*d_2*P(x) = (f_1(x) + d_1)*(f_2(x) + d_2)

is in the ring as all its elements are in the ring.

Now that is just rather curious! But if you accept the mathematical truth, like if you consider that maybe DMESE has value, then it's hard to just discount my research as just crackpot nonsense.

Now if DMESE were viable and implemented you could, say, buy the movie "Transformers" when it comes out on DVD, make a copy for regular use, and store the original in a safe place, all legally.

Why would sci.math'ers knee-jerk fight an idea that could offer a simple benefit to people worldwide?

I say because they lie about so much, and lie about lying until they are buried so deep in the lies that there is nothing beyond them, which is why I need something practical to make it make sense to you not only that they do lie, but how they do it.

But you may still wonder, why lie?

I think some of it is American class warfare that is hard to explain, but some of it is also about that simple result with the distributive property unseating a lot of mathematical ideas, showing that quite a few mathematicians may not have ANY valid discoveries in their entire careers. So they get money for nothing.

Odd that something so simple can mean so much but remember, we're talking about mathematics where small mistakes in the foundations can have HUGE consequences.

Yes I can come up with hundred million dollar ideas and yes I have found an error in what modern mathematicians currently use that is a lot of motivation for unscrupulous people who know how much trust matters even against hard evidence to use just denying mathematical proof to keep going—doing nothing of value.

Understanding lying in the United States can be a complex affair but the value in understanding it can be considered by the continuing war in Iraq. If you are in Iraq, then yeah, you know the value already. If you are in other countries who could bear the brunt of NOT understanding how lying in this country works, then you could find yourself severely disadvantaged in the near future.

There are people here who lie because they get something for nothing by doing so.

And that is not complete either, now is it? These people do worse than nothing, as, for instance, in attacking DMESE, if their attacks mattered against a viable idea so that you could not legally copy your DVD's this Christmas, did they achieve only nothing?

Or did they not also achieve a negative?

I suggest to you that these types of human beings are a net negative on the world as a whole, and they know it on some level, so lying and lying about lying is for them, a way for survival itself.

Dare think George W. Bush is going to wake up any day soon and suddenly decide that telling the truth is a good thing?

They are fighting for their livelihoods, and the ability to get something for negatives.

They get paid to make your life worse by getting you to just, trust them.

### Saturday, July 28, 2007

## JSH: My math blog, new look

I've updated my math blog to Blogger's latest layout which makes navigating posts easier:

http://mymath.blogspot.com/

Colors changed a little bit too.

http://mymath.blogspot.com/

Colors changed a little bit too.

### Sunday, July 22, 2007

## JSH: I have more stories

Before the incident when my high school bizarrely decided a rule change to prevent me from getting an award for the highest SAT score, I had twice gone to Duke University under their Talent Identification or TIP program.

The second summer that I went I had a "white" roommate and he was just such a nice guy and it looked like it would just be another fun time at Duke University for the summer, and this time I was learning programming as I was taking classes in C programming taught by an IBM researcher on loan from the IBM Research Triangle in Durham, North Carolina.

Well, this nice roommate of mine noticed me hanging out with some nice looking girls—hey I was a normal enough teenage male in many ways—and one day he sits me down in our room to explain to me how he didn't have a problem with black people in general but that he didn't want to see me around any white women. He was against race mixing and wanted me to understand that I was NOT to involve myself with white girls.

I listened in shock.

It was like out of the blue from someone who had acted like the nicest person and was even my roommate!

So I went to one of the advisors for the TIP program and told him the story. He just kind of shrugged and said there were just people who thought that way, and that was it.

I was left to handle the situation on my own.

That is the United States of America that I think few people not from here understand.

There are people here who are middle class who would not think of doing anything like that kid did, but there are these other people mixed right in there with them who think that is the most natural thing to do in the world.

So you can come here and be destroyed out of the blue by people who will smile at you as they do it, as they fight some wacky class battle that is mostly in their heads.

That takes away accomplishment on merit as notice these people don't care about merit, so I could have the highest SAT score of my class. They did not care.

The other kid could have a lower score.

They did not care.

Give him the award anyway because to them it's not about merit.

It's about class.

Class warfare in the United States is simply extremely evolved and very bizarre as it's useless.

The society is at its best when it is middle class, and merit matters.

People here can destroy entire companies when the class warfare people get out of control as they put someone incompetent in charge because they do not care about merit.

The middle class works around them but too often, like with that advisor, the middle class here just shrugs and lets them get away with their bizarre class war.

And it becomes the world's problem when someone like George W. Bush becomes president and now you know more about why this country is at war in Iraq.

It's about some people here fighting class battles—snatching defeat from victory—because for some reason they cannot accept that middle class is better.

The second summer that I went I had a "white" roommate and he was just such a nice guy and it looked like it would just be another fun time at Duke University for the summer, and this time I was learning programming as I was taking classes in C programming taught by an IBM researcher on loan from the IBM Research Triangle in Durham, North Carolina.

Well, this nice roommate of mine noticed me hanging out with some nice looking girls—hey I was a normal enough teenage male in many ways—and one day he sits me down in our room to explain to me how he didn't have a problem with black people in general but that he didn't want to see me around any white women. He was against race mixing and wanted me to understand that I was NOT to involve myself with white girls.

I listened in shock.

It was like out of the blue from someone who had acted like the nicest person and was even my roommate!

So I went to one of the advisors for the TIP program and told him the story. He just kind of shrugged and said there were just people who thought that way, and that was it.

I was left to handle the situation on my own.

That is the United States of America that I think few people not from here understand.

There are people here who are middle class who would not think of doing anything like that kid did, but there are these other people mixed right in there with them who think that is the most natural thing to do in the world.

So you can come here and be destroyed out of the blue by people who will smile at you as they do it, as they fight some wacky class battle that is mostly in their heads.

That takes away accomplishment on merit as notice these people don't care about merit, so I could have the highest SAT score of my class. They did not care.

The other kid could have a lower score.

They did not care.

Give him the award anyway because to them it's not about merit.

It's about class.

Class warfare in the United States is simply extremely evolved and very bizarre as it's useless.

The society is at its best when it is middle class, and merit matters.

People here can destroy entire companies when the class warfare people get out of control as they put someone incompetent in charge because they do not care about merit.

The middle class works around them but too often, like with that advisor, the middle class here just shrugs and lets them get away with their bizarre class war.

And it becomes the world's problem when someone like George W. Bush becomes president and now you know more about why this country is at war in Iraq.

It's about some people here fighting class battles—snatching defeat from victory—because for some reason they cannot accept that middle class is better.

### Saturday, July 21, 2007

## JSH: Kind of bizarre, but not really

Looking over the replies in the thread "JSH: Stolen dreams and the distributive property" I find the bizarreness of the responses there is in keeping with my social theories, as well with past reactions to my mathematical research.

The difference for at least some of you is that now I can explain to you how people can look at a mathematical proof and just say it's not true because of the fear in their minds, where everything for them is class warfare.

There is a remarkable story from the history of the United States where Ray Charles, a legendary blind musician now deceased, was riding in his brand new Oldsmobile with several friends when the car was stopped by a police officer who stopped them because they were black people in a new Oldsmobile.

The nice, new car was a status symbol, but to that policeman it was a class issue.

He put Ray Charles, a blind man, on the side of the road and took the car and the other occupants in for no reason other than they were in a nice, new car. Putting a blind man alone on the side of the road seemed like a good joke to the police officer.

That is a story about fear—the fear of that police officer about class boundaries being tested by black people having a nice car.

Thankfully that is a story about past history, and I doubt anything like it could occur in the United States today, over a new car, but I have little doubt that there are people here who would happily resist any information that indicated that black people in this country are capable of making massively huge intellectual discoveries that overturn a century of thinking.

They are that small, that narrow minded and most importantly, that afraid.

What are they fighting for?

They are fighting for a two tier class system with a permanent lower class made up of blacks, Latinos, and other immigrants who would be the buffer zone between the whites who think this way, as I'm not saying all in the United States do, and the bottom of this social order.

But the United States is a middle class society. There is no reason to fight for a two tier classed society as their is no value in it for the middle class, so why bother?

Why would that kid I've mentioned in past posts who got the award for the highest SAT score want it, when I had the highest SAT score, on some arbitrary rule change that tossed in another requirement? Why would he even want that kind of help? Why did he NEED that kind of support?

Why should some "white" person in this country get so frightened if a "black" person manages some major accomplishment unless they're afraid of being put on the bottom, and where can that fear come from but ancient roots, where for many those roots are in Britain?

Look back to British history and you see a two tier class system.

Fear is about NOT thinking clearly. Mathematical proof is about when you are past survival fears and are steps beyond trying to just stay alive so that you can appreciate the finer things in life.

After all, if you're starving, then what good is a mathematical proof? Or the music of Mozart? Or a painting by Picasso?

People in this country literally stuff themselves so that it has a very high obesity rate.

Fear, I suggest to you, is a lot about why. People afraid of starving to death in one of the richest countries in the world, when they should not have such a fear of that as a threat.

These people are terrified so they cannot think, but their terror is for a non-existent problem.

But what can you do about people's fears? Just tell them they are irrational?

As if, as if that makes a difference, so sci.math'ers destroyed a math journal fighting a paper where the key to the paper is the distributive property because they're too afraid to appreciate the finer things in life. They're so afraid of surviving that they cannot accept a mathematical proof that to them is a matter of life and death—when it's all in their heads.

As I've said before, these people are fighting ghosts.

The difference for at least some of you is that now I can explain to you how people can look at a mathematical proof and just say it's not true because of the fear in their minds, where everything for them is class warfare.

There is a remarkable story from the history of the United States where Ray Charles, a legendary blind musician now deceased, was riding in his brand new Oldsmobile with several friends when the car was stopped by a police officer who stopped them because they were black people in a new Oldsmobile.

The nice, new car was a status symbol, but to that policeman it was a class issue.

He put Ray Charles, a blind man, on the side of the road and took the car and the other occupants in for no reason other than they were in a nice, new car. Putting a blind man alone on the side of the road seemed like a good joke to the police officer.

That is a story about fear—the fear of that police officer about class boundaries being tested by black people having a nice car.

Thankfully that is a story about past history, and I doubt anything like it could occur in the United States today, over a new car, but I have little doubt that there are people here who would happily resist any information that indicated that black people in this country are capable of making massively huge intellectual discoveries that overturn a century of thinking.

They are that small, that narrow minded and most importantly, that afraid.

What are they fighting for?

They are fighting for a two tier class system with a permanent lower class made up of blacks, Latinos, and other immigrants who would be the buffer zone between the whites who think this way, as I'm not saying all in the United States do, and the bottom of this social order.

But the United States is a middle class society. There is no reason to fight for a two tier classed society as their is no value in it for the middle class, so why bother?

Why would that kid I've mentioned in past posts who got the award for the highest SAT score want it, when I had the highest SAT score, on some arbitrary rule change that tossed in another requirement? Why would he even want that kind of help? Why did he NEED that kind of support?

Why should some "white" person in this country get so frightened if a "black" person manages some major accomplishment unless they're afraid of being put on the bottom, and where can that fear come from but ancient roots, where for many those roots are in Britain?

Look back to British history and you see a two tier class system.

Fear is about NOT thinking clearly. Mathematical proof is about when you are past survival fears and are steps beyond trying to just stay alive so that you can appreciate the finer things in life.

After all, if you're starving, then what good is a mathematical proof? Or the music of Mozart? Or a painting by Picasso?

People in this country literally stuff themselves so that it has a very high obesity rate.

Fear, I suggest to you, is a lot about why. People afraid of starving to death in one of the richest countries in the world, when they should not have such a fear of that as a threat.

These people are terrified so they cannot think, but their terror is for a non-existent problem.

But what can you do about people's fears? Just tell them they are irrational?

As if, as if that makes a difference, so sci.math'ers destroyed a math journal fighting a paper where the key to the paper is the distributive property because they're too afraid to appreciate the finer things in life. They're so afraid of surviving that they cannot accept a mathematical proof that to them is a matter of life and death—when it's all in their heads.

As I've said before, these people are fighting ghosts.

## JSH: Stolen dreams and the distributive property

To understand succinctly how low mathematicians can go, just consider the following simple expression:

c*P(x)=(f_1(x) + c)*(f_2(x) + c)

where c is a non-zero integer—so it is a constant—and P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients, while f_1(x) and f_2(x) are functions of x.

Now I say that the distributive property is independent of the value of x.

Posters disagree because if you agree with that statement then you can let x=0, and with examples I have you can find then that f_1(x) or f_2(x) should have c as a factor, but THEN find that they do not always in the ring of algebraic integers.

That is succinctly is the primary issue which if I'm correct sinks Galois Theory as currently taught and shows that major works over a period longer than a century in number theory must be wrong.

To understand why I am right first notice that at x=0, with P(0) not equal to 0, and coprime to c, it cannot be true that both f_1(0) = 0 and f_2(0) = 0, so it makes sense to normalize them by substituting for functions that do both go to 0 at x=0.

There have been many arguments over YEARS on sci.math to fight just that step!!!

Also note that the paper which sci.math'ers sank with emails to the editors of SWJPAM relies on this basic result.

There really is no mathematical basis for disagreeing with me, but mathematicians as a community lie, and I know they lie because of this simple result and my other mathematical research.

Their lies cost me rewards for my discoveries, just like that school changing the rules cost me a reward for having the highest SAT in my graduating class, and I want you to understand that stealing is what these people are doing, but they are not just stealing my dreams.

Consider the high school kids dreaming of being mathematicians, who will start school at colleges and universities soon, or to move it outside this country, also consider those kids in secondary schools or whatever people are calling the last schools before college in this country who are soon going to be taught mathematician ideas proven false years ago by me.

They are the ones who are robbed. Their dream of doing legitimate research is what is being taken away by people who are quite deliberately lying about the most basic mathematics.

A reply to soeone who wrote that stealing James' dreams serves him right for not being “white”.

I assume you are being sarcastic but this situation is weird enough that it's hard not to wonder what's going on and that could be a large part of it in the United States at least.

I have an argument that is trivially easy where I can prove that people are lying about that argument using something as simple as

c*P(x)=(f_1(x) + c)*(f_2(x) + c)

where c is a non-zero integer—so it is a constant—and P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients, while f_1(x) and f_2(x) are functions of x.

I copied that down from the top of my original post as from the mathematical side, all you need to know is there, as there is NO WAY the distributive property cares what value x has, as the value of x is irrelevant to how factors of c distribute as you multiply P(x) by it.

That is trivially easy math but denying it is an ongoing process by the modern mathematical community.

It is not beyond reason that in the United States race may play a factor, as this country is well-known for its problems in that area.

I'd represent a sharp reversal of racist positions still held by many in this country.

And I like giving that example where I had the highest SAT score in my graduating class but the school gave the award for having the highest SAT score to a "white" kid by adding in another condition on the fly to give people outside the US some perspective.

Yes, that sort of thing can happen here and it's not just about the school, as it's also about that kid—the loser made a "winner".

Yes, I fear that people in my country could lie about my research, robbing the world of mathematical advancement for racial reasons and I've explained my theories on why in previous posts, going all the way back to colonists coming from Britain afraid of ever being on the bottom again.

Airplanes need wider seats because of the obesity rates in this country.

I suggest to you over-consumption here is about irrational fears held by many of the populace who are deeply afraid of one day again being under the rule of a nobility as their ancestors once were in Britain.

In comparison, lying about math is nothing.

These people are afraid. The greatest export of the United States is fear because that is the reality of many in this country—deeply held fear.

c*P(x)=(f_1(x) + c)*(f_2(x) + c)

where c is a non-zero integer—so it is a constant—and P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients, while f_1(x) and f_2(x) are functions of x.

Now I say that the distributive property is independent of the value of x.

Posters disagree because if you agree with that statement then you can let x=0, and with examples I have you can find then that f_1(x) or f_2(x) should have c as a factor, but THEN find that they do not always in the ring of algebraic integers.

That is succinctly is the primary issue which if I'm correct sinks Galois Theory as currently taught and shows that major works over a period longer than a century in number theory must be wrong.

To understand why I am right first notice that at x=0, with P(0) not equal to 0, and coprime to c, it cannot be true that both f_1(0) = 0 and f_2(0) = 0, so it makes sense to normalize them by substituting for functions that do both go to 0 at x=0.

There have been many arguments over YEARS on sci.math to fight just that step!!!

Also note that the paper which sci.math'ers sank with emails to the editors of SWJPAM relies on this basic result.

There really is no mathematical basis for disagreeing with me, but mathematicians as a community lie, and I know they lie because of this simple result and my other mathematical research.

Their lies cost me rewards for my discoveries, just like that school changing the rules cost me a reward for having the highest SAT in my graduating class, and I want you to understand that stealing is what these people are doing, but they are not just stealing my dreams.

Consider the high school kids dreaming of being mathematicians, who will start school at colleges and universities soon, or to move it outside this country, also consider those kids in secondary schools or whatever people are calling the last schools before college in this country who are soon going to be taught mathematician ideas proven false years ago by me.

They are the ones who are robbed. Their dream of doing legitimate research is what is being taken away by people who are quite deliberately lying about the most basic mathematics.

A reply to soeone who wrote that stealing James' dreams serves him right for not being “white”.

I assume you are being sarcastic but this situation is weird enough that it's hard not to wonder what's going on and that could be a large part of it in the United States at least.

I have an argument that is trivially easy where I can prove that people are lying about that argument using something as simple as

c*P(x)=(f_1(x) + c)*(f_2(x) + c)

where c is a non-zero integer—so it is a constant—and P(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients, while f_1(x) and f_2(x) are functions of x.

I copied that down from the top of my original post as from the mathematical side, all you need to know is there, as there is NO WAY the distributive property cares what value x has, as the value of x is irrelevant to how factors of c distribute as you multiply P(x) by it.

That is trivially easy math but denying it is an ongoing process by the modern mathematical community.

It is not beyond reason that in the United States race may play a factor, as this country is well-known for its problems in that area.

I'd represent a sharp reversal of racist positions still held by many in this country.

And I like giving that example where I had the highest SAT score in my graduating class but the school gave the award for having the highest SAT score to a "white" kid by adding in another condition on the fly to give people outside the US some perspective.

Yes, that sort of thing can happen here and it's not just about the school, as it's also about that kid—the loser made a "winner".

Yes, I fear that people in my country could lie about my research, robbing the world of mathematical advancement for racial reasons and I've explained my theories on why in previous posts, going all the way back to colonists coming from Britain afraid of ever being on the bottom again.

Airplanes need wider seats because of the obesity rates in this country.

I suggest to you over-consumption here is about irrational fears held by many of the populace who are deeply afraid of one day again being under the rule of a nobility as their ancestors once were in Britain.

In comparison, lying about math is nothing.

These people are afraid. The greatest export of the United States is fear because that is the reality of many in this country—deeply held fear.

### Friday, July 20, 2007

## JSH: Problem solving

I have nearly completed my analysis of the current problem and am currently drilling in on the solution.

To me it is fascinating to consider the refusal to accept problem solving as an art which has allowed so many of you to keep going in the face of a very deliberate process against someone who has proven adeptness at the art.

ONE THING I have done to test solutions is to give you a dire consequence because I have to push up against absolutes as nearly as possible to figure out proper parameters and for many of you loss of income is a dire consequence which is relevant as I determined that few if any of you believed you could ever got to jail or be torn apart by an angry mob so I've shifted to what is important to you.

That process is just beginning in many ways while I hope it will not be necessary to dig much deeper.

After years of consideration I think that money is more important than prestige or, well, anything else for the bulk of you, and that there is some resonance with the idea of public opinion turning against the mathematical community.

However, to make that a real concern I have to shift some politicians which I am in the process of doing.

Luckily, politicians are easier to convince than mathematicians.

You people hang your fates on my failure.

And that's what makes it fun!

Sane people don't play with me because they hate losing.

But you people just keep the game going.

A nice touch is your continued confidence as global warming begins its inexorable march.

I still wonder what you will do when you first begin to realize that your survival is actually at stake.

How will the ego collapse proceed?

So much to analyze, and so little time left.

To me it is fascinating to consider the refusal to accept problem solving as an art which has allowed so many of you to keep going in the face of a very deliberate process against someone who has proven adeptness at the art.

ONE THING I have done to test solutions is to give you a dire consequence because I have to push up against absolutes as nearly as possible to figure out proper parameters and for many of you loss of income is a dire consequence which is relevant as I determined that few if any of you believed you could ever got to jail or be torn apart by an angry mob so I've shifted to what is important to you.

That process is just beginning in many ways while I hope it will not be necessary to dig much deeper.

After years of consideration I think that money is more important than prestige or, well, anything else for the bulk of you, and that there is some resonance with the idea of public opinion turning against the mathematical community.

However, to make that a real concern I have to shift some politicians which I am in the process of doing.

Luckily, politicians are easier to convince than mathematicians.

You people hang your fates on my failure.

And that's what makes it fun!

Sane people don't play with me because they hate losing.

But you people just keep the game going.

A nice touch is your continued confidence as global warming begins its inexorable march.

I still wonder what you will do when you first begin to realize that your survival is actually at stake.

How will the ego collapse proceed?

So much to analyze, and so little time left.

### Thursday, July 19, 2007

## JSH: Independent measures

The reality of the modern math world for mathematicians in "pure math" areas is a divorcement from reality, so that only the word of other mathematicians is used to determine what is considered valuable.

But people lie.

Computers offer a means for independent test, what I call use of independent measures, but somehow, someway computers are supposedly too stupid, primitive and fallible to check the oh, so glorious mathematician!

I say you are a goddamn fool if you believe that and the simplest way to know that most mathematicians today are con artists is to just ask them why computers are not used to check claims of mathematical proof!!!

LOOK AROUND YOU PEOPLE!

These people do not want computers because it would be too hard to get the computers to lie.

And I want computer checking because then I could break these people who DO lie.

I've explained why they lie: bizarre class warfare from an older age where people in this country snatch defeat from victory by refusing to play by rules believing that's what nobility does as they fight for a two-tiered class system in a world where the middle-class is better.

These people lose by grasping for something not worth having but in their fear, in their need to win against ghosts they destroy so much, and they lie about anything because to them everything is life and death.

So my country people get fat because they stuff themselves scared of starvation while they burn off the world's oil at a monstrous rate. Airplanes have had to be re-designed to handle the extra size of Americans stuffing themselves.

We live in a world of terror. That is the American way and our greatest export. Fear.

I say, while there is still a world left, start asking for proof—independent measures.

Don't just let some politicians tell you that fear rules the world so you must do what they say, kill this person, kill that person or it's you. I say, why not ask, why?

Why must we burn more and more oil, eat more and more, blow up more and more?

Why?

But people lie.

Computers offer a means for independent test, what I call use of independent measures, but somehow, someway computers are supposedly too stupid, primitive and fallible to check the oh, so glorious mathematician!

I say you are a goddamn fool if you believe that and the simplest way to know that most mathematicians today are con artists is to just ask them why computers are not used to check claims of mathematical proof!!!

LOOK AROUND YOU PEOPLE!

These people do not want computers because it would be too hard to get the computers to lie.

And I want computer checking because then I could break these people who DO lie.

I've explained why they lie: bizarre class warfare from an older age where people in this country snatch defeat from victory by refusing to play by rules believing that's what nobility does as they fight for a two-tiered class system in a world where the middle-class is better.

These people lose by grasping for something not worth having but in their fear, in their need to win against ghosts they destroy so much, and they lie about anything because to them everything is life and death.

So my country people get fat because they stuff themselves scared of starvation while they burn off the world's oil at a monstrous rate. Airplanes have had to be re-designed to handle the extra size of Americans stuffing themselves.

We live in a world of terror. That is the American way and our greatest export. Fear.

I say, while there is still a world left, start asking for proof—independent measures.

Don't just let some politicians tell you that fear rules the world so you must do what they say, kill this person, kill that person or it's you. I say, why not ask, why?

Why must we burn more and more oil, eat more and more, blow up more and more?

Why?

### Sunday, July 15, 2007

## JSH: Shifting world opinion

My goal as I've often put out there is to change the way the world looks at people like you.

Now then, if you're a mathematician who is truly independent of what the world thinks of you—like many have claimed—then that means nothing to you.

But make no mistake, as this goes forward it's not about recognition from your world which some of you seem to be finally figuring out while others have been stupidly arrogant for years believing I want you to say I have great discoveries.

I have great discoveries. I don't need your say-so in the matter.

So then, the Math Wars have gone on for a little while and can go on for longer with me telling the world you people are cons and fakes who have hard to understand crap because it is a con and your research is often not true.

As I work to change the opinion of the world of you I am also working to cut into public funding for mathematicians as I try to end the white collar welfare system that empowers so many of you.

If you are a real mathematician who cares not what the world thinks of you, then none of that will matter.

Then all you need is a writing utensil and paper and those are cheap. You don't also need a salary.

Now then, if you're a mathematician who is truly independent of what the world thinks of you—like many have claimed—then that means nothing to you.

But make no mistake, as this goes forward it's not about recognition from your world which some of you seem to be finally figuring out while others have been stupidly arrogant for years believing I want you to say I have great discoveries.

I have great discoveries. I don't need your say-so in the matter.

So then, the Math Wars have gone on for a little while and can go on for longer with me telling the world you people are cons and fakes who have hard to understand crap because it is a con and your research is often not true.

As I work to change the opinion of the world of you I am also working to cut into public funding for mathematicians as I try to end the white collar welfare system that empowers so many of you.

If you are a real mathematician who cares not what the world thinks of you, then none of that will matter.

Then all you need is a writing utensil and paper and those are cheap. You don't also need a salary.

## JSH: Challenge with DMESE, copy protection

Whatever it is today mathematics emerged as a practical discipline—a way to solve important problems.

I claim to be, not a mathematician, but a problem solver who has important mathematical discoveries, while the gatekeepers of the mathematical world mostly ignore my results, while a few on the fringe on math newsgroups keep claiming they are not valuable, so I have found a way to challenge all of them in a way that practical minded people can understand with a real world problem.

Problem: The entertainment industry is befuddled by the ability of end users to copy digital media and give it away, and so far its attempts to solve the problem have failed.

I have presented my own solution that I call Digital Media Equipment Self-Encryption, or DMESE for short, and several posters have boldly criticized my idea. Rather than argue about its merits my challenge to them is to give their own attempts at a solution.

DMESE is cleverly simple as with it a user's own equipment just encrypts its copies making it unreadable by the equipment of other users without a key. DMESE can be hardwired into things like a DVD drive making it very difficult for end users without the ability to tear open their drives and re-wire them to change it. And it removes the ability to do a software solution—with DMESE hardwired in they can't re-write but have to physically break into the drive, or build their own non-DMESE drive.

Now then, it's easy for people with NO REAL ABILITY to criticize a great problem solver as all they have to do is just keep saying no, but it's hard to actually produce in the real world with a real problem, versus making claims about "proofs" that few people in the world can understand or care to understand, where I say mathematicians often lie, relying on the lack of real checking to steal from the world in a sad and complex con.

The academic system supports people today who have done no useful work in their entire careers which is why I call the system, white collar welfare. These are useless people, smart about lying, but nothing else.

So then, those who would criticize, put up your own answer. I know you will not as you cannot so you will just continue to criticize, as that is all you have.

You are not problem solvers in actuality. Your input to the world is nothing but negative.

ALL you people have is false beliefs from people who should know better than to just trust you.

The value to the world in your efforts is nothing.

I claim to be, not a mathematician, but a problem solver who has important mathematical discoveries, while the gatekeepers of the mathematical world mostly ignore my results, while a few on the fringe on math newsgroups keep claiming they are not valuable, so I have found a way to challenge all of them in a way that practical minded people can understand with a real world problem.

Problem: The entertainment industry is befuddled by the ability of end users to copy digital media and give it away, and so far its attempts to solve the problem have failed.

I have presented my own solution that I call Digital Media Equipment Self-Encryption, or DMESE for short, and several posters have boldly criticized my idea. Rather than argue about its merits my challenge to them is to give their own attempts at a solution.

DMESE is cleverly simple as with it a user's own equipment just encrypts its copies making it unreadable by the equipment of other users without a key. DMESE can be hardwired into things like a DVD drive making it very difficult for end users without the ability to tear open their drives and re-wire them to change it. And it removes the ability to do a software solution—with DMESE hardwired in they can't re-write but have to physically break into the drive, or build their own non-DMESE drive.

Now then, it's easy for people with NO REAL ABILITY to criticize a great problem solver as all they have to do is just keep saying no, but it's hard to actually produce in the real world with a real problem, versus making claims about "proofs" that few people in the world can understand or care to understand, where I say mathematicians often lie, relying on the lack of real checking to steal from the world in a sad and complex con.

The academic system supports people today who have done no useful work in their entire careers which is why I call the system, white collar welfare. These are useless people, smart about lying, but nothing else.

So then, those who would criticize, put up your own answer. I know you will not as you cannot so you will just continue to criticize, as that is all you have.

You are not problem solvers in actuality. Your input to the world is nothing but negative.

ALL you people have is false beliefs from people who should know better than to just trust you.

The value to the world in your efforts is nothing.

### Saturday, July 14, 2007

## JSH: Math Wars, reconsidered

Those who read my math blog may have noticed I now have an explanation for this situation where I say I have major mathematical discoveries and others work diligently to fight that claim where I speculate that members of the lower class in Britain fleeing to the Americas to create this country so many hundreds of years ago, came with some baggage about their noble class.

Some of the history of this country is well-known, of course, and I don't think it odd to suggest that those colonists who turned to slavery were trying to create a permanent underclass with themselves as a permanent upper class—they were trying to make themselves nobility.

So what does any of that have to do with math?

I suggest to you that some of them haven't quite stopped and that descendants of those British lower classes not only continue to try at times to turn themselves into something of an upper class in the United States, but they follow bizarre and twisted rules which are THEIR interpretations of upper class behavior.

They believe that upper class members are above the law, will win at any cost, and exploit the people beneath them with no mercy, and that denial of this reality is just a sign of a lack of education and lower class status.

I ran into this kind of behavior years ago when I graduated from high school with the highest SAT of my graduating class and there was an award for that, which by the rules I had won.

Like by the rules I had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal.

The school changed the rules so that you had to have the highest SAT score and be in the top 10% by grades, which I was not, so they didn't give me the award and gave it instead to some "white" kid.

And he was so proud.

In this reality of a bizarre class war that has spanned centuries where the British nobles that those colonists were—I'd say—fleeing, long dead, you have a modern society with some people fighting ghosts.

And their twisted interpretation of what it means to be upper class as seen by those from the bottom has created a group of very dangerous people capable of just about anything believing that is what a nobility does.

On one of my blogs I have contrasted George W. Bush avoiding serving in combat in the Vietnam War with Prince Harry, an actual British royal, trying to get INTO war in Iraq.

There is one view of what people in an upper class always do, and there is the reality of a mixed bag of behaviors from those who read the histories of classed societies around the world.

Yes, I'm saying that there are a lot of people needlessly being evil who follow naive interpretations they inherited from their ancestors who were on the bottom.

People on the bottom in a classed society rarely rave about those on the top.

Thankfully the United State is a middle class society, which means it has not upper class.

But some people here don't quite get it as they follow some wicked programming from past ages.

You see, as they lie, cheat and steal, doing anything to grasp for meaningless power—they think they're being, noble.

Or maybe I should say, they think they are noble, British style.

A reply to someone who wrote that Arturo Magidin is not one of the “descendants of those British lower classes”.

I'm talking about an explanation for extraordinary circumstances without specifically singling out any particular individual, while you clearly are trying to make it personal.

BUT remember I did have a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal and people like you suddenly changed the rules, like what I experienced with my high school when I had the highest SAT score for my graduating class.

By the rules certain things should happen so people like you CHANGE the rules on the fly and explaining that is best done by looking to American history and the reality of the harshness of British culture under its class system, or how else do you explain it?

It's like running a race where when you get ahead people are changing the rules so that you are disqualified and the person behind you not only gets the award but celebrates as if they actually won!

It can be puzzling to others who think there must be something they are missing that explains it so they sit silently, not wanting to be the dumb person not in on the secret, so I've given them the secret:

Lower classes from Britain who came to the Americas naively believed that the British nobility could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, and some of their descendants in this country continue the dream of achieving nobility through a distorted and twisted perception of what it is.

That is the secret.

That is how George W. Bush can do the things he does but still strut like a proud peacock to the befuddlement of the world.

That is how that school could change the rules despite my having the highest SAT score of my graduating class and give the award for having the highest SAT score instead to a "white" kid who celebrated as if he actually won.

And that is how sci.math posters could go after publication of my paper, get the journal killed when the editors naively trusted them, and then act like it was just the most normal thing.

To a particular lower class view all of that is what nobility can do.

To them that is what nobility are SUPPOSED to do.

Some of the history of this country is well-known, of course, and I don't think it odd to suggest that those colonists who turned to slavery were trying to create a permanent underclass with themselves as a permanent upper class—they were trying to make themselves nobility.

So what does any of that have to do with math?

I suggest to you that some of them haven't quite stopped and that descendants of those British lower classes not only continue to try at times to turn themselves into something of an upper class in the United States, but they follow bizarre and twisted rules which are THEIR interpretations of upper class behavior.

They believe that upper class members are above the law, will win at any cost, and exploit the people beneath them with no mercy, and that denial of this reality is just a sign of a lack of education and lower class status.

I ran into this kind of behavior years ago when I graduated from high school with the highest SAT of my graduating class and there was an award for that, which by the rules I had won.

Like by the rules I had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal.

The school changed the rules so that you had to have the highest SAT score and be in the top 10% by grades, which I was not, so they didn't give me the award and gave it instead to some "white" kid.

And he was so proud.

In this reality of a bizarre class war that has spanned centuries where the British nobles that those colonists were—I'd say—fleeing, long dead, you have a modern society with some people fighting ghosts.

And their twisted interpretation of what it means to be upper class as seen by those from the bottom has created a group of very dangerous people capable of just about anything believing that is what a nobility does.

On one of my blogs I have contrasted George W. Bush avoiding serving in combat in the Vietnam War with Prince Harry, an actual British royal, trying to get INTO war in Iraq.

There is one view of what people in an upper class always do, and there is the reality of a mixed bag of behaviors from those who read the histories of classed societies around the world.

Yes, I'm saying that there are a lot of people needlessly being evil who follow naive interpretations they inherited from their ancestors who were on the bottom.

People on the bottom in a classed society rarely rave about those on the top.

Thankfully the United State is a middle class society, which means it has not upper class.

But some people here don't quite get it as they follow some wicked programming from past ages.

You see, as they lie, cheat and steal, doing anything to grasp for meaningless power—they think they're being, noble.

Or maybe I should say, they think they are noble, British style.

A reply to someone who wrote that Arturo Magidin is not one of the “descendants of those British lower classes”.

I'm talking about an explanation for extraordinary circumstances without specifically singling out any particular individual, while you clearly are trying to make it personal.

BUT remember I did have a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal and people like you suddenly changed the rules, like what I experienced with my high school when I had the highest SAT score for my graduating class.

By the rules certain things should happen so people like you CHANGE the rules on the fly and explaining that is best done by looking to American history and the reality of the harshness of British culture under its class system, or how else do you explain it?

It's like running a race where when you get ahead people are changing the rules so that you are disqualified and the person behind you not only gets the award but celebrates as if they actually won!

It can be puzzling to others who think there must be something they are missing that explains it so they sit silently, not wanting to be the dumb person not in on the secret, so I've given them the secret:

Lower classes from Britain who came to the Americas naively believed that the British nobility could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, and some of their descendants in this country continue the dream of achieving nobility through a distorted and twisted perception of what it is.

That is the secret.

That is how George W. Bush can do the things he does but still strut like a proud peacock to the befuddlement of the world.

That is how that school could change the rules despite my having the highest SAT score of my graduating class and give the award for having the highest SAT score instead to a "white" kid who celebrated as if he actually won.

And that is how sci.math posters could go after publication of my paper, get the journal killed when the editors naively trusted them, and then act like it was just the most normal thing.

To a particular lower class view all of that is what nobility can do.

To them that is what nobility are SUPPOSED to do.