Harristotelian Logic

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.