Harristotelian Logic

I have "pure math" research that I say is important, while mathematicians have in various ways denied that, even when I had backup, albeit brief, from mathematicians who published some of my research in the now defunct journal SWJPAM.

So I say my work is important, yet mathematicians say, in various ways, so that it can be a symbolic say, that it is not, which leaves me with a quandary, as it's my word against theirs.

So I went to the factoring problem.

If as I say mathematicians routinely lie about math, and I do come up with a viable factoring approach then it stands to reason that they would CONTINUE to lie, but other people might use the research anyway.

But then again, I might simply be unable to come up with a viable approach to the factoring problem.

However, if I come up with an approach then if it is NOT viable then mathematicians, supposedly brilliant, should be able to settle it, and simply proclaim me as just being the crackpot who has nothing—and prove it.

Otherwise they leave the world at the wrong end of the whip where BILLIONS of dollars US, as in yes, BILLIONS of dollars could swing in hours on what is the truth, and that is the lever.

Archimedes said, give me a lever long enough and a solid place to stand and I can move the world.

We live in a world that has learned to dismiss ideas, and believes that genius can be controlled.

The death of modern mathematics as a viable discipline so that science depends on the discoveries of past mathematicians is about attempts at controlling creativity squeezing the life out of the modern research world.

But these people are about politics, so they work to convince, and if they get something wrong then entire economies can fall.j

The entire planet of humanity can believe the world is flat and be wrong.

Belief can be just a way for you to get yourself killed. And LOTS of people believing the same thing can be just a way for you to get yourselves all killed.

What did the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki believe?

Did that matter?

So for you there is the question on which your life savings can depend—the potential to lose everything you have worked your entire life for, literally, overnight, because some people you do not even know, lied.

Lose everything.

No retirement. No golden years looking back but working harder than ever knowing that everything you did before was lost because you trusted the wrong people.

Or there is nothing here and I'm just a loudmouth on Usenet babbling nonsense, and you can trust those math people you don't even know to keep you safe, and keep your retirement safe, and keep your family safe.

Or force mathematicians to settle the question:

Does surrogate factoring work or not? If not, what is the mathematical analysis that proves it does not?

Or sit and wait, and stay at the wrong end of the whip and see how long you get yanked around.

[A reply to someone who asked why is it that James keeps posting at the sci.math newsgroup.]

Because by posting here I can present ideas to the math community worldwide.

If later those ideas are shown to be viable and there is no possible way a math community that cares about mathematical research for real and has natural human curiosity could have ignored them, then I make my point that most math people today are con artists.

So you see, I have to put the information in a place where math people can get to it.

And I have to talk enough around it about basic human curiosity and evidence of truly valuing a subject to take away what is often called plausible deniability.

That is, I have to remove all other possibilities EXCEPT math people being con artists.

And that takes time and some careful maneuvering as well as multiple actions to ensure that mathematicians had every chance to do the right thing.

Challenging Santos to commit every dime is part of that action, as to con artists, what really is more important than money?

I challenge you as well to pledge every penny you own to anyone worldwide who loses money if surrogate factoring turns out to be what your community is saying it is not.

By pledging what you own to them you can give them the knowledge that you have determined to the best of your ability that there is nothing to what I say, and are willing to accept consequences if you are wrong.

As being an expert gives responsibility and part of responsibility is accepting the consequence of your actions.

So it's gut check time.

Put up all your money—after all, what does it mean to you anyway if math is what you care about—as a gift to anyone who loses money if you are wrong, as your personal compensation for their loss.

[A reply to someone who wrote that James has been perpetuating a con job on the sci.math newsgroup, always promising something and never having delivered on one promise.]

Except I HAVE delivered. Instead of just arguing with people over my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem I wrote a paper over a key results that followed from it and got it published.

Posters on sci.math then declared that the journal system was flawed and that math journals routinely publish false papers!!!

Others mounted an email campaign against the paper and convinced the journal editors it was false, so they yanked it, and later the journal shut down.

With my prime counting research I first found my prime counting function, and then proved how it was different from anything else previously known as to this day no one can give any other partial difference equation used to count prime numbers, and no other known that finds primes on its own.

Posters on sci.math when challenged with those points shift the definition of "difference equation" to a non-standard one, and ignore the second point about finding primes or just lie about it.

Repeatedly, by all normal standards, I achieve and posters deny in unreasonable ways all achievements while making dubious achievements of their own—like killing a math journal.

REASONABLE people who listen to me talk about the factoring problem can note that I'm making sense, while posters arguing with me, can't even be bothered to present a mathematical argument against my research or in support of their claims.

[A reply to someone who wrote that people at the sci.math newsgroup have repeatedly tried to implement James' many variants of surrogate factoring and that none of them is remotely close to competitive with existing methods for factoring integers.]

Sounds like you're ready to defend on every point, so your position is clear, and now if that position is refuted ultimately by the evidence, so that everything you said falls apart like a house of cards, what then?

Can you get what I'm emphasizing here? That the math community cannot have its cake and eat it too?

I want it clear that if you turn out to be wrong you lose the title of experts.

Period.

No if's and's or but's, but quite succinctly, you lose the title of experts in the field.

Get it? So it's not about me asking anything from you except clarity on this position.

I want you and your community to understand that if I force this and prove that I am correct, you lose the title "mathematicians".

[A reply to someone who wrote that people at the sci.math newsgroup would have a much higher probability of looking stupid if they spent a lot of time trying to get every crank's pet notions to work.]

And I think that you resist all evidence for class reasons, and a need to try and hold onto a nasty worldview that some people in the United States want because it justifies dominating other "races" based on the idea that they are inherently genetically inferior.

If you acknowledge that mathematicians made mistakes that I discovered, or missed simple mathematical ideas that I've found, you lose the genetic argument.

You can no longer claim that "whites" are born to rule, and that claims otherwise are about being politically correct, or to keep "minorities" from rioting.

It is a US position against the future of the world, where mathematical proof hasn't mattered because people like you hold that view as a security blanket believing that if you can manipulate and lie enough to control populations while hiding that from them, then that must mean you are smarter, better and deserve to survive when and if the time comes that a decision has to be made, who lives and who dies.

So to you lying about lying and getting away with it is just proof that you are smarter, as how else can intelligent people ignore proofs? How could they ignore publication in a math journal unless they were too stupid to understand why people like you do those kinds of tests to be more certain of your control.

The US invaded Iraq on lies and pretenses and gets away with it partly to test that control.

The US has a peculiar position of living by contrasts and contradictions.

The real point I'm making is how far some of you will go to hold on to some very perverted views about the human species.

You think you are born better so that you feel more secure.

And I tell you that you are just another human being and what you are is about merit, not race.