Sunday, September 16, 2007
JSH: Understanding the conundrum
By the rules I can easily show the value of my mathematical research. But the math community is not following its own rules.
So the conundrum is that mathematical proof is proving to be useless with the math community!
That leaves me pushing for the truth in what venues I can where yes, I contact mathematicians directly, yes, I send papers to journals for peer review, and yes I have had others with contacts in academic circles try to get straight answers on my research.
Kind of funny as with one person in California when his colleague asked him about my prime counting function, he went on six month sabbatical!
When he came back he said he didn't remember ever being asked and now would have no comment.
Years ago I asked the sci.math newsgroup if backup from a NASA scientist would matter, and posters ripped on NASA, and yes I had in mind a person at NASA who might have potentially tried to help me.
When I was in an ultra high IQ group, some of its members dared post support for my research, and were ripped on ceaselessly by posters.
Yet repeatedly posters will STILL claim that I'm all alone in believing my mathematical ideas are valuable, and I really find it remarkable when some will say that NO mathematician in the world supports my ideas.
Especially considering that brief publication in the journal SWJPAM, where you people may have destroyed some editorial careers.
Get the gist of the situation?
If sci.math posters can claim that no one supports my research after I've had that brief publication, have had highly intelligent people arguing in support of my work, who will rip NASA when I ask if comments from a scientist there would help, then the actual position is an absolute one.
With my prime counting function I contacted leading researchers in the field and Odlyzko claimed it was not of interest, while Lagarias would just suggest I get published!
With non-polynomial factorization and an early version of the paper that did get briefly published by SWJPAM, I got feedback from Barry Mazur. I sent a draft to Andrew Granville for publication in the New York Journal of Mathematics, and he deferred to the chief editor, saying it was out of his area, and the chief editor said the paper was too small. As in, not long enough in size, not in value as no one claimed it was wrong.
What do posters reply to such facts? They claim that all those people were just being polite! That none of them thought anything of my research but didn't wish to say that in reply, but I should be glad that such important people would even bother replying to me in the first place!
Now there is factoring, and the bar moves so that beyond inventing a new factoring method I also must mature the research to an applied level great enough to tackle very large numbers.
Seem reasonable? Like attacking NASA? Ignoring publication? Ignoring defense of my research? Ignoring the growing volume of that research?
To me Iraq is the best example of denial in another area to give some perspective on why people lie on this scale and why being able to get away with it, is such an important part.
While George W. Bush's party dominated all three major branches of government they could do whatever, knowing there was no authority around to hold them to task, and changes in policy only started here when Republicans lost control of Congress.
Even now Bush can feel safe from impeachment because his party has enough members that they can still block a real investigation.
People lie. And they lie to advance their agenda.
Lying about math isn't even hard today in "pure math" areas as all modern mathematicians have to do to block an idea is say nothing. Do nothing.
And I can't even get a comment from most of them, which is another reason to post on newsgroups as people do reply, and since they're fighting mathematical proof and overwhelming evidence, their replies betray their disregard for the truth.
While the mathematical constituency leaves mathematicians free to lie and devalue mathematical proof, like with Bush and the American people, nothing will change.
So yeah, evidence is something I have lots of, and it doesn't matter if you are dealing with people who feel invulnerable to the truth.
Like Bush, modern number theorists can sit back confident that their constituency will protect them no matter what to insulate them from responsibility to their own jobs.
Which is why often in the real world, proof is not enough.
So the conundrum is that mathematical proof is proving to be useless with the math community!
That leaves me pushing for the truth in what venues I can where yes, I contact mathematicians directly, yes, I send papers to journals for peer review, and yes I have had others with contacts in academic circles try to get straight answers on my research.
Kind of funny as with one person in California when his colleague asked him about my prime counting function, he went on six month sabbatical!
When he came back he said he didn't remember ever being asked and now would have no comment.
Years ago I asked the sci.math newsgroup if backup from a NASA scientist would matter, and posters ripped on NASA, and yes I had in mind a person at NASA who might have potentially tried to help me.
When I was in an ultra high IQ group, some of its members dared post support for my research, and were ripped on ceaselessly by posters.
Yet repeatedly posters will STILL claim that I'm all alone in believing my mathematical ideas are valuable, and I really find it remarkable when some will say that NO mathematician in the world supports my ideas.
Especially considering that brief publication in the journal SWJPAM, where you people may have destroyed some editorial careers.
Get the gist of the situation?
If sci.math posters can claim that no one supports my research after I've had that brief publication, have had highly intelligent people arguing in support of my work, who will rip NASA when I ask if comments from a scientist there would help, then the actual position is an absolute one.
With my prime counting function I contacted leading researchers in the field and Odlyzko claimed it was not of interest, while Lagarias would just suggest I get published!
With non-polynomial factorization and an early version of the paper that did get briefly published by SWJPAM, I got feedback from Barry Mazur. I sent a draft to Andrew Granville for publication in the New York Journal of Mathematics, and he deferred to the chief editor, saying it was out of his area, and the chief editor said the paper was too small. As in, not long enough in size, not in value as no one claimed it was wrong.
What do posters reply to such facts? They claim that all those people were just being polite! That none of them thought anything of my research but didn't wish to say that in reply, but I should be glad that such important people would even bother replying to me in the first place!
Now there is factoring, and the bar moves so that beyond inventing a new factoring method I also must mature the research to an applied level great enough to tackle very large numbers.
Seem reasonable? Like attacking NASA? Ignoring publication? Ignoring defense of my research? Ignoring the growing volume of that research?
To me Iraq is the best example of denial in another area to give some perspective on why people lie on this scale and why being able to get away with it, is such an important part.
While George W. Bush's party dominated all three major branches of government they could do whatever, knowing there was no authority around to hold them to task, and changes in policy only started here when Republicans lost control of Congress.
Even now Bush can feel safe from impeachment because his party has enough members that they can still block a real investigation.
People lie. And they lie to advance their agenda.
Lying about math isn't even hard today in "pure math" areas as all modern mathematicians have to do to block an idea is say nothing. Do nothing.
And I can't even get a comment from most of them, which is another reason to post on newsgroups as people do reply, and since they're fighting mathematical proof and overwhelming evidence, their replies betray their disregard for the truth.
While the mathematical constituency leaves mathematicians free to lie and devalue mathematical proof, like with Bush and the American people, nothing will change.
So yeah, evidence is something I have lots of, and it doesn't matter if you are dealing with people who feel invulnerable to the truth.
Like Bush, modern number theorists can sit back confident that their constituency will protect them no matter what to insulate them from responsibility to their own jobs.
Which is why often in the real world, proof is not enough.
# posted by James Harris @ 12:06 
