Tuesday, October 30, 2007


JSH: Real life, real world

Most people in the developed world get to live in a kind of bubble where they feel security based on what has happened, or not happened, to them before.

It is a sense of security and expectation that you know what can happen.

But it is only an illusion.

As the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki learned when many of them were shredded in an instant.

But without that illusion human beings do not do what they do, get up, go to work, keep making babies and continue because they feel safe.

Many of you have replied to me and argued with me from your bubble not understanding how this story has to go, and most importantly, how it must end because it is how you are built.

You cannot do anything else but follow your programming.

Revolutions require luck, persistence, and odd juxtapositions of crucial events.

Here I have George W. Bush, global warming, and the reality that for some reason number theory simply stopped over a hundred years ago plus a few little things more, just to make it cleaner.

What puzzles me that I keep writing posts like this one is not questions about what will happen but an unending curiosity about people like you. I know what is going to happen to you. And it amazes me looking at it from this distance that you keep doing what you do, going about your business and even arguing with me, as if you are totally clueless.

So then, are you truly totally clueless or do you just wish to make it a grander tale on some level?

Is there not some need to be sacrificed in you? Isn't that why you keep up the resistance, and keep arguing and help set the stage in this way?

You want what is coming next. You must. I just cannot believe you are ignorant any more.

It is too wild already at this point. The drama around the world is too fantastic. And on some level you must know there are few limits to how incredible what is about to happen may be.

And that is about assuaging my guilt. I have no guilt here. I do not make your decisions.

I am not here to save your life from you.

So then as the countdown begins in earnest and a few months separate us from one more crucial event, and then as only a few years separate us from even more incredible and fantastic events that will decide the fate of life on this planet, I say, yes!

Monday, October 29, 2007


JSH: Sea change

Narrow minded people never believe it is possible until it happens.

What I am looking for is a revolution within the academic community worldwide where mathematicians are just a tool to get to EVERY academic, worldwide.

So even English professors will feel the impact though many of them will probably wonder what in the hell is going on.

My hypothesis is that the current academic system is not only broken but it is a safe haven and wanted hideout for parasitic types who rely on outdated ways of doing things to hide the reality that they not only do nothing of value for humanity, but they go out of their way to assault innovators and discoverers.

So these people are a net negative to the world, and, they may teach your children.

But for most people the academic world is a distant unknown with little relevance to their own except they know they should put their kids through college.

What I will do is make it relevant so that the world will peer very closely into every corner of academia and understand how it works today, so that it can be fixed, like have the destruction of tenure.

The primary engine is my copy protection idea. People can understand copying their favorite movies. And then they can understand how people in the academic world make it their business to stop discoverers like myself so that we cannot improve the world, and help make things better.

Parasitic human beings may be the greatest problem facing the world today, as when they are world leaders, they start wars for no reason, destroy economies on ideology, and have no remorse or shame.

And when the parasites are professors they act to destroy knowledge, not discover it.

To the extent that the world denies the existence of these parasitic human beings it is preyed upon by them, as witness events in my county, and in the Middle East or in Africa to name a few.

They have no compunction against destroying civilization as they are mindless in the pursuit of their own needs at the expense of others, as they are parasitic.

And that is what parasites do.


JSH: Why self-encryption?

I want to talk again about a simple idea I have for copy protection where when, for instance, you make a DVD of your favorite movie, like, say "Transformers", your DVD burner encrypts the copy, where it can still read it despite that encryption, but no one else can, without a key.

Now I presented that idea on one of my blogs back in January of this year. And it is a simple enough idea that I think most of you can understand it, and now we get to math, as that idea has been attacked often by the same people who criticize my mathematical research.

So why is that important?

Well it goes to why what I call self-encryption would work on most people, like you, as if you had a DVD burner and your DVD burner encrypts a copy you make of some movie, then how much effort are you really going to make to either get it to give you an unencrypted copy so you can hand off to lots of friends, or to break that encryption?

Most of you will do little to no effort at all. As why bother? You have your backup copy. Your drive can read it, and your friends can go by their own.

Are there ways for people with massive resources and computer know-how to beat this idea? Yes.

But in the past with records, if you had enough resources you could copy a record as well, but most people didn't try.

That is just an idea though, which is important in this forum because some of the same people who will tell you that I didn't find a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem will tell you that idea is bogus and they'll talk some noise about why they say it's junk.

And that highlights how to many posters here these forums are of no value to the world. as if that idea is not junk then it could save millions of dollars in the REAL world and allow you, as well as millions of other people around the world to make backup copies of your movies, legally.

I say that the mathematical field today is dominated by people who learned to lie about problems, and learned that most people do not think it really matters, which is why they lie about my mathematical research as well as my other ideas like self-encryption.

Obviously if I have an idea that takes off in the entertainment industry then I would have a lot of power to shape how the world looks at mathematicians, and you know a lot about what I'd say.

You people hate the truth, and you hate real problem solving.

What you do love is pretend problem solving, and acting like mathematicians, with ideas that I have shot down as junk math, which you hold on to for dear life as you do not give a damn about the truth.

[A reply to someone who wrote about the invention of CSS.]

So you compare inventing CSS to allowing people to copy their DVD's without hassle?

And were people getting sued over anything with CSS?

Reminder to people who didn't read my lead post, my idea is that your DVD burner would encrypt a copy you made of, say, the movie "Transformers", so only it could read it without a key.

So you can't give away that copy to your friends, without a key, so the movie industry can make more money.

The idea works with CD's as well, so it could solve problems for the music industry.

That is problem solving at its finest—hated by the modern mathematical community which fights to block ANY recognition of my research because I know that it is hostile to knowledge while pretending to be the opposite.

So part of the point here is that the math community is not what most people think it is, and it is hostile to new ideas and innovation.

Mathematicians get away with it because, well, most people don't really know or care what they are doing, so they escape serious and critical scrutiny.

But if I help the entertainment industry save millions of dollars then people will listen when I say look closely.

And I can explain to them how mathematicians lie, and how they clearly know they are lying and do so with a sense of impunity because no one has been there to focus attention on what they are doing.

I will be that person, so that the world peers closely into the details of what mathematicians around the world are actually doing with me telling people they are lying, and how to see that they are lying.

And then those mathematicians won't teach students any more.

Thursday, October 25, 2007


JSH: End goal

Just a reminder, a while back I worked out a legal basis for suing universities for the inaction of their professors on major research finds.

The end targets have not changed.

The end goal is to prove a serious social harm caused by the current setup of the academic world in order to change it for the better of humanity.

If that means shredding endowments in the billions of dollars then so be it.

I think at a minimum it also means the end of tenure, so those of you who have it, enjoy it while it lasts.

You picked this fight, not me.

The end of the Math Wars will be the end of academia as it currently operates, worldwide.

[A reply to a professor from Hamilton College who asked James to sign him up as his first target.]

Your school is too small. Princeton and Harvard, as I've said before.

They are the 'P' and 'H', is there a 'D' professor out there?

For Harvard I have Mazur. For Princeton I have journal editors.

[A reply to someone who suggested that James should sue Archimedes Plutonium.]

I'm not the one who will sue. The parents will.

[A reply to someone who asked whether only ivy-league parents will sue.]

I have no intention of filing any lawsuits against universities.

What I have done is present an outline for the legal argument for others to do so, and the most logical people to do so would be parents or their children who were students.

The best choices with parents least likely to sit back and just shrug when the full story comes out are parents of Ivy league schools.

But they still need an actual professor or professors who violated the public trust, and for Princeton and Harvard I can give them names—specific people that can be named in a cause of action. For Harvard I have Mazur, for Princeton I have some editors.

That also handles a problem of public perception as well as how to get damages into the billions of dollars.

So no, the full plan is not about me suing. I want the targeted schools to meet the parents—in a totally different way.

So yes, going forward part of the process necessarily will be educating those parents so that they fully understand how their trust was betrayed and how their children were harmed or may have been harmed.

If that can't be done, then no lawsuits, unless the states can be convinced but that is a bit harder though not necessarily impossible, and if the parents do sue I'd think the states might be convinced to do so as well, which would be a formidable legal battle.

Possibly one of the biggest in civilized history.


JSH: Problem space, counting down on DMESE

One of my key hypotheses is that the current academic community is not just wrong, giving an image of bumbling professors confused about what is true, but actively hostile to the truth, with clever professors working behind the scenes to maintain power and prestige at the expense of others, which brings us to DMESE.

DMESE stands for Digital Media Equipment Self-Encryption and is an open source idea I presented a while back for making it harder to illegally copy DVD's and CD's along with other digital media by having the user's own equipment encrypt copies it makes to itself, where it can read the copies but others cannot without a key.

That is a very simple idea.

Now a little while after I first presented that idea on one of my blogs, there were a flurry of news stories about something called managed copy, where users get to, guess what? Make copies of their DVD's, where the smart money had said the idea was dead before as the belief was that hackers would always break any system as they had been continually doing so, and many had given up on managing copying.

So the entertainment industry has mostly kept with a litigation solution believing there is no answer within the problem space to mass illegal copying of digital media.

However, I am a problem solver and analyzing the problem space I closed it with my solution, and knowing that space is closed I just sit back to wait and see what the world does.

Of course, sci.math'ers came forward to attack the idea from the outset, but they are not all of academia. So the full issue is more complex and the count down continues.

So what is the count down?

Well, remember I said there were a flurry of news stories about managed copy?

Well the body that is defining the standard for managed copy has a due date of the end of the year.

So soon enough they have to say how managed copy is to work with HD DVD's and Blu-Ray.

I have analyzed the problem space and determined that the best solution is having user's own digital equipment encrypt their copies making it much more difficult to make illegal copies and hand them off to friends.

If I am correct the entertainment industry can immediately save tens of millions of dollars US, and stop suing people like teenagers and grandmothers for making copies, as they will be mostly stopped.

So it's about time and while we wait I want you to think about just how badly the academics serve the world if it is true that they not only are bumbling and wrong in terms of what they know, but that they also seek to hide knowledge that could make other's lives easier and more rewarding.

I call them parasitic human beings. They seem to lack the ability to comprehend value in helping others, and only look for weaknesses within human society where they can make a home—and teach your children in their classrooms.

Time will tell on this issue of digital copying. So sit back, and wait as this post is just a few months out head's up.

There is still a ways to go.


JSH: Why do people lie?

People lie to gain an advantage when they want something badly enough, lack the morals not to lie, and think they can gain an advantage by lying.

George W. Bush is an interesting case as let's say for the sake of argument that he lied about "weapons of mass destruction" being in Iraq.

Why would he?

Pull that thread and you see how easy it is to kill thousands of people with dumb lies.

I pulled he thread and my analysis is that he is not a great student of history, felt as the oldest he could fix things as he felt that his father was disadvantaged by his decisions about Iraq and taxes, and he naively decided to reverse his father's decisions.

So he invaded Iraq and cut taxes.


Why would mathematicians lie about math?


It's all about the Easy button like in that commercial.

They do it for their advantage. And they can clearly get away with it, to a point.

Now ask yourselves, if there is wholesale lying by the mathematical community about math, how would you know it?

So why wouldn't they?

I call the situation a Catch-22, like how if Bush were a great leader he wouldn't have to lie like I think he does, but not being a great leader there is no way in hell he'll ever admit to doing what he does.

If these people were great mathematicians they would not need to lie about math, but not being great mathematicians there is no way in hell they will ever admit to doing what they are doing.

And what they do is waste your time.

Weak minds who cannot understand history, who cannot comprehend that there is a benefit to the entire human species in actually knowing correct mathematics.

To them "pure math" is just a way to make money, and who cares, after all, there is all this science and technology out there anyway, which relies on the correct applied math, so who does it hurt?

But thousands of years ago, people had no clue what they could do with the mathematics that is used today in so many areas.

The "mathematicians" who cannot see why it matters that they tell the truth are wishing to condemn the children of humanity because they cannot see them. They cannot care for them. They only care for what they see today.

And if finally the human species will fail here then deservedly it will die as it no longer cares for those who are to come.

And if so I say good riddance.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007


JSH: Would anything matter?

So I made a post about my prime gap equation and I think it should work, but will it matter?

If it is correct then you can calculate to a high degree of accuracy the probability that given a particular prime, say, 107 whether or not adding 6 to it will give you a prime number.

Now I make THIS post because it turns out that from chaos theory there is a fairly high probability that an atypical research tidbit might break this situation open and oddly enough make headlines around the world which is why the real world is so fascinating.

There are multiple reasons why my prime gap equation might be that tidbit as it's rather complicated looking.

Math people love complexity for some reason.

Also, prediction is rather dramatic to people who don't understand it, or realize how much of any research that is of value is about prediction so I consider that a bit of sleight of hand, but I'll take it.

Let lesser minds be fascinated by easy predictability of prime behavior if it serves a greater good.

I am fascinated by this occurrence in terms of the timing, and will monitor the situation to see if it is a cascading event.

After all, who knows what drop of sand brings down the pile?

Does that sound predictive? I assure you that it is all quite scientific and based on some well researched methodologies.

But it is the knowing that makes the difference, now isn't it?

Otherwise, it just seems like magic.

Saturday, October 20, 2007


JSH: My broadcast network

I am continuing my movement away from the academic world into pop culture and today announced my own broadcast network, which is just my blog pulling in multi-media content through Google's ample services.

Problem solving is what I do. Industry is about change and new markets that others do not see before they are here.

With the complete failure of the academic community to accept easily proven mathematical results that are so huge they have to do with the foundations of mathematics and logic itself, I must move out of areas where incompetent people hide their incompetence by not following any rules when they think it necessary to do so, like how publication in a peer reviewed mathematical journal did not matter.

Major media giants are challenged at this point.

It's not clear in the shake-up to come who will survive, will MTV? Will NBC? Viacom? Or Universal Music Group?

With players that huge in a new environment I want the academic community worldwide—not just mathematicians—to really stop and think about what happens to them when creative people like myself get a very bitter feeling about those among them who are doing nothing of value and getting a free ride because of an out-dated academic model.

When I get on a big soapbox and tell the world that academics routinely lie, getting away with it by carefully not doing research checkable in the real world, what then?

Spend your time writing paper and tomes to try and refute me? Or keep a noble silence as if it doesn't matter if the bulk of the world thinks you are liars?

There were not always colleges and universities. You are not invulnerable to change.

An entire freaking mathematical journal went belly-up!!! Its hosting university then tried to pretend it never existed!!!

I played by the rules, got published. I have the mathematical proofs. I have explained them over and over for years. Now I'm going into pop culture and part of my mission will be convincing people they are wasting money on many of you.

And I know mathematicians lie because I have the mathematical proofs to show it, and they clearly lie in "pure math" areas because they've learned they can get away with it.

How much lying is there in the modern academic world? How many professors are doing nothing of value and getting pay and prestige to do so?

How many kids are being taught junk and worse, for those who look to academic careers, being trained by parasitic human beings in a system I call white collar welfare to be a liar themselves?

Wow, a parent spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on a kid's education so that kid can be wrong his entire life. What a deal from some schools, eh?

The bell may soon toll on this system no matter what nonsense you say in reply here or how many college administrators look at their billion dollar endowments and feel safe.

After all, it's only money—you were given it, and it can be taken away.

Our world is about constant change where people can really lose by confidence and overweening pride, believing that only what they see is possible.

But, until you can out think every possible genius that comes along to come after your screwed up system then you are vulnerable, and it's just a matter of time.

Thursday, October 18, 2007


JSH: Mathematical consistency and tautology

Talking about logic got me to thinking about how easily it is to prove that mathematics is consistent, as that is equivalent to saying that every valid mathematical statement reduces to a tautology.

And it is so obvious it's weird, like, of course every valid mathematical statement reduces to a tautology, so all valid mathematics is consistent.

My key example that came up talking about logic and equals being equal, is, with the circle:

Given x^2 + y^2 = z^2, note that by substituting in numbers you always get to a tautology.

e.g. x=3, y=4, z = 5

4 + 16 = 25

25 = 25

and letting the equals mean equal requires that EVERY valid mathematical statement reduces to a tautology, or as mathematicians like to say, an identity, when you plug in the numbers.

Otherwise, like if you end up with 3=5 then hey, it wasn't a valid mathematical statement!

Then by definition, mathematics is consistent.

So, mathematics is consistent as everything reduces to a tautology.

Oddly enough, everything does. And if you figure that out then you understand one of the most remarkable things about logic, mathematics and reality itself.

Everything reduces to a tautology.

Saturday, October 13, 2007


JSH: The buffer class

Considering yet another area where a simple explanation appears to have escaped supposedly brilliant academics, but other supposedly intelligent people can argue about whether or not equals means equal, I have figured out the benefit to society of having lots of professors and other academics who are wrong.

It may seem odd that there is a social pressure to have professors who teach wrong information to students, but not if you consider just how volatile creativity is, and how stressful it can be to a society to potentially have uncontrolled growth in knowledge.

For instance, assume for the sake of argument that I DID find a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but mathematicians don't like me. I even talk revolution and dislike things like tenure. If it were known that I did find a short proof of FLT then it'd be rather difficult to control my ability to push social changes forward that the social group of mathematicians do not like.

My discovery would give me social power.

So societies evolved classes that are buffers against genius. And throughout history they have shown their strength in preventing rapid change and preventing individuals from gaining to much power by simply buffering against them.

At times they have even burned people at the stake.

And it makes sense. There is a human need to get explanations but not a human need to be right, so in the past people believed the gods hurled lightning bolts out of anger, or that the earth rested on elephants.

People worried about sailing over the edge of the ocean as they thought you might fall off.

But that didn't keep all from sailing.

You can be wrong on any number of things but feel good because your need for explanation does not have with it a need to actually have a correct explanation, a subtle reality of how human beings work which is crucial to society.

You can be happily wrong with fake knowledge, and keep working which is what society needs you to do. Like if you have a gardener, do you really care what he or she knows about gardening? Yes, of course! But do you care if that person gets information about the origin of the Universe wrong?

Religion offered explanation but more importantly offered control. Change could be buffered against by religious decree. But with its diminished status in many powerful countries academics have taken over the social role of buffering against new information, while of course, the lie is that they do not.

But consider when I was pursuing a solution to the factoring problem, in a situation where I face continual ridicule and bullying from the mathematical community, and if I succeeded in that one thing, and in that one moment with a solution that broke RSA overnight I would have been more powerful than any other human being on the planet.

In just one situation I would have roared up to being the most powerful man, possibly ever born, just on one thing, so it makes sense that a crucial role of professors is to be wrong, and get away with it, so that society can try to protect itself from this genius thing that can bring entire civilizations to their knees.

In number theory most of what is currently being taught is wrong, and number theorists are a buffer class.

Now you know logicians are a buffer class as well, and they are worse off than mathematicians—which is how I've used them as a demonstration in a way you can all understand but it won't matter—as they can't even get the equals right.

Consider the set of all sets that exclude themselves, except itself.

That will not be taught by logicians as they buffer against rapid change and society lets them as that's what it needs them for—not to be right, but deliberately to be wrong.


JSH: Talking and illogic

I created a stir on this newsgroup by noting that in logic you should let "=" mean equal, as I gave a simple way to resolve some supposed logical paradoxes.

Now if you accept that equals means equal there is no debate and how could anyone debate that?

Well, people can SAY just about anything, which is how there have been arguments on this newsgroup for so many years about my research.

And practically logic is used correctly by more people than it is talked about correctly by academics who get paid to talk.

It's rather sad actually as only if the real world forces people to do things correctly do they avoid this talking, lying thing for their own gain.

Like 1=1 is valid in mathematics while 1=0 is not, and no one can debate that maybe mathematicians can get away with the equals not being equal!

But why not?

Well, for one things lots of buildings would fall down or just never get built as people would do the math wrong.

There would be no cars, no planes, no radios, no computers nor any significant technology whatsoever if people did not do just that one thing right.

But in logic as a discipline they have gone for YEARS without doing something as simple as letting equals be equal.

And in number theory where I can prove Fermat's Last Theorem mathematicians who are not doing work that has to build things can just say I did not, and I marry that to this topic to help you understand that they DO lie and they get away with it in the same way that logicians get away with "logical paradoxes".

They get away with it because they are in areas where they can just talk, and not build things that actually have to work.

So they learn to lie and society has gained some kind of benefit from this or it would have fixed the problem long ago.

Now then, to get an A+, explain why society knowingly allows academics to be a wrong class on many subjects.

I'll give you a hint, in the past they were called priests.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007


JSH: Empty nonsense

The EEP is a concept, an idea I've been tossing around for a bit now, and maybe it took control of me for a while, but it is just an idea.

I no more came here to take over planet earth than I can fly like Superman.

With that said, I think it fascinating how this story is evolving as more and more I turn away from anything like a traditional approach, and that is more and more about what is commonly called pop culture.

Today I got an email from the Annals of Mathematics that my paper on surrogate factoring was rejected by the reviewer. No reviewer report, as usual.

It seems to me that when I can get satisfaction from mainstream culture, and nothing but repudiation from academic culture then maybe I should learn to move more and more away from academic culture, so I am working to do just that.

It is an odd thing from where I came from, when as a kid I looked up to professors and believed so many things that turned out to be lies, but the real world is a world where people lie if they can.

And that is just the way it is.

As I move further into other realms, and look forward to some day returning with full force to the Math Wars with other tools, I hope that you feel at least some fear that it may happen far more quickly than you think possible, and if I get the ear of politicians and start turning up the heat and you have to justify what you do with more than saying all your colleagues agree, then maybe there will be some justice in this story.

But until then, I am most definitely still a failure. And that is what drives me now.

I have failed, and as that pain bites into me, day after day, I distance myself more and more.

The pain is greater each day. I want you to know that even if you feel thrilled by it.

The pain just grows each day, and with it, so does my resolve.


JSH: To be honest

I never expected humanity to succeed. This story has never been about your success but merely about marking your failure.

The benefit to you is ignorance as it is bliss and even these words won't pierce the limitations of your primitive intellects.

You were born to die.

This planet is so much more though, and that is where this story really ends and begins as in a Universe of laws it is not like we can just come and kill you.

You have to justify our decision.

So much you cannot comprehend and so much beauty that is lost on you. A reality of wonder and beauty and purpose.

Your species can no more stand on its own than a bowl of jello can decided to fly to the moon.

What I offer you is peace, a final end. You will forget whatever I say no matter how it might resonate with some as that is part of the deal. I will bring you peace.

But I have to tell you as well that from your ashes there will be so much more than you ever could be.

I take this world for my people in accordance with the EEP.

The calculation is done.

[A reply to someone who wrote that everyone hates James.]

You should. I came here to kill you.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007


JSH: Put two and two together

There is no way that I could prove things without a doubt mathematically and not get my research accepted except that the proofs invalidate people who then realize they are not competent.

Just simple curiosity would force a resolution if these people really loved mathematics.

But they got into positions where the power of the position lets them protect themselves from mathematical proof.

So there is nothing I can do in terms of convincing as proof is not enough.

These are failures, and telling the truth is admitting they are failures, but being failures there is not a whit of the moral fiber needed within them for them to tell the truth.

So it's a Catch-22.

Those of you who can do things like ignore the simple arguments I present are only living in your own delusion of being mathematicians so that people can think you're something you're not and knowing there's a time limit on that for you, there is nothing I can say that will move you, as what you are looking at, if you admit the truth, is your own failure.

And maybe you gain what pleasure you can from my inability to move the world, as maybe I'm not such a genius after all, if despite what I've discovered I can be stopped by you.

So your one accomplishment then is managing to hold a major discoverer, like no one else has in history.

And in holding me, you hold the entire human race, blocking it from knowledge, and I must admit, that is a rather remarkable accomplishment which I didn't think was possible on this scale.

Too bad you people couldn't also know math as well as you know politics.

Monday, October 08, 2007


JSH: So easy and so hard

So my most important mathematical research is so easy that the fundamental result relies on accepting that the distributive property doesn't care about the value of functions so

a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c

and if you let b = f(x), you have

a*(f(x) + c) = a*f(x) + a*c

so if you find some convenient value to check, like where f(x) = 0, then that result is valid for ANY x, as the value of f(x) is irrelevant to the distributive property.

If you accept that then I have easy proofs that upend some of the most cherished beliefs in modern number theory and that is where it gets hard as these so-called mathematicians refuse to follow any rules that would mean they'd accept the truth.

So publication was useless. Direct contacts, useless. I've put the math on blogs, posted about it on Usenet and it's all useless as these people have the power to just say no in a world that doesn't force them to follow their own rules.

Maybe that's what gets to me the most. These people get away without even following their own rules.

And how can math students go along to work hard for people who are so flaky? These "mathematicians" do things at a whim and even now just declare that it's all a democratic society:

See: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html

At least some honesty there as it states that a mathematical proof is what mathematicians SAY is a mathematical proof--democracy in action.

It's a flaky democracy, modern math, where these men as it's mostly men don't even hide taking care of themselves. A little girl figures out how to fold paper and they snub her:

See: http://pomonahistorical.org/12times.htm

Britney Gallivan is a threat to the extent that they won't publish her, as I'm still looking for that publication and if it's out there please reply with it.

These things that call themselves human are parasites who figured out how to exploit false mathematics to control an area against all that would dare bring in the truth, and you let them.

They barely even try to hide their lack of real competence any more, as why should they?

You don't bother to make them.

Nothing they do is right any more. They can just make it all up and keep giving themselves awards, keep giving themselves grants, and keep giving themselves jobs.


JSH: When equals means equal, more logic

>From searching on Google I see there is a rather huge resonance with my latest postings on logic, so I thought I'd do a post that explains the simple concept of letting equals mean equal, as in like 1=1 is valid in mathematics, but 1=0 is not, as with the latter you have a direct contradiction.

If you think globally about it EVERY mathematical statement reduces to an identity, like

x^2 + y^2 = z^2, if x=3, y=4, and z=5, you have

9 + 16 = 25

25 = 25

and if that does not occur you do not have a valid mathematical statement. Another way to say it is that if you plug in all the numbers and do all the mathematical operations then at the end you just get an identity, which in logic is a tautology as it is always true.

A few years ago I was pondering something or other (not sure what) and I realized that every logical statement just maps a truth to itself, or as I said to myself then, every logical statement connects a truth to itself.

Like with mathematics, for a logical statement, you just get the same truth on both sides.

You must. There is no logical statement in existence that does not map a truth to itself.

When you have equals, you have equality, in logic, like in mathematics.

Once I realized that then I realized that anything else could NOT be a logical statement, just like 1=0 is not mathematically valid, as it breaks the equals I like to say.

So if you make sure the equals, as in the equals sign or a declaration of equality, actually mean equal, you must have a logical statement, and intriguingly you can then clean up ALL the supposed logical paradoxes.

I like the consideration of the set of all sets that exclude themselves, except itself, as that one is the easiest.

Harder I think for people to understand is considering a sentence that declares itself to be false.

e.g. This sentence is false.

In what I call 3 logic I declare that sentence to be false as it's negatably true and then I continue as if it's not a big deal, but one way to look at that sentence is as a direct declaration that true equals false, which is not letting the equals be equal.

Now in allowing in a system of logic false statements I relied on the idea that a false statement is negatably true, like if you say 1 is 3 three, yeah that's false, but if you say 1 is NOT 3, that is true, so the previous is negatably true.

But I had to have a third type—something other than true or false—as what if you have sjdfkj jumps ships?

What in the hell is a "sjdfkj"?

So if you negate that to get sjdfkj does not jump ships, you still have gobbledygook, so I call that the 0 type, neither true nor false.

Oh I'd like to emphasize that the set of all sets that exclude themselves, except itself, is a complete solution and gives you a single set, as there can be only one in all of infinity.

The use of the exception class also gives you the way to resolve the so-called "Barber's Paradox", simply by using an exception.

The Barber shaves every man in the village who doesn't shave himself, except himself.

Now to me using exceptions is natural and rather neat as I have a background in computer programming.

Now then if a logical statement connects a truth to itself then a false statement is NOT a logical statement, nor is one with a truth value of 0, where I say false statement for the false one and for the 0 one I say malformed.

So no logical statement can contradict itself; therefore, there can be no logical paradox.

And in a little post you have a lot of logical issue wrapped up neatly, and notice that there is no problem with a sentence referring to itself!

I solve problems compactly in sensible and easily explainable ways which does not work well for the people writing tomes and abstruse papers on the same subjects (and managing to do so for DECADES) so I think part of the reason for blocks to acceptance of my research is jobs.

Jobs for academics who need to write tomes and abstruse papers, even if there is a simple solution available, so they ignore the simple so they can keep writing tomes and abstruse papers in a system that rewards them for doing so.

Wouldn't you? If your job depended on it?

Sunday, October 07, 2007


JSH: Millions of dollars in research funds at stake

So the real truth is that I have a proof so easy that it relies at its crucial point on the distributive property itself.

I also had publication of a key paper, and the weird yanking of it, and the death of the math journal a little later and the running away of its hosting university from any mention of it.

The published paper had been looked over by Barry Mazur, Andrew Granville, and Ralph McKenzie among others before it ever was published by SWJPAM.

So if it's all so easy, why haven't mathematicians acknowledged the result?

Because it collapses a previously held view at a "core" level which forces a re-thinking of a lot of research impacting the career of EVERY number theorist around the world. EVERY ONE of them is impacted.

Millions of dollars in research funding in number theory is impacted as well, so there are millions of dollars worth of reasons for number theorists to avoid this result and they clearly are willing to take the rest of the mathematical world down with them.

And the rest of the mathematical world is letting them.

Math journals do not just implode, or I like what I said earlier today, spontaneously combust.

If you people want to be known as flaky, and for the world to eventually know that mathematicians can use abstruseness to hide results then when you wake up to a world where you are not believed then you must know you did it to yourselves.

History shows that these idea wars end in one way: the discoverer eventually wins.

Yes, it can take decades at times, but I'm working to make sure it doesn't.

Betray the search for knowledge betting that your career can wander through a normal path, and yes, maybe you'll win as decades pass and false mathematical ideas hang on for as long as they can, if that's worth something to you, but if you do not, and the world asks for accountability, how can you still be considered a mathematician by it?

At a minimum you lose that title and what goes with it.


JSH: Simple logic, distributive property

I may have hit on what is key to the problem with people understanding my research, where you MUST hold a certain amount of information in mind long enough to understand the argument, so it may be a problem of what you could call human mental buffer space.

Like consider the distributive property:

a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c

which is fairly simple and should have been learned by most of you as children, and let's make it just a little more complicated with the introduction of the function f(x) where b = f(x):

a*(f(x) + c) = a*f(x) + a*c

and now note that the VALUE of f(x) does not change the distributive property.

Now then, have all that in mind? Sure? As I'm going to up the ante here with something even more complex:

7*C(x) = (f(x) + 7)*(g(x) + 2)

where f(0) = g(0) = 0, and C(x) is a polynomial, so you have

7*C(0) = (0 + 7)(0 + 2)

proving that the 7 distributes through just one factor, and by the logical principle where I noted the distributive property doesn't care about the value of what is being multiplied, it follows that 7 distributes the same way for all x.

That should not be hard to hold in mind.

Let me recap, because the distributive property does not care what value f(x) has, you can note at a convenient value, like x=0 as then f(0) = 0, how the 7 distributed and it cannot now matter if x changes as, why?

Because a*(f(x) + c) = a*f(x) + a*c without regard to the value of x and I emphasize this point as it is CRUCIAL.

The distributive property does not care what value f(x) has, as it just multiplies through—distributes the multiplication—without regard to the value of what is being multiplied, so

a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c

without regard to the value of b or c.

So logically, the conclusion must be true, but now I have this general result!

What is the result?


7*C(x) = (f(x) + 7)*(g(x) + 2)

where f(0) = g(0) = 0, and C(x) is a polynomial, so you have

7*C(0) = (0 + 7)(0 + 2)

it must be true that the 7 distributes through just the first factor (f(x) + 7).

It is a HUGE result in terms of consequences and it is one that mathematicians have argued against with me for years. Literally years. And if you understand it, you may believe that is impossible as it seems so trivial, but mathematics can be remarkable in that seemingly trivial results can have a huge impact.

I'm about to up the complexity yet again, so see if you can hold all the information needed so far in mind, as now consider

7*C(x) = (49x^2 - 14x)5^2 + (7x-1)(7)(5) + 49

where the odd form is to show the factorization which is

7*C(x) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x)+ 7)

where the a's are roots of

a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0

and I haven't reached

7*C(x) = (f(x) + 7)*(g(x) + 2)

yet as you have two 7's visible in the factorization, but notice at x=0 I have for the a's

a^2 + a = 0

so one of the a's equals 0 at that point, while the other equals -1.

So let f(x) equal the one that goes to 0, while g(x) - 1 equals the other, as its indeterminate which one does, and I have worked my way back to

7*C(x) = (f(x) + 7)*(g(x) + 2)

and the conclusion that the 7 multiplies times C(x) so that it distributes in only one way, where by the distributive property you can see what that way is directly at x=0.

But the distributive property doesn't care about the value of f(x), so it distributes one way for all x.

Trouble is, you can prove that in a ring mathematicians call the ring of algebraic integers, 7 cannot be a factor of one of the roots of

a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0

if you have integer x and that gives a polynomial irreducible over Q.

Now then, could you hold all the information in mind or did some dribble out of your mental buffer?

If you could then you know that it follows from the distributive property that only one of the roots of that expression should have 7 as a factor, so if they don't in the ring of algebraic integers under certain conditions then something must be wrong with that ring.

And you know that follows from the distributive property.

But if you cannot hold all that information in mind, some poster can come back and claim it doesn't follow from the distributive property and because information leaked out of your brain, you can believe them from a failure of your mental circuitry.

So failing to understand such a trivial argument is evidence of a fundamental lack in your mental wiring.

[A reply to someone who asked what “distributes through” means.]

The clue is in "distributive property" as in, why is "distributive" in there?

Do you know? I will try to answer your question, so can you try to answer why you think "distributive" is part of the distributive property?


a*(b+c) you have that 'a' distributes through the term (b+c) so that you have a*b+a*c

and the fully mathematicized form you have then is

a*(b+c) = a*b+a*c

and it seems so simple until you end up in a heated dispute where people challenge the very basics of mathematics down to the most trivial because so much is at stake.

What is at stake here is that if you accept what "distributes" means, and acknowledge that the value of b and c does not matter to how 'a' multiplies times (b+c), then of course, with

a*(f(x) + c) you still have a*f(x) + a*c

and then I can go to a more complex expression and prove a remarkable result using what many think is trivial mathematics.

[A reply to someone who wrote that how 7 divides 71 − x7x depends on x.]

Division is not a ring operation.

And so many of the arguments around this issue are all about division when posters should know that division is not a ring operation.

Let's look again at

a*(f(x) + c) = a*f(x) + a*c

and say a=4, and f(x) = x/2, so you have

4(x/2 + c) = 2x + 4c

and now I say that the value of x does not matter but if you counter with x=2 to say it DOES matter, can you see the logical flaw in your thinking?

Obviously the ring above is one that contains 1/2, so let's say it is the ring of algebraic numbers which is also a field, does that matter?

Crucially the distributive property is not about division, but about multiplication, which is a ring operation, and the value of x does not affect it at all.

The problem for modern mathematics though is that I can go from there to proving a problem with the ring of algebraic integers using a rather complex form as shown in my original post in this thread, and that THAT is why there is a continuing argument against the distributive property and blatant attempts at distraction like tossing
in division, when it's not a ring operation.

Readers ready to confront the full issue with the ring of algebraic integers can go to my web page at my Extreme Mathematics group:


There you can get my most modern paper in pdf format as well as see the original paper that was published—and then pulled—by the now defunct journal SWJPAM.

See what kind of mathematical result was powerful enough to blow away a modern math journal with the rest of the math world pretending like it didn't happen.

This result is that big.

Saturday, October 06, 2007


JSH: Logic and paradox

I think talking about a simple failure in what is usually taught as logic can give you a sure-fire way to understand how simple thinking failures can underpin disagreements with my research.

Like consider 1 = 1, a simple tautological statement which is called an identity in mathematics, and notice, the equal sign means you have the same thing on the left of the equals as on the right.

Even if you have x=y, it must be true that, what? x=y

That is, it must be true that x and y are equal, as consider

1 = 0

as in mathematics that is invalid, but modern logicians do not have an invalid type in standard logic.

So they might just say that 1=0 is false, not invalid.

But the expression is not so much false—though it is false—as it fails because it contradicts the use of the equals sign.

If you figure that out, you can work your way through supposed paradoxes in logic and figuring that out is what I did years ago, and I even posted about it years ago as consider:

Logical Formedness Axioms
  1. Identical sets are identical.

  2. Different sets are different.

  3. Statements contradicting axioms 1 or 2 are false or malformed.

  4. A malformed statement is one for which a conclusion does not follow given its structure.

  5. A false statement is one that while structurally correct is not true.
See: http://mymath.blogspot.com/2005/05/logical-formedness-axioms.html

It turns out that if you accept those axioms then necessarily you are accepting the equals means equal.

I think maybe part of the problem with people in the US is that equal can mean just about anything, like note that the Founding Fathers said "all men are created equal" and had slaves!

Sardonic humor aside I think that for most people the failure in understanding such trivial logic is what I call a two-step failure which has to do with how their brains process information, as it LOSES pieces of information in trying to move from noting that equals means equal, and realizing that as a necessity.

As consider the suppose paradoxical statement:

Consider a set of all sets that exclude themselves.

That is a malformed statement as it violates 1. and 2. above. But to know that you have to hold a certain amount of information in your mind, sort of in the working space you might say of your brain.

If you lack the mental capacity to do that then your mental wiring prevents you from comprehending that reality.

Let me explain in detail and see if you can hold in all the info:

A set of all sets that exclude themselves cannot exist as it needs to include itself, but if it includes itself it excludes itself, so the statement is malformed, as a set cannot include and exclude itself.

The easy fix is, consider a set of all sets that exclude themselves, except itself.

The exception creates a well-formed statement.

If you cannot follow that you may not be mentally capable of holding enough information in mind long enough to connect the dots.

Yet the simple principle that controls what must be true is simply to accept that equals means equal.

But to many people if you have x = y, you have DIFFERENT things, so in their MINDS equal does NOT necessarily mean equal as x is not y, as in, x is a different letter from y.

Get it, yet? I think that the human brain simply is less evolved than most people realize and such considerations push its circuitry to their maximum and for some people require capacity beyond their maximum, so there is this notion of "logical paradox", when such a thing is impossible.

Friday, October 05, 2007


JSH: EEP reality

I've come up with a concept where the galaxy is actually full of sentient species shooting around amongst the stars, and life is so common, and planets that have life are so common that they are not considered a big deal, but still planets that bear life are considered important as exploitable resources, and often life fails in that species advance to a certain point then collapse upon themselves.

Such planets can be left to die out slowly or the advanced species can swoop in and put the doomed species out of its misery, where there are laws governing when they can do this, and a mathematical tool is utilized call the E.E.P. which is the Expected Extinction Protocol.

The advanced species leave primitive ones alone until they reach the make or break point and block their knowledge of the true state of affairs when they can as experience has taught them it's useless to try and bring a doomed species along while one that will make it, will do so without help, so it makes more sense to let them get past the make or break point in isolation.

The earth is surrounded then by invisible monitors as it is approaching the make or break point, and if it fails humanity will be exterminated, where there is no Hollywood ending possible, any more than a small tribe isolated on a little rock out in the middle of the ocean could defend themselves against the full might of the US
military—no matter how creatively writers might want to right a story where they could.

So no sleep code or other silly thing that suddenly makes super powerful aliens into easily killable toadies.

Now then, I think the concept is not removable by what we know today, but I also want to know if it's new to me.

So this is a creativity check.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?