Harristotelian Logic

One of my heroes is Sir Isaac Newton who it turns out was not exactly a nice guy. Later in life he had among other things the job of protecting the currency of Britain, so he could send criminals to be executed. He did his job.

Mathematics to me is about absolutes. So I can reach a point where I tend to think in absolutes, and after five years of facing a math society that clearly has lied repeatedly and has behaved as if it could not be caught, I've lost any interest in concerns about not acting from absolutes.

Modern mathematicians pushed the idea that proofs could be delicate things and talked of failed proofs. They claimed proofs were not discovered but were creations, and that whether an argument was a proof or not was about whether mathematicians thought it was a proof or not.

My take on the field is that it has been overtaken by fiction writers. People who see themselves as authors of "proofs" which are really entertainment for others like them as no one else can even comprehend this stuff.

So style is the most important thing for math undergrads to learn in this system.

Style.

I lost count of how many times people told me my mathematical arguments did not look like math proofs.

But I say proof is discovery, and so it can be like prospecting, hunting for gold treasure. Treasure seekers don't worry about the dressing, they worry about the goods. After all, they're rooting in dirt or streams. It's not a pretty process.

Fiction writers took over the math field and fiction writing is about conflict, and contradiction, or apparent contradiction can be part of conflict and good fiction, so math society believes in "logical contradiction" along with those "delicate proofs" that can be wrong.

But I am a discoverer. I search for mathematical proofs the way you go for gold or diamond hunting. And I don't appreciate a style society of fiction writers pretending to be mathematicians telling me my finds are not what I can prove they are.

You people of course have bet your careers on me not being able to convince anyone else, which I say is, fine. You want to bet, then fine, but you need to know that is what you are doing.

I am a no-nonsense person on these issues.

And I have no compunction with presiding over shutting down entire mathematical departments where I've said that I would definitely put the Princeton math department at the top of that list of departments that should just be shutdown.

If I am wrong, then you just have more ranting from someone many of you are quite willing to call a madman, but if I am right about my finds then you need to accept what will happen when I get past your fiction writing society, past all the blocks you've thrown up in what is increasingly clear is a conspiracy to commit fraud--and inform the world.

So they know you faked math discoveries for years and to prove you knew you were faking you blocked acceptance of my research for years and even kept up the game with the factoring problem which I turned to because I knew you couldn't successfully block a major research find in that area.

So you have bet it all.

Fine.

You people ultimately don't understand what mathematics is, or what mathematical proof is, or you would not have done it.

And that finally is my most potent argument explaining why there is no choice for the world—real mathematicians could not have failed to understand when it was over as a mathematical proof said it was over.

Therefore, you are not at all real mathematicians.

I have the theory. So it's not a question mathematically of whether or not it will work. It's just a matter of the implementation that the theory says must be there actually being presented, and then the entire sorry tale will be the talk of the entire world.

Mathematicians around the world fakes!!!—the headlines may read.

And you will have lost it all on your bets in what will turn out to be a much better story than any of you ever wrote in your fake "proofs", though its grandeur will be a lot about the heaviness of your fall.