Sunday, September 14, 2008
JSH: Degrees of freedom
Back in December 1999 I discovered a mathematical analysis technique that allows a researcher to add degrees of freedom with any mathematical equation. I found it from frustration.
The technique is to use something like
x+y+vz = x+y+vz
with "mod" so you have
x+y+vz = 0(mod x+y+vz)
where you want to analyze an equation in 3 variables, so to analyze x^2 + y^2 = z^2, you'd do the following.
x+y = -vz (mod x+y+vz), square both sides
x^2 + 2xy + y^2 = (vz)^2 (mod x+y+vz)
and subtract your equation to be analyzed, so you have
2xy = (v^2 - 1)z^2 (mod x+y+vz)
where now v is a free variable, so it is your extra degree of freedom.
The ever widening flame war against my research appears to be about number theorists suppressing this technique.
There have been a lot of criticisms leveled against this technique since December 1999 as I posted about it on math newsgroups back then.
I wrote a paper using it. The sci.math'ers managed to shoot it down with some emails and killed a mathematical journal in the process—oh, and brought into question the ENTIRE journal system as well in so doing.
Now I have a result with 2 variable Diophantine quadratics, handling in 6 pages what previous mathematical tools took books to cover, and the reason I'm pushing this point now is that
c_1*x^2 + c_2*xy + c_3*y^2 = c_4 + c_5*x + c_6*y
has relevance to physics so versus just talking about some esoteric mathematical issue I can tell you that the number theorists fighting to suppress this research are TAKING something from you, as a physicist.
And if you want to just let it all work itself out, consider that I first put these ideas forward in December 1999. I then utilized them with one result that went into a paper which killed a freaking mathematical journal, and showed a break in the journal system.
I've now covered 2 variable quadratic Diophantines in a couple of pages—but the political war from the math newsgroups at least clearly continues as you can see in replies to my recent threads!
Resistance to new ideas is one thing.
But I'm seeing an all-out war with an absolute position of denial, and fighting this research no matter what is discovered, as consider the recent discovery, with a very vicious political fight which is a lot about smearing and nothing about utility to researchers.
History has shown these type of battles happening before.
The difference now is, you're living through one.
And I keep coming back to that as part of the key to this puzzle.
No matter what you may think of the value of Pell's Equation to physics or any of my other number theory research this idea of making complex identities using a free variable to subtract equations from it to be analyzed is just a remarkable idea.
Even credit for that alone could put me in texts all over mathematics and physics, and the fight against that technique is already over eight years old as I first presented it on math newsgroups December 1999.
Betrayal is as old as humanity.
Denial is as well.
The analysis technique I pioneered in the late 20th century could be one of the keys to understanding in THIS century, if I can get it past the gatekeepers betraying the ideal of pursuit of knowledge.
None of you with even a modicum of intelligence can deny the intriguing nature of the concept, or the reality of the furor generated by my use of it in now two cases:
You lose all credibility as scientists as skepticism here gives only one answer.
Your mathematical colleagues betrayed you and the rest of humanity and are STILL in the process of committing their crime: fighting an advanced mathematical analysis technique.
And you know it. Doing nothing here is about who you are. How corrupt you are, inside.
The technique is to use something like
x+y+vz = x+y+vz
with "mod" so you have
x+y+vz = 0(mod x+y+vz)
where you want to analyze an equation in 3 variables, so to analyze x^2 + y^2 = z^2, you'd do the following.
x+y = -vz (mod x+y+vz), square both sides
x^2 + 2xy + y^2 = (vz)^2 (mod x+y+vz)
and subtract your equation to be analyzed, so you have
2xy = (v^2 - 1)z^2 (mod x+y+vz)
where now v is a free variable, so it is your extra degree of freedom.
The ever widening flame war against my research appears to be about number theorists suppressing this technique.
There have been a lot of criticisms leveled against this technique since December 1999 as I posted about it on math newsgroups back then.
I wrote a paper using it. The sci.math'ers managed to shoot it down with some emails and killed a mathematical journal in the process—oh, and brought into question the ENTIRE journal system as well in so doing.
Now I have a result with 2 variable Diophantine quadratics, handling in 6 pages what previous mathematical tools took books to cover, and the reason I'm pushing this point now is that
c_1*x^2 + c_2*xy + c_3*y^2 = c_4 + c_5*x + c_6*y
has relevance to physics so versus just talking about some esoteric mathematical issue I can tell you that the number theorists fighting to suppress this research are TAKING something from you, as a physicist.
And if you want to just let it all work itself out, consider that I first put these ideas forward in December 1999. I then utilized them with one result that went into a paper which killed a freaking mathematical journal, and showed a break in the journal system.
I've now covered 2 variable quadratic Diophantines in a couple of pages—but the political war from the math newsgroups at least clearly continues as you can see in replies to my recent threads!
Resistance to new ideas is one thing.
But I'm seeing an all-out war with an absolute position of denial, and fighting this research no matter what is discovered, as consider the recent discovery, with a very vicious political fight which is a lot about smearing and nothing about utility to researchers.
History has shown these type of battles happening before.
The difference now is, you're living through one.
And I keep coming back to that as part of the key to this puzzle.
No matter what you may think of the value of Pell's Equation to physics or any of my other number theory research this idea of making complex identities using a free variable to subtract equations from it to be analyzed is just a remarkable idea.
Even credit for that alone could put me in texts all over mathematics and physics, and the fight against that technique is already over eight years old as I first presented it on math newsgroups December 1999.
Betrayal is as old as humanity.
Denial is as well.
The analysis technique I pioneered in the late 20th century could be one of the keys to understanding in THIS century, if I can get it past the gatekeepers betraying the ideal of pursuit of knowledge.
None of you with even a modicum of intelligence can deny the intriguing nature of the concept, or the reality of the furor generated by my use of it in now two cases:
- A paper published with research using this technique was retracted
after publication and the freaking mathematical journal DIED. - Turning the technique against 2 variable quadratic Diophantine equations I came up with a general theory including how to solve them, in less than a month.
You lose all credibility as scientists as skepticism here gives only one answer.
Your mathematical colleagues betrayed you and the rest of humanity and are STILL in the process of committing their crime: fighting an advanced mathematical analysis technique.
And you know it. Doing nothing here is about who you are. How corrupt you are, inside.
# posted by James Harris @ 19:32 
