### Sunday, December 21, 2008

## JSH: A devastating error

It has taken me years to work through the full mathematical explanation of the bizarre error that took hold in number theory over a hundred years ago, but it's going to take years more for the mathematical and scientific communities to come to grips with the devastation it has wreaked—which can only start when they accept that

it exists.

I think, for instance, you can safely toss "string theory" entire. As in, forget about it.

But losing Galois Theory might bite a bit harder especially when you figure out how you lose it, as it's not exactly wrong.

To understand why considering some rational examples, don't focus on doing what comes natural:

x^2 + 4x + 3 = 0, solves with the quadratic formula as x = (-4 +/- sqrt(4))/2

and you're probably wondering why I don't simplify the square root, but bear with me, as consider

x^2 + 5x + 6 = 0, solves with the quadratic formula as x = (-5 +/- sqrt(1))/2

and if you do not resolve the square roots you can employ Galois Theory on those results and do the class number thing and everything else and convince yourself that you're doing something mathematically important, when you are not.

Notice that Galois Theory cannot tell you something as simple as: both cases have 3 itself as a factor!!!

A lot of mathematical tools are built around not being able to resolve the square roots where mathematicians were in error, as it's like needing to fly with your instruments.

Unable to physically SEE the roots like with rationals, you can still logically determine things about them using analytical tools, which I've done and demonstrated with a simple quadratic construction.

And notice the arguments in that thread!!!

The math community has a LOT invested with the flawed math, but the physics community in certain areas got dragged into the mess as well, which will be most devastating for theoretical physicists but may affect you all in terms of, entire experimental directions that have no worth.

Resolutions to long standing physics problems that may be extremely simple, but destroy the value of years of efforts in certain areas.

I don't want to hint as I'm not certain in every respect, but the very way we look at our physical world will probably shift as a result of correcting the flaw.

The good news is that a lot of mathematics in physics will actually get easier! My work simplifies HUGE areas of mathematics.

But there is more bad news.

Increasingly I'm concerned about a "lost generation" of physicists who are so thoroughly trained in a certain way of thinking and so along in their careers that they will find it difficult to impossible to start over, as yes, in many areas, the impact of the error will be, starting over.

For those of you with the juice left in you for it, it should be exciting though.

You have an opportunity to learn some of the greatest secrets of our physical world which were so close before in a way, but impossible to SEE with flawed mathematical tools.

In some ways it may be the beginning of modern physics as far as the future is concerned.

When humanity finally grew up in its understanding of mathematics.

it exists.

I think, for instance, you can safely toss "string theory" entire. As in, forget about it.

But losing Galois Theory might bite a bit harder especially when you figure out how you lose it, as it's not exactly wrong.

To understand why considering some rational examples, don't focus on doing what comes natural:

x^2 + 4x + 3 = 0, solves with the quadratic formula as x = (-4 +/- sqrt(4))/2

and you're probably wondering why I don't simplify the square root, but bear with me, as consider

x^2 + 5x + 6 = 0, solves with the quadratic formula as x = (-5 +/- sqrt(1))/2

and if you do not resolve the square roots you can employ Galois Theory on those results and do the class number thing and everything else and convince yourself that you're doing something mathematically important, when you are not.

Notice that Galois Theory cannot tell you something as simple as: both cases have 3 itself as a factor!!!

A lot of mathematical tools are built around not being able to resolve the square roots where mathematicians were in error, as it's like needing to fly with your instruments.

Unable to physically SEE the roots like with rationals, you can still logically determine things about them using analytical tools, which I've done and demonstrated with a simple quadratic construction.

And notice the arguments in that thread!!!

The math community has a LOT invested with the flawed math, but the physics community in certain areas got dragged into the mess as well, which will be most devastating for theoretical physicists but may affect you all in terms of, entire experimental directions that have no worth.

Resolutions to long standing physics problems that may be extremely simple, but destroy the value of years of efforts in certain areas.

I don't want to hint as I'm not certain in every respect, but the very way we look at our physical world will probably shift as a result of correcting the flaw.

The good news is that a lot of mathematics in physics will actually get easier! My work simplifies HUGE areas of mathematics.

But there is more bad news.

Increasingly I'm concerned about a "lost generation" of physicists who are so thoroughly trained in a certain way of thinking and so along in their careers that they will find it difficult to impossible to start over, as yes, in many areas, the impact of the error will be, starting over.

For those of you with the juice left in you for it, it should be exciting though.

You have an opportunity to learn some of the greatest secrets of our physical world which were so close before in a way, but impossible to SEE with flawed mathematical tools.

In some ways it may be the beginning of modern physics as far as the future is concerned.

When humanity finally grew up in its understanding of mathematics.