Saturday, December 06, 2008


JSH: Kind of weird, eh?

So I have an extremely easy proof of this extraordinary somewhat subtle error that entered the mathematical field in the late 1800's, which I can dramatically prove with a simple construction:

7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5b_1(x) + 7)(5b_2(x)+ 2)

where b_1(x) = a_1(x) and b_2(x) = a_2(x) + 1,

which is the normalization, where the a's are roots of

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

You may think the problem is arguing it out on Usenet, but there are years of history here. I had a more complex argument using cubics, which was still understandable to a trained mathematician which was published in the now dead mathematical journal SWJPAM. I explained the key result in that paper in person to a Ralph McKenzie who is a leading mathematician at my alma mater Vanderbilt University as well as being on the faculty of the University of California at Berkeley.

He just did nothing. When I'd explained it to him, thinking that would be it, and he said it was time for him to go, I was just kind of shocked.

I say their minds snap. It's weird too. They just kind of fade out or something. Or go on sabbatical.

Maybe mathematics for a lot of mathematicians is like a religion. For me to prove a problem is one thing, but it's kind of like trying to prove Jesus was a fictional character to a devout fundamentalist Christian.

Evidence will not matter against belief. Here absolute rigorous mathematical proof does not matter to mathematicians because their belief system is built around the false ideas, like someone who's life experience and focus are built around Jesus as a real person.

For them there is no debate then. No choice. It's about faith.

But the consequences for mathematics are fairly huge. I pulled the thread so to speak and watch Galois Theory mostly go away, but found what I call the object ring, which vastly simplifies huge stretches of number theory.

Allowing me to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, advance mathematical analysis, and recently generally solve binary quadratic Diophantine equations, as just some of what the advance allows.

Quite simply, number theory entire had to be re-worked. As part of the task I also had to re-work some logic, and re-work set theory.

You do not know the mathematics you need to advance physics much further than it is today.

I know you don't, because I do.

<< Home

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