Sunday, December 07, 2008


JSH: So of course I'm right

It's as simple and direct a demonstration of a major result that you can probably get mathematically, but the problem here is that something is happening that's not supposed to be possible: given various events I'm increasingly certain that leading academics around the world are trying to hide a major result in their own field.

They killed a math journal. Have kept accepting public funds for bogus research. And most tragically I think, have kept teaching new students the flawed techniques, assigning them homework, testing them.

So what is the flaw in how posters present how to look at the argument, well I have to show the special construction again to explain it, and remember, in the field of complex numbers, with

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

What math people claim is that the 7 moves around dependent on the value of x. But if

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

then why does the function change what is multiplying times it? It cannot.

Trivially the equivalent can be seen with a classical factorization (the one above is what I call a non-polynomial factorization):

7(x^2 + 3x + 2) = (7x + 7)(x+2)

and if you think this math is basic, yes, you are right. It is basic math. There is no way the 7 can bounce around because what is being multiplied changed. You may say, too simple! Those are weird funky roots of some quadratic functions that can be weird bizarre mathematical beasties!

But the distributive property doesn't change no matter how weird the math beastie, right?

a*(weird_math_beastie + b) = a*weird_math_beastie + a*b

Notice that by shifting to factor arguments posters try to convince you to defy the distributive property with the notion that the function is changing things because the function can behave differently based on different values, but consider

7*f(x) + 7 = x + 7

here f(x) = x/7, which is hidden to some extent, but so what? Still doesn't change the distributive property!!!

If a*(f(x) + b) = a*f(x) + a*b then I'm right.

So why do they lie? Because they aren't decent people that's why.

You've met unsavory academics I'm sure. Here is just a critical mass of a LOT of them running things in mathematics and just lying, taking money, and teaching trusting students, crap.

Watching how they shift their behavior over the years I am increasingly certain they read the newsgroups trying to see if the lie can hold so you DO have a role to play. The insults and endless debates over trivial algebra give these people, if I'm correct, calculated comfort—they believe then they can keep lying indefinitely, keep teaching students lies indefinitely, keep getting public funds for bogus research indefinitely.

The newsgroups are their comfort, I fear. I wouldn't be surprised if "top mathematicians" are reading these threads: people many of you might see as heroes, coldly checking to see if they can keep getting money for nothing and lying to students.

Using you.

<< Home

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