### Friday, January 09, 2009

## JSH: Bottom line, academic fraud in math field

You may have noticed a lot of threads arguing about some rather abstruse mathematical issues, and may believe it has nothing to do with physics while wondering why, even if I'm right, it's a really big deal, so here's a post to explain from a big picture view.

What I did was figure out a way to do something differently than before, but first note that on the complex plane with

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

where b_1(0) = 0, and b_2(0) = 0, I deliberately have a construction where 7 has multiplied across just one factor.

So you have something like

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

where c_1(0) = 0, and c_2(0) =0.

And if you understand ANY algebra then you realize I CAN choose to do that!

There is nothing on the complex plane that says I cannot!!!

It's ludicrous to claim that there is something mathematical that is blocking me from multiplying times 7 in that way, but that is exactly what posters are doing with the

In a sense that tells you all you need to know to realize they are wrong and I am right.

Unless you believe there is actually some way algebra can stop you from doing:

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

If it can that's news too!!!

What the people arguing with me say instead is that in certain particular cases the 7—no matter what you want—is forced to split up into functions, like

7 = w_1(x)*w_2(x), so

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*w_1(x)*c_1(x)+ w_1(x))(5w_2(x)*c_2(x)+ 2w_2(x))

where w_1(0) = 7, and w_2(0) = 1, but the w's split the 7 up at ANY integer values of x, where the non-linear functions I use would be non-rational because of an esoteric result in algebraic number theory about something called the ring of algebraic integers.

Now that is just stupid. There is no mathematical reason why I can't

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

and if there are people saying the algebra forces 7 to split up as a function of x, then they are quite wrong, but that is what posters have argued and that argument is what they used against my paper.

So what is the big deal? Well, turns out that a lot of algebraic number theory relies on results in that ring of algebraic integers as it was the basis for a lot of it back in the late 1800's, so my result blows all that up, and invalidates, oh, about a hundred years of "pure" mathematical research!!!

I can PROVE that easily but you can see the threads where math people have argued with me endlessly about the result I am explaining here which just says that yes, I can multiply the 7 in this particular way:

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

And they say I can't, IF the functions are these particular ones that give their established theories problems, but they don't mind if the functions are something else. So it's all about the functions!!!

Now you may wonder how I even found this thing, and why I factor polynomials in weird ways, and the answer is, I came across it accidentally while trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, where there is a key point in the argument that relies on doing this very thing with a far more complex expression.

So if you believe that in general you can:

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

then you also have that the techniques the math people are so desperately fighting are key in proving Fermat's Last Theorem, which I did back in 2002.

Number theorists then have been rogue for at least 6 years now.

So what they're doing is academic fraud.

Note, basic ethics would require

That indicates that their field is corrupted. They are willfully accepting money for fraudulent research. And willfully teaching errors to their students.

The mathematical proof is easy to the point of trivial. Review the discussions recently with the notion that I'm just saying you can multiply by 7 like

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

and read math people claiming you cannot! They are trivially wrong.

I was published. Math people got the paper yanked and then, destroyed the journal.

Truth is stranger than fiction and because this scenario seems so impossible, I guess, to most people, it's big enough that it is being allowed to happen.

A small fraud might be more believable, but "top" academics around the world trying to hide over one hundred years of error is difficult to believe no matter how easy the math. But that is what is happening.

It's like, none of you can accept that an entire discipline worldwide is corrupted, especially the field of mathematics, but the consequences can be dire even for physicists, as ANYTHING using the flawed mathematics is not going to actually work.

People may think it works by rationalizations, but if you dig deep you will find it does not.

If you come to comprehend that this widescale academic fraud is real, then you probably will soon find it is difficult to get anyone to pay attention to it.

Big names in mathematics are, of course, entrenched in defending themselves, and with six years behind them, they're screwed on a massive scale if the truth comes out, so I'm seeing evidence that there is nothing that will move them.

They are no longer actually academics in the pursuit of knowledge: they are desperate men, holding on to a fraudulent scheme worldwide.

What I did was figure out a way to do something differently than before, but first note that on the complex plane with

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

where b_1(0) = 0, and b_2(0) = 0, I deliberately have a construction where 7 has multiplied across just one factor.

So you have something like

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

where c_1(0) = 0, and c_2(0) =0.

And if you understand ANY algebra then you realize I CAN choose to do that!

There is nothing on the complex plane that says I cannot!!!

It's ludicrous to claim that there is something mathematical that is blocking me from multiplying times 7 in that way, but that is exactly what posters are doing with the

**functions**I have chosen because they are non-linear functions that are roots of a particular type of expression I call a quadratic generator.In a sense that tells you all you need to know to realize they are wrong and I am right.

Unless you believe there is actually some way algebra can stop you from doing:

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

If it can that's news too!!!

What the people arguing with me say instead is that in certain particular cases the 7—no matter what you want—is forced to split up into functions, like

7 = w_1(x)*w_2(x), so

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*w_1(x)*c_1(x)+ w_1(x))(5w_2(x)*c_2(x)+ 2w_2(x))

where w_1(0) = 7, and w_2(0) = 1, but the w's split the 7 up at ANY integer values of x, where the non-linear functions I use would be non-rational because of an esoteric result in algebraic number theory about something called the ring of algebraic integers.

Now that is just stupid. There is no mathematical reason why I can't

**choose**to multiply with 7 like7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

and if there are people saying the algebra forces 7 to split up as a function of x, then they are quite wrong, but that is what posters have argued and that argument is what they used against my paper.

So what is the big deal? Well, turns out that a lot of algebraic number theory relies on results in that ring of algebraic integers as it was the basis for a lot of it back in the late 1800's, so my result blows all that up, and invalidates, oh, about a hundred years of "pure" mathematical research!!!

I can PROVE that easily but you can see the threads where math people have argued with me endlessly about the result I am explaining here which just says that yes, I can multiply the 7 in this particular way:

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

And they say I can't, IF the functions are these particular ones that give their established theories problems, but they don't mind if the functions are something else. So it's all about the functions!!!

Now you may wonder how I even found this thing, and why I factor polynomials in weird ways, and the answer is, I came across it accidentally while trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, where there is a key point in the argument that relies on doing this very thing with a far more complex expression.

So if you believe that in general you can:

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

then you also have that the techniques the math people are so desperately fighting are key in proving Fermat's Last Theorem, which I did back in 2002.

Number theorists then have been rogue for at least 6 years now.

So what they're doing is academic fraud.

Note, basic ethics would require

**ANY**mathematician aware of this problem to ring the alarm and make certain that the issue is noticed and dealt with, but instead they've managed to stay quiet for six years despite my efforts to get them to do the right thing.That indicates that their field is corrupted. They are willfully accepting money for fraudulent research. And willfully teaching errors to their students.

The mathematical proof is easy to the point of trivial. Review the discussions recently with the notion that I'm just saying you can multiply by 7 like

7*(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = 7*(5c_1(x) + 1)(5c_2(x)+ 2) = (5*7*c_1(x) + 7)(5c_2(x)+ 2)

and read math people claiming you cannot! They are trivially wrong.

I was published. Math people got the paper yanked and then, destroyed the journal.

Truth is stranger than fiction and because this scenario seems so impossible, I guess, to most people, it's big enough that it is being allowed to happen.

A small fraud might be more believable, but "top" academics around the world trying to hide over one hundred years of error is difficult to believe no matter how easy the math. But that is what is happening.

It's like, none of you can accept that an entire discipline worldwide is corrupted, especially the field of mathematics, but the consequences can be dire even for physicists, as ANYTHING using the flawed mathematics is not going to actually work.

People may think it works by rationalizations, but if you dig deep you will find it does not.

If you come to comprehend that this widescale academic fraud is real, then you probably will soon find it is difficult to get anyone to pay attention to it.

Big names in mathematics are, of course, entrenched in defending themselves, and with six years behind them, they're screwed on a massive scale if the truth comes out, so I'm seeing evidence that there is nothing that will move them.

They are no longer actually academics in the pursuit of knowledge: they are desperate men, holding on to a fraudulent scheme worldwide.