Thursday, January 15, 2009
JSH: Relevance of the denial
Being someone in the difficult position of trying to inform the world about a big problem in abstract number theory where the experts in that area refuse to acknowledge it, I'm very much aware of the importance of showing non-rational behavior from people who are working so very hard to convince you that there is no support for my research.
The relevance for physicists is they have sold various mathematical techniques which increasingly I am certain do not work.
My leverage in getting heard is my own research, which has growing influence around the world.
New ideas take time to gain hold, especially when there is entrenched hostility from people already established in an area, but there has been some time that has already passed.
With the years comes use.
Google searches are a fun and easy way for me to map growing interest in my research and to see what pulls more interest most rapidly and not surprisingly to me, my least "pure math" results are the biggest drivers.
But I do Google searches all the time and have other data on a continual basis. POSTING about Google searches allows you to see what happens with the math people when you give them information they cannot stand.
So these posts are all about the replies they garner.
Nothing like seeing the behavior up close and personal.
Oh yeah, I still am amazed though by the take-over of the Google search: devastating error
And I'm also looking more into the question of just how bad is the weird math error for Galois Theory, as, of course, there is group theory which is so successful.
Trouble is, I already know of a case where Galois Theory is said to be relevant, where it turns out there are just two ways mathematically to look at the problem, which is with binary quadratic Diophantine equations.
There an odd bit of coincidental mathematics is key. It is so weird once you understand it, and then understand how much can pivot on such simple things:
Here intriguingly I can also cite someone! I rarely get to cite the research of anyone else as most of my own research is from scratch:
Pell's equation without irrational numbers
Authors: N. J. Wildberger
(Submitted on 16 Jun 2008)
Abstract: We solve Pell's equation in a simple way without continued fractions or irrational numbers, and relate the algorithm to the Stern Brocot tree.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2490v1
Problem for Professor Wildberger though is that solving Pell's equation is considered one of the plums of the theory using irrational numbers so math people don't want to know it can all be handled with rationals only. I have yet to see evidence that his paper has garnered much support or interest (if there is evidence please give it).
Oh yeah, of course, if I my research is correct then it stands to reason—if you believe in humanity AT ALL—that it would be picked up, and used. Our species is supposedly kind of efficient at such things, right?
So to some extent, it's all about time.
The relevance for physicists is they have sold various mathematical techniques which increasingly I am certain do not work.
My leverage in getting heard is my own research, which has growing influence around the world.
New ideas take time to gain hold, especially when there is entrenched hostility from people already established in an area, but there has been some time that has already passed.
With the years comes use.
Google searches are a fun and easy way for me to map growing interest in my research and to see what pulls more interest most rapidly and not surprisingly to me, my least "pure math" results are the biggest drivers.
But I do Google searches all the time and have other data on a continual basis. POSTING about Google searches allows you to see what happens with the math people when you give them information they cannot stand.
So these posts are all about the replies they garner.
Nothing like seeing the behavior up close and personal.
Oh yeah, I still am amazed though by the take-over of the Google search: devastating error
And I'm also looking more into the question of just how bad is the weird math error for Galois Theory, as, of course, there is group theory which is so successful.
Trouble is, I already know of a case where Galois Theory is said to be relevant, where it turns out there are just two ways mathematically to look at the problem, which is with binary quadratic Diophantine equations.
There an odd bit of coincidental mathematics is key. It is so weird once you understand it, and then understand how much can pivot on such simple things:
Here intriguingly I can also cite someone! I rarely get to cite the research of anyone else as most of my own research is from scratch:
Pell's equation without irrational numbers
Authors: N. J. Wildberger
(Submitted on 16 Jun 2008)
Abstract: We solve Pell's equation in a simple way without continued fractions or irrational numbers, and relate the algorithm to the Stern Brocot tree.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2490v1
Problem for Professor Wildberger though is that solving Pell's equation is considered one of the plums of the theory using irrational numbers so math people don't want to know it can all be handled with rationals only. I have yet to see evidence that his paper has garnered much support or interest (if there is evidence please give it).
Oh yeah, of course, if I my research is correct then it stands to reason—if you believe in humanity AT ALL—that it would be picked up, and used. Our species is supposedly kind of efficient at such things, right?
So to some extent, it's all about time.
# posted by James Harris @ 01:59 
