## JSH: A hundred years plus of error

Maybe at least some of the mathematicians fail to do the right thing in the face of proof because of the enormity of their loss.

A subtle but devastating error entered into number theory over a hundred years ago.

For a field like mathematics it is unbelievably devastating in terms of its impact, quite simply, reversing the story for the last one hundred years.

Where they thought there was great brilliance in many cases there was complex failure.

I fear, some of them just simply kind of cut-off in the face of the reality, and then they pick themselves up, and go back to using the broken ideas, and teaching them to new students.

I had a Cornell math grad who contacted me by email offering to help, start replying back with stories about wondering around late at night studying the sky as he worked through the mathematics himself, which was his own suggestion to do!

After a few months he replied again claiming the mathematics was out of his area.

But, of course, there may be implications for physics, but luckily, physics has to work in the real world.

The primary impact will probably be explanation, along with gaining some incredibly powerful mathematical tools.

Make no mistake, what I call tautological spaces allow you to encompass all prior knowledge of a set of equations—and extend beyond it.

Which is how I quickly and easily generally solved binary quadratic Diophantine equations—finding these Pell Equation results which have opened a window to getting you to face the real situation—and years ago, found a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, and found the devastating error itself.

You can use Google—a harbinger of the new—to get some grasp of how my influence is being presaged.

Google: definition of mathematical proof

I think I also may come up highly in Yahoo!, and consider who gets to define mathematical proof for the world?

I am the latest major mathematical discoverer. That's why I get that right.

Google: spherical packing problem

The mathematical community in number theory has a hundred plus years of error hidden by "pure math", and there is a physics impact, as the proper explanation for group theory will probably be interesting. At a minimum prime numbers appear to be key in fascinating ways, and they offer bigger clues about random in the real world.

Oh yeah, and my prime counting function appears to be a number theory version of a damped oscillator, which may underpin fundamental reality.

Quite simply, you either get with the more powerful knowledge, or wait until humanity completes moving beyond you, and new students will arrive, and new methodologies will build.