### Saturday, October 31, 2009

## JSH: Nearing the real fun

I can see that "Uncle Al" is kind of picking and choosing but ultimately deciding to go for it and reply to me.

Um, did it ever occur to any of you that if I DO have these massive mathematical finds then I'm smart enough to know Usenet is NOT the place to get anything going and I have gone to the regular places, so why am I here then?

Well I'm actually accomplished now. History should record me as one of the major discoverers, and here I can write things out as I wish, unfiltered, and insult back the people who insult me, as I choose.

I am writing history.

Actually I mention "Uncle Al" so much because I'm so curious about the looks on his face—I can see the photogs and the flashes of the cameras when they find him—when the cameras start flashing and people tell who he is, what he does, and commentators sit and analyze and try to figure out what motivates such a person.

To some extent I'm just collecting oddities to be studied later by others.

It does not matter what I say on Usenet. I will be a historical figure. Nothing I say here or have said will change that reality.

Only other thing is to babble to get out some of the tension and collect people to be studied later by psychologists who will try to explain in who knows what terms what motivates these people.

I'm goofing off. Here's where at least I can talk about my research and get in arguments, as, I like to argue but can find it difficult to find people to argue with me. Usenet seems to supply a near endless source, but only for so long.

Eventually I burn out the newsgroup. So I know it's getting close to when I have to go for a while so it can re-generate.

Like sci.math is just about complete toast now, so I don't even bother with it. I'm hell on newsgroups. They just kind of shut-down for a while when I get really active until regulars scream in agony.

But sci.physics seems to be hardier this time, so we'll see. Been kind of fun so far, hoping to get to the real fun soon before the burnout and I have to let the newsgroup go before I destroy it.

Um, did it ever occur to any of you that if I DO have these massive mathematical finds then I'm smart enough to know Usenet is NOT the place to get anything going and I have gone to the regular places, so why am I here then?

Well I'm actually accomplished now. History should record me as one of the major discoverers, and here I can write things out as I wish, unfiltered, and insult back the people who insult me, as I choose.

I am writing history.

Actually I mention "Uncle Al" so much because I'm so curious about the looks on his face—I can see the photogs and the flashes of the cameras when they find him—when the cameras start flashing and people tell who he is, what he does, and commentators sit and analyze and try to figure out what motivates such a person.

To some extent I'm just collecting oddities to be studied later by others.

It does not matter what I say on Usenet. I will be a historical figure. Nothing I say here or have said will change that reality.

Only other thing is to babble to get out some of the tension and collect people to be studied later by psychologists who will try to explain in who knows what terms what motivates these people.

I'm goofing off. Here's where at least I can talk about my research and get in arguments, as, I like to argue but can find it difficult to find people to argue with me. Usenet seems to supply a near endless source, but only for so long.

Eventually I burn out the newsgroup. So I know it's getting close to when I have to go for a while so it can re-generate.

Like sci.math is just about complete toast now, so I don't even bother with it. I'm hell on newsgroups. They just kind of shut-down for a while when I get really active until regulars scream in agony.

But sci.physics seems to be hardier this time, so we'll see. Been kind of fun so far, hoping to get to the real fun soon before the burnout and I have to let the newsgroup go before I destroy it.

## JSH: Mainly talking it out

This situation is just so weird that I think a lot of my posting is really just talking it out. Wondering about it, and trying to get some kind of a handle on it as to process it. It's one thing for some person to claim that there is a problem in academia and babble on about his supposed discoveries, it's another to be that person trying to figure out what to do.

These math guys just did not do what I expected. And it's so weird to think that your life is changed in this big way just because of a few people. I hate that. I shouldn't even need these people. But the world listens to them about math, so I do, and they didn't do their jobs, so here we are. Here I am.

And you know, and I have ambivalent feelings about the discovery. I've wanted my own discoveries and think that's a good thing, but it's like this thing. And it's just one discovery where I have others. And they're like these mystery things, like, where did they come from?

But I think about people mostly. I wonder what it's like to be some professor, probably in some musty office piled high with books and papers. Some person who sees this result and his mind just says, no. No, he won't be a part of it. He'll just go back to that research from his buddy in that area where only 3 people in the world really know what it's about, and he's one…

When I went back to Vanderbilt University when I thought there was an opening before I really thought there was when I got published before the editors retracted and the journal died, I was AMAZED when at 4:30 pm the entire math department went home. Like a freaking whistle had gone off at a factory. The factory workers—Ph.D'd mathematicians at a top university—could shuffle on home, finally. Punch a clock.

What kind of people are they. What passes through their brains as an important thought?

And I talk against academia a lot and maybe it is from those times in the past when I was around math professors and they seemed so miserable, and often were musty. So I have this mental image of these smelly, miserable out of shape men who spend so much time in cramped little offices waiting for 4:30 pm to rush for the door, like any other factory worker…

What do "those people" care about really? What could they possibly care for?

The world gave them a career—they could be these math professors. And some upstart figures out the good stuff, but hey…they can just say NOTHING. That'll show him! Thinks he's so smart. They can show him. Punish him by just saying nothing at all.

And it's brilliant! What can anyone say later? That they did it

The little upstart that they can find whining away on Usenet whenever a little boost is needed before turning back to the dusty papers to work on ideas that little freak has invalidated, but those are THEIR ideas, and only 3 people in the world even UNDERSTAND what they're all about…

These math guys just did not do what I expected. And it's so weird to think that your life is changed in this big way just because of a few people. I hate that. I shouldn't even need these people. But the world listens to them about math, so I do, and they didn't do their jobs, so here we are. Here I am.

And you know, and I have ambivalent feelings about the discovery. I've wanted my own discoveries and think that's a good thing, but it's like this thing. And it's just one discovery where I have others. And they're like these mystery things, like, where did they come from?

But I think about people mostly. I wonder what it's like to be some professor, probably in some musty office piled high with books and papers. Some person who sees this result and his mind just says, no. No, he won't be a part of it. He'll just go back to that research from his buddy in that area where only 3 people in the world really know what it's about, and he's one…

When I went back to Vanderbilt University when I thought there was an opening before I really thought there was when I got published before the editors retracted and the journal died, I was AMAZED when at 4:30 pm the entire math department went home. Like a freaking whistle had gone off at a factory. The factory workers—Ph.D'd mathematicians at a top university—could shuffle on home, finally. Punch a clock.

What kind of people are they. What passes through their brains as an important thought?

And I talk against academia a lot and maybe it is from those times in the past when I was around math professors and they seemed so miserable, and often were musty. So I have this mental image of these smelly, miserable out of shape men who spend so much time in cramped little offices waiting for 4:30 pm to rush for the door, like any other factory worker…

What do "those people" care about really? What could they possibly care for?

The world gave them a career—they could be these math professors. And some upstart figures out the good stuff, but hey…they can just say NOTHING. That'll show him! Thinks he's so smart. They can show him. Punish him by just saying nothing at all.

And it's brilliant! What can anyone say later? That they did it

**deliberately**? How do they prove it? How?The little upstart that they can find whining away on Usenet whenever a little boost is needed before turning back to the dusty papers to work on ideas that little freak has invalidated, but those are THEIR ideas, and only 3 people in the world even UNDERSTAND what they're all about…

## JSH: Lying is easier than re-writing textbooks

Prime numbers have fascinated people for centuries (thousands of years) and today in our modern world we have a discipline that supposedly is the keeper of the knowledge mathematical, which people have trusted to TELL THE TRUTH about mathematics, but now there are stunningly powerful indications that that group has gone rogue.

Now they don't want you to know they've gone rogue. And of course mathematics is such a huge discipline that it is hard to figure that the bulk of mathematicians could be these "bad people"—and mathematics works! Right? Our HUGE amount of science and technology depends on mathematics that works.

Yup. And mathematicians split themselves up: "pure" ones and "applied" ones.

The applied mathematicians worry about the mathematics that makes things work. The "pure" mathematicians quite deliberately will tell you their research has no real world application, may never have any, but is just research for research's sake.

Which gives them room to lie about it.

So I've gone on and on about a prime counting function I discovered in 2002. That is "pure" math. You can't build a car with that function. You can't build a weapon or work out clothing design. You can't build a better laser or a faster cellphone with it.

It's just knowledge, about primes:

With natural numbers where p_j is the j_th prime:

P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for j=1 to n of {P([x/p_j],j-1) - (j-1)}

where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt (x) then n is reset to that count.

It's actually not hard to explain either how all the pieces work, and why it counts primes, but what's important is that it is recursive!!! It calls itself.

If you look in the mathematical literature, throughout all of known human history, that has never been seen before with a prime counting function.

Never. In all of known human history. There is no way that true keepers of the knowledge would deliberately ignore such a result since 2002. No way.

Because it's recursive it can find the primes on its own versus needing to be told what they are. (Notice above that you need a list of primes in order to count primes, which is why you see p_j, as it's a prime number.)

So this smarter prime counting function doesn't need to be told what the primes are as it can tell itself!!!

So let's give it its wings:

With natural numbers

P(x,y) = x - 1 - sum for j=2 to y of {(P([x/j],j-1) - P(j-1, sqrt (j-1)))(P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1)))}

where if y>sqrt(x), then P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt(x)).

And that works because it has a prime switch:

P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1))=0

unless j is a prime number, but 1 when it IS a prime number.

So the function tells itself when a number is prime to cut itself on, otherwise it's off.

And yup, never before seen in all of known human history.

The keepers of the math who told the world they were "pure" seem to be very capable of ignoring a research result with prime numbers with cool and awesome features never before seen, but why? Why lie?

I'm not a math Ph.D, as I just have a B.Sc. in physics from Vanderbilt University. I'm not part of their club.

To re-write the textbooks and put in someone like me, I think to them would be like inviting some homeless person in off the street to sleep in your bed and have sex with your wife.

I am not in their class.

Oh, and there is the money. My research may have closed some funding doors.

Seems my P(x,y) function because of its unique features now has one more: it is a difference equation.

A difference equation is just a discrete analog to a differential equation. For instance, if y=x^2, you have the difference equation:

dy = 2x +1

and compare with the differential equation:

y' = 2x

The 1 is there because with discrete equations 1 is the smallest number other than 0.

With my prime counting function you can go to a partial differential equation:

In the complex plane

P'y(x,y) = -(P(x/y,y) - P(y, sqrt(y))) P'(y, sqrt(y)).

The discrete P(x,y) function that has that cool switch graphs as a discrete damped oscillator in 2 dimensions but it's a 3-d function but I don't know what the 3-dimensional graph looks like.

As far as the math people are concerned, one might guess that the world be damned and who cares what it looks like!

They need to keep out the outsider! Keep that nasty physics guy from intruding into their math people only world!

Years ago I argued on math newsgroups about these results. YEARS ago. I suggest you go into the archives of the sci.math newsgroup to see what the Usenet math people said back then. It's an eye-opener.

And yes, they are just Usenet, but the story is heartbreaking when I talk about what mainstream mathematicians said, and did, or did not.

They closed the door.

No matter what you discover people have to acknowledge it for it to become widely known.

The math people just closed the door simply by refusing to acknowledge the research.

And seem to feel quite comfortable holding it closed. Contempt for knowledge. They display a contempt for knowledge in a world that let them be "pure", paid them to work on math that didn't look like it was important today, in the faith that it might be important tomorrow.

These people were paid to screw the world. They're BEING paid NOW to screw the world.

Some of you know that prime counting is just one of my major research finds. They destroyed a math journal over another.

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/

I get feedback from posters wondering why I'm bothering you with this stuff. They call me names. Insult me.

And I have absolute mathematical proof. Easy to verify mathematical equations. My own degree in physics.

There are no limits. You think you're in? God help you if you find a result that is true but not wanted as no one else will.

The modern academic world is a new thing. People take it for granted as human beings have short brutish lives and if something has been around your whole life, to you it's just this monolithic thing that you may think will always be.

And the modern academic world has here failed.

Professors refusing to acknowledge major research from an outsider, continuing to take FUNDING in that research area which is fraud, and they teach their poor students whatever it is they're teaching without giving a good goddamn about giving them the BEST knowledge.

They are anti-mathematicians supported by a system clearly incapable of flushing them out.

The academic world is now a failed idea. The world will figure that out as it always does, even if it takes a while.

But it will figure that out, and then, it will end this current system, to replace it with something better.

Colleges and universities will not go away. They will simply be, transformed into something better. All of them.

So think none of this is relevant to you? Then what are you? A complete idiot?

Now they don't want you to know they've gone rogue. And of course mathematics is such a huge discipline that it is hard to figure that the bulk of mathematicians could be these "bad people"—and mathematics works! Right? Our HUGE amount of science and technology depends on mathematics that works.

Yup. And mathematicians split themselves up: "pure" ones and "applied" ones.

The applied mathematicians worry about the mathematics that makes things work. The "pure" mathematicians quite deliberately will tell you their research has no real world application, may never have any, but is just research for research's sake.

Which gives them room to lie about it.

So I've gone on and on about a prime counting function I discovered in 2002. That is "pure" math. You can't build a car with that function. You can't build a weapon or work out clothing design. You can't build a better laser or a faster cellphone with it.

It's just knowledge, about primes:

With natural numbers where p_j is the j_th prime:

P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for j=1 to n of {P([x/p_j],j-1) - (j-1)}

where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt (x) then n is reset to that count.

It's actually not hard to explain either how all the pieces work, and why it counts primes, but what's important is that it is recursive!!! It calls itself.

If you look in the mathematical literature, throughout all of known human history, that has never been seen before with a prime counting function.

Never. In all of known human history. There is no way that true keepers of the knowledge would deliberately ignore such a result since 2002. No way.

Because it's recursive it can find the primes on its own versus needing to be told what they are. (Notice above that you need a list of primes in order to count primes, which is why you see p_j, as it's a prime number.)

So this smarter prime counting function doesn't need to be told what the primes are as it can tell itself!!!

So let's give it its wings:

With natural numbers

P(x,y) = x - 1 - sum for j=2 to y of {(P([x/j],j-1) - P(j-1, sqrt (j-1)))(P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1)))}

where if y>sqrt(x), then P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt(x)).

And that works because it has a prime switch:

P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1))=0

unless j is a prime number, but 1 when it IS a prime number.

So the function tells itself when a number is prime to cut itself on, otherwise it's off.

And yup, never before seen in all of known human history.

The keepers of the math who told the world they were "pure" seem to be very capable of ignoring a research result with prime numbers with cool and awesome features never before seen, but why? Why lie?

I'm not a math Ph.D, as I just have a B.Sc. in physics from Vanderbilt University. I'm not part of their club.

To re-write the textbooks and put in someone like me, I think to them would be like inviting some homeless person in off the street to sleep in your bed and have sex with your wife.

I am not in their class.

Oh, and there is the money. My research may have closed some funding doors.

Seems my P(x,y) function because of its unique features now has one more: it is a difference equation.

A difference equation is just a discrete analog to a differential equation. For instance, if y=x^2, you have the difference equation:

dy = 2x +1

and compare with the differential equation:

y' = 2x

The 1 is there because with discrete equations 1 is the smallest number other than 0.

With my prime counting function you can go to a partial differential equation:

In the complex plane

P'y(x,y) = -(P(x/y,y) - P(y, sqrt(y))) P'(y, sqrt(y)).

The discrete P(x,y) function that has that cool switch graphs as a discrete damped oscillator in 2 dimensions but it's a 3-d function but I don't know what the 3-dimensional graph looks like.

As far as the math people are concerned, one might guess that the world be damned and who cares what it looks like!

They need to keep out the outsider! Keep that nasty physics guy from intruding into their math people only world!

Years ago I argued on math newsgroups about these results. YEARS ago. I suggest you go into the archives of the sci.math newsgroup to see what the Usenet math people said back then. It's an eye-opener.

And yes, they are just Usenet, but the story is heartbreaking when I talk about what mainstream mathematicians said, and did, or did not.

They closed the door.

No matter what you discover people have to acknowledge it for it to become widely known.

The math people just closed the door simply by refusing to acknowledge the research.

And seem to feel quite comfortable holding it closed. Contempt for knowledge. They display a contempt for knowledge in a world that let them be "pure", paid them to work on math that didn't look like it was important today, in the faith that it might be important tomorrow.

These people were paid to screw the world. They're BEING paid NOW to screw the world.

Some of you know that prime counting is just one of my major research finds. They destroyed a math journal over another.

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/

I get feedback from posters wondering why I'm bothering you with this stuff. They call me names. Insult me.

And I have absolute mathematical proof. Easy to verify mathematical equations. My own degree in physics.

There are no limits. You think you're in? God help you if you find a result that is true but not wanted as no one else will.

The modern academic world is a new thing. People take it for granted as human beings have short brutish lives and if something has been around your whole life, to you it's just this monolithic thing that you may think will always be.

And the modern academic world has here failed.

Professors refusing to acknowledge major research from an outsider, continuing to take FUNDING in that research area which is fraud, and they teach their poor students whatever it is they're teaching without giving a good goddamn about giving them the BEST knowledge.

They are anti-mathematicians supported by a system clearly incapable of flushing them out.

The academic world is now a failed idea. The world will figure that out as it always does, even if it takes a while.

But it will figure that out, and then, it will end this current system, to replace it with something better.

Colleges and universities will not go away. They will simply be, transformed into something better. All of them.

So think none of this is relevant to you? Then what are you? A complete idiot?

## JSH: Mathematics, an abused brand?

I was actually surprised years ago when I started trying to place my find of a multi-dimensional prime counting function, as to its relevance, when I learned the fuller story, including that it was Euler, not Riemann, who discovered the zeta function. And years later having faced endless stonewalling by math people in terms of just

As a "brand" maybe mathematics is in trouble in the sense that few people care any more about the details. Sure there are popular books, etc. but how can something so dramatic just be so trivially blocked?

It's not even close to looking like a minor find either. It clearly gives something humanity as a SPECIES didn't have before, which is a way to look at the prime distribution with a new perspective and new tools that gives a simpler explanation than what came before.

But it's like with my other research where these bastards destroyed an entire math journal.

You keep asking yourself, how do people get away with such blatant stuff?

And years ago I would note to myself Enron, and the abusive priests with the Catholic Church, and then there came the Iraq War and now we have the "financial crisis" with some people ready to get billion dollar bonuses and party, while so many others are out of work and desperate.

These stories just keep piling up.

So no, it's not even close. Clearly I made one of the biggest finds in mathematical history which yes does relate to physics in multiple ways if only because there are poor pathetic physicists who do work with RH, but also in other ways.

That find answers a question that drove a huge amount of mathematical interest from some of the world's greatest minds, and gives a new tack that could lead to a resolution of RH, and yet, I'm this maligned "crank".

Insulted. Not cheered. No ticker tape parade.

Maligned as a loser when I may have one of the greatest intellectual discoveries in human history.

In an upside down world doesn't it occur to any of you that people may lose the ability to figure out at all, which way is up?

**recognizing**my find at all, I'm amazed at how hard it is.As a "brand" maybe mathematics is in trouble in the sense that few people care any more about the details. Sure there are popular books, etc. but how can something so dramatic just be so trivially blocked?

It's not even close to looking like a minor find either. It clearly gives something humanity as a SPECIES didn't have before, which is a way to look at the prime distribution with a new perspective and new tools that gives a simpler explanation than what came before.

But it's like with my other research where these bastards destroyed an entire math journal.

You keep asking yourself, how do people get away with such blatant stuff?

And years ago I would note to myself Enron, and the abusive priests with the Catholic Church, and then there came the Iraq War and now we have the "financial crisis" with some people ready to get billion dollar bonuses and party, while so many others are out of work and desperate.

These stories just keep piling up.

So no, it's not even close. Clearly I made one of the biggest finds in mathematical history which yes does relate to physics in multiple ways if only because there are poor pathetic physicists who do work with RH, but also in other ways.

That find answers a question that drove a huge amount of mathematical interest from some of the world's greatest minds, and gives a new tack that could lead to a resolution of RH, and yet, I'm this maligned "crank".

Insulted. Not cheered. No ticker tape parade.

Maligned as a loser when I may have one of the greatest intellectual discoveries in human history.

In an upside down world doesn't it occur to any of you that people may lose the ability to figure out at all, which way is up?

## JSH: Prime distribution and Occam's Razor

I discovered back in 2002 a rather simple formula for counting prime numbers.

That formula has several unique features while it is also very similar in key ways to what was previously known.

One of those unique features is a difference equation form which leads to a partial differential equation.

That is important as for some time mathematicians have known about a connection between the count of prime numbers and various continuous functions where for simplicity I give x/ln x as that is easily checkable at your computer.

For instance there are 4 primes up to 10: 2, 3, 5 and 7. While 10/ln 10 = 4.3 to one significant digit.

And one more example to give a better sense of it, consider 100, as there are 25 primes up to 100, while 100/ln 100 = 21.7 to one significant digit.

Notice though there is a gap, as 21.7 is much further from 25 than 4.3 was from 4, and my research can explain that gap simply enough.

(One area where my research contradicts with established theory as by that theory the gap will eventually shrink and even reverse! My research indicates it will not, but steadily grows bigger out to infinity.)

There is a lot of competing mathematics in this area. Mathematicians have done a lot of research on prime numbers and introduced some extraordinarily advanced tools for their study. But I made a stunningly simple discovery which allows an alternate explanation for some of the why's of the prime distribution which they have deliberately ignored.

I can say they've deliberately ignored it as I did send the result to top mathematicians almost immediately upon its discovery back in 2002, and have sent it to mathematicians all over the world and tried to get it published, to no avail.

Occam's Razor applies as you have a simple explanation for why the prime counting function is close to x/ln x, with a simple explanation for the gap between that value and the prime count, which follows just from knowing that a mathematical formula that counts primes leads to this partial differential equation.

It's impossible to justify simply ignoring the result. And worse, leaving its discoverer out as a "crackpot" to be insulted is very unethical behavior on the part of mathematicians. There simply is no way to justify such acts.

However such behavior is consistent with a willful desire to hold on to the more abstruse results rather than deal with an extreme simplification.

Physicists may love simplifications but mathematicians pride themselves on building what came before, and claim few upheavals in their field.

They love complexity, and pride themselves on difficult mathematical ideas which few people understand. My result ruins the prime distribution from that perspective by giving a simple and possibly too mundane explanation for people who love difficulty, and pride themselves on complexity.

Regardless of what you believe, you probably realize that if mathematicians simply refused to acknowledge a major result it could be extremely difficult for that result to become widely known.

And you must realize then that they are themselves so aware.

That formula has several unique features while it is also very similar in key ways to what was previously known.

One of those unique features is a difference equation form which leads to a partial differential equation.

That is important as for some time mathematicians have known about a connection between the count of prime numbers and various continuous functions where for simplicity I give x/ln x as that is easily checkable at your computer.

For instance there are 4 primes up to 10: 2, 3, 5 and 7. While 10/ln 10 = 4.3 to one significant digit.

And one more example to give a better sense of it, consider 100, as there are 25 primes up to 100, while 100/ln 100 = 21.7 to one significant digit.

Notice though there is a gap, as 21.7 is much further from 25 than 4.3 was from 4, and my research can explain that gap simply enough.

(One area where my research contradicts with established theory as by that theory the gap will eventually shrink and even reverse! My research indicates it will not, but steadily grows bigger out to infinity.)

There is a lot of competing mathematics in this area. Mathematicians have done a lot of research on prime numbers and introduced some extraordinarily advanced tools for their study. But I made a stunningly simple discovery which allows an alternate explanation for some of the why's of the prime distribution which they have deliberately ignored.

I can say they've deliberately ignored it as I did send the result to top mathematicians almost immediately upon its discovery back in 2002, and have sent it to mathematicians all over the world and tried to get it published, to no avail.

Occam's Razor applies as you have a simple explanation for why the prime counting function is close to x/ln x, with a simple explanation for the gap between that value and the prime count, which follows just from knowing that a mathematical formula that counts primes leads to this partial differential equation.

It's impossible to justify simply ignoring the result. And worse, leaving its discoverer out as a "crackpot" to be insulted is very unethical behavior on the part of mathematicians. There simply is no way to justify such acts.

However such behavior is consistent with a willful desire to hold on to the more abstruse results rather than deal with an extreme simplification.

Physicists may love simplifications but mathematicians pride themselves on building what came before, and claim few upheavals in their field.

They love complexity, and pride themselves on difficult mathematical ideas which few people understand. My result ruins the prime distribution from that perspective by giving a simple and possibly too mundane explanation for people who love difficulty, and pride themselves on complexity.

Regardless of what you believe, you probably realize that if mathematicians simply refused to acknowledge a major result it could be extremely difficult for that result to become widely known.

And you must realize then that they are themselves so aware.

### Friday, October 30, 2009

## JSH: Understanding the betrayal by math people

I found a P(x,y) function that counts prime numbers. It has a sieve form that is similar to what math people knew before, but it also has a difference equation form, which is a first. And because of that it leads to a partial differential equation, so it explains rather simply and succinctly one of the biggest questions in mathematical history, which lead to the famous Riemann Hypothesis, which is itself probably made irrelevant by this result.

And I discovered it in 2002, so 7 years ago.

Math people did not and have not followed script. They screwed me over in not acknowledging the result properly and betrayed the world as well. The information should be a well-known part of the mathematical literature. The story should be known around the world.

I should be one of the most famous people in world history.

They changed the timeline. By simply refusing to properly acknowledge a major discovery mathematicians changed the history of the world.

Kind of like if Einstein had just been ignored. He could have been. He was just a patent clerk with his papers. If physicists had done to him what math people did to me, can you imagine how our world would be different today?

There is no doubt on this issue. There is no other multi-dimensional prime counting function. There is no other "prime counting function" that leads to a partial differential equation. Mathematicians who I've sent this result to have behaved in bizarre ways for years.

One promptly went on sabbatical, and when he returned he claimed he hadn't been told about the result but was not interested in it. I had a math professor tell me the difference equation form did not exist. I reminded him that it DID exist as I'd sent it to him, an he did not reply further.

Odlyzko a leading mathematician in the field claimed it was not of interest. Not of interest? THE answer to the prime distribution connecting to continuous functions like x/ln x, not of interest? Are you kidding me?

And of course there is Usenet with all the insults for years. All the people ripping on me. All the nastiness. Insult to injury.

I look out and see a different world than any of you. I no longer believe in the same things. My world is so much darker but also so much more real. So little surprises me any more.

I'm the one person who knows the timeline was changed. Humanity went down a different path than what could have been.

Math people changed history. Like if Einstein had just been ignored. We're on a different arc now than what could have been.

And I discovered it in 2002, so 7 years ago.

Math people did not and have not followed script. They screwed me over in not acknowledging the result properly and betrayed the world as well. The information should be a well-known part of the mathematical literature. The story should be known around the world.

I should be one of the most famous people in world history.

They changed the timeline. By simply refusing to properly acknowledge a major discovery mathematicians changed the history of the world.

Kind of like if Einstein had just been ignored. He could have been. He was just a patent clerk with his papers. If physicists had done to him what math people did to me, can you imagine how our world would be different today?

There is no doubt on this issue. There is no other multi-dimensional prime counting function. There is no other "prime counting function" that leads to a partial differential equation. Mathematicians who I've sent this result to have behaved in bizarre ways for years.

One promptly went on sabbatical, and when he returned he claimed he hadn't been told about the result but was not interested in it. I had a math professor tell me the difference equation form did not exist. I reminded him that it DID exist as I'd sent it to him, an he did not reply further.

Odlyzko a leading mathematician in the field claimed it was not of interest. Not of interest? THE answer to the prime distribution connecting to continuous functions like x/ln x, not of interest? Are you kidding me?

And of course there is Usenet with all the insults for years. All the people ripping on me. All the nastiness. Insult to injury.

I look out and see a different world than any of you. I no longer believe in the same things. My world is so much darker but also so much more real. So little surprises me any more.

I'm the one person who knows the timeline was changed. Humanity went down a different path than what could have been.

Math people changed history. Like if Einstein had just been ignored. We're on a different arc now than what could have been.

## JSH: So now you know how longer your odds were

Some of you post your various ideas maybe hoping like me to get recognition, and now with my story you can see how long the odds are:

In my opinion the academic world is broken. It failed multiple ways here and continues to fail, at every level.

And make no mistake, the best explanation in my opinion for why the mathematicians, academics all over the world, would want to hide a simplifying result is FUNDING.

Money.

Funding for people who betrayed the world for the money, doing the opposite of its intent. The money fueled their betrayal and yes, academics don't get a ton of money, I know, but if you're doing fake research, isn't ANY money a laugh at a stupid world?

Full salaries for professors with tenure when they betrayed their planet.

They betrayed the world in my opinion for money.

So look and learn. If you think your idea is going to go somewhere based on postings on this newsgroup or any other, consider the long odds.

I have one of the greatest research results in human history. All of freaking human history!!!

And look what they've done to me.

- I have a major research result in one of the biggest areas of mathematics, where I discovered a freaking P(x,y) multi-dimensional prime counting function which the world had never seen before, which has a difference equation form which leads to a partial differential equation and thereby answers one of the biggest questions in math history.
- I DID send it to mathematicians around the world. Tried to get a paper published. Talked about the result all over the place.
- I DID still get insulted on Usenet. These psychopaths that pretend they're doing a good deed by ripping on their victims who they call "crackpot" or "crank" don't care about the truth. They are in it to inflict pain. They are criminal types who simply have found a haven for doing evil in this world.

In my opinion the academic world is broken. It failed multiple ways here and continues to fail, at every level.

And make no mistake, the best explanation in my opinion for why the mathematicians, academics all over the world, would want to hide a simplifying result is FUNDING.

Money.

Funding for people who betrayed the world for the money, doing the opposite of its intent. The money fueled their betrayal and yes, academics don't get a ton of money, I know, but if you're doing fake research, isn't ANY money a laugh at a stupid world?

Full salaries for professors with tenure when they betrayed their planet.

They betrayed the world in my opinion for money.

So look and learn. If you think your idea is going to go somewhere based on postings on this newsgroup or any other, consider the long odds.

I have one of the greatest research results in human history. All of freaking human history!!!

And look what they've done to me.

### Tuesday, October 27, 2009

## JSH: RH is probably just junk

Sadly a lot of mysticism and hero worship has been arrayed around Riemann's famous hypothesis, but hey, it WAS just a hypothesis, so it's not his fault. But in light of the multi-dimensional form of the prime counting function the hypothesis is probably just junk, and I fear some mathematicians realized that fairly quickly after I discovered the multi-dimensional form back in 2002.

So how could anyone NOT tell the world? How could they just sit quietly and let the research get maligned?

I'm not sure, and I've pondered those questions and more for 7 years now, and my guess is that on some deep level, they were looking out for themselves, became cowards to the truth, and found it easier as time went by to convince themselves that they were ok.

Odlyzko himself told me the difference equation form of the prime counting function was "not of interest".

His entire CAREER will probably be defined by this event only. To history, he probably will have no other relevance except as one of the dark mathematicians who didn't do the right thing.

It's easier to read history books and imagine you wouldn't be one of those people than to live through something like this saga, and actually DO the right thing. For years I've watched math people from professors, to yes, students like yourselves, do the wrong thing, when it was all just a matter of time.

There is always lots of time to have your "contributions" wiped away by an assessment by the world that you are scum.

Even if math people could drag this out for decades or even past your lifetimes, anything you supposedly accomplished could be dismissed by the world when the truth came out, and that would define you as far as the future is concerned. Nothing else.

Who knows what some of these mathematicians have been doing over the years. Maybe even trying to make their own BIG discoveries to try and counterbalance the weight of their bad decision?

But make no mistake, as far as history is concerned, their mistakes here will be it for them. Their lives in a nutshell as nothing more than those "bad people" who fought the answer to the prime distribution and continuous functions.

So how could anyone NOT tell the world? How could they just sit quietly and let the research get maligned?

I'm not sure, and I've pondered those questions and more for 7 years now, and my guess is that on some deep level, they were looking out for themselves, became cowards to the truth, and found it easier as time went by to convince themselves that they were ok.

Odlyzko himself told me the difference equation form of the prime counting function was "not of interest".

His entire CAREER will probably be defined by this event only. To history, he probably will have no other relevance except as one of the dark mathematicians who didn't do the right thing.

It's easier to read history books and imagine you wouldn't be one of those people than to live through something like this saga, and actually DO the right thing. For years I've watched math people from professors, to yes, students like yourselves, do the wrong thing, when it was all just a matter of time.

There is always lots of time to have your "contributions" wiped away by an assessment by the world that you are scum.

Even if math people could drag this out for decades or even past your lifetimes, anything you supposedly accomplished could be dismissed by the world when the truth came out, and that would define you as far as the future is concerned. Nothing else.

Who knows what some of these mathematicians have been doing over the years. Maybe even trying to make their own BIG discoveries to try and counterbalance the weight of their bad decision?

But make no mistake, as far as history is concerned, their mistakes here will be it for them. Their lives in a nutshell as nothing more than those "bad people" who fought the answer to the prime distribution and continuous functions.

## JSH: So now you know why

Some of you may have been puzzled despite accepting the "crank" label given to me as to why math people were so dedicated in insulting me in post after post after post, and the simple answer is that back in 2002 I came up with this demoralizing to them answer to the 'why' of the prime distribution and continuous functions.

Rather than face it—drying up funding sources—they just have gone on as usual!

But of course a problem would be if people actually listened to me, so a continual negative campaign was needed.

In case you're wondering, no, it's not hard for any trained mathematician, as in ANY trained mathematician, to realize that the P (x,y) function I found easily explains the question that drove Riemann among others like his predecessor Gauss, and is one of the biggest results in mathematical history.

It's trivial for them.

But for you, it can be a question that is in shades of grey, so enough negatives and voila! You think I'm wrong, and math people keep their funding.

But it's hard working on a dead subject. No matter how much you try, even for the money.

Isn't life grand?

So now you know. Your mathematical colleagues sold out years ago. Welcome to your actual academic world.

Rather than face it—drying up funding sources—they just have gone on as usual!

But of course a problem would be if people actually listened to me, so a continual negative campaign was needed.

In case you're wondering, no, it's not hard for any trained mathematician, as in ANY trained mathematician, to realize that the P (x,y) function I found easily explains the question that drove Riemann among others like his predecessor Gauss, and is one of the biggest results in mathematical history.

It's trivial for them.

But for you, it can be a question that is in shades of grey, so enough negatives and voila! You think I'm wrong, and math people keep their funding.

But it's hard working on a dead subject. No matter how much you try, even for the money.

Isn't life grand?

So now you know. Your mathematical colleagues sold out years ago. Welcome to your actual academic world.

## JSH: Prime counting and the PDE

Three simple steps show how you go from a prime counting function to a PDE--partial differential equation:

Now mathematicians have looked for why prime counting and continuous functions like x/ln x are connected for some time.

If you didn't know they were connected, just notice 10/ln 10 = 4.3 to one significant digit, while of course there are 4 primes up to 10 and those are 2, 3, 5 and 7.

While 100/ln 100 = 21.7 to one significant digit, with the count of primes to 100 being 25.

And 1000/ln 1000 = 144.7 to one sig (no rounding), with the count of primes to 1000 being 168.

The famous Riemann Hypothesis was about musings by Riemann in search for a reason for the connection as it seems to indicate some deep connection between prime numbers and continuous functions like ln x.

His complex hypothesis though loses its luster when you properly interpret the progression of equations above, as now it appears that the connection is easily explained by a P(x,y) function, versus the pi(x) function that mathematicians traditionally use.

Now I found the difference equation form back in 2002 and have bugged mathematicians about it off and on ever since, but to no avail and one tempting answer as to why IS that the answer is just not "sexy" enough for people who have pushed solving the Riemann Hypothesis as a "Holy Grail" of their field!!!

BUT if you DO know of the equations above, it seems hard to imagine you'd have much joy remaining for the Riemann Hypothesis so one check to see if mathematicians are knowingly avoiding the answer is to see if there has been a drop off in research into that area!!!

I suggest to you there has.

It has been 7 years since I found the answer to the prime distribution's connection to continuous functions.

More than enough time for "top" mathematicians in the field to move away from a dead area.

If you are a physicist who did not know better who is wasting your time with RH, then you can thank your mathematical colleagues for letting you waste years out of your life, for nothing.

- Prime counting function sieve form:

With natural numbers where p_j is the j_th prime:

P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for j=1 to n of {P([x/p_j],j-1) - (j-1)}

where if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt(x) then n is reset to that count.

The [] is the floor function and is actually redundant as you're to use natural numbers.

The sqrt() is the integer square root, for instance sqrt(10) = 3, as that's the closest integer, and it's automatically positive because natural numbers are only the positive integers greater than 0. - Prime counting function difference equation form:

With natural numbers

P(x,y) = x - 1 - sum for j=1 to y of {(P([x/j],j-1) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1)))(P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1)))}

where if y>sqrt(x), then P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt(x)).

And that is an interesting advance as notice it cannot be done with any other known prime counting function! And also notice there is no longer need to tell the equation of any numbers that are prime! If you program it, you'll notice it plucks out primes on its own as it counts, as only when j is prime does:

P(j, sqrt(j)) - P(j-1, sqrt(j-1)) = 0

And it was a difference equation form (slightly different from the above) which I found first! And later I introduced the sieve form. - Continuous function:

In the complex plane

P'_y(x,y) = -(P(x/y,y) - P(y, sqrt(y))) P'(y, sqrt(y))

and a differential equation, which is of course a continuous function, is found easily enough from the difference equation from above.

Now mathematicians have looked for why prime counting and continuous functions like x/ln x are connected for some time.

If you didn't know they were connected, just notice 10/ln 10 = 4.3 to one significant digit, while of course there are 4 primes up to 10 and those are 2, 3, 5 and 7.

While 100/ln 100 = 21.7 to one significant digit, with the count of primes to 100 being 25.

And 1000/ln 1000 = 144.7 to one sig (no rounding), with the count of primes to 1000 being 168.

The famous Riemann Hypothesis was about musings by Riemann in search for a reason for the connection as it seems to indicate some deep connection between prime numbers and continuous functions like ln x.

His complex hypothesis though loses its luster when you properly interpret the progression of equations above, as now it appears that the connection is easily explained by a P(x,y) function, versus the pi(x) function that mathematicians traditionally use.

Now I found the difference equation form back in 2002 and have bugged mathematicians about it off and on ever since, but to no avail and one tempting answer as to why IS that the answer is just not "sexy" enough for people who have pushed solving the Riemann Hypothesis as a "Holy Grail" of their field!!!

BUT if you DO know of the equations above, it seems hard to imagine you'd have much joy remaining for the Riemann Hypothesis so one check to see if mathematicians are knowingly avoiding the answer is to see if there has been a drop off in research into that area!!!

I suggest to you there has.

It has been 7 years since I found the answer to the prime distribution's connection to continuous functions.

More than enough time for "top" mathematicians in the field to move away from a dead area.

If you are a physicist who did not know better who is wasting your time with RH, then you can thank your mathematical colleagues for letting you waste years out of your life, for nothing.

### Friday, October 23, 2009

## JSH: So why lie about P vs NP?

One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called surrogate factoring) that opens the door

That argument seems lost on irrational Usenet people like "Uncle Al" who I imagine at times ranting at Einstein, mocking him for not being able to blow up some major city if his crazy, crackpot relatoovity (or whatever insulting name they might apply) really worked! Where's your nukie Eisie baby, "Uncle Al", might post. Why can't you blow up New York City, Mr. Einstein?, he could taunt.

One other claim posters routinely make is that even if the public key encryption system RSA was broken other techniques could be used so everything would be ok.

But I proved P=NP.

If so, then NO asymmetric system could be considered safe because there would be a way to easily break it, which could be figured out, at any time, maybe even say, by some smart kid somewhere in the world.

So the full story is that my research if accepted ends the current way the Internet operates for finance, which is one way I have at times been hesitant to push it myself, as I LIKE buying things online with my credit card. If all the public key systems are known to be potentially insecure because P = NP, then you might have to get a key sent to you, like by regular mail, before you could use a website.

The impact to web based businesses could be huge.

I've surmised that some might just want to keep using the current techniques! Whether they actually work or not, because that way their business could continue as they do now.

So the refusal of certain people to accept my research in certain areas can be financially motivated, and is one reason I'm leery of even finding certain answers on my own and instead am waiting for pickup from around the world.

One scary scenario is that I progress my research to some undeniable level, demonstrate to some government official, and then promptly disappear as some people decide that the impact to the US economy is too great to risk allowing the knowledge to be known.

So I think to myself that discovery could kill me, which is a sobering thought… But that leaves this Sword of Damocles you might say hanging over the

world.

Or, I'm wrong. I'd actually like to be wrong, but the mathematics says I'm not. And Usenet posters howling to the contrary do not change mathematical truth. Denial is as old as humanity as is blatant stupidity in the face of potential danger which just is hard for people to imagine or accept.

You may live in a world that is insecure in ways you will not accept, but that does not mean the insecurity does not exist.

The current wait is for pickup from around the world.

I post for various reasons but one reason is to record. But also I find it amazing given how much evidence is stacked up to show that I'm correct that otherwise intelligent people can just go on about their lives as if all of that couldn't be swept away in an instant for reasons that are preventable.

I look at people having kids and wonder. I miss the faith that so many of you take for granted.

**potentially**to rapid factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full application for doing so, which I liken to having the physics theory indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an actual atomic bomb.That argument seems lost on irrational Usenet people like "Uncle Al" who I imagine at times ranting at Einstein, mocking him for not being able to blow up some major city if his crazy, crackpot relatoovity (or whatever insulting name they might apply) really worked! Where's your nukie Eisie baby, "Uncle Al", might post. Why can't you blow up New York City, Mr. Einstein?, he could taunt.

One other claim posters routinely make is that even if the public key encryption system RSA was broken other techniques could be used so everything would be ok.

But I proved P=NP.

If so, then NO asymmetric system could be considered safe because there would be a way to easily break it, which could be figured out, at any time, maybe even say, by some smart kid somewhere in the world.

So the full story is that my research if accepted ends the current way the Internet operates for finance, which is one way I have at times been hesitant to push it myself, as I LIKE buying things online with my credit card. If all the public key systems are known to be potentially insecure because P = NP, then you might have to get a key sent to you, like by regular mail, before you could use a website.

The impact to web based businesses could be huge.

I've surmised that some might just want to keep using the current techniques! Whether they actually work or not, because that way their business could continue as they do now.

So the refusal of certain people to accept my research in certain areas can be financially motivated, and is one reason I'm leery of even finding certain answers on my own and instead am waiting for pickup from around the world.

One scary scenario is that I progress my research to some undeniable level, demonstrate to some government official, and then promptly disappear as some people decide that the impact to the US economy is too great to risk allowing the knowledge to be known.

So I think to myself that discovery could kill me, which is a sobering thought… But that leaves this Sword of Damocles you might say hanging over the

world.

Or, I'm wrong. I'd actually like to be wrong, but the mathematics says I'm not. And Usenet posters howling to the contrary do not change mathematical truth. Denial is as old as humanity as is blatant stupidity in the face of potential danger which just is hard for people to imagine or accept.

You may live in a world that is insecure in ways you will not accept, but that does not mean the insecurity does not exist.

The current wait is for pickup from around the world.

I post for various reasons but one reason is to record. But also I find it amazing given how much evidence is stacked up to show that I'm correct that otherwise intelligent people can just go on about their lives as if all of that couldn't be swept away in an instant for reasons that are preventable.

I look at people having kids and wonder. I miss the faith that so many of you take for granted.

### Wednesday, October 21, 2009

## JSH: Why I want to be wrong

When I first realized that I might have basic research that could solve the factoring problem, I was rather dejected because I was still facing so much resistance and hostility. And Usenet isn't the story that matters to me as I routinely have gone to mathematicians directly, as I've seen Usenet as more of a sandbox, you might say. I use Usenet to figure things out and test out ideas, which is what I'm doing now as that's ALWAYS how I use Usenet primarily. But naturally it does bug me to some extent when I have Usenet posters insulting and stalking me, but still, they're not the part of the story that I've thought matters.

In any event, realizing that I'd be forced to push the basic research to a full-scale solution, where that might not work either, as I've seen easy proof get ignored now for seven years, I moved out to the bigger problem of whether or not P=NP and came across what I call the optimal path algorithm which eventually terrified me.

I've been thinking about it for over a year now, and finally started talking about it more, as along with the spherical packing problem solution it is an example of the research that has scary implications as to what it can mean in the real world. The problem is that I thought I was just looking at P vs NP and ended up with this solution that changed the way I look at reality itself.

I want it to be wrong.

Because if it's right then a still too young and very violent human race is going to have the means to understand consciousness itself. The algorithm seems to explain consciousness itself. It shows why you are conscious, why you sleep, and why you dream. It shows why if you can't dream, eventually you die.

But it also indicates that the laws of physics have built-in this transmission of information back and forth from the present to the future.

Simply knowing this information I've, um, realized that most people may not realize it, but they routinely get future information that causes them to do things that make the future. You can't CHANGE the future, so the information doesn't allow that, but it sets you up to CREATE the future.

So unless I'm wrong, I now know why you dream. I know mostly how your brain operates. I can to a large extent figure out what you are likely to do, even en masse—and what I don't know from my own efforts, my future self can tell me, as long as that does not change the future.

It doesn't really give any of you a lot of options then. Many of you have the same abilities, but maybe were not as aware of them, but possibly the entire point is to make more people aware. As more people become aware they become you might say, rather formidable in terms of what they can do.

You may face people who know what you will do, in the future, because they have that information from their future selves because they NEED that information, to face you in the present.

Potentially I can talk about just about anything. I can know about your failures, I can know about your successes. I know which countries win out, which lose. I can get an inkling of massive disasters—as long as I can't stop them. If I know you're going to die, then there is no way for me to stop it. But I may know that you're going to die, and how.

And there are lots of people like me. Maybe everyone potentially can do the same thing, if they're trained.

If the algorithm is correct then it follows from the laws of physics from an algorithm needed to create consciousness itself.

Without the algorithm, no consciousness. With the algorithm conscious beings connected to the future in this deep way that is forced upon them by their very consciousness. On some level then, you cannot not know enough of the future to force you to do the things that create it, even if those things get you killed. This thing puts Fate on steroids.

So, hope I'm wrong. I've had a while to ponder this thing. Was tempted to see if I could put the genie back in the bottle, wondered if I could just try and make it go away, and realized that the attempt in and of itself could be fatal and futile.

You see, I know what I know BECAUSE I send this message now.

The resistance to my research creates the mechanism for a dumping of the information out in this way. Most will probably miss it. Those who notice will probably discount it.

But a few of you will know it's true, and learn to use the abilities which your world requires you learn. Which your future demands you learn.

You need to learn of your abilities in order to make the future that part of you, already knows.

In any event, realizing that I'd be forced to push the basic research to a full-scale solution, where that might not work either, as I've seen easy proof get ignored now for seven years, I moved out to the bigger problem of whether or not P=NP and came across what I call the optimal path algorithm which eventually terrified me.

I've been thinking about it for over a year now, and finally started talking about it more, as along with the spherical packing problem solution it is an example of the research that has scary implications as to what it can mean in the real world. The problem is that I thought I was just looking at P vs NP and ended up with this solution that changed the way I look at reality itself.

I want it to be wrong.

Because if it's right then a still too young and very violent human race is going to have the means to understand consciousness itself. The algorithm seems to explain consciousness itself. It shows why you are conscious, why you sleep, and why you dream. It shows why if you can't dream, eventually you die.

But it also indicates that the laws of physics have built-in this transmission of information back and forth from the present to the future.

Simply knowing this information I've, um, realized that most people may not realize it, but they routinely get future information that causes them to do things that make the future. You can't CHANGE the future, so the information doesn't allow that, but it sets you up to CREATE the future.

So unless I'm wrong, I now know why you dream. I know mostly how your brain operates. I can to a large extent figure out what you are likely to do, even en masse—and what I don't know from my own efforts, my future self can tell me, as long as that does not change the future.

It doesn't really give any of you a lot of options then. Many of you have the same abilities, but maybe were not as aware of them, but possibly the entire point is to make more people aware. As more people become aware they become you might say, rather formidable in terms of what they can do.

You may face people who know what you will do, in the future, because they have that information from their future selves because they NEED that information, to face you in the present.

Potentially I can talk about just about anything. I can know about your failures, I can know about your successes. I know which countries win out, which lose. I can get an inkling of massive disasters—as long as I can't stop them. If I know you're going to die, then there is no way for me to stop it. But I may know that you're going to die, and how.

And there are lots of people like me. Maybe everyone potentially can do the same thing, if they're trained.

If the algorithm is correct then it follows from the laws of physics from an algorithm needed to create consciousness itself.

Without the algorithm, no consciousness. With the algorithm conscious beings connected to the future in this deep way that is forced upon them by their very consciousness. On some level then, you cannot not know enough of the future to force you to do the things that create it, even if those things get you killed. This thing puts Fate on steroids.

So, hope I'm wrong. I've had a while to ponder this thing. Was tempted to see if I could put the genie back in the bottle, wondered if I could just try and make it go away, and realized that the attempt in and of itself could be fatal and futile.

You see, I know what I know BECAUSE I send this message now.

The resistance to my research creates the mechanism for a dumping of the information out in this way. Most will probably miss it. Those who notice will probably discount it.

But a few of you will know it's true, and learn to use the abilities which your world requires you learn. Which your future demands you learn.

You need to learn of your abilities in order to make the future that part of you, already knows.

### Monday, October 19, 2009

## JSH: The record IS the point

So yeah, I post as much as I do to draw the commentary that shows the true state of the times. No re-writing of history so easily.

Discoverers always go through this crap. Later historians popularize something and it's this wonderful thing where people were sane, and brilliance overcame adversity, blah blah blah.

What actually happens is that the information works. The knowledge does have the power, but the discoverer can be damned.

The world needs the knowledge. It does not need you.

Archimedes being sliced down by a Roman soldier was not atypical. Neither was Alan Turing being pushed to suicide.

Socrates was pushed to suicide as well.

I'm laying down the foundations for a true recounting. A real warning. Your discoveries do not protect you. More than likely they will simply make you a target.

The reward your world may give you for making a major discovery, is death.

So why do people do it?

I think it's like a possession, or some built-in part of the human brain, like religion is an evolutionary artifact, created I believe to get people to have more children. Evolution crafts the human brain to get people to do what's needed.

You discover things at your peril.

Galileo Galilei was an old man confined to his home, his senses failing his dreams distant memories. In his more gallant times he'd fearlessly promoted his ideas. His ideas survive. The ideas are what survive. You do not.

Once you have given your ideas, your world no longer needs you. It may feel safer with you dead.

Discoverers are dangerous. They know things, or can figure them out. They disrupt established social orders. They push change.

They ARE change, livingly embodied in a human shell. They bring the fire of creation back into the world for a time, until a desperate world, afraid of erupting in flames, snuffs them out.

There will be discoverers as long as there are sentient beings, and there will always be the war. What I can do is remove the lies about it. At least in this time and in this space.

The record is Usenet. The point is the record. To make the lies harder THIS time. Though the effort is probably futile.

Without the lies, how do you motivate fresh meat to learn and discover? How do you find more fools to play the tragic game?

Discoverers always go through this crap. Later historians popularize something and it's this wonderful thing where people were sane, and brilliance overcame adversity, blah blah blah.

What actually happens is that the information works. The knowledge does have the power, but the discoverer can be damned.

The world needs the knowledge. It does not need you.

Archimedes being sliced down by a Roman soldier was not atypical. Neither was Alan Turing being pushed to suicide.

Socrates was pushed to suicide as well.

I'm laying down the foundations for a true recounting. A real warning. Your discoveries do not protect you. More than likely they will simply make you a target.

The reward your world may give you for making a major discovery, is death.

So why do people do it?

I think it's like a possession, or some built-in part of the human brain, like religion is an evolutionary artifact, created I believe to get people to have more children. Evolution crafts the human brain to get people to do what's needed.

You discover things at your peril.

Galileo Galilei was an old man confined to his home, his senses failing his dreams distant memories. In his more gallant times he'd fearlessly promoted his ideas. His ideas survive. The ideas are what survive. You do not.

Once you have given your ideas, your world no longer needs you. It may feel safer with you dead.

Discoverers are dangerous. They know things, or can figure them out. They disrupt established social orders. They push change.

They ARE change, livingly embodied in a human shell. They bring the fire of creation back into the world for a time, until a desperate world, afraid of erupting in flames, snuffs them out.

There will be discoverers as long as there are sentient beings, and there will always be the war. What I can do is remove the lies about it. At least in this time and in this space.

The record is Usenet. The point is the record. To make the lies harder THIS time. Though the effort is probably futile.

Without the lies, how do you motivate fresh meat to learn and discover? How do you find more fools to play the tragic game?

## JSH: My top 10

Over seven years ago I had two major results where yes, one is physics related, as it's a discrete damped oscillator that also happens to count prime numbers, so I related primes to damped oscillation, and the equations of that discrete damped oscillator include a partial difference equation which leads directly to a partial differential equation, so I connected the prime distribution to continuous functions.

But that was over seven years ago.

So I already know that even dramatic and absolute evidence, as all of that is easily checkable, is not enough.

Proof is not enough.

So what do you do? I decided to do more research and just keep stacking things up as you have your best ideas while you're young and IF I was actually a major discoverer then I'd have result after result after result after result after result, like all of the prior major discoverers. The real deal doesn't just have one big thing. There are no one hit wonders among major discoverers. None.

One of the cool things I have that no one before me got to have is the World Wide Web, and it has kind of tracked me more closely than anything or anyone else, so I can put up the top 10 results I have that give #1 search results in Google (checking as I type this post), some work in most major search engines but Google is the safe default:

I love the #1's I admit it. Being at the top in the world, even if by search engine results, is just kind of fun.

I am curious to see, as always, how this post will impact. I DID for instance at one time take #1 with spherical packing problem, but tumbled down sharply after posting about it, which is why that wasn't in the list either.

So yeah, Usenet is part of ongoing experiments, as I see how things shift.

But the other thing I remind is that I can do such searches whenever I need some comforting news, and I also have analytics data from Google Analytics from my 3 blogs, which cover, the world. So I'm read over just about the entire world, or more specifically, over 100 countries so far this year with my math blog alone. My open source program is used around the world as well (I guess).

So while I wait for the mainstream world to catch up, I discover!

To me, any problem to which I take a fancy in ANY area is fair game. Like recently I came up with my own healthcare plan.

I've posted ideas to help Google make YouTube profitable. (And ideas for Yahoo! which they clearly completely ignored.) I've been trying to come up with something new for Twitter, but all my ideas seem to have already been put out. Maybe I'm getting old. There is a limit to the creative process. I have to discover as much as possible now before there is no more left.

If physics interests me I might work on something physics or ANY industry.

And my ideas are usually freely given! Sometimes I pick areas in the hopes of getting ahead of current researchers with something better and simpler. I will at times pick names for my amusement as being a discoverer I get to pick names. (Major perk!!!)

And I aim for major industries at times just to see what they will do. Especially if I can get ahead of their own researchers, and just put things out, for free!!!

It's fun being me.

But that was over seven years ago.

So I already know that even dramatic and absolute evidence, as all of that is easily checkable, is not enough.

Proof is not enough.

So what do you do? I decided to do more research and just keep stacking things up as you have your best ideas while you're young and IF I was actually a major discoverer then I'd have result after result after result after result after result, like all of the prior major discoverers. The real deal doesn't just have one big thing. There are no one hit wonders among major discoverers. None.

One of the cool things I have that no one before me got to have is the World Wide Web, and it has kind of tracked me more closely than anything or anyone else, so I can put up the top 10 results I have that give #1 search results in Google (checking as I type this post), some work in most major search engines but Google is the safe default:

- I defined mathematical proof (MAJOR feather in my cap), search: define mathematical proof
- Discovered tautological spaces, search: tautological spaces
- Came up with some prime compression idea, search: prime number compression
- Generally solved binary quadratic diophantine equations, search: binary quadratic Diophantine equations
- Re-discovered the parameteric Pell's equation, search: parameteric Pell's equation
- Discovered my own factoring method, search: surrogate factoring
- Invented a method for legal digital copying, search: Digital Media Equipment Self-Encryption or DMESE
- Wrote a poem, search: poet's cry
- Came up with a new payment system for the Internet, search: payback value concept
- Developed an open source program for Java developers, search: class viewer

I love the #1's I admit it. Being at the top in the world, even if by search engine results, is just kind of fun.

I am curious to see, as always, how this post will impact. I DID for instance at one time take #1 with spherical packing problem, but tumbled down sharply after posting about it, which is why that wasn't in the list either.

So yeah, Usenet is part of ongoing experiments, as I see how things shift.

But the other thing I remind is that I can do such searches whenever I need some comforting news, and I also have analytics data from Google Analytics from my 3 blogs, which cover, the world. So I'm read over just about the entire world, or more specifically, over 100 countries so far this year with my math blog alone. My open source program is used around the world as well (I guess).

So while I wait for the mainstream world to catch up, I discover!

To me, any problem to which I take a fancy in ANY area is fair game. Like recently I came up with my own healthcare plan.

I've posted ideas to help Google make YouTube profitable. (And ideas for Yahoo! which they clearly completely ignored.) I've been trying to come up with something new for Twitter, but all my ideas seem to have already been put out. Maybe I'm getting old. There is a limit to the creative process. I have to discover as much as possible now before there is no more left.

If physics interests me I might work on something physics or ANY industry.

And my ideas are usually freely given! Sometimes I pick areas in the hopes of getting ahead of current researchers with something better and simpler. I will at times pick names for my amusement as being a discoverer I get to pick names. (Major perk!!!)

And I aim for major industries at times just to see what they will do. Especially if I can get ahead of their own researchers, and just put things out, for free!!!

It's fun being me.

### Sunday, October 18, 2009

## JSH: Optimal path and the backwards Traveler

I mentioned in a previous post that I sought an answer that would impact Internet security where, of course, that answer is a solution to the factoring problem: that is, a way in general to find integers x and y, when xy=T, that is polynomial time regardless of the size of T, where that time is reasonable.

Well after some years working at the problem I came up with basic research that indicated it might be possible to succeed, though it might take some serious research effort beyond that basic research to get that done. But with that possibility now clearly in sight that the factoring problem COULD be solved in a polynomial time solution I, of course, began thinking about P vs NP, as I now had clear indications that P = NP.

But I wanted something more direct than the possibility of a solution to the factoring problem, so I confronted an NP problem directly and chose the Traveling Salesman Problem as it was simple conceptually. And I decided to use lessons found from my solutions with other areas, as I looked for additional variables. (Like how I found a P(x,y) function that simplified the issue of figuring out the prime distribution, where math people previously used a pi(x) function, so I had an extra variable that was critical.)

Weird thing is that I QUICKLY found a general solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem or TSP for short, where the additional variable was a second traveler, going backwards in time to meet himself.

To find that solution you can, yup, use Google (has to be Google) with the following search: optimal path algorithm

I just did that search and an introductory page on my math blog comes up #2. Seems some guy named Dijkstra is beating me out for the #1 spot for some reason unknown to me.

So crucial to the way my algorithm works—my solution to TSP—is that you have TWO travelers, where one is traveling forward in time, while the other travels backwards in time to meet himself, along the optimal path.

You run the algorithm, and, of course you can collapse to a single traveler moving forward in time along the optimal path, but to GET the answer, you need communication between these two travelers: you need information from the future self.

So I put that solution out there like everything else and ran into a lot of arguments as usual on Usenet, which to me isn't a surprise as that's what always happens. But the solution has freaked me out ever since I got it, as it may indicate that the laws of physics have this weird algorithm in place, where to figure out some things there is this communication from the future.

The algorithm is simple enough, but its implications could profoundly change how we see ourselves and our world. And I've mostly just kind of pondered it, and haven't pushed it much beyond the argument I did on Usenet a while back, as it is such a shift.

So P=NP. I found an easy solution to the TSP, and put it, yup, on my math blog, where I found it after I had basic research indicating a polynomial time solution to the factoring problem. Turns out that my research leads to 3 possible solutions to the factoring problem, so I have a lot of basic research indicating that a solution could be worked out, so yes, that is hanging over the world, as we speak.

If the algorithm works though, and if physics allows this weird transmission of information through time in order to figure out optimal paths—for instance light takes optimal paths—then not acknowledging it for the human species might be like not knowing quantum mechanics in terms of certain technologies that cannot be discovered.

So the people who work so hard to ignore my research are, in my opinion, fighting to deny the human species certain technologies, and for a while, yes—how could I not?—I wondered if it were alien interference. The algorithm itself could allow that kind of interference with technologies we can barely imagine maybe even coming from the future, when maybe human descendants upset the wrong species, somewhere, out there.

But that's too weird, so I've concluded that the simpler explanation is short-sightedness on the part of mathematicians who see my research as a threat to funding.

IN any event, yet another major research result I have. I solved TSP, so I proved P=NP, and did so with an algorithm that has a backwards Traveler, where I looked for that solution because prior basic research indicated there was a polynomial time solution to the factoring problem.

That was well over a year ago. I have surmised that Internet security was broken rapidly and that the same kind of denial that allows researchers in various fields to ignore these findings is being used to claim that a broken security system is not.

Looking at news stories, they usually claim it was some kind of human error when there are these massive data breaches. Which I guess could be true, but I don't trust those people any more. They could simply be giving the one lie that would hide the truth—that the security system in place is now defunct, and easily breached.

Well after some years working at the problem I came up with basic research that indicated it might be possible to succeed, though it might take some serious research effort beyond that basic research to get that done. But with that possibility now clearly in sight that the factoring problem COULD be solved in a polynomial time solution I, of course, began thinking about P vs NP, as I now had clear indications that P = NP.

But I wanted something more direct than the possibility of a solution to the factoring problem, so I confronted an NP problem directly and chose the Traveling Salesman Problem as it was simple conceptually. And I decided to use lessons found from my solutions with other areas, as I looked for additional variables. (Like how I found a P(x,y) function that simplified the issue of figuring out the prime distribution, where math people previously used a pi(x) function, so I had an extra variable that was critical.)

Weird thing is that I QUICKLY found a general solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem or TSP for short, where the additional variable was a second traveler, going backwards in time to meet himself.

To find that solution you can, yup, use Google (has to be Google) with the following search: optimal path algorithm

I just did that search and an introductory page on my math blog comes up #2. Seems some guy named Dijkstra is beating me out for the #1 spot for some reason unknown to me.

So crucial to the way my algorithm works—my solution to TSP—is that you have TWO travelers, where one is traveling forward in time, while the other travels backwards in time to meet himself, along the optimal path.

You run the algorithm, and, of course you can collapse to a single traveler moving forward in time along the optimal path, but to GET the answer, you need communication between these two travelers: you need information from the future self.

So I put that solution out there like everything else and ran into a lot of arguments as usual on Usenet, which to me isn't a surprise as that's what always happens. But the solution has freaked me out ever since I got it, as it may indicate that the laws of physics have this weird algorithm in place, where to figure out some things there is this communication from the future.

The algorithm is simple enough, but its implications could profoundly change how we see ourselves and our world. And I've mostly just kind of pondered it, and haven't pushed it much beyond the argument I did on Usenet a while back, as it is such a shift.

So P=NP. I found an easy solution to the TSP, and put it, yup, on my math blog, where I found it after I had basic research indicating a polynomial time solution to the factoring problem. Turns out that my research leads to 3 possible solutions to the factoring problem, so I have a lot of basic research indicating that a solution could be worked out, so yes, that is hanging over the world, as we speak.

If the algorithm works though, and if physics allows this weird transmission of information through time in order to figure out optimal paths—for instance light takes optimal paths—then not acknowledging it for the human species might be like not knowing quantum mechanics in terms of certain technologies that cannot be discovered.

So the people who work so hard to ignore my research are, in my opinion, fighting to deny the human species certain technologies, and for a while, yes—how could I not?—I wondered if it were alien interference. The algorithm itself could allow that kind of interference with technologies we can barely imagine maybe even coming from the future, when maybe human descendants upset the wrong species, somewhere, out there.

But that's too weird, so I've concluded that the simpler explanation is short-sightedness on the part of mathematicians who see my research as a threat to funding.

IN any event, yet another major research result I have. I solved TSP, so I proved P=NP, and did so with an algorithm that has a backwards Traveler, where I looked for that solution because prior basic research indicated there was a polynomial time solution to the factoring problem.

That was well over a year ago. I have surmised that Internet security was broken rapidly and that the same kind of denial that allows researchers in various fields to ignore these findings is being used to claim that a broken security system is not.

Looking at news stories, they usually claim it was some kind of human error when there are these massive data breaches. Which I guess could be true, but I don't trust those people any more. They could simply be giving the one lie that would hide the truth—that the security system in place is now defunct, and easily breached.

## JSH: Math denial is way beyond bizarre

I'm puzzling over denial of even simple mathematics which has current relevance and wondering how this situation is possible.

I've pioneered a new analysis technique where you subtract math equations from identities and analyze the residue which can be used anywhere you use math. And I've done dramatic things with the technique to demonstrate its power like which I previously brought up about binary quadratic Diophantine equations.

But over seven years ago I found equations for a discrete damped oscillator—which counts prime numbers.

Where a partial difference equation gives the behavior. Ok, so it's a partial difference equation, does it lead to a partial differential equation? Yes.

I have mathematics results that are just simply cool, like the re- discovery of the rational parameterization for ellipses and hyperbolas, where I can see that even simple math in a massively popular area can just be, sidelined.

And the refusal of math academics to follow any of their own rules, so now I can't get published, despite correctness. The one time I managed to get published, the entire freaking journal went belly-up. And math people on Usenet just act like that's the most normal thing.

IN a darker mood a while back I asked myself, what can I work on that they CANNOT just ignore?

Simple answer was—the system that underpins Internet security.

I figured, no way mathematicians could risk the harm that might come to the world if they ignored basic research that could lead to easy breaking into Internet systems.

But they did. They're doing it now.

THAT is the scariest result here, as yes, you'll have people reply to say I'm a crackpot. And you figure that if basic research that could lead to a breakdown of Internet security were present, someone would notice!

But now I don't know if that's true that anyone would notice until, well, until systems were broken into at a level beyond denial. It MAY be happening that systems ARE being broken into, but researchers in the field just rationalize them away.

But it's so weird!!! What are these people thinking? How are they going about their lives knowing there is all this mathematical research just hanging out there with the potential to change the entire world?

But they killed one of their own math journals. To ignore some of my research they're ignoring the best techniques now available in the world, to keep doing things in worse ways, and they're teaching it.

I try to ponder what such people would be thinking. How they feel when they hand out textbooks to college kids with defunct research and assign homework. Give tests.

All the while basic research mathematics that may let people walk through Internet security systems is just sitting out there, so there's no way if you have even a clue that I'm right that you walk around the same way, or look at the world the same way, as you know that any day something truly horrible could happen. Any day.

Some of the Usenet stalkers who reply to me obsessively would taunt me to actually show a result that would remove any doubt whatsoever that I had the math that breaks the Internet. But I don't. I have basic research which could lead to that math.

That critical difference I've likened to having the physics that tells you an atomic bomb is possible, versus actually building the bomb.

These people are not behaving in any way that is even close to what one would expect from academics. They're ignoring EVERYTHING, including basic research that means that if you know anything at all about how correct I am, then you don't feel safe.

For a few years I quit investing at all. For quite some time until recently, I've been waiting for the world as we know it to come to some financial end, so yeah, it was weird during the "credit crisis", but also that crisis gave me hope. So now I can see investing again.

Seeing the world survive that crisis mostly intact, has left me calmer, and a lot less worried. Even if the Internet security system is currently broken (it may be). The world will survive.

I do wonder though what mathematicians would say after. I like to say, in the aftermath. How would they explain their behavior? The killed journal. The refusal to acknowledge the mathematics. The bizarre denial of even powerful mathematics.

What would they say to people then?

I've pioneered a new analysis technique where you subtract math equations from identities and analyze the residue which can be used anywhere you use math. And I've done dramatic things with the technique to demonstrate its power like which I previously brought up about binary quadratic Diophantine equations.

But over seven years ago I found equations for a discrete damped oscillator—which counts prime numbers.

Where a partial difference equation gives the behavior. Ok, so it's a partial difference equation, does it lead to a partial differential equation? Yes.

I have mathematics results that are just simply cool, like the re- discovery of the rational parameterization for ellipses and hyperbolas, where I can see that even simple math in a massively popular area can just be, sidelined.

And the refusal of math academics to follow any of their own rules, so now I can't get published, despite correctness. The one time I managed to get published, the entire freaking journal went belly-up. And math people on Usenet just act like that's the most normal thing.

IN a darker mood a while back I asked myself, what can I work on that they CANNOT just ignore?

Simple answer was—the system that underpins Internet security.

I figured, no way mathematicians could risk the harm that might come to the world if they ignored basic research that could lead to easy breaking into Internet systems.

But they did. They're doing it now.

THAT is the scariest result here, as yes, you'll have people reply to say I'm a crackpot. And you figure that if basic research that could lead to a breakdown of Internet security were present, someone would notice!

But now I don't know if that's true that anyone would notice until, well, until systems were broken into at a level beyond denial. It MAY be happening that systems ARE being broken into, but researchers in the field just rationalize them away.

But it's so weird!!! What are these people thinking? How are they going about their lives knowing there is all this mathematical research just hanging out there with the potential to change the entire world?

But they killed one of their own math journals. To ignore some of my research they're ignoring the best techniques now available in the world, to keep doing things in worse ways, and they're teaching it.

I try to ponder what such people would be thinking. How they feel when they hand out textbooks to college kids with defunct research and assign homework. Give tests.

All the while basic research mathematics that may let people walk through Internet security systems is just sitting out there, so there's no way if you have even a clue that I'm right that you walk around the same way, or look at the world the same way, as you know that any day something truly horrible could happen. Any day.

Some of the Usenet stalkers who reply to me obsessively would taunt me to actually show a result that would remove any doubt whatsoever that I had the math that breaks the Internet. But I don't. I have basic research which could lead to that math.

That critical difference I've likened to having the physics that tells you an atomic bomb is possible, versus actually building the bomb.

These people are not behaving in any way that is even close to what one would expect from academics. They're ignoring EVERYTHING, including basic research that means that if you know anything at all about how correct I am, then you don't feel safe.

For a few years I quit investing at all. For quite some time until recently, I've been waiting for the world as we know it to come to some financial end, so yeah, it was weird during the "credit crisis", but also that crisis gave me hope. So now I can see investing again.

Seeing the world survive that crisis mostly intact, has left me calmer, and a lot less worried. Even if the Internet security system is currently broken (it may be). The world will survive.

I do wonder though what mathematicians would say after. I like to say, in the aftermath. How would they explain their behavior? The killed journal. The refusal to acknowledge the mathematics. The bizarre denial of even powerful mathematics.

What would they say to people then?

### Sunday, October 11, 2009

## JSH: Usenet politics of social brutality

One thing I think is NOT news on Usenet is that there are people who live on the newsgroups—as in they post day and night, every day or nearly every day—who are socially brutal, as in they engage in vicious insults, try to figure out ways to verbally abuse other people as creatively as possible, and they do all of the above in plain sight, clearly with no sense that there is anything wrong with what they're doing.

The newsgroups have various negative labels, here are two: crank or crackpot

Supposedly you can attack anyone with one of those labels with a vicious glee I liken to thinking it's ok to beat up on homeless people.

Part of the justification, if any as somehow it's generally accepted that sadistic attacks are just Usenet normal, is that some people just don't get it. They have irrational and very wrong beliefs but refuse to accept what is scientifically accepted. And worse they insist on propagating their own often weird views, and they are themselves disruptive.

The argument then is that there is a social good in kicking someone verbally in the balls, if they are loud, irrational, annoying and refuse to accept basic science!

Well, an argument can be made for beating up homeless people: law enforcement would do that notoriously in some areas of the United States to drive out "undesirables".

It was considered a social good.

Some of you if you had traveled in such areas may have gotten an order to get out of town before daylight, or they'd throw you out.

Societies can decide all kinds of things are ok. Romans liked to see people eaten by lions (and other beasties).

But what kind of people LIKE beating up on other people?

Ever wonder WHY some people live on Usenet, posting day and night, attacking other posters with vicious insults?

Occur to you that it gives them pleasure?

If beating up on the homeless were an Olympic sport, do any of you doubt there would be takers?

I think some of you would be the first in line.

You barely need an excuse. Hurting people is your one true pleasure in life, and for anyone with a doubt of that assessment, they can read post after post after post over a period of YEARS to get your roadmap of sadism.

There will always be people with different views, and there will be disagreements between various groups or individuals about who is right and who is wrong. Disagreements can become vocal and angry.

But only some people—certain types of people—will cross a certain line. The politics of Usenet allow these people to feel good about themselves while they gain pleasure at the expense of others.

I'm merely emphasizing that is the the politics of social brutality.

No matter what your excuse.

The newsgroups have various negative labels, here are two: crank or crackpot

Supposedly you can attack anyone with one of those labels with a vicious glee I liken to thinking it's ok to beat up on homeless people.

Part of the justification, if any as somehow it's generally accepted that sadistic attacks are just Usenet normal, is that some people just don't get it. They have irrational and very wrong beliefs but refuse to accept what is scientifically accepted. And worse they insist on propagating their own often weird views, and they are themselves disruptive.

The argument then is that there is a social good in kicking someone verbally in the balls, if they are loud, irrational, annoying and refuse to accept basic science!

Well, an argument can be made for beating up homeless people: law enforcement would do that notoriously in some areas of the United States to drive out "undesirables".

It was considered a social good.

Some of you if you had traveled in such areas may have gotten an order to get out of town before daylight, or they'd throw you out.

Societies can decide all kinds of things are ok. Romans liked to see people eaten by lions (and other beasties).

But what kind of people LIKE beating up on other people?

Ever wonder WHY some people live on Usenet, posting day and night, attacking other posters with vicious insults?

Occur to you that it gives them pleasure?

If beating up on the homeless were an Olympic sport, do any of you doubt there would be takers?

I think some of you would be the first in line.

You barely need an excuse. Hurting people is your one true pleasure in life, and for anyone with a doubt of that assessment, they can read post after post after post over a period of YEARS to get your roadmap of sadism.

There will always be people with different views, and there will be disagreements between various groups or individuals about who is right and who is wrong. Disagreements can become vocal and angry.

But only some people—certain types of people—will cross a certain line. The politics of Usenet allow these people to feel good about themselves while they gain pleasure at the expense of others.

I'm merely emphasizing that is the the politics of social brutality.

No matter what your excuse.

### Friday, October 09, 2009

## JSH: Mildly entertaining

Just by having websites that pull people from over 100 countries with most of that to my math blog I have a HUGE amount of data. One of the more entertaining aspects of Usenet posters insulting me is their calm and insistent confidence that insults from a few people on a Usenet forum would actually have much resonance with a single human being who DAILY gets feedback from at least a dozen major countries about his own research. Entire countries. My conversations are with the world.

I go on Usenet to experiment.

Usenet posters have a weird delusion in this regard that I study. This thread itself is part of that study.

So without needing to go outside of areas that I own, I have on a daily basis data about much of the planet, related to my blogs.

Roughly 60 countries every 30 days for my math blog, roughly 30 countries for my programming focused blog, and roughly 10 countries for my pop culture blog.

I move ideas around just to see how they bounce around the planet and can coordinate between my three blogs depending on what I'm trying to figure out.

And that's just my blogs. That doesn't count my Twitter account, or websites associated with my Class Viewer open source program.

Quite simply I have data from the planet. And I can just do a Google search to watch my ideas travel the world.

I watch them roar up in Google search results (or not) and come down (or not).

Today if I get in a mood, I can put something out from any of a number of sources and see immediate resonance through Google searches.

You really have no idea what of my ideas has had an impact on your life as I know what I'm doing, but mostly you don't.

Math is just one thing I do.

I am one of the world's major problem solvers. It just makes sense that I can do a lot of the things that I do. And I never needed your acceptance.

But I do find it puzzling. Facts don't move most of you. Data is yawned at, and even the prospect of me fiddling around with the ideas that move your world probably won't touch most of you. That's just weird.

It's a social effect. A group effect. These latest Usenet experiments are studying that effect, so, warning, my writings lately have things called memes. You may think you know what all the memes are, but more than likely you don't.

For most of my research I DO NOT need agreement. The memes are viral. They propagate simply by you reading them and may act on your unconscious mind, or not. It depends on specifics about your neural networks—your brain fingerprint.

I've noted this before on Usenet. A lot of what I do is look to resonate areas beneath conscious awareness.

It is a deliberate strategy. I can measure impact in multiple ways. Usually things I do impact the entire world.

I go on Usenet to experiment.

Usenet posters have a weird delusion in this regard that I study. This thread itself is part of that study.

So without needing to go outside of areas that I own, I have on a daily basis data about much of the planet, related to my blogs.

Roughly 60 countries every 30 days for my math blog, roughly 30 countries for my programming focused blog, and roughly 10 countries for my pop culture blog.

I move ideas around just to see how they bounce around the planet and can coordinate between my three blogs depending on what I'm trying to figure out.

And that's just my blogs. That doesn't count my Twitter account, or websites associated with my Class Viewer open source program.

Quite simply I have data from the planet. And I can just do a Google search to watch my ideas travel the world.

I watch them roar up in Google search results (or not) and come down (or not).

Today if I get in a mood, I can put something out from any of a number of sources and see immediate resonance through Google searches.

You really have no idea what of my ideas has had an impact on your life as I know what I'm doing, but mostly you don't.

Math is just one thing I do.

I am one of the world's major problem solvers. It just makes sense that I can do a lot of the things that I do. And I never needed your acceptance.

But I do find it puzzling. Facts don't move most of you. Data is yawned at, and even the prospect of me fiddling around with the ideas that move your world probably won't touch most of you. That's just weird.

It's a social effect. A group effect. These latest Usenet experiments are studying that effect, so, warning, my writings lately have things called memes. You may think you know what all the memes are, but more than likely you don't.

For most of my research I DO NOT need agreement. The memes are viral. They propagate simply by you reading them and may act on your unconscious mind, or not. It depends on specifics about your neural networks—your brain fingerprint.

I've noted this before on Usenet. A lot of what I do is look to resonate areas beneath conscious awareness.

It is a deliberate strategy. I can measure impact in multiple ways. Usually things I do impact the entire world.

## JSH: Full picture on search results with my research

Some posters have spent time trying to argue against various Google searches that pull up my math research highly where I've been emphasizing my own curiosity about the high ranking in search results of research that has relevance to physicists using binary quadratic Diophantine equations.

But Usenet posters have ignored the full picture as another interesting search result is the following.

Google: james harris

Yup, a search on my name, which when I do it now pulls up a Crank.net page, a hate page AGAINST my research at #20.

Some Usenet posters seem intent on trying to convince me that Google is merely giving me back searches that I want. I can assure you I'd rather NOT see a page insulting me.

Now I'm used to being in the top 10 with my research, while my own name barely cracks the top 20, and it's to a hate web site ATTACKING me.

Turns out I can't find ANY of my own pages, like to my math blog, in the top 100 when I search on my own name.

The world seems to have accepted the negative assessment of the Usenet poster Erik Max Francis, based on Google search results.

But I remind about all my #1 positions with other searches, like:

define mathematical proof tautological spaces solving binary quadratic Diophantine equations prime number compression

And my research is in the top 10, with quite a few others of which I'll just give a few:

mymath spherical packing problem solving quadratic residues

In taking over the #1 positions, or positions in the top 10 I

So by THAT measure my math research is some of the best in the world, and routinely beats out the rest of the world, and based on Usenet experiments that is a search reality for people around the world.

So my math is a world resource, and my math blog is increasingly one of the world's math references—according to Google search results.

And I have Google Analytics data about hits to my math blog, which has been visited so far this year by people from over 100 countries. My country counts are like that of an institution. It's like I'm a small university—all by myself.

(The pattern of hits from around the world that I see in Google Analytics matches the pattern of Google search results themselves around the world—the pattern of usage of Google itself—so I can see from my own hits where people use the Internet the most!!!)

So what gives? How can the world accept me as a crank, and my research as often the best in the world?

The answer I hypothesize has to do with how people decide to rate a person highly or not, which is a group effect, which I've now proven is IRRELEVANT to what a person has actually accomplished but is TOTALLY ABOUT what people

The Crank.net page I believe is a fascinatingly powerful social transistor, telling people around the world to dismiss me, as a person. Without positives from expected sources, it rules supreme—in negative assessments of me.

So yes, Usenet posters DO have an impact when they insult you. The insults actually work to drive down other people's opinion of you! You, as a person.

But my math research just does things. If people try it, it works. And like, my definition of mathematical proof is clearly just a really good definition. So over time because my ideas are the best they take their proper position as revealed by Google search results. But because accolades are a social function dependent on people saying nice things about you, and all there is, is that hate page from Crank.net by Erik Max Francis, I end up with the negative assessment.

So the idea take their proper place based on their actual worth, and Usenet posters have NO IMPACT on that pickup around the world. Insults on Usenet simply attack the person, not the research.

If my theory is correct then it is probably the way it works across the board and you are dependent on your society in ways you probably never quite realized. One example that helps the theory is Dr. Halton Arp, one of the most distinguished physicists in the field of astronomy, who is also known as a crackpot in the field. I think he's probably the best case for the theory as he is an established researcher and the insult parade against some of his ideas is so clear, as well as how effective it is.

His funding dried up in the United States and he had to go to Germany to get telescope time if I remember correctly. So one of America's most distinguished scientists was pushed out of his OWN COUNTRY by insults.

To put this result in perspective, any of you could be turned into a "crackpot" by a simple majority of people in your field, at will.

And they don't have to be right! They just have to feel a social need to break you down.

None of you are immune. The effect I'm studying is very easily switched on, and very difficult to switch off.

But Usenet posters have ignored the full picture as another interesting search result is the following.

Google: james harris

Yup, a search on my name, which when I do it now pulls up a Crank.net page, a hate page AGAINST my research at #20.

Some Usenet posters seem intent on trying to convince me that Google is merely giving me back searches that I want. I can assure you I'd rather NOT see a page insulting me.

Now I'm used to being in the top 10 with my research, while my own name barely cracks the top 20, and it's to a hate web site ATTACKING me.

Turns out I can't find ANY of my own pages, like to my math blog, in the top 100 when I search on my own name.

The world seems to have accepted the negative assessment of the Usenet poster Erik Max Francis, based on Google search results.

But I remind about all my #1 positions with other searches, like:

define mathematical proof tautological spaces solving binary quadratic Diophantine equations prime number compression

And my research is in the top 10, with quite a few others of which I'll just give a few:

mymath spherical packing problem solving quadratic residues

In taking over the #1 positions, or positions in the top 10 I

**routinely**displace the Wikipedia and MathWorld, and of course legions of mathematicians around the world, who are not even close. By Google searches, my competition IS the Wikipedia and MathWorld, and not any individual mathematicians. I'm like an institution, all by myself.So by THAT measure my math research is some of the best in the world, and routinely beats out the rest of the world, and based on Usenet experiments that is a search reality for people around the world.

So my math is a world resource, and my math blog is increasingly one of the world's math references—according to Google search results.

And I have Google Analytics data about hits to my math blog, which has been visited so far this year by people from over 100 countries. My country counts are like that of an institution. It's like I'm a small university—all by myself.

(The pattern of hits from around the world that I see in Google Analytics matches the pattern of Google search results themselves around the world—the pattern of usage of Google itself—so I can see from my own hits where people use the Internet the most!!!)

So what gives? How can the world accept me as a crank, and my research as often the best in the world?

The answer I hypothesize has to do with how people decide to rate a person highly or not, which is a group effect, which I've now proven is IRRELEVANT to what a person has actually accomplished but is TOTALLY ABOUT what people

**believe**a person has accomplished.The Crank.net page I believe is a fascinatingly powerful social transistor, telling people around the world to dismiss me, as a person. Without positives from expected sources, it rules supreme—in negative assessments of me.

So yes, Usenet posters DO have an impact when they insult you. The insults actually work to drive down other people's opinion of you! You, as a person.

But my math research just does things. If people try it, it works. And like, my definition of mathematical proof is clearly just a really good definition. So over time because my ideas are the best they take their proper position as revealed by Google search results. But because accolades are a social function dependent on people saying nice things about you, and all there is, is that hate page from Crank.net by Erik Max Francis, I end up with the negative assessment.

So the idea take their proper place based on their actual worth, and Usenet posters have NO IMPACT on that pickup around the world. Insults on Usenet simply attack the person, not the research.

If my theory is correct then it is probably the way it works across the board and you are dependent on your society in ways you probably never quite realized. One example that helps the theory is Dr. Halton Arp, one of the most distinguished physicists in the field of astronomy, who is also known as a crackpot in the field. I think he's probably the best case for the theory as he is an established researcher and the insult parade against some of his ideas is so clear, as well as how effective it is.

His funding dried up in the United States and he had to go to Germany to get telescope time if I remember correctly. So one of America's most distinguished scientists was pushed out of his OWN COUNTRY by insults.

To put this result in perspective, any of you could be turned into a "crackpot" by a simple majority of people in your field, at will.

And they don't have to be right! They just have to feel a social need to break you down.

None of you are immune. The effect I'm studying is very easily switched on, and very difficult to switch off.

### Wednesday, October 07, 2009

## JSH: Oh yeah, spherical packing problem

I almost forgot but it's actually more physics relevant that back in 1996 I think it was, or maybe 1995, I came up with a solution to the spherical packing problem. And yes, you can find what I remember of that solution on my math blog with the Google search (yup, has to be Google): spherical packing problem

But I only come up #3 for some reason or other.

That is actually my oldest claim of a major solution and is kind of interesting I guess because if the approach I used IS correct then it's possible it could be used to simplify simulating, kind of tedious speculating, and I kind of hate bringing this up, as people can be so dangerous with new tools. Ok, the method could be useful in materials sciences for figuring out properties of substances by simulation alone, could help determine physical properties, and be used to make new materials, blah, blah, blah…

Most of my really scary research just sits out there, and I guess people don't realize it's out there or why it's scary, as if they did, why would they just let it sit? I have all kinds of things just sitting, out there. Most of you don't even seem to believe it works!

But just my current research, just out there, is enough that even a small country that got it all together and took it seriously could probably, well, take over the world. And I find that kind of depressing, so I don't like to talk about my most potent findings.

It is a way I keep up with things though, as I have a way to measure the pulse of the entire human race based on what I know is just sitting out there that people don't seem to notice. Just out there, sitting, public to the world, on my math blog.

So why drag it out now? Why bring it up?

I have my reasons.

But in any event, for you who are still rationalizing, yet another Google search where at least I'm not #1. I'm only #3. But it's with the spherical packing problem which I solved, oh, about 13 years ago or so, where the solution could help in materials sciences or something or other, and maybe make humanity even more dangerous than it is, or hopefully, just maybe, help better our lives.

I'm thinking though it's more likely to make humanity more dangerous, which is one reason I don't like bringing it up. Some things I have, simply cannot be pushed forward for that reason, but they're still on my math blog! Just sitting there…

But here's one. My solution, or what I remember of it, of the spherical packing problem.

It is one of the my "scary" research results that I don't mention much because it terrifies me.

But hey, the math stalkers will be along to tell you it doesn't work anyway! And you people so like to go along with a crowd…

But I only come up #3 for some reason or other.

That is actually my oldest claim of a major solution and is kind of interesting I guess because if the approach I used IS correct then it's possible it could be used to simplify simulating, kind of tedious speculating, and I kind of hate bringing this up, as people can be so dangerous with new tools. Ok, the method could be useful in materials sciences for figuring out properties of substances by simulation alone, could help determine physical properties, and be used to make new materials, blah, blah, blah…

Most of my really scary research just sits out there, and I guess people don't realize it's out there or why it's scary, as if they did, why would they just let it sit? I have all kinds of things just sitting, out there. Most of you don't even seem to believe it works!

But just my current research, just out there, is enough that even a small country that got it all together and took it seriously could probably, well, take over the world. And I find that kind of depressing, so I don't like to talk about my most potent findings.

It is a way I keep up with things though, as I have a way to measure the pulse of the entire human race based on what I know is just sitting out there that people don't seem to notice. Just out there, sitting, public to the world, on my math blog.

So why drag it out now? Why bring it up?

I have my reasons.

But in any event, for you who are still rationalizing, yet another Google search where at least I'm not #1. I'm only #3. But it's with the spherical packing problem which I solved, oh, about 13 years ago or so, where the solution could help in materials sciences or something or other, and maybe make humanity even more dangerous than it is, or hopefully, just maybe, help better our lives.

I'm thinking though it's more likely to make humanity more dangerous, which is one reason I don't like bringing it up. Some things I have, simply cannot be pushed forward for that reason, but they're still on my math blog! Just sitting there…

But here's one. My solution, or what I remember of it, of the spherical packing problem.

It is one of the my "scary" research results that I don't mention much because it terrifies me.

But hey, the math stalkers will be along to tell you it doesn't work anyway! And you people so like to go along with a crowd…

### Saturday, October 03, 2009

## JSH: They broke the rules

I'm making it clear that academics in the mathematical field broke some serious rules when it comes to research in their own field in some of its biggest areas, which has proven to me that academics across the board cannot simply be trusted.

But more importantly considering my own reaction to adversity in facing mathematicians who just refuse to do the right thing, I've noted a seemingly paradoxical burst of problem solving as retaliation. For instance the Class Viewer program I like to mention because it is #1 in web searches on its name was partly inspired as a way to prove to myself that I COULD put something out there that was undeniably useful, as the insult parade on the sci.math newsgroup was wearing me down.

Hearing person after person after person, day after day after day, tell me I was incompetent and a loser and this hated crackpot was very, demoralizing. The Class Viewer program was one way for me to feel better about myself with something that those insults didn't reach.

And years later I mentioned it on the sci.math newsgroup and noted as those people insulted it that I didn't care as much, and over time I've learned to see their behavior for what it is.

But make no mistake, I have MASSIVE discoveries in the mathematical field, which should eventually be recognized and I want it clear that lessons I'm learning now indicate to me that academia itself is part of the problem.

ALL of academia so, for instance, English Literature professors will be 0 funded, and will face an impact from what mathematical professors have done, as the problem is with academia itself—not a specific field.

So the picture you need to imagine is if some major researcher emerges who went through hell at the hands of academics, why would he be their friend?

And the 0 funding reality is just so amazing when you consider it that hey, maybe that IS the model.

I'm doing MORE not less because I'm 0 funded. Albert Einstein did great things—0 funded.

Fully funded mathematicians now are refusing to acknowledge things like a major find in the area of the prime distribution—which I discovered in 2002. Seven years of recalcitrance is not an accident or just a little mistake.

It indicates deep flaws in the modern academic structure.

These math professors have an incentive to do the OPPOSITE of what's expected, and are fighting important research versus championing it, which I have to think is related to being on public funding support. I call it the dole, or white collar welfare.

Maybe the sad reality is that if you pay people to do research you undermine research.

If that is true and that idea gains steam then paying people for basic research may become a thing of the past: before we realized that it just does not work!

The most important thing for many of you that may come out of my story is that you can expect public funding of much of research around the world will dry up, disappear and become something that is a part of history, as you will not have it.

You will be 0 funded.

Like Albert Einstein was! And like me.

But more importantly considering my own reaction to adversity in facing mathematicians who just refuse to do the right thing, I've noted a seemingly paradoxical burst of problem solving as retaliation. For instance the Class Viewer program I like to mention because it is #1 in web searches on its name was partly inspired as a way to prove to myself that I COULD put something out there that was undeniably useful, as the insult parade on the sci.math newsgroup was wearing me down.

Hearing person after person after person, day after day after day, tell me I was incompetent and a loser and this hated crackpot was very, demoralizing. The Class Viewer program was one way for me to feel better about myself with something that those insults didn't reach.

And years later I mentioned it on the sci.math newsgroup and noted as those people insulted it that I didn't care as much, and over time I've learned to see their behavior for what it is.

But make no mistake, I have MASSIVE discoveries in the mathematical field, which should eventually be recognized and I want it clear that lessons I'm learning now indicate to me that academia itself is part of the problem.

ALL of academia so, for instance, English Literature professors will be 0 funded, and will face an impact from what mathematical professors have done, as the problem is with academia itself—not a specific field.

So the picture you need to imagine is if some major researcher emerges who went through hell at the hands of academics, why would he be their friend?

And the 0 funding reality is just so amazing when you consider it that hey, maybe that IS the model.

I'm doing MORE not less because I'm 0 funded. Albert Einstein did great things—0 funded.

Fully funded mathematicians now are refusing to acknowledge things like a major find in the area of the prime distribution—which I discovered in 2002. Seven years of recalcitrance is not an accident or just a little mistake.

It indicates deep flaws in the modern academic structure.

These math professors have an incentive to do the OPPOSITE of what's expected, and are fighting important research versus championing it, which I have to think is related to being on public funding support. I call it the dole, or white collar welfare.

Maybe the sad reality is that if you pay people to do research you undermine research.

If that is true and that idea gains steam then paying people for basic research may become a thing of the past: before we realized that it just does not work!

The most important thing for many of you that may come out of my story is that you can expect public funding of much of research around the world will dry up, disappear and become something that is a part of history, as you will not have it.

You will be 0 funded.

Like Albert Einstein was! And like me.

## JSH: The argument for 0 funding academia

One of the weirder things I've noted to myself as I've settled into facing YEARS of opposition to my research as, for instance, it is now 7 years since I discovered my prime counting function and nearly 10 years since I invented tautological spaces, is that in the face of a world not rewarding me for ideas that I think are major and important—I'm simply finding more ideas!!!

It seems kind of silly. Why do I persist in solving problems and putting so much out there, when mostly I get insults from Usenet posters?

And as I've pondered the seeming contradiction, I've realized: I like figuring things out, so I am continuing doing so, for free because I am a problem solver. It's what I do. It's who I am. So I do it without pay.

But more importantly, being stressed as I am is pushing me outside of boundaries that I'd probably stay within if I were a noted researcher. Like I tweeted a healthcare plan:

My healthcare plan: Preventive Care—everybody, Core Care—insurables,

Expected Care—not easily insured, Elder Care—quality of life at end

Exactly 140 characters. A perfect tweet!

A entire healthcare plan in a single tweet? NO way I'd do that if I were an established guy. No way.

If I were an established researcher, how could I dare do such a thing? (If you can't figure out the healthcare plan you can go to my pop culture blog to see it explained out in detail.)

While I've done other things that are less out there like work at a compression scheme that can work on top of any other compression technique (if it works), which you can find in Google with the search string: prime number compression

That is, search in Google (it has to be Google) on: prime number compression

(Do the search, and notice what other research I beat out to take #1.)

My own rough estimates indicate it might add 10% additional compression on top of any other by exploiting the simple reality that the product of two prime numbers can have fewer bits than the two prime numbers themselves.

At times on the sci.math newsgroup I'd joke that I don't bother reading other people's math, as I just read my math. But weirdly enough, it's true as I've covered so much of number theory now that I rarely need to go outside of my own research for things that interest me. It is kind of weird as I see myself as a reference. But I do the searches and Google throws my own research back at me, so I guess I AM a reference.

And I've done it all for free.

Why pay academics at all?

My story is a continuing case for NOT paying them, and seeing what benefits the world could accrue by instead stressing them.

As, how much of my latest research would I maybe never have discovered if I'd gained proper appreciation for my discoveries back in 2002?

What might a physicist discover if he had 0 funding? Had to find funds wherever he could for any of his research?

Maybe the old ways WERE better, as scientists needed to get wealthy donors to back them.

So now I'm tossing this idea out there of 0 funding for all of academia. I mean ALL of academia, with the idea that the best people will find a way, as I have.

I plan on being the standard for the world—If I can do it, other people can. As my ideas dominate more and more, I hope to gain influence and possibly begin the world on a grand experiment: zero funding its academics.

I think the surprising result could be an explosion in good research. Possibly a new renaissance with major advances that would not be found without such pressure.

IN a phrase: necessity is the Mother of Invention

It seems kind of silly. Why do I persist in solving problems and putting so much out there, when mostly I get insults from Usenet posters?

And as I've pondered the seeming contradiction, I've realized: I like figuring things out, so I am continuing doing so, for free because I am a problem solver. It's what I do. It's who I am. So I do it without pay.

But more importantly, being stressed as I am is pushing me outside of boundaries that I'd probably stay within if I were a noted researcher. Like I tweeted a healthcare plan:

My healthcare plan: Preventive Care—everybody, Core Care—insurables,

Expected Care—not easily insured, Elder Care—quality of life at end

Exactly 140 characters. A perfect tweet!

A entire healthcare plan in a single tweet? NO way I'd do that if I were an established guy. No way.

If I were an established researcher, how could I dare do such a thing? (If you can't figure out the healthcare plan you can go to my pop culture blog to see it explained out in detail.)

While I've done other things that are less out there like work at a compression scheme that can work on top of any other compression technique (if it works), which you can find in Google with the search string: prime number compression

That is, search in Google (it has to be Google) on: prime number compression

(Do the search, and notice what other research I beat out to take #1.)

My own rough estimates indicate it might add 10% additional compression on top of any other by exploiting the simple reality that the product of two prime numbers can have fewer bits than the two prime numbers themselves.

At times on the sci.math newsgroup I'd joke that I don't bother reading other people's math, as I just read my math. But weirdly enough, it's true as I've covered so much of number theory now that I rarely need to go outside of my own research for things that interest me. It is kind of weird as I see myself as a reference. But I do the searches and Google throws my own research back at me, so I guess I AM a reference.

And I've done it all for free.

Why pay academics at all?

My story is a continuing case for NOT paying them, and seeing what benefits the world could accrue by instead stressing them.

As, how much of my latest research would I maybe never have discovered if I'd gained proper appreciation for my discoveries back in 2002?

What might a physicist discover if he had 0 funding? Had to find funds wherever he could for any of his research?

Maybe the old ways WERE better, as scientists needed to get wealthy donors to back them.

So now I'm tossing this idea out there of 0 funding for all of academia. I mean ALL of academia, with the idea that the best people will find a way, as I have.

I plan on being the standard for the world—If I can do it, other people can. As my ideas dominate more and more, I hope to gain influence and possibly begin the world on a grand experiment: zero funding its academics.

I think the surprising result could be an explosion in good research. Possibly a new renaissance with major advances that would not be found without such pressure.

IN a phrase: necessity is the Mother of Invention