### Saturday, October 31, 2009

## 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?