### Sunday, October 18, 2009

## 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?