### Sunday, January 31, 2010

## JSH: Prime residue axiom

Prime residue axiom:

Given differing primes p_1 and p_2, there is no preference for a particular residue of p_2 for p_1 mod p_2.

What's intriguing about this axiom is that with it you can trivially prove the Twin Primes Conjecture and trivially disprove Goldbach's Conjecture.

The argument for disagreement then is on whether or not it is an axiom.

Note such disagreement would require a residue preference, for instance, say, mod 3, primes would need to tend to say, have a residue of 1. For instance 7 mod 3 = 1. So a preference for a particular residue would mean that primes in general might prefer 1, as in other prime numbers out to infinity would want to have 1 as a residue modulo 3, if there were a preference.

Maybe you could call it a postulate and split mathematics around variations, but then you'd need primes to agree with you.

So far all evidence is that they do not care.

However, if you don't want Goldbach's gone and Twin primes solved, then you need a prime preference.

Otherwise those problems are gone. Solved with probabilistic proofs relying on the axiom above.

Given differing primes p_1 and p_2, there is no preference for a particular residue of p_2 for p_1 mod p_2.

What's intriguing about this axiom is that with it you can trivially prove the Twin Primes Conjecture and trivially disprove Goldbach's Conjecture.

The argument for disagreement then is on whether or not it is an axiom.

Note such disagreement would require a residue preference, for instance, say, mod 3, primes would need to tend to say, have a residue of 1. For instance 7 mod 3 = 1. So a preference for a particular residue would mean that primes in general might prefer 1, as in other prime numbers out to infinity would want to have 1 as a residue modulo 3, if there were a preference.

Maybe you could call it a postulate and split mathematics around variations, but then you'd need primes to agree with you.

So far all evidence is that they do not care.

However, if you don't want Goldbach's gone and Twin primes solved, then you need a prime preference.

Otherwise those problems are gone. Solved with probabilistic proofs relying on the axiom above.

## JSH: Parameterizing conics and math politics

One of the privileges I had recently was re-deriving a conic parameterizations result:

Given x^2 - Dy^2 = 1, in rationals:

y = 2t/(D - t^2) and x = (D + t^2)/(D - t^2)

You get ellipses D < 0 and hyperbolas with D > 0, with the circle at D=-1, which is the one result that you can easily see in standard literature:

See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html eqns. 16 & 17

And it was a rare pleasure as usually I have unique results which are new discoveries, and then there is a lot of arguing, people lying about my research, and all kinds of unpleasant things which are about human competition at its worst, so it's fun for me to walk in the footsteps of prior discoverers by figuring out something they already knew, and that parameterization from the record was known to Fermat, so back to the 17th century, so it's been known for hundreds of years.

But here's where things get very fun, as of course, mathematicians call x^2 - Dy^2 = 1, Pell's Equation.

And if you look at the Wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pell's_equation

There is no mention of the rational parameterization because to mathematicians x^2 - Dy^2 = 1 is a Diophantine equation, so they behave as if the rational parameterization does not exist, which is hilarious.

Now I've brought this subject up before, but also I noticed some other simple things about Pell's Equation which I didn't see mentioned, and something interesting happened!!!

The Wikipedia page was updated.

(But NOT the page at MathWorld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PellEquation.html

Notice the simple solutions left out which were added at the Wikipedia page. Those are what I noticed.)

Yup, the other things I noticed which had not been there before WERE ADDED, but NOT the rational parameterization because math people consider the equation to be a Diophantine equation so they WILL NOT tolerate its mention as anything else.

To them it is a Diophantine equation and nothing else matters now because they've DEFINED it you see.

Now I like ranting on this subject as it feels good to be right, and I love these impressively stupid things that are at a world level.

And it's interesting to wonder if the people who adjusted to what I said before will bite the bullet and eventually give in and mention the rational parameterization. Or will they fight it!!!

Academics are often idiots. It's that simple.

You are provably often fools. Fools. Stupid on a level that defies belief.

Of course I'll take an opportunity to rip on the academic community like this one. I need it.

It helps me feel better.

Given x^2 - Dy^2 = 1, in rationals:

y = 2t/(D - t^2) and x = (D + t^2)/(D - t^2)

You get ellipses D < 0 and hyperbolas with D > 0, with the circle at D=-1, which is the one result that you can easily see in standard literature:

See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html eqns. 16 & 17

And it was a rare pleasure as usually I have unique results which are new discoveries, and then there is a lot of arguing, people lying about my research, and all kinds of unpleasant things which are about human competition at its worst, so it's fun for me to walk in the footsteps of prior discoverers by figuring out something they already knew, and that parameterization from the record was known to Fermat, so back to the 17th century, so it's been known for hundreds of years.

But here's where things get very fun, as of course, mathematicians call x^2 - Dy^2 = 1, Pell's Equation.

And if you look at the Wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pell's_equation

There is no mention of the rational parameterization because to mathematicians x^2 - Dy^2 = 1 is a Diophantine equation, so they behave as if the rational parameterization does not exist, which is hilarious.

Now I've brought this subject up before, but also I noticed some other simple things about Pell's Equation which I didn't see mentioned, and something interesting happened!!!

The Wikipedia page was updated.

(But NOT the page at MathWorld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PellEquation.html

Notice the simple solutions left out which were added at the Wikipedia page. Those are what I noticed.)

Yup, the other things I noticed which had not been there before WERE ADDED, but NOT the rational parameterization because math people consider the equation to be a Diophantine equation so they WILL NOT tolerate its mention as anything else.

To them it is a Diophantine equation and nothing else matters now because they've DEFINED it you see.

Now I like ranting on this subject as it feels good to be right, and I love these impressively stupid things that are at a world level.

And it's interesting to wonder if the people who adjusted to what I said before will bite the bullet and eventually give in and mention the rational parameterization. Or will they fight it!!!

Academics are often idiots. It's that simple.

You are provably often fools. Fools. Stupid on a level that defies belief.

Of course I'll take an opportunity to rip on the academic community like this one. I need it.

It helps me feel better.

## JSH: May empty entire math departments

It's past time for me to remind that I'm not looking for agreement as one of my major issues will be pushing a lot of academics out of academia, and at this point, I'm facing the horrible reality that at some universities most and maybe all of the mathematicians may be pushed out of departments.

So yeah, big fights ahead and lots of angry people who will be crying no fair, but I'm looking at overwhelming evidence and for people who need to see how bad it is, do that search on twin primes probability.

Search: twin primes probability

Pick your search engine as well as I see it in Google and Yahoo! and my point to the world is that people paid to come up with convoluted explanations will ignore simple, and it's for MONEY.

Take the money away and only the best people will stay.

Top mathematicians for real will work without funding!!!

None of my mathematical research has relied on public funds.

NONE of it.

Cut funding. Get rid of the people in it for the money. Then we can have real math departments re-built from the people who prove their worth.

Of course only at the top universities are entire departments likely to go because the standards are so high there, while elsewhere teaching and non-research positions will remain. And I recognize that math people who cannot do decent original research still have value as teachers!!!

But they are just that then, teachers. So no more pretending that they are more.

Ok, so gearing up for the fight now. As time moves forward more of you will be aware of decisions being made at high levels to reduce funding.

Don't worry about convincing me of anything or think I'm trying to convince you of anything.

Decisions have already been made. Positions are set.

Battle lines are drawn.

There is no more convincing to be done on either side.

So yeah, big fights ahead and lots of angry people who will be crying no fair, but I'm looking at overwhelming evidence and for people who need to see how bad it is, do that search on twin primes probability.

Search: twin primes probability

Pick your search engine as well as I see it in Google and Yahoo! and my point to the world is that people paid to come up with convoluted explanations will ignore simple, and it's for MONEY.

Take the money away and only the best people will stay.

Top mathematicians for real will work without funding!!!

None of my mathematical research has relied on public funds.

NONE of it.

Cut funding. Get rid of the people in it for the money. Then we can have real math departments re-built from the people who prove their worth.

Of course only at the top universities are entire departments likely to go because the standards are so high there, while elsewhere teaching and non-research positions will remain. And I recognize that math people who cannot do decent original research still have value as teachers!!!

But they are just that then, teachers. So no more pretending that they are more.

Ok, so gearing up for the fight now. As time moves forward more of you will be aware of decisions being made at high levels to reduce funding.

Don't worry about convincing me of anything or think I'm trying to convince you of anything.

Decisions have already been made. Positions are set.

Battle lines are drawn.

There is no more convincing to be done on either side.

## JSH: But who trusts Usenet?

One of the reasons I decided to talk about twin primes again and show that trivial little result for calculating twin primes probability using the simple idea that primes don't care about a particular quadratic residue relative to other primes is that I've done web searches where I've found people describing me as I've been described on Usenet.

And that is just so remarkably stupid to me that there are these people out there who don't understand Usenet, so they repeat almost verbatim crap that posters say about me.

So I'm reading on some thing "mstd" or something like that where this guy is talking about me as someone who comes up with bogus math every few months, argues with people who shoot it down, and then I supposedly go away and come back with some new bogus math.

But do a search on: twin primes probability

Reality is that I put up math results that are correct, a lot of liars attack the research, which roars up on Google searches, and I have hits to my math blog from 50+ countries EVERY 30 DAYS so why would any moron on MSTD or anywhere else trust some idiot whose one thing is that they reply to me incessantly, night and day, in true stalker behavior?

Who are these fools who don't understand Usenet?

Ok, for any other dumbasses around the world who do not know what Usenet is.

It is a place where ANYONE can say ANYTHING and there are people who obsessively stalk posters who get a lot of attention.

These stalkers do not have good ideas of their own.

But they want attention anyway.

On Usenet if you do not have good ideas of your own you can get attention by attacking people who do.

Because you do not get attention by agreeing with people who have good ideas.

You get attention by attacking them.

THEY get attention because they have good ideas.

You get attention by insulting their good ideas.

That's how Usenet works.

People like me put ideas up here anyway because I can pull attention worldwide and it's a fast way to get read in countries around the world, and it's also a good way to throw out ideas you are working on and to see what happens.

BUT IF YOU TRUST these morons on these newsgroups just because they obsessively reply to someone like me then you are a complete fucking idiot.

Just a complete fucking idiot.

Now go MIST that.

And that is just so remarkably stupid to me that there are these people out there who don't understand Usenet, so they repeat almost verbatim crap that posters say about me.

So I'm reading on some thing "mstd" or something like that where this guy is talking about me as someone who comes up with bogus math every few months, argues with people who shoot it down, and then I supposedly go away and come back with some new bogus math.

But do a search on: twin primes probability

Reality is that I put up math results that are correct, a lot of liars attack the research, which roars up on Google searches, and I have hits to my math blog from 50+ countries EVERY 30 DAYS so why would any moron on MSTD or anywhere else trust some idiot whose one thing is that they reply to me incessantly, night and day, in true stalker behavior?

Who are these fools who don't understand Usenet?

Ok, for any other dumbasses around the world who do not know what Usenet is.

It is a place where ANYONE can say ANYTHING and there are people who obsessively stalk posters who get a lot of attention.

These stalkers do not have good ideas of their own.

But they want attention anyway.

On Usenet if you do not have good ideas of your own you can get attention by attacking people who do.

Because you do not get attention by agreeing with people who have good ideas.

You get attention by attacking them.

THEY get attention because they have good ideas.

You get attention by insulting their good ideas.

That's how Usenet works.

People like me put ideas up here anyway because I can pull attention worldwide and it's a fast way to get read in countries around the world, and it's also a good way to throw out ideas you are working on and to see what happens.

BUT IF YOU TRUST these morons on these newsgroups just because they obsessively reply to someone like me then you are a complete fucking idiot.

Just a complete fucking idiot.

Now go MIST that.

### Saturday, January 30, 2010

## JSH: Twin primes

One of the weirder things I discovered a while back was a resistance to probabilistic explanations for some prime things where the easiest area to see it boldly displayed is with twin primes probability.

To understand fully, imagine that you accept that primes don't have a preferred residue modulo themselves with other primes. For instance, 3 has two potential residues modulo other primes: 1 and 2. Should it prefer 1? Or maybe 2? No. Why would 3 care to lean towards either residue?

If so, then what residue a particular prime has mod 3 should be random.

Ok, so now let's get to twin primes.

Here a trivial little result relating to twin primes as if x is prime and greater than 3 the probability that x+2 is prime is given by:

prob = ((p_j - 2)/(p_j -1))*((p_{j-1} - 2)/(p_{j-1} - 1))*...*(1/2)

where j is the number of primes up to sqrt(x+2), and p_j is the jth prime, p_{j-1} is the prime before it and so forth.

The result is easy as it is just multiplying the probability for each prime that it is NOT true that

x + 2 ≡ 0 mod p

which probability is just the result of dividing one minus the number of non-zero residues by the total number of residues together to get the total probability that a prime plus 2 is also prime.

So let's try it out. Between 5² and 7², there are 6 primes. The probability then is given by:

prob = ((5-2)/(5-1))*((3-2)/(3-1) = (3/4)*(1/2) = 0.375

And 6*0.375 =3D 2.25 so you expect 2 twin primes in that interval. The primes are 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47 and you'll notice, two twin primes as predicted: 29,31 and 41, 43.

So that's a fun little thing where you can calculate easily when you're bored or something and it works crazy well. Where it is all just about a simple little idea that prime numbers aren't picking in this simple way, and some of you of course know that what I've given looks like a piece of Brun's constant.

Now I noticed that years ago and wondered why math people don't then accept then that it's about probability with twin primes, when they HAVE the probability piece ALREADY in an accepted bit of mathematics, and one answer may be that a simple answer is just not wanted. I found that sad. But it was one of the results that gave me perspective about my other research where I found simple answers and math people wouldn't accept the results as if you look across the research in this area you see a LOT of people with funding to do research in an area where the simple answer means they cannot succeed with anything more complex.

They cannot succeed.

You now know that without having to know complex mathematical ideas! Wow, just like that you're at the top of the field and can shoot down Ph.D's with decades as mathematicians if one of them pretends to produce a twin primes conjecture result.

Given that they cannot succeed they can fund their research indefinitely simply by ignoring the simple answer.

So it's a cash cow.

Oh yeah, so if you figure that twin primes don't care about their residue modulo other primes so they just randomly bounce around by residue then you know the answer to the Twin Primes Conjecture. It's true.

Another way to say it is that prime numbers will never hate p_1 mod p_2 = 2, so that will emerge when p_1 > p_2 simply because the primes don't have a reason to start dropping that possibility, so there will always be twin primes. Easy.

(Um, now though you can also answer Goldbach's Conjecture, and figure out it's false. But unlikely to ever be demonstrated false with an actual counterexample which is sort of a depressing answer I guess.)

So how could academic mathematicians take themselves seriously when they ignore simple answers?

I think it's because of the money. If math is your job and not just a hobby like for me, then simple answers can take away your paycheck. And with that paycheck supporting you and maybe a family with a mortgage, you care more about the paycheck than you do about mathematics.

So it's simple there as well: people paid to do mathematics often cannot be trusted to tell the truth about mathematics if it impacts their paycheck.

I've seen that paid mathematicians routinely lie about mathematics. Routinely lie. As in, it's quite normal for them to make things up completely or avoid simple answers as simple answers don't pay the bills!

And you learn so much just from pondering twin primes and a simple idea.

To understand fully, imagine that you accept that primes don't have a preferred residue modulo themselves with other primes. For instance, 3 has two potential residues modulo other primes: 1 and 2. Should it prefer 1? Or maybe 2? No. Why would 3 care to lean towards either residue?

If so, then what residue a particular prime has mod 3 should be random.

Ok, so now let's get to twin primes.

Here a trivial little result relating to twin primes as if x is prime and greater than 3 the probability that x+2 is prime is given by:

prob = ((p_j - 2)/(p_j -1))*((p_{j-1} - 2)/(p_{j-1} - 1))*...*(1/2)

where j is the number of primes up to sqrt(x+2), and p_j is the jth prime, p_{j-1} is the prime before it and so forth.

The result is easy as it is just multiplying the probability for each prime that it is NOT true that

x + 2 ≡ 0 mod p

which probability is just the result of dividing one minus the number of non-zero residues by the total number of residues together to get the total probability that a prime plus 2 is also prime.

So let's try it out. Between 5² and 7², there are 6 primes. The probability then is given by:

prob = ((5-2)/(5-1))*((3-2)/(3-1) = (3/4)*(1/2) = 0.375

And 6*0.375 =3D 2.25 so you expect 2 twin primes in that interval. The primes are 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47 and you'll notice, two twin primes as predicted: 29,31 and 41, 43.

So that's a fun little thing where you can calculate easily when you're bored or something and it works crazy well. Where it is all just about a simple little idea that prime numbers aren't picking in this simple way, and some of you of course know that what I've given looks like a piece of Brun's constant.

Now I noticed that years ago and wondered why math people don't then accept then that it's about probability with twin primes, when they HAVE the probability piece ALREADY in an accepted bit of mathematics, and one answer may be that a simple answer is just not wanted. I found that sad. But it was one of the results that gave me perspective about my other research where I found simple answers and math people wouldn't accept the results as if you look across the research in this area you see a LOT of people with funding to do research in an area where the simple answer means they cannot succeed with anything more complex.

They cannot succeed.

You now know that without having to know complex mathematical ideas! Wow, just like that you're at the top of the field and can shoot down Ph.D's with decades as mathematicians if one of them pretends to produce a twin primes conjecture result.

Given that they cannot succeed they can fund their research indefinitely simply by ignoring the simple answer.

So it's a cash cow.

Oh yeah, so if you figure that twin primes don't care about their residue modulo other primes so they just randomly bounce around by residue then you know the answer to the Twin Primes Conjecture. It's true.

Another way to say it is that prime numbers will never hate p_1 mod p_2 = 2, so that will emerge when p_1 > p_2 simply because the primes don't have a reason to start dropping that possibility, so there will always be twin primes. Easy.

(Um, now though you can also answer Goldbach's Conjecture, and figure out it's false. But unlikely to ever be demonstrated false with an actual counterexample which is sort of a depressing answer I guess.)

So how could academic mathematicians take themselves seriously when they ignore simple answers?

I think it's because of the money. If math is your job and not just a hobby like for me, then simple answers can take away your paycheck. And with that paycheck supporting you and maybe a family with a mortgage, you care more about the paycheck than you do about mathematics.

So it's simple there as well: people paid to do mathematics often cannot be trusted to tell the truth about mathematics if it impacts their paycheck.

I've seen that paid mathematicians routinely lie about mathematics. Routinely lie. As in, it's quite normal for them to make things up completely or avoid simple answers as simple answers don't pay the bills!

And you learn so much just from pondering twin primes and a simple idea.

### Sunday, January 17, 2010

## JSH: Losing the Standard Model

I realized that I needed to make a thread that specifically states that the Standard Model fails because of the "core error" and note that the Large Hadron Collider will experimentally verify that the Standard Model fails.

So that's what this thread is for, establishing now that I'm saying the LHC will blow up the Standard Model and that I feel confident that there are mathematical reasons for why the Standard Model does fail, which go back to what I call the "core error".

Particles like the proton may be a shell over which a larger number of particles than physicists previously realized can operate, where only one of them actually has charge which is +1.

Kind of like how Apple Corporation can represent a slew of people, but they need to be making Mac's and iPhones among other things.

The collapse of the Standard Model could usher in a golden age for nuclear physics allowing nuclear physics to begin catching up with the successes of QED. The benefits to the human species should be immense. My favorite possibility is practical nuclear fusion.

So that's what this thread is for, establishing now that I'm saying the LHC will blow up the Standard Model and that I feel confident that there are mathematical reasons for why the Standard Model does fail, which go back to what I call the "core error".

Particles like the proton may be a shell over which a larger number of particles than physicists previously realized can operate, where only one of them actually has charge which is +1.

Kind of like how Apple Corporation can represent a slew of people, but they need to be making Mac's and iPhones among other things.

The collapse of the Standard Model could usher in a golden age for nuclear physics allowing nuclear physics to begin catching up with the successes of QED. The benefits to the human species should be immense. My favorite possibility is practical nuclear fusion.

### Monday, January 11, 2010

## JSH: Why it changes the world

Back in 2002 when I had the mathematics which I simplified to show the "core error" I also found my own prime counting function, so I had these two major results back to back. But what makes that especially interesting is that my prime counting function was not easily debated as not a major result as I found a P(x,y) function that counts primeswhen y=sqrt(x). That is, P(x,sqrt(x)) = pi(x), where pi(x) is the traditional prime counting function.

That's important as my multi-dimensional function lead to a partial differential equation, so it leads directly to something you can integrate which means you can now answer the Riemann Hypothesis by following through with that result.

And that was back in 2002 and now almost eight years later you don't hear mathematicians talking about any of that though they still claim that the Riemann Hypothesis is this important unsolved problem which they'd like solved.

And anyone who knows that story knows they are liars.

They can't actually care about resolving the Riemann Hypothesis as the route to doing so has been around for over seven years, and they've willfully ignored it.

THAT is how the story changes the world.

Since I know the story and have known it for years I don't care about the Riemann Hypothesis anyway as I consider it fairly trivial when you know the full story and especially when you know math people routinely lie, so who cares how important they may claim it is for this assertion or that, as more than likely all of that is wrong. So it's this trivial thing then, so the lying is far more interesting.

And it is something I've had the luxury of pondering for almost 8 years now, as have people who know this story.

So I had two results and the first result was a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, where I found that using these advanced techniques which I call non-polynomial factorization, and I simplified a piece of that result to get my core error example:

7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x) + 7)

where the a's are roots of

a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.

So those expressions are derived from an advanced mathematical technique which in a far more complicated form proves Fermat's Last Theorem. For a long time I thought it was mainly this "pure math" thing, but slowly have realized that it actually has implications for nuclear physics and that is rather weird.

But now for people who know the story they now know that physicists may not actually care about getting their nuclear physics right, which of course, has implications for nations around the world.

So we go from some math people not caring really about the Riemann Hypothesis to physicists in nations around the globe who maybe don't care really about nuclear physics and I don't think years will go byon that one.

My most important result for understanding that something was seriously wrong was always my prime counting function.

It is also the easiest way for others to see that something is wrong as well.

And leads to only one conclusion about some people who claim they want to know the truth about the Riemann Hypothesis.

As I and others around the world absorb the latest indications of massive failures around the world absolute mathematics again is our guide as we learn about some new people to add to the fallen.

As we learn the world changes. And I'm sure there is a sadness there as I have often felt saddened over the years as I've adjusted to the failures of others, but the knowledge must be important. I tell myself there has to be a reason for it all.

And as I and others who know this story learn more that belief I think is what will guide us. Our knowledge must be for a purpose.

And the world must change for the better or that purpose is not worth having.

That's important as my multi-dimensional function lead to a partial differential equation, so it leads directly to something you can integrate which means you can now answer the Riemann Hypothesis by following through with that result.

And that was back in 2002 and now almost eight years later you don't hear mathematicians talking about any of that though they still claim that the Riemann Hypothesis is this important unsolved problem which they'd like solved.

And anyone who knows that story knows they are liars.

They can't actually care about resolving the Riemann Hypothesis as the route to doing so has been around for over seven years, and they've willfully ignored it.

THAT is how the story changes the world.

Since I know the story and have known it for years I don't care about the Riemann Hypothesis anyway as I consider it fairly trivial when you know the full story and especially when you know math people routinely lie, so who cares how important they may claim it is for this assertion or that, as more than likely all of that is wrong. So it's this trivial thing then, so the lying is far more interesting.

And it is something I've had the luxury of pondering for almost 8 years now, as have people who know this story.

So I had two results and the first result was a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, where I found that using these advanced techniques which I call non-polynomial factorization, and I simplified a piece of that result to get my core error example:

7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x) + 7)

where the a's are roots of

a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.

So those expressions are derived from an advanced mathematical technique which in a far more complicated form proves Fermat's Last Theorem. For a long time I thought it was mainly this "pure math" thing, but slowly have realized that it actually has implications for nuclear physics and that is rather weird.

But now for people who know the story they now know that physicists may not actually care about getting their nuclear physics right, which of course, has implications for nations around the world.

So we go from some math people not caring really about the Riemann Hypothesis to physicists in nations around the globe who maybe don't care really about nuclear physics and I don't think years will go byon that one.

My most important result for understanding that something was seriously wrong was always my prime counting function.

It is also the easiest way for others to see that something is wrong as well.

And leads to only one conclusion about some people who claim they want to know the truth about the Riemann Hypothesis.

As I and others around the world absorb the latest indications of massive failures around the world absolute mathematics again is our guide as we learn about some new people to add to the fallen.

As we learn the world changes. And I'm sure there is a sadness there as I have often felt saddened over the years as I've adjusted to the failures of others, but the knowledge must be important. I tell myself there has to be a reason for it all.

And as I and others who know this story learn more that belief I think is what will guide us. Our knowledge must be for a purpose.

And the world must change for the better or that purpose is not worth having.

### Sunday, January 10, 2010

## JSH: When curiosity is not a motivator

It took me a while to figure out how people could ignore what I call a "core error" as I for a long time assumed that they wanted first and foremost to be right! But later realized that of course they did not, and it has taken me a while to try and understand the perspective of such a person.

But if you just want a nice life with maybe a little prestige, where you can talk proudly of what you do, say with friends and family, and have your society praising you, then why worry about whether you're actually correct if that is your real goal?

If such a person manages to become a physicist then the enjoyment they gain is from the social aspect of being able to say to people they are a physicist. Being right is irrelevant to them then.

I found a rather fascinating and devastating math error back in 2002, and got a paper published about it in 2003, in a mathematical journal which pulled my paper after some emails against it to the editor, and simplified the argument over the years until I can show it with some simple quadratics on the complex plane as I've done in posts recently.

No curious person established in math or science who knows of this error could hope that it not be addressed!

But a social person glad to have the title "mathematician" or "physicist" I suggest to you, could.

If you are not a curious person about reality you may say you're just practical. You may tell yourself that it's nice to have ideals and to supposedly believe in certain things like "truth", but to you "truth" is just a word. Who knows what's actually true?

What's here today may be reversed tomorrow, right? But your social needs are real today and real tomorrow. That pride you feel when your parents talk about their son the "rocket scientist" is REAL. You KNOW it's real. You feel it.

To you that can become the only "truth" that matters.

So you sneak to the depths of screwing up some technology. Why not? We live in the REAL WORLD, right? It's a "dog eat dog" world. Survival of the fittest—or the smartest, you may tell yourself. And isn't it smarter to preserve what's important? What really matters? Your own social position? Reality will go on regardless, but you have NEEDS.

So you screw with a little circuitry and the big bad machine goes down.

And you go to your classes, and teach eager students who call you professor and validate your choice.

You KNOW the reward for your behavior.

You get it everyday. You are a physicist. Why?

Because that's what people call you.

But if you just want a nice life with maybe a little prestige, where you can talk proudly of what you do, say with friends and family, and have your society praising you, then why worry about whether you're actually correct if that is your real goal?

If such a person manages to become a physicist then the enjoyment they gain is from the social aspect of being able to say to people they are a physicist. Being right is irrelevant to them then.

I found a rather fascinating and devastating math error back in 2002, and got a paper published about it in 2003, in a mathematical journal which pulled my paper after some emails against it to the editor, and simplified the argument over the years until I can show it with some simple quadratics on the complex plane as I've done in posts recently.

No curious person established in math or science who knows of this error could hope that it not be addressed!

But a social person glad to have the title "mathematician" or "physicist" I suggest to you, could.

If you are not a curious person about reality you may say you're just practical. You may tell yourself that it's nice to have ideals and to supposedly believe in certain things like "truth", but to you "truth" is just a word. Who knows what's actually true?

What's here today may be reversed tomorrow, right? But your social needs are real today and real tomorrow. That pride you feel when your parents talk about their son the "rocket scientist" is REAL. You KNOW it's real. You feel it.

To you that can become the only "truth" that matters.

So you sneak to the depths of screwing up some technology. Why not? We live in the REAL WORLD, right? It's a "dog eat dog" world. Survival of the fittest—or the smartest, you may tell yourself. And isn't it smarter to preserve what's important? What really matters? Your own social position? Reality will go on regardless, but you have NEEDS.

So you screw with a little circuitry and the big bad machine goes down.

And you go to your classes, and teach eager students who call you professor and validate your choice.

You KNOW the reward for your behavior.

You get it everyday. You are a physicist. Why?

Because that's what people call you.

### Saturday, January 09, 2010

## JSH: Power in a position

One of the hardest things for me to understand has not been the math. The mathematics of the flaw in modern number theory is kind of convoluted but can be worked out and relies as its linchpin on the distributive property, so it is resolvable. The weirder thing for me has been understanding first how mathematicians could go on with the error, and now how physicists might as well, even though as a result they know their theory is wrong, and that theory doesn't work! So maybe some of them are sabotaging physics experiments like the LHC.

How could people DO such things? How could a human being decide that ignoring the truth was better than being a real physicist?

And that's where I made my mistake—to themselves they ARE still real physicists, if you see power in the title itself. Power in the position.

Consider, for the last 7 years I've been talking about this massive math error while mathematicians have continued with full prestige. If the position is what matters to you then what have you lost? Nothing. You don't need to be right.

And I now realize that IS the answer. Religion has diminished as science has dominated, and there could be people who in the past might have been priests who today are physicists or mathematicians BECAUSE of the power in the position. Nothing else.

For them then, being right is irrelevant.

Here is a telling quote I like to give from a mathematician. And it is almost in my opinion a manifesto and a declaration against me as I had been talking for a while at this point about the error and was working on getting published—but had not been published yet—before this article going by its date. Here's its opening statement:

"When is a proof?" http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html

In a democratic mathematics a result that shatters the careers of the bulk of mathematicians can simply be voted away by group opinion.

And that can be the future of physics.

You may say, but no, physics has experiments. So? If the bulk of physicists tell the world that an experiment that proves the opposite of something actually proves it, what then? Who will doubt them?

If you howl against them then you are a crank or a crackpot.

Look at Dr. Halton Arp. While I don't agree with him completely as among other things I think there was a Big Bang, I think he has compelling evidence casting doubt on the standard interpretation of quasars as very distant objects, and on the belief that red shift behaves as simply as astrophysicists commonly teach. But he has been successfully pigeon-holed as a crackpot—who also has admittedly important and valid research work in other ways!!!

It could be you next.

You could have a valid experimental result which the bulk of physicists do not like because they no longer are really physicists any more but are people who see power in the position, and care less about being right than being "physicists".

The irony of the situation I find myself in is that I actually defined mathematical proof to counterattack the downplaying of it by the modern mathematical community and now my definition is on its way to becoming the world standard. I was deliberately trying to stave off their demolition of the concept of mathematical proof as a working concept into a democratic concept that played into their world of fake math.

For the moment Google search results are showing how far a group of people can be from the truth, when the power in their position becomes more important to them than actually being that position, like being real mathematicians, or real physicists.

After all, if most people think you're a physicist even if everything you have is wrong, aren't you one still?

The Google search result is a way for some of you to understand how lost your society has already become, so I give again, as you can see it all over the world. It is a way for me to demonstrate to the ENTIRE world thanks to the technology.

Search in Google: define mathematical proof

As the world's most recent major discoverer I'm in a position those who preceded me didn't have to face as they lived in worlds with religion as the dominant force so science and mathematics could develop without this particular problem.

In their world priests wanted to be priests. In mine they want to be mathematicians and physicists. Go figure.

I can dominate the world in ways like the Google search result because I'm right. But it does not matter if you do not wish to know the truth about your world. If you no longer care what makes reality.

If you only care about social position then there is no hope left for science. It will simply wither and die though it may take a while for the world to notice as this world seems to be more interested often in what people are wearing than in the value of the person underneath.

How could people DO such things? How could a human being decide that ignoring the truth was better than being a real physicist?

And that's where I made my mistake—to themselves they ARE still real physicists, if you see power in the title itself. Power in the position.

Consider, for the last 7 years I've been talking about this massive math error while mathematicians have continued with full prestige. If the position is what matters to you then what have you lost? Nothing. You don't need to be right.

And I now realize that IS the answer. Religion has diminished as science has dominated, and there could be people who in the past might have been priests who today are physicists or mathematicians BECAUSE of the power in the position. Nothing else.

For them then, being right is irrelevant.

Here is a telling quote I like to give from a mathematician. And it is almost in my opinion a manifesto and a declaration against me as I had been talking for a while at this point about the error and was working on getting published—but had not been published yet—before this article going by its date. Here's its opening statement:

What is a proof? The question has two answers. The right wing ("right-or-wrong", "rule-of-law") definition is that a proof is a logically correct argument that establishes the truth of a given statement. The left wing answer (fuzzy, democratic, and human centered) is that a proof is an argument that convinces a typical mathematician of the truth of a given statement.

While valid in an idealistic sense, the right wing definition of a proof has the problem that, except for trivial examples, it is not clear that anyone has ever seen such a thing…

"When is a proof?" http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html

In a democratic mathematics a result that shatters the careers of the bulk of mathematicians can simply be voted away by group opinion.

And that can be the future of physics.

You may say, but no, physics has experiments. So? If the bulk of physicists tell the world that an experiment that proves the opposite of something actually proves it, what then? Who will doubt them?

If you howl against them then you are a crank or a crackpot.

Look at Dr. Halton Arp. While I don't agree with him completely as among other things I think there was a Big Bang, I think he has compelling evidence casting doubt on the standard interpretation of quasars as very distant objects, and on the belief that red shift behaves as simply as astrophysicists commonly teach. But he has been successfully pigeon-holed as a crackpot—who also has admittedly important and valid research work in other ways!!!

It could be you next.

You could have a valid experimental result which the bulk of physicists do not like because they no longer are really physicists any more but are people who see power in the position, and care less about being right than being "physicists".

The irony of the situation I find myself in is that I actually defined mathematical proof to counterattack the downplaying of it by the modern mathematical community and now my definition is on its way to becoming the world standard. I was deliberately trying to stave off their demolition of the concept of mathematical proof as a working concept into a democratic concept that played into their world of fake math.

For the moment Google search results are showing how far a group of people can be from the truth, when the power in their position becomes more important to them than actually being that position, like being real mathematicians, or real physicists.

After all, if most people think you're a physicist even if everything you have is wrong, aren't you one still?

The Google search result is a way for some of you to understand how lost your society has already become, so I give again, as you can see it all over the world. It is a way for me to demonstrate to the ENTIRE world thanks to the technology.

Search in Google: define mathematical proof

As the world's most recent major discoverer I'm in a position those who preceded me didn't have to face as they lived in worlds with religion as the dominant force so science and mathematics could develop without this particular problem.

In their world priests wanted to be priests. In mine they want to be mathematicians and physicists. Go figure.

I can dominate the world in ways like the Google search result because I'm right. But it does not matter if you do not wish to know the truth about your world. If you no longer care what makes reality.

If you only care about social position then there is no hope left for science. It will simply wither and die though it may take a while for the world to notice as this world seems to be more interested often in what people are wearing than in the value of the person underneath.

## JSH: Understanding consequences and get a clue!

I think some of you have thought for years now that even if I'm right it does not matter, but if I'm right and you know that but you're a physicist with a big career based on theories relying on the bogus math or you're a grad student who sees his future dependent on the bogus math, and you now know that Group Theory will not work then you know ahead of time that the Large Hadron Collider will not give results that help you.

The problems of the Large Hadron Collider can be explained, when you know about this massive error, by deliberate sabotage.

And THAT is how important it is for those of you who rationalize away a massive math error like this one.

Nations in charge of the LHC should have outside observers to protect the LHC and should consider criminal investigations to see if there has been deliberate sabotage.

Not knowing about the error they would not understand the motivation for the crime, if it has occurred.

The battle here is for the heart and soul of physics and the future of human science.

If these people succeed they may have critical mass to keep bogus results for CAREERS, requiring they deny valid experimental results that interfere with the dogma they wish to keep in place.

If that happens you will not be able to block them by experimental results.

They'll have the power to just deny any result you may present, and simply call you a crackpot.

Physics will become a religion, and physicists will simply be its priesthood.

Protect my LHC. That is your best hope now. These people are very powerful at this point. And they are dedicated, and they do not believe in what you believe. They are trying to take over physics like they took over mathematics.

The problems of the Large Hadron Collider can be explained, when you know about this massive error, by deliberate sabotage.

And THAT is how important it is for those of you who rationalize away a massive math error like this one.

Nations in charge of the LHC should have outside observers to protect the LHC and should consider criminal investigations to see if there has been deliberate sabotage.

Not knowing about the error they would not understand the motivation for the crime, if it has occurred.

The battle here is for the heart and soul of physics and the future of human science.

If these people succeed they may have critical mass to keep bogus results for CAREERS, requiring they deny valid experimental results that interfere with the dogma they wish to keep in place.

If that happens you will not be able to block them by experimental results.

They'll have the power to just deny any result you may present, and simply call you a crackpot.

Physics will become a religion, and physicists will simply be its priesthood.

Protect my LHC. That is your best hope now. These people are very powerful at this point. And they are dedicated, and they do not believe in what you believe. They are trying to take over physics like they took over mathematics.

### Friday, January 08, 2010

## JSH: Breaking the LHC?

Ok it took me a while but eventually I realized that physicists had to be breaking the Large Hadron Collider.

Maybe it was the bird story, or it was the theory that reality itself did not like the thing and was breaking it that clued me in, but slowly I realized that physicists were breaking the LHC!

I am mainstream. Thousands of years of human history are behind me, while a hundred years or so of bad ideas are behind those of you blowing up things that would validate my research by showing that your theories are wrong.

Maybe there is a feeling for some of you of a justification in the stupidity of the world in letting you do it.

Hell some people are scared the freaking thing will spawn black holes that will destroy reality anyway. How little do they know.

You math is wrong. Get over it. Quit breaking the LHC.

And don't lie about the results either. I need them. You've delayed the inevitable long enough.

Now crank the machine up to full power and report honestly about the results so that the revolution in physics can begin.

I've been waiting for years now. I'm starting to get bored.

Maybe it was the bird story, or it was the theory that reality itself did not like the thing and was breaking it that clued me in, but slowly I realized that physicists were breaking the LHC!

I am mainstream. Thousands of years of human history are behind me, while a hundred years or so of bad ideas are behind those of you blowing up things that would validate my research by showing that your theories are wrong.

Maybe there is a feeling for some of you of a justification in the stupidity of the world in letting you do it.

Hell some people are scared the freaking thing will spawn black holes that will destroy reality anyway. How little do they know.

You math is wrong. Get over it. Quit breaking the LHC.

And don't lie about the results either. I need them. You've delayed the inevitable long enough.

Now crank the machine up to full power and report honestly about the results so that the revolution in physics can begin.

I've been waiting for years now. I'm starting to get bored.

## JSH: Distributive property and "core error"

I hate this mathematical result that I keep pushing. And routinely I try to destroy the argument myself but always run into the distributive property. So the sadder thing about this error is that it's easy to prove. The linchpin is the distributive property:

a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c

And I've said that before many times over the years, and it has never been refuted, and that is the reason I can use the complex plane to show the error, but the hatred for this error is so great that proof has not been enough.

Easy example of the distributive property with a simple polynomial factorization:

7(x^2 + 3x + 2) = (7x + 7)(x + 2)

notice that the result holds in the field of complex numbers that 7 distributes in one way, as the distributive property holds in the field of complex numbers. Even if I use a function to try and hide things:

7(x^2 + 3x + 2) = (g(x) + 7)(x + 2)

because g(0) = 0, forced by x=0, it must be the case that the 7 distributed in one way, even on the complex plane.

It's not a factor result.

Now I've pointed this out before on math newsgroups and had people claim that it wasn't the distributive property! I'd explain how it was. They'd say it wasn't. I'd finally tire of explaining that it was, and they'd claim victory!

So here's the core error result again:

7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x) + 7)

where the a's are roots of

a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.

The a's can be found using the quadratic formula, but are so ugly I usually don't bother to give them, but maybe it'll help for those who wonder what they look like:

a_1(x) = ((7x - 1) +/- sqrt((7x-1)^2 - 4(49x^2 - 14x)))/2

a_2(x) = ((7x - 1) -/+ sqrt((7x-1)^2 - 4(49x^2 - 14x)))/2

or vice versa.

At x=0, one of the a's is 0, while the other is -1, as a^2 + a = 0, has those solutions (you can check with the explicit equations as well if you wish). So it pays to get functions where both are 0 at x=0, as that trivially finishes the exercise.

Letting b_1(x) = a_1(x) + 1, assuming a_2(0) = 0, I have a_1(x) = b_1(x) - 1, and substituting gives:

7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5b_1(x) + 2)(5a_2(x) + 7)

And with functions that equal 0 when x = 0, the distributive property FORCES a 7 through a_2(x).

So the result holds--by the distributive property.

Math people have howled at me in rage at that claim for years now, but it doesn't change it.

So on the complex plane you have this result. It holds by the distributive property.

I hate the result. Math people hate the result. People all over the world I'm sure hate the result. It's in many ways an obnoxious slap in the face of the entire human race.

It is just a mean and nasty result that I wish were not true. I hate it. You can hate it. Everybody can hate it.

But it blows up a lot of established ideas in number theory. Which is why it's so hated.

So it takes away Galois Theory and group theory. So yeah, a lot of people hate it.

A lot of brilliant people got their lives destroyed by this error, and most of them never even knew it because they died in their ignorance as it's been around for a while. It resets the history books. A lot of big math names especially are diminished to below normalcy. It screws up some physicists too. Mucks up some Nobel prize wins. Blows up a lot of established orthodoxy.

Kind of just mucks up the whole world of particle physics. Kicks physicists in the groin—but it just clobbers mathematicians.

It is a nasty mean little math result that pulls no punches. Spares few, and does not give a damn about human feelings or needs.

It steps on prestige. Squashes cherished belief and makes a lot of smart people feel really, really dumb.

Mother Nature kicked the collective ass of the human race. Reality bit. People just weren't as smart as they thought they were, and got some crucial math wrong.

Nasty.

I can understand people running away from those feelings. And seeing their colleagues running with them in their collective sprint from the truth feel a little bit better. Nothing like running with a crowd! Oh the relief!!! Make the nasty math go away. Force reality to obey our wishes.

But damn reality won't oblige. Freaking stupid reality. What does it think it is?

Stupid experiments refuse to bend to human will. So sabotage the LHC!!! That's it! Oh wait. People expect you to fix it. It's fixed now, so now what? Lie I guess. (Oh, figure out a way to break it again?)

Nasty little math result. So mean. So vicious. Nasty math. HORRIBLE mean nasty vicious mathematics.

Don't you know now you HATE MATH!

Ok, go back to figuring out how to sabotage the LHC again, and think more about how much you HATE MATH.

Damn distributive property. SCREW the distributive property, right?

Who made IT boss of the world?

a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c

And I've said that before many times over the years, and it has never been refuted, and that is the reason I can use the complex plane to show the error, but the hatred for this error is so great that proof has not been enough.

Easy example of the distributive property with a simple polynomial factorization:

7(x^2 + 3x + 2) = (7x + 7)(x + 2)

notice that the result holds in the field of complex numbers that 7 distributes in one way, as the distributive property holds in the field of complex numbers. Even if I use a function to try and hide things:

7(x^2 + 3x + 2) = (g(x) + 7)(x + 2)

because g(0) = 0, forced by x=0, it must be the case that the 7 distributed in one way, even on the complex plane.

It's not a factor result.

Now I've pointed this out before on math newsgroups and had people claim that it wasn't the distributive property! I'd explain how it was. They'd say it wasn't. I'd finally tire of explaining that it was, and they'd claim victory!

So here's the core error result again:

7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x) + 7)

where the a's are roots of

a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.

The a's can be found using the quadratic formula, but are so ugly I usually don't bother to give them, but maybe it'll help for those who wonder what they look like:

a_1(x) = ((7x - 1) +/- sqrt((7x-1)^2 - 4(49x^2 - 14x)))/2

a_2(x) = ((7x - 1) -/+ sqrt((7x-1)^2 - 4(49x^2 - 14x)))/2

or vice versa.

At x=0, one of the a's is 0, while the other is -1, as a^2 + a = 0, has those solutions (you can check with the explicit equations as well if you wish). So it pays to get functions where both are 0 at x=0, as that trivially finishes the exercise.

Letting b_1(x) = a_1(x) + 1, assuming a_2(0) = 0, I have a_1(x) = b_1(x) - 1, and substituting gives:

7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5b_1(x) + 2)(5a_2(x) + 7)

And with functions that equal 0 when x = 0, the distributive property FORCES a 7 through a_2(x).

So the result holds--by the distributive property.

Math people have howled at me in rage at that claim for years now, but it doesn't change it.

So on the complex plane you have this result. It holds by the distributive property.

I hate the result. Math people hate the result. People all over the world I'm sure hate the result. It's in many ways an obnoxious slap in the face of the entire human race.

It is just a mean and nasty result that I wish were not true. I hate it. You can hate it. Everybody can hate it.

But it blows up a lot of established ideas in number theory. Which is why it's so hated.

So it takes away Galois Theory and group theory. So yeah, a lot of people hate it.

A lot of brilliant people got their lives destroyed by this error, and most of them never even knew it because they died in their ignorance as it's been around for a while. It resets the history books. A lot of big math names especially are diminished to below normalcy. It screws up some physicists too. Mucks up some Nobel prize wins. Blows up a lot of established orthodoxy.

Kind of just mucks up the whole world of particle physics. Kicks physicists in the groin—but it just clobbers mathematicians.

It is a nasty mean little math result that pulls no punches. Spares few, and does not give a damn about human feelings or needs.

It steps on prestige. Squashes cherished belief and makes a lot of smart people feel really, really dumb.

Mother Nature kicked the collective ass of the human race. Reality bit. People just weren't as smart as they thought they were, and got some crucial math wrong.

Nasty.

I can understand people running away from those feelings. And seeing their colleagues running with them in their collective sprint from the truth feel a little bit better. Nothing like running with a crowd! Oh the relief!!! Make the nasty math go away. Force reality to obey our wishes.

But damn reality won't oblige. Freaking stupid reality. What does it think it is?

Stupid experiments refuse to bend to human will. So sabotage the LHC!!! That's it! Oh wait. People expect you to fix it. It's fixed now, so now what? Lie I guess. (Oh, figure out a way to break it again?)

Nasty little math result. So mean. So vicious. Nasty math. HORRIBLE mean nasty vicious mathematics.

Don't you know now you HATE MATH!

Ok, go back to figuring out how to sabotage the LHC again, and think more about how much you HATE MATH.

Damn distributive property. SCREW the distributive property, right?

Who made IT boss of the world?

### Wednesday, January 06, 2010

## JSH: Scarier implications

For years I'd rant and rave at the math community (and sometimes this community) about the implications of ignoring my research, and when I was working at the factoring problem I'd rant and rave about the dangers to the world economy if it were not acknowledged, so me ranting and raving is old hat.

Years of doing it, I've noticed it has not worked, but here I am again, with a new one.

I discovered what I now call non-polynomial factorization years ago, and thought I'd proven Fermat's Last Theorem with the method back in 2002. At the same time I found my own prime counting function, a P(x,y) function where P(x,sqrt(x)) = pi(x), where pi(x) is the traditional prime counting function math people usually use.

With the non-polynomial factorization research I found what I first thought was just an esoteric problem in number theory that had been there for a bit over a hundred years and posted accordingly. It was actually I thought a reach to even post on sci.physics about the issue, as I slowly came to believe that Galois Theory was severely impacted but for years didn't accept that group theory was as well.

But now I understand the full implications of the "core error" and they are huge.

Now I'm here to say that the proton does not have 3 charged particles. It has only one, and that quarks can't be separated for mathematical reasons related to this issue. I also know that Galois Theory tells you nothing, so group theory tells you nothing, and particles can move about inside the nucleus in ways you don't properly understand. And be different particles from what you think is possible.

So there are physics implications.

If I'm wrong, no big deal. Just more crackpot rantings. But if I'm right then that means that

The mathematical correction is now available. It's just a matter of accepting what is true, figuring out the correct theoretical physics, and the right experimental physics and Mother Nature will reward accordingly.

IN the past I've read about problems with the Large Hadron Collider with little interest, followed some later with humor about its weird travails, and laughed at insane theories about the Universe blocking it, only to find a deepening dread recently as I understood that human sabotage of it is unfortunately the real answer, and deliberate by people who understand that its results will continue to blow the Standard Model apart.

I barely even remember much about the Standard Model now. I haven't kept up with the latest research in high particle physics and knowing about the massive mathematical error I'm glad I didn't waste my mental energy, but now I'm sure there must be growing problems shoe-horning results into established thinking and some among you may understand that the LHC will just make that worse.

And it should. Your math is wrong. So your theory is wrong.

I think some of you see this situation as a personal battle between me and your society, as if I'm this mean guy who wants to make you feel silly and small, and demean your "accomplishments" in life. Hey the world believes in you, why should you take this crap from some nobody labeled a "crackpot" and a "crank"? Why listen to some "kook" on Usenet?

Ok. Make it personal and live your life in vain. Do worthless experiments that do not work because you math is crap. Spend your energy living a lie but at the end of the day you will still just be one more wrong person living in denial.

History is FULL of people like you.

But history is made by people like me and the group which may be in almost any nation on the planet now who does the correct math, has the correct theory, and for that reason has the right nuclear physics, and THEY will inherit the earth.

The irony for people living their lives in the so-called developed nations around the world who think their efforts are what matter may be that their physicists decided their fate, when technological change is ushered in by a surprise nation which then takes over as the world leader.

Technology and science have determined the dominant nation or nations.

If you sit now and do nothing you hand over the future to the people who DO and not a single American or a single Brit or a single French person or whomever who works hard now until that change will make a difference. And it won't be the business people who did it, nor the politicians. It will have been the physicists.

When the Mongol hordes swept the world they did it on technology, not morality, or ethics, or by just being really fine human beings.

And the will of the people they conquered didn't matter. Like it didn't matter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when atomic bombs didn't stop to ask what were they wearing? Atomic weaponry didn't care about their goldfish. It didn't stop to ask for permission from pregnant women, or old men, or poets. It killed them anyway.

The future of this planet is decided by technology. And the nation or nations that will dominate this planet will have the correct mathematics, and the correct science.

Your opinion on the subject is not needed.

Forget your egos idiots. You do nothing and you damn your countries to being behind in the next race. That's all.

It's not personal. It's science.

Years of doing it, I've noticed it has not worked, but here I am again, with a new one.

I discovered what I now call non-polynomial factorization years ago, and thought I'd proven Fermat's Last Theorem with the method back in 2002. At the same time I found my own prime counting function, a P(x,y) function where P(x,sqrt(x)) = pi(x), where pi(x) is the traditional prime counting function math people usually use.

With the non-polynomial factorization research I found what I first thought was just an esoteric problem in number theory that had been there for a bit over a hundred years and posted accordingly. It was actually I thought a reach to even post on sci.physics about the issue, as I slowly came to believe that Galois Theory was severely impacted but for years didn't accept that group theory was as well.

But now I understand the full implications of the "core error" and they are huge.

Now I'm here to say that the proton does not have 3 charged particles. It has only one, and that quarks can't be separated for mathematical reasons related to this issue. I also know that Galois Theory tells you nothing, so group theory tells you nothing, and particles can move about inside the nucleus in ways you don't properly understand. And be different particles from what you think is possible.

So there are physics implications.

If I'm wrong, no big deal. Just more crackpot rantings. But if I'm right then that means that

**someone**can do their physics right.The mathematical correction is now available. It's just a matter of accepting what is true, figuring out the correct theoretical physics, and the right experimental physics and Mother Nature will reward accordingly.

IN the past I've read about problems with the Large Hadron Collider with little interest, followed some later with humor about its weird travails, and laughed at insane theories about the Universe blocking it, only to find a deepening dread recently as I understood that human sabotage of it is unfortunately the real answer, and deliberate by people who understand that its results will continue to blow the Standard Model apart.

I barely even remember much about the Standard Model now. I haven't kept up with the latest research in high particle physics and knowing about the massive mathematical error I'm glad I didn't waste my mental energy, but now I'm sure there must be growing problems shoe-horning results into established thinking and some among you may understand that the LHC will just make that worse.

And it should. Your math is wrong. So your theory is wrong.

I think some of you see this situation as a personal battle between me and your society, as if I'm this mean guy who wants to make you feel silly and small, and demean your "accomplishments" in life. Hey the world believes in you, why should you take this crap from some nobody labeled a "crackpot" and a "crank"? Why listen to some "kook" on Usenet?

Ok. Make it personal and live your life in vain. Do worthless experiments that do not work because you math is crap. Spend your energy living a lie but at the end of the day you will still just be one more wrong person living in denial.

History is FULL of people like you.

But history is made by people like me and the group which may be in almost any nation on the planet now who does the correct math, has the correct theory, and for that reason has the right nuclear physics, and THEY will inherit the earth.

The irony for people living their lives in the so-called developed nations around the world who think their efforts are what matter may be that their physicists decided their fate, when technological change is ushered in by a surprise nation which then takes over as the world leader.

Technology and science have determined the dominant nation or nations.

If you sit now and do nothing you hand over the future to the people who DO and not a single American or a single Brit or a single French person or whomever who works hard now until that change will make a difference. And it won't be the business people who did it, nor the politicians. It will have been the physicists.

When the Mongol hordes swept the world they did it on technology, not morality, or ethics, or by just being really fine human beings.

And the will of the people they conquered didn't matter. Like it didn't matter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when atomic bombs didn't stop to ask what were they wearing? Atomic weaponry didn't care about their goldfish. It didn't stop to ask for permission from pregnant women, or old men, or poets. It killed them anyway.

The future of this planet is decided by technology. And the nation or nations that will dominate this planet will have the correct mathematics, and the correct science.

Your opinion on the subject is not needed.

Forget your egos idiots. You do nothing and you damn your countries to being behind in the next race. That's all.

It's not personal. It's science.