Harristotelian Logic

I've been curious for years about hostile reactions to my postings, and for lots of reasons, including in the past worrying that posters were working to block widespread acceptance of my research, which is a concern which has faded. It's not that I don't think negative claims against my work have an impact. I think they do. It's just that I now see an advantage in the "blocking" as I see it, as it allows me to work on problems without being bothered with concerns of anyone stealing my ideas, often for years at a time. Reality is that mathematicians probably feel terror at the idea of continuing any of my research, knowing they will face outright hostility and rage in response. That protects my research directions.

However it does remain puzzling, as one benefit I've gained over the years has been the gift of just being occupied with my various mathematical musings, which I've noted are of great interest to me. To be upfront, I even call it, my math. I even named my math blog, my math. It IS my math.

Now some will berate me for posting about my math musings as if it's this terrible thing for me to put it forward as important when I think it's important. Which doesn't seem to work I've noticed. Somehow posts still seem to keep coming out about my math despite their efforts, despite years of trying by them, and many more besides them, most of whom years ago gave up.

So what gives? Many of these posters routinely tell me I'm a failure, and claim that I have nothing to show for years of effort. Um, but I have an entire blog of my math. I like it. They may claim that no one else does. And that my efforts are pointless and futile, and I wonder, why?

If I say I like keeping myself occupied and have done so with my math, how can they claim that my efforts are pointless and futile as they continue to work at convincing me to stop posting, when after over a decade such efforts have failed?

Why do they keep doing the same thing over and over again without any change in the result?

Even more intriguingly, they claim I am the one who does that, but today I have my prime counting function. It counts primes. It works. They say, it's not new or interesting, but to me, it is my math. If you had your own three-dimensional prime counting function, a P(x,y) function while the math world still has a pi(x), two-dimensional function, would you not at least consider that kind of cool as YOUR math?

I discovered tautological spaces. They say that's not new or interesting. But it's my math. I came up with my own definition of mathematical proof. They say there are plenty of such definitions. But I say, it's my math.

My math is the object ring. I find it interesting. I find my prime residue axiom (even if you don't think it's an axiom, I do), fascinating. With it I have a prime gap equation, which can predict counts if twin primes, or other gaps. It's my math. I like it.

Result after result has intrigued me for years. Yes, some of those results I feel should be important to others and I've said as much, as, for instance, part of my math is showing the ring of algebraic integers contradicting the field of complex numbers which I think should interest SOMEONE, but they say, it's wrong. They say it's not interesting. I say, it's my math.

So what is the mystery?

How can seemingly intelligent people keep doing the same thing over and over again, year after year, without any change in the result?

I have lots of results that I call my math, which THEY say are all worthless, useless or previously known. But I like them, because they're my math.

Does anyone know why people would do the SAME THING year after year after year after year without any change in the result?

If I'd stopped years ago when the first posters started on the endless treadmill of trying to block free speech on Usenet by insulting me, then I don't think I'd have my own prime counting function, nor my object ring. I find it hard to believe I'd have my prime residue axiom, or my tautological spaces.

But why would I listen to people who DO THE SAME THING YEAR AFTER YEAR WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN THE RESULT?

How do some define insanity?

Would you have listened to them? Did you? Do you now?

They protected my research for years because they could block so many of you worldwide off from fascinating mathematical concepts. Isn't THAT intriguing?

I find it fascinating. How much of my math would have been your math if that had not occurred? Thankfully that is a question that will never be answered. History would have changed. But maybe it was all fate. So many different things had to occur at just the right time, including the rise of the Internet, the arrival of Google, and now the dominance of Twitter.

Given what they knew at the time those posters had no way of knowing that years later, some company called Google would arrive, and a search on its search engine on the definition of mathematical proof would bring up a page on my math blog as #1 for people all over the world. Who knew? Who could have guessed?

Now I've been amused by those posters who do THE SAME THING YEAR AFTER YEAR WITH THE SAME RESULT declaring boldly that Google search results do not matter? Was I surprised by their assertions?

Nope.

Oh, so why are they still so confident? Seems they have a rather naive definition of fame. Like most people they seem to think they know it when they see it. They say my aim is fame (and maybe fortune?) and that as long as I'm not famous by their standards then I have nothing.

What small minds. As if fame is a motivator for someone like me.