Sunday, September 19, 2010
JSH: But are they serious?
It occurs to me that maybe some of the posters that argue with me have not realized that I've had various tools available for years now to handle discussions on most of my work, where it surprises me that slight changes now may have made an odd difference, like using 9 instead of 7. Why would that matter? I'm not sure, but I THINK it does force you to realize with integers that the result does hold, so with:
9(g_1(x) + 1)(g_2(x) + 2) = (f_1(x) + 9)(f_2(x) + 9) = 9*P(x)
where g_1(0) = g_2(0) = 0, and also one of the f's equals 0, at x=0, and P(x) is a quadratic with integer coefficients, it doesn't take much to find that you can't split up that 9. AT least not with polynomial functions. I left it more arbitrary to integers, and of course, some posters came up with convoluted "functions".
But I think that feels more like a dodge. With polynomial functions that 9 will not split into 3. You can't figure out a way to force the f's to have 3 as a factor versus just one having 9, and trying to understand why may make the result fairly easy.
But does it matter really? Well Usenet arguments were never really all that important. And while I think sci.math was instrumental in triggering the death of the journal SWJPAM, I think it also more important that mathematicians behind the scenes have always been in control.
If so, Usenet for them was just a joke, a place where I was stuck as they could close the doors to mainstream, and for years I was convincing myself anyway. Trying to grasp that I had found this thing, and believe it.
I've let that out, as something I'm highlighting because while it is speculation, if true, you were just their cover, but their math students were their sacrifices.
Societal structures are quite powerful. Human beings rely on them for so many things. And people can abuse them when they have the public trust.
If I'm right, then, no, it doesn't change much. All along Usenet could agree with me, and posters could agree with me, and the doors would still be closed.
The math professors at the top of the hierarchy could have ended the debate back in 2003.
Instead, I fear—though it is speculation—they killed a math journal.
None of you ever really mattered.
9(g_1(x) + 1)(g_2(x) + 2) = (f_1(x) + 9)(f_2(x) + 9) = 9*P(x)
where g_1(0) = g_2(0) = 0, and also one of the f's equals 0, at x=0, and P(x) is a quadratic with integer coefficients, it doesn't take much to find that you can't split up that 9. AT least not with polynomial functions. I left it more arbitrary to integers, and of course, some posters came up with convoluted "functions".
But I think that feels more like a dodge. With polynomial functions that 9 will not split into 3. You can't figure out a way to force the f's to have 3 as a factor versus just one having 9, and trying to understand why may make the result fairly easy.
But does it matter really? Well Usenet arguments were never really all that important. And while I think sci.math was instrumental in triggering the death of the journal SWJPAM, I think it also more important that mathematicians behind the scenes have always been in control.
If so, Usenet for them was just a joke, a place where I was stuck as they could close the doors to mainstream, and for years I was convincing myself anyway. Trying to grasp that I had found this thing, and believe it.
I've let that out, as something I'm highlighting because while it is speculation, if true, you were just their cover, but their math students were their sacrifices.
Societal structures are quite powerful. Human beings rely on them for so many things. And people can abuse them when they have the public trust.
If I'm right, then, no, it doesn't change much. All along Usenet could agree with me, and posters could agree with me, and the doors would still be closed.
The math professors at the top of the hierarchy could have ended the debate back in 2003.
Instead, I fear—though it is speculation—they killed a math journal.
None of you ever really mattered.
# posted by James Harris @ 23:48 
