### Monday, September 13, 2010

## JSH: Looking at math resistance now

Back in 2002 I found out that a mathematical analysis technique I'd discovered that I've come to call tautological spaces lead me to a stunning error in "core" mathematics, and arguments have ensued ever since and a math journal was even destroyed (Google: SWJPAM), but the arguments continue and I think one problem has been that people suppose that I must be wrong in that case.

So I've recently used—in integers:

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 one of the f's equals 0, at x=0, and P(x) is a quadratic with integer coefficients.

The entire point of the construction is to show that 9 must be a factor of only one of the f's even though theoretically you might think that it can split up! Where of course that is easy enough to imagine I'd think as 9 = 3(3).

Should be a trivial exercise but you can now see arguments erupting disputing it!!! And begin to understand how I could have found a core error back in 2002 and been arguing about it ever since, as the problem is: people just say no.

And when people just say no, it doesn't matter if in other contexts they claim to be mathematicians or claim that mathematical proof matters to them or anything else they claim as it's a groupthink exercise that is about group power: the ability to just refuse to accept an uncomfortable truth.

Why is it a big deal then? Well 9 follows as a factor of one of the f's by the distributive property, as a*(b+c) = a*b+ a*c, means that you have:

9*(b+c) = 9*b + 9*c, and 9*(b+1) = 9*b + 9, and if b is a function g(x), and you have it 0 at x=0:

9(g(0) + 1) = 9*0 + 9 = 0 + 9, and in general 9*(g(x) + 1) = 9*g(x) + 9.

So the result follows by the distributive property.

But if I move beyond integers to algebraic integers I can break modern number theory.

Crush it. Take away Galois Theory. And upend over a hundred years of mathematical efforts.

So you see posters fight it, and they've fought it for years now. Possibly with the complicity of mathematicians smart enough to realize—yeah, it follows by the distributive property!

So why would they?

Well the result is brutal. If you're a "pure math" mathematician with no applied mathematical results then it can simply remove all of your "accomplishments" showing them to just be false beliefs—a human artifact.

And now consider, if you're a "top" mathematician, say at Harvard University, and ALL of your supposed accomplishments that got you there go away, then why are you still there? Why would you expect to stay there if people found out?

And if you are Harvard University, how might such a situation impact how people think of you as an institution?

The emperor has no clothes. Oh, gee, isn't there some story about that somewhere? A parable? Yes, of course there is.

And you're seeing a modern example in all its glory.

They've fought since 2002 and seem to have no desire to ever stop. Not ever.

The emperor prefers to walk around naked.

[A reply to someone who claimed to have proved in another thread that a certain assertion by James was false.]

I defined mathematical proof.

I can define functions, if necessary.

No one will accept your examples down the line as disproof of the problem, as the functions I use to blow away the ring of algebraic integers aren't human choice things, like the crap you tossed out.

To me what you did isn't even close to mathematics. It's a human being saying he can choose.

Sometimes you can't choose.

So I've recently used—in integers:

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 one of the f's equals 0, at x=0, and P(x) is a quadratic with integer coefficients.

The entire point of the construction is to show that 9 must be a factor of only one of the f's even though theoretically you might think that it can split up! Where of course that is easy enough to imagine I'd think as 9 = 3(3).

Should be a trivial exercise but you can now see arguments erupting disputing it!!! And begin to understand how I could have found a core error back in 2002 and been arguing about it ever since, as the problem is: people just say no.

And when people just say no, it doesn't matter if in other contexts they claim to be mathematicians or claim that mathematical proof matters to them or anything else they claim as it's a groupthink exercise that is about group power: the ability to just refuse to accept an uncomfortable truth.

Why is it a big deal then? Well 9 follows as a factor of one of the f's by the distributive property, as a*(b+c) = a*b+ a*c, means that you have:

9*(b+c) = 9*b + 9*c, and 9*(b+1) = 9*b + 9, and if b is a function g(x), and you have it 0 at x=0:

9(g(0) + 1) = 9*0 + 9 = 0 + 9, and in general 9*(g(x) + 1) = 9*g(x) + 9.

So the result follows by the distributive property.

But if I move beyond integers to algebraic integers I can break modern number theory.

Crush it. Take away Galois Theory. And upend over a hundred years of mathematical efforts.

So you see posters fight it, and they've fought it for years now. Possibly with the complicity of mathematicians smart enough to realize—yeah, it follows by the distributive property!

So why would they?

Well the result is brutal. If you're a "pure math" mathematician with no applied mathematical results then it can simply remove all of your "accomplishments" showing them to just be false beliefs—a human artifact.

And now consider, if you're a "top" mathematician, say at Harvard University, and ALL of your supposed accomplishments that got you there go away, then why are you still there? Why would you expect to stay there if people found out?

And if you are Harvard University, how might such a situation impact how people think of you as an institution?

The emperor has no clothes. Oh, gee, isn't there some story about that somewhere? A parable? Yes, of course there is.

And you're seeing a modern example in all its glory.

They've fought since 2002 and seem to have no desire to ever stop. Not ever.

The emperor prefers to walk around naked.

[A reply to someone who claimed to have proved in another thread that a certain assertion by James was false.]

I defined mathematical proof.

I can define functions, if necessary.

No one will accept your examples down the line as disproof of the problem, as the functions I use to blow away the ring of algebraic integers aren't human choice things, like the crap you tossed out.

To me what you did isn't even close to mathematics. It's a human being saying he can choose.

Sometimes you can't choose.