JSH: Too easy

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 06/16/04 

Date: 16 Jun 2004 05:11:34 -0700

What makes you people think that there are not any people who actually
take a look at my paper Advanced Polynomial Factorization and at least
wonder if it's correct, who are not you?

Then if they come out and see all this controversy, and all these
attacks, with so many people insulting me, then isn't it clear that
the math world is not what they may have thought?

Doesn't it look like maybe you people are more than just a little
crazy yourselves?

Sure, you call me crazy, but the rest of the world just sees a mess.

If you people were decent then sci.math posters wouldn't have sat
around attacking that journal, berating its editors, and conspiring to
do an email attack against my paper, and then carrying it through, as
if it were nothing.

http://rattler.cameron.edu/swjpam/vol2-03.html

Here you people are the ones who are the most damaging agents in
attacking "pure math" research. You make the case that mathematicians
can't just be trusted.

People can now reasonably wonder who they can believe.

My paper steps through a basic argument using mostly basic algebra.

I also have my prime counting function which, hey, counts primes!

People used to believe that prime numbers were important to
mathematicians, but wait!

Prime numbers don't mean shit to mathematicians, if I do the research.

So maybe none of it really meant anything at all to you, anyway.

After all, many of you do get paid. You have houses, and wives, and
cars.

You could just be in it for the money.

Who knows?

In a world where people don't know, how can they trust?

You people attacked my paper and got it yanked, when none of you can
cite an error in the paper, and those of you who attack it, like Hall,
Magidin, and Decker throw up a lot of smoke as you work to obsure the
truth.

But, you see, it becomes obvious that mathematicians know how to throw
up a lot of smoke to obscure the truth. If here, why not elsewhere?

Why do I dislike "pure math" so much? I don't dislike pure math, as I
think it's important for intellectual pursuits wherever people might
want to go, but I figured out a while back that what many of you call
"pure math" is just a way to line your own pockets.

Without oversight, cliques develop within, where a paper can get
published in some obscure area just for credit. Students learn how to
get with the "right" group so that they can always get something
published, knowing that no one will really check.

The math world gets ever more corrupt, and no one can check.

The chief editor didn't tell me anything wrong with my paper. The
sci.math posters who emailed didn't even bother to talk about the
arguments in the paper itself, but sent a more convoluted argument, as
they know what works.

It worked on you people.

It didn't matter when I tore Hall's claims apart and showed that he
had a circular argument as you people don't care about the truth. You
don't care.

But that truth comes out, and the world that has supported you, can
stop, and you can pride yourselves on insulting me, as if you won
something, while the funds continue to dry up, as people stop
believing in you.

It's too easy to lie in today's math society. It's too easy for
mathematicians to say what suits them in certain areas, like algebraic
number theory.

It was too easy for those posters to get my paper yanked for
mathematicians to think that people can keep believing.

It's too easy for you to pat yourselves on the back as if all you have
to do is insult me and quickly send emails to journal editors.

You destroy your welfare state as you destroy your credibility.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • My results, concrete and real
    ... you can see a pure math result, ... If you pay attention, you'll notice that evil posters like Arturo ... The lesson to the world is that mathematicians can and will lie about ... to fight my results, they work to fight future results down the line. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors Theory sucks
    ... >>> truth of its axiom systems is not presumed except as a convenient ... > ultimately mere verification of the correctness of if-then statements ... > Pure math only deals with correctness, ... > Pure mathematicians are sort of like the tool makers for those applied ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: My results, concrete and real
    ... "Advanced Polynomial Factorization by James Harris ... > you can see a pure math result, ... > The lesson to the world is that mathematicians can and will lie about ... > to fight my results, they work to fight future results down the line. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Factoring paper is wrong
    ... > Pure math is a sick joke. ... Mathematicians can and will ignore any ... even if you manage to get it past peer review. ... Keep Teddy close at all times and everything will be alright! ...
    (sci.crypt)