My results, concrete and real

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

Date: 16 Jun 2004 14:53:40 -0700

If you go to my blog

http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

you can see a pure math result, beautiful and rather fascinating.

If you go to

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

you can see where a *short* paper on algebraic integers was
successfully censored by a coordinated email attack by some of *your*
sci.math posters who some of you have claimed are such wonderful
people.

I found a way to count prime numbers and LOOK AT IT and then look at
the literature and see if you can find it there. It's short, it's
concise and it counts prime numbers.

It uses a partial difference equation like no other.

My paper on algebraic integers uses BASIC ALGEBRA, and it passed peer
review.

No human being on this planet has ever shown an error in that paper.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that evil posters like Arturo
Magidin, W. Dale Hall, and Rick Decker DO NOT EVEN TRY!!!!!!!

The reason there's debate about any of these results is that they are
pure math results.

If I could only just figure out a way to factor big numbers there'd be
no debate, as that's a practical result.

Don't any of you see that at the end of the day, no matter how long it
takes, when the correct mathematics wins as should happen that
mathematicians pay the price for any delay?

The lesson to the world is that mathematicians can and will lie about
pure math results. That all that talk about beauty and the joy of
math for its own sake is just talk.

I've sent a version of that paper that passed peer review by Barry
Mazur, who commented on it, not saying he said it was ok, but he
didn't point out any error. But where is he now?

Andrew Granville got a version and passed up on the decision of
publication referring it to his chief editor at the New York Journal
of Mathematics, who claimed it didn't fit their format!

Are you people so stupid that you don't think there's a price to pay
for such shenanigans?

Or don't you believe you'll ever have your day? Do NONE of you
believe that you will ever have your own significant results? Do NONE
of you believe that you'll ever have research you want the world to
notice?

If you do then you'll stop people like Magidin, Hall and Decker,
people who probably know they'll never have that day, and as they work
to fight my results, they work to fight future results down the line.

They work to make sure that people around the world learn not to
believe mathematicians.

My results are concrete and real. Like my prime counting function
freaking counts primes!!!

You can LOOK AT IT at

http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/

and ask yourself if you really want to be the black spot in
mathematical history, with mathematicians in the future cursing your
names and existence as they fight, like I'm fighting now, to be
believed when they have correct and important math results.

James Harris

Loading