JSH: Attacking the conclusion

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 06/17/04 

Date: 17 Jun 2004 09:13:47 -0700

ANYONE can attack any math paper by just going to the conclusion and
claiming it's wrong.

It's a cheat. It's a dodge. It's specious.

Claims of counterexamples against my work have by me repeatedly been
shown to be false.

In every case posters rely on a circular argument which basically
relies on the ring of algebraic integers not having the problem I've
proven it has.

Here's basically how it goes:

There are numbers that should properly be considered factors of 1.

However, in the ring of algebraic integers, these numbers are NOT
factors of 1.

Note: I did not say that they should be considered factors of 1 in
the ring of algebraic integers.

That's the problem. That is, the problem is that these numbers
provably should be considered to be factors of 1, and finding a ring
where they are is not even hard.

They are factors of 1 in a ring made up of numbers such that only 1
and -1 are integers units, which includes algebraic integers, and
other numbers besides them.

That's it. You have a ring where only 1 and -1 are integer units,
where that's the principal defining characteristic and you can show
that some irrational units in that ring, are not algebraic integers.

Simple.

But, when attacking my work, posters like Hall, Magidin, and Decker
assert that because these numbers are not units in the ring of
algebraic integers i.e. factors of 1 in that ring, then I must be
wrong.

But I've proven that I'm right using rather basic algebra.

That algebra shows that there is a ring of numbers where -1 and 1 are
the only integer units that is indeed LARGER than the ring of
algebraic integers.

That's it. That's the amazing conclusion that mathematicians have
been running from for so long.

It's actually kind of a neat fact.

James Harris