Re: My results, concrete and real

From: Rick Decker (rdecker_at_hamilton.edu)
Date: 06/17/04 

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:11:55 -0400

James Harris wrote:

> Rick Decker <rdecker@hamilton.edu> wrote in message news:<40D0EB10.3070108@hamilton.edu>...
>
>>James Harris wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>The error is, quoting here
>>
>> [G]iven the factorization, in the ring of algebraic integers,
>>
>> 65x^2 - 12x + 1 = (a_1 x + 1)(a_2 x + 1)(a_3 x + 1)
>>
>> one of the a's is coprime to 5.
>>
>
> That's the conclusion.
>
> How in the hell do you claim to attack a math proof by just jumping to
> the end of a paper which has the proof, and just say the conclusion is
> wrong?

I'll give you an example from history. Fermat claimed that for any
integer n >= 0, 2^(2^n) + 1 was prime. Now admittedly he stated this
as a conjecture and never claimed he had a proof, but suppose that
you, like Frenicle de Bessy in the 1640s, claimed to have one. Now
let me play Euler; would I even need to read de Bessy's proof to
know it was wrong? Of course not; not if I knew that for n = 5,
2^32 + 1 = 641 * 6700417.

>
> That's NOT SANE, it's NOT RATIONAL, it's just not playing by rules.
>

What rule is that? I doubt Euler felt he was violating any rule in 1739.

 
> Anyone can do that Decker.
>
> Someone can jump to the end of Wiles's paper and just say the
> conclusion is wrong.
>

Yes, one could, if one had a Fermat counterexample in hand.

 
> You can do that to ANY paper!!!
>

You can do that to any paper that claims a conclusion you know
to be false, yes.

> Reviewers tasked with determining the paper's correctness said it was
> correct.
>

If there were indeed any such reviewers, they were wrong. Mistakes
sometimes happen, after all.

 
> The paper was properly to be published, but sci.math posters,
> including you, conspired in public against it, coming up with the idea
> of an email campaign, which worked with the chief editor Ioannis
> Argyros, who panicked, and immediately yanked the paper, never even
> giving me a chance to defend against the sci.math email assault.
>
> It's just so stupid that you people have gotten away with your stupid
> behavior for so long when you JUST JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION AND CLAIM
> IT'S WRONG!!!!!
>

*sigh* People aren't just claiming it's wrong for the heck of it.
They've SHOWN that it's wrong. There have been three different
demonstrations of this over the past two years. Didn't you read
the next paragraph I had written?

 
<snip>

This one:

 
>>In fact, each of the a's has an algebraic integer non-unit factor
>>in common with 5. Arturo showed this in 2002, Bill Dubuque showed
>>it in a different way in 2003 and also in 2003 Dale produced
>>explicit values for the common factors. It's not as if you were
>>unaware of these posts; you responded to two of them.
>>

<snip>

Regards,

Rick

Relevant Pages
Loading