Re: My results, concrete and real

From: W. Dale Hall (mailtowd_hall_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 06/17/04 

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:06:22 GMT

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?
>
> That's NOT SANE, it's NOT RATIONAL, it's just not playing by rules.
>
> Anyone can do that Decker.
>
> Someone can jump to the end of Wiles's paper and just say the
> conclusion is wrong.
>
> You can do that to ANY paper!!!
>
> Reviewers tasked with determining the paper's correctness said it was
> correct.
>

This is silly. You make no distinction between an unsupported assertion
and a proof. Of course anyone can assert anything. I can assert that
you killed Santa Claus, but that's not what's happened, now, is it?

It is patently dishonest of you to conflate a demonstration that your
conclusion is in error with a blind assertion of that fact. You know
full well that the algebra is correct, and have found your only
defenses to be: dancing around an alleged "circularity" in the argument
that coprime algebraic integers can have only (algebraic integer) units
as common factors, evil in the hearts of men, and this flimsy excuse of
an argument ("I proved it, so it's correct, so any claim that it's not
correct is bogus").

> 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.
>

Was the paper returned without your ability to address the flaw I
identified? I thought the editors returned it for revision.

> 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!!!!!
>

Jump to the conclusion and, er, PROVE, it's wrong? Can't see the
difference? Why not count the letters... no, "CLAIM" and "PROVE" are
both 5 letters long. Um, Number of consonants vs vowels ...., no,
it's (3,2) for each. Damn! That's some subtle difference between
"CLAIM" and "PROVE", no wonder you can't get the distinction!

> What about the rest of the paper Decker?
>
> Oh wait, you're evil. Why bother worrying about you behaving now?
>

Ah, EEEEVILLLL!!! I get it. It's the battle of good vs. EEEEEEVILLLLLL!

>>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.
>
>
> Relate your claims specifically to my paper. Quit trying to get away
> with being fuzzy.
>

Fuzzy? Your paper specifically states that one of the a's is coprime
to 5. I specifically showed a common non-unit factor between each of
the a's and 5.

> Go in detail, and explicitly define "coprime" as well.
>

        Let R be a commutative ring with unit, and A and B
        ideals of R. Then A and B are coprime in R if every
        ideal containing both A and B is R itself, or
        equivalently, if the sum A+B = R.

        If a and b are elements of R, they are coprime in R
        if the principal ideals Ra and Rb are coprime in R;
        equivalently, a and b are coprime in R if

                1 = ax + by

        for some x and y in R.

> I want people to see the dance.
>
> You can't disprove a proof by attacking the conclusion!
>

Of course you can. What do you think the indirect method of proof
is, anyhow? One assumes some proposition P, and proceeds to prove
that this leads to a contradiction. Thus one deduces P to be false.
In this case, P is the proposition "JSH argument from word 1 to
word N is correct", where N represents the position in your paper
of the end of your "Primary argument".

> The fact that the logical argument is clearly correct should be
> obvious to those of you who are serious mathematicians, as it'd be
> easier with a short paper to not go on and on about other supposed
> proofs against it if you could just attack the logical argument.
>

It is *not* clearly correct. It is clearly *incorrect*, and the prima
facie evidence is the fact that its conclusion is incorrect. Here's a
baby bit of logic:

        Correct Hypotheses & Correct Argument ==> Correct Conclusion.

Note that the contrapositive of this would be:

        False Conclusion ==> Incorrect Hypothesis OR Flawed Argument.

> Math proofs don't duel.
>

Stop it with the sloganeering. You don't know what you're talking about,
so it suddenly comes down to pithy slogans.

> A math proof begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps to a
> conclusion which then MUST BE TRUE!!!
>

Yes. Then if the conclusion is shown false, what do you find out?

> If the logical argument in my paper is correct, yet the conclusion is
> false, then mathematics is inconsistent.
>

Right, and....?

> I don't know why anyone would argue that mathematic is inconsistent,
> as it is NOT, but if you believe people like Decker, Hall and Magidin,
> then you're arguing that mathematics is inconsistent.
>

BZZZZZT!!!! Wrong Answer!

> Why do you think these people stay away from the argument in the
> paper, choosing instead to just declare the conclusion is wrong, and
> claim to have proven that it is wrong?
>

How about it's so vaguely written that no one can figure our what it
must be saying? From my perspective, it's hopelessly vague where it
needs to be precise, and where it is precise, it's precisely irrelevant.

> I've explained enough times what's going on that they must be
> deliberately trying to hide the truth, as well as their insistence
> that mathematics is inconsistent.
>

Yeah, JSH couldn't have made a mistake, now, could he?

How's that batting average, champ? What is it, ZERO?
Oh, I have to allow one small one for the slowest prime counter on the
planet.

> If my paper were wrong, then the logical argument in it would be
> wrong.
>

Yes. We claim that the logical argument is wrong. The demonstration
is that it reaches a conclusion that is demonstrably wrong, easily
seen by anyone who can multiply polynomials.

>
>>>If you pay attention, you'll notice that evil posters like Arturo
>>>Magidin, W. Dale Hall, and Rick Decker DO NOT EVEN TRY!!!!!!!
>>>
>>
>>For the record, I'll state that I'm not, as far as I know, regarded
>>as evil by anyone but you :-) That aside, while it might be nice
>>as a favor to you to point out the line(s) where you err, it's just
>>not worth the effort--your result is false, therefore there's
>>something wrong with your argument. End of story. You may have been
>>shabbily treated by SWJPAM, but that doesn't do anything towards
>>making your argument correct.
>>
>
>
> You have consistently refused to acknowledge the mathematical details
> when I've given them, and insisted on making false claims.
>

I'm sorry, I don't speak gibberish. Every specific, verifiable claim
you've made has been incorrect, yet someone needs to wade through the
nonsense you write, just to spot the loony? You know, if your verifiable
assertions had turned out to be correct, even *some* of the time, that
(i.e., deciphering the morass of text to pluck out the few statements
of mathematics) might not be an unreasonable thing for someone to do.

As far as making false claims, you still don't get it, do you?

> Now you claim you don't have time to consider the actual paper itself?
>

Was the assertion that I refuted made in the paper or not?

> Too busy just attacking the conclusion?
>

Was it part of the paper? Was it, according to your logic, the
logical conclusion of your argument?

If so, then demonstrating its falsity is adequate to show your
argument to be flawed.

> What about all that time you've spent up to now?
>

What? Oh, you're talking to Decker. Have at it, then.

> What about that website you created at Hamilton College?
>
> You're a bad liar Rick Decker, and stupid besides, as fighting math
> proofs is just that, stupid.
>
> So for a while you and your crew got away with it, what makes you
> think that can go on indefinitely?
>

Just what is that supposed to mean? Nothing lasts forever, or
did you forget that part?

>
> James Harris

Dale.

Quantcast