Considering -1 and 1 integer unit condition

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 06/21/04 

Date: 21 Jun 2004 10:59:11 -0700

I've noted that you can set the condition that in a ring the only
integers that are units are -1 and 1 to define that ring.

It turns out that with that definition you can consider a commutative
ring, where -1 and 1 are the only integer units, where you have
members of that ring u_1 and u_2, where

u_1 u_2 = 1

and u_1 is an algebraic integer, but u_2 is not, so u_1 is NOT a unit
in the ring of algebraic integers, though it is in the more inclusive
ring.

I've used that to outline the flaw in the claims of the
Decker-Hall-Magidin cabal, as these posters have continued to refuse
to acknowledge that their claims of error in my work are specious.

It turns out that the condition that -1 and 1 are the only integers
that are units hold in rings like the ring of integers, gaussian
integers, and the ring of algebraic integers.

I've just pointed out that there must be a ring, not itself included
entirely in the ring of algebraic integers, where the condition holds
as well.

However, rather than at least back down a bit, the Decker-Hall-Magidin
cabal just acts like it doesn't matter if they're wrong.

These people have demonstrated that they are evil, that they hate
mathematics, and that they are anti-mathematicians, and you can see
that in their successful email assault against my paper, where their
flawed objections were sent to Ioannis Argyros, who rather than let me
answer, simply withdrew my paper and told me *after* what he'd done:

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

The paper has gone on to another journal which is reviewing it, so
there are more reviewers who are now doing the job that was already
done. People like Hall, Decker, and Magidin just waste other people's
time, as the math does NOT change!!! Consider, yet again, my paper
has gone to a journal, and yet again that journal accepted it for
review, and yet again reviewers are considering it.

People redoing work already done because of your evil cabal.

I want you to pay attention to the facts:

1. I can refute all objections by pointing out a flawed hidden
assumption used by objectors. And better yet, you can just look at
the logic in the paper itself, as unless you believe mathematics is
inconsistent, a correct argument MUST have a correct conclusion.

2. My work passed formal peer review, while the posters here are just
some people on sci.math who post a lot and are willing to email
journal editors to attack a paper.

3. These posters don't even dare to consider the actual argument in
the paper but continue to attack the conclusion.

Obviously part of my purpose in posting is to make certain that no one
can come back later and deny the role of the sci.math newsgroup in all
of this, so that I can make the case for regulating Usenet.

I want laws written to control posters who use spaces like these to
conspire and build gangs willing to do things like assault a correct
paper.

Mathematically, my work cannot be touched, so these people cheated.

And eventually Usenet will be changed as a result.

James Harris

Quantcast