Re: My paper, and the cheaters

From: David Kastrup (dak_at_gnu.org)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:33:08 +0200

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) writes:

> norabaron@hotmail.com (Nora Baron) wrote in message news:<36024859.0409241048.67321029@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> APF starts off talking about factorization *in the algebraic
>> integers*. It never mentions any other ring in which factorization
>> might be done. When you say "two of the a's have a factor that
>> is f", what is the reader supposed to think? That you have
>> suddenly, without any hint, switched to some other domain?
>> Might you have switched to the field of complex numbers, in
>> which all nonzero elements are factors of everything else?
>
>
> The ring of algebraic integers has problems.

Well, sure. For example, not every non-zero member of it has an
inverse. If it could overcome this problem just once, it would have a
field day. Rings that manage in group therapy to overcome their
limitations and manage to come to that state of unity where every yin
has one opposing and balanced yang, are the highest inspiration for
every successor. The most inspiring ones get honored with a Fields
medal.

A fraction of them got that decoration for plain rational work, but it
has not been unheard of that it also got awarded for more complex
units. It's a highly fragile business, anyway: a ring that does not
manage to keep various factors at bay can't hope to get it.

> Even *assuming* you're in the ring, you can be lead out of it by
> some VERY basic algebra, and not even know it!
>
> That's part of the point of the paper, as by the algebra the results
> all follow.
>
> That's why it's a core error.

Good. So you see why it had to be yanked. Because it was, at its
core, in error.

>> You cannot say that something has "a factor that is f" without
>> either defining or implying where the factorization takes place.
>> At the time you wrote APF, it was totally clear that you intended
>> and were implying factorization *in the algebraic integers*.
>
> That's false.

Definitely. I am with you on that one, and Nora Baron should be
ashamed to state such a thing when a _clear_ counterexample has been
presented already: you _did_ say exactly that, so she is wrong to
claim that you cannot say it.

It is plain denial of her to state that you cannot say this. Because
you did, and more than once.

> If you have xy = 2, then it's reasonable to say that x is a factor
> of 2.

Sure.

> Now, if it turns out that you think you're in evens, THEN you have a
> problem.

No. Because the premise was that xy=2. If now both x and y are
supposed to be even, then I have a false premise, and that makes me
free to deduce whatever I want from it. I mean, you should know. You
are the group's expert in deducing things from false premises.

>> Now you are trying to re-write the paper without changing the
>> words.
>>
>> This is not straight. This is not honest. You are trying to pull
>> a fast one because you *now* recognize what you refused to believe
>> when you wrote APF: that a_1 and a_2 in your example polynomial do
>> not have sqrt(5) as a factor *in the algebraic integers*.
>>
>
> You're babbling.

You are hoping to bristle your way out of that one, by offending Nora
to a degree that she will just be pissed off and leave you to your
folly.

It won't work. You are still continuing to lie about your paper, and
nobody is deluded by this. Not even you yourself.

>> > Here's an example to help you out, consider a case where someone gives
>> > you
>> >
>> > xy = 2
>> >
>> > and *says* they're in evens. Well, you know that xy=2 is not in evens
>> > because 2 doesn't factor in evens, but that's what they say.
>> >
>>
>> I am thoroughly sick of your irrelevant brainless little toy
>> analogies. If you have a proof, give it. If you don't, admit
>> it and move on.
>>
>
> It seems to me that you're NOW shifting to the "Nora Baron" that
> I've seen before.
>
> When challenged enough on the specifics you make REALLY LONG POSTS
> and dodge all of the specifics, often simply denigrating arguments.

Now you are bristling like a porcupine. She made a really long post
going to the pain of _addressing_ all of the specifics. And she just
expressed disdain at your half-brained attempts to bluff yourself out
of this with really hare-brained completely pointless analogies.

> My position remains that my work relies on rather basic algebra, and
> it shows that you cannot just operate in the ring of algebraic
> integers without being careful.

It demonstrates that perfectly. Because you were not careful and
arrived at rubbish.

> My paper Advanced Polynomial Factorization has withstood intense
> scrutiny,

Meaning it did not literally burst into flames.

> while posters who fight me cannot find a serious error,

But several. You did not address the simple algebraic refutation of
Hale. Forgot it already? And you have resorted defending yourself
against Nora Baron with kindergarten arguments that are probably just
the last defense of an alcohol-blurred mind admitting defeat.

> and engage in sleazy tactics like that coordinated email campaign
> against my paper, which went against the system of formal peer
> review.

Because you are not their peer?

> You fail as a mathematician "Nora Baron" but succeed in the social
> arena of convincing people.
>
> I like my position better, as I actually do love mathematics.

You love what you project into her, but let me assure you: that bitch
is completely different from what you see in her. 

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ring/field/algebra
    ... >they say a ring is an Abelian group WRT addition and a monoid WRT ... The definition of division algebra also specifies that it is ... > A vector space is itself an abelian group WRT ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: JSH: Resolution now possible
    ... My position is that the definition of the ring of algebraic ... >properly units that are excluded on the technicality that they are not ... >roots of monic polynomials with integer coefficients. ... >out algebra! ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Simple proof
    ... >polynomials with integer coefficients. ... of a unit is defined only with respect to some ring. ... >> commutative algebra) this should be possible in a few lines instead ... No>>sides<< in that discussion just mathematics! ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH: Resolution now possible
    ... My position is that the definition of the ring of algebraic ... properly units that are excluded on the technicality that they are not ... roots of monic polynomials with integer coefficients. ... out algebra! ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Some number theory
    ... > It turns out that my work on advanced polynomial factorization ... > factor, while one is coprime to 2, in the ring of algebraic integers. ... why fight algebra? ...
    (sci.math)