Re: Long threads, tactics

From: Nora Baron (norabaron_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/16/04 

Date: 15 Oct 2004 17:06:15 -0700

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.0410141816.4c5f47c4@posting.google.com>...
> If you look over the thread where I've been working on another paper
> you'll see a good reason for creating new threads.
>
> That one is now coming up on a 100 posts, with a lot of them coming
> from people who spend a lot of their time on Usenet trying to obscure
> what I'm saying.
>
> They do this deliberately, and it's an effective tactic.
>
> I've checked in various ways to watch interest in my work as it works
> its way around the world, as I move Google search results. As I post
> here Google and also Yahoo search results shift, so I watch them, and
> I can sort of map how effective some of these posters are.
>
> Real mathematicians would want to get to the bottom and find out
> what's true, but these people are practiced at trying to control what
> you think on the subject.
>
> If you didn't know it's worth mentioning that Erik Max Francis, a
> person who put up an insulting but popular webpage--according to
> Google which ranks it now about 9 for the name "James Harris"--used to
> post a lot on sci.math, and by now you should know about the
> sci.math'ers who got together to send emails and censor my paper out
> of an electronic math journal.
>
> These people are serious, and they have been practicing for years, as
> have I.
>
> As of now, I do more than move Google search results, as what I say
> gets read by quite a few people worldwide and it travels.
>
> Kids read it, adults read it. People who think read what I say.
> They're learning more about how even the math world is corrupted in
> ways they're seeing all over the world in many places, from Catholic
> priests, to businesses, to politics.
>
> They're a new generation, and they're learning rapidly.
>
> And what people arguing with me say, travels.
>
> The words weave their way out from here, and I can watch the war as it
> progresses around the globe, in waves, as attacks and battles play
> out.
>
> It's a fascinating struggle with me on one side and a dedicated group
> of people on the other, and they're not stupid people.
>

  This is new!

> By myself I have had to slowly slog through in what is basically a war
> of attrition, and part of that war is moving on when a thread gets
> clogged up by these people.
>
> Tomorrow I'll be looking at Google search results again to see how
> they've moved.
>
> Now, as I've put out this latest flurry of postings, they're moving on
> a day by day basis.
>
> It's that big. The impact on the math field is like nothing that has
> ever come before, and even at the fringes, like replies from obsessive
> posters, the impact is already worldwide.
>
> It's like a growing hurricane.
>

  This is simply delusional. It's more like a tempest in a mudpuddle.

>
> James Harris

  You have systematically run away from the core argument, which
centers around your idea of "constant terms" of a function. Here
is how your "logic" goes:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

      1. Define the *constant term* of any function h(m) to be h(0).
 
      2. Assume v_1(m) and a_1(m) are functions of m. The function
          a_1(m) is known to be nonconstant, and a_1(0) = 0. The
          function v_1(m) may or may not be nonconstant. We know that
          v_1(0) = f, a prime integer.. Your goal is to show that v_1(m)
          must be constant.
 
      3. Consider g_1(m) = a_1(m)*x + uf, where u and f are constant
          with respect to m.
 
      4. Define h(m) = g_1(m)/v_1(m). Then the constant term of
          h(m) clearly must be uf/v_1(m), since uf is obviously
          the constant term of g_1(m). On the other hand, the
          constant term of h(m) by definition must be

               h(0) = uf/v_1(0)= uf/f = u..
          
          This is a constant which is independent of m.
 
          Therefore v_1(m) must be a constant function. Therefore
          it must equal v_1(0) = f for all m.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------:

  You may argue that I have not represented your argument correctly.
There is a crucial step above with which you may not agree. That
is in item 4, where it says

    "Then the constant term of h(m) clearly must be uf/v_1(m)."

  Perhaps you think I am misrepresenting your logic in that step.

  But here is a direct quote from what you said on Oct 10 in a
post in another thread:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  "Well, let's put that to the test "Nora Baron" and see if the
   algebra reaches you.

   Consider a_1 x + uf, and you claim it has a factor that is v_1(m)
   that varies with m, now just divide through by that factor and
   you get

      a_1 x/v_1(m) + uf/v_1(m)

   and you can see that the term constant with respect to m is
   now uf/v_1(m)."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Those are YOUR words. YOU say the "constant term" is uf/v_1(m).

  The rest of your "logic" is, I believe, correctly represented
in steps 1-4 above.

  
  If you disagree, please say why. If you DON'T disagree, then
we should have a discussion about definitions ...

************************************************************************

  Now look back over what you have written above. There is no
math. It is nothing but propaganda, aimed at some imaginary
audience from which you want sympathy. Look back over my
reply. It is math. It focuses on a central part of your
argument. It is brief and self-contained. You could try
responding to it, but I think you won't. You prefer the windy
propaganda route. You keep wondering why the rest of us are
effective and you are not. You think, we have some kind of
authority that you don't. People believe us because we are
Professional Mathematicians, whereas you are an Amateur. You
think, we know the lingo and can use it to pull the wool over
people's eyes. You think, we all get together and agree on a
party line that is designed to shut you, the upstart amateur,
out. You think we are jealous of your raw talent. You think we
want to protect the math status quo. You think you are the mis-
understood genius, and we want to suppress you because
you threaten our jobs, etc.

  All this is fantasy. We do not conspire. We do not
resent or fear amateurs. We do not convince people by
snow-jobs and language. We are not jealous of your raw
talent: you are not Gauss or Dedekind or Wiles. If people
believe us more than they believe you, it is because they
recognize sound arguments when they see them and they recognize
hand-waving and evasion when they see it. Most people have
pretty good built-in B.S. detectors. They clearly see you run
away from arguments. They see you whine and brag and pontificate.
They see you gloat over imagined victories of your "math" over
ours, of having "broken" one or the other of your opponents.
They see you brand anyone who dares to disagree with you as a
liar. They see you going farther and farther into a la-la
land of self-delusion, fantasy, and bitterness.

  Face the math head-on Face up to the fact that you have not,
and cannot, find an example where Galois theory breaks down.
Face up to the gaping hole in your "constants are constant"
argument. Face up to Dale Hall's computations, rather than
continuing to promote your quack claim that he is making
a hidden assumption. Face up to the fact that there are at
least 4 *independent* proofs that your main claim in APF is wrong
and that we have pointed out a wild leap off the end of the
pier right in the middle of what you think is a "proof". Stop
saying no one has pointed out a major error; it has occurred
many times.

  Try being honest, not with us, but with yourself. If it
turns out in the end that you have been wrong, accept it
and move on. Start over if you want, or consider getting
out of math. Continuing to lie to yourself is a mug's game
and eventually you will pay a heavy price. The longer you
extend the lie, the higher that price will be.

  Nora B.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Long threads, tactics
    ... >I've checked in various ways to watch interest in my work as it works ... as I move Google search results. ... >of an electronic math journal. ... >The words weave their way out from here, and I can watch the war as it ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Long threads, tactics
    ... > I've checked in various ways to watch interest in my work as it works ... > its way around the world, as I move Google search results. ... > of an electronic math journal. ... > The words weave their way out from here, and I can watch the war as it ...
    (sci.math)
  • Long threads, tactics
    ... I've checked in various ways to watch interest in my work as it works ... of an electronic math journal. ... As of now, I do more than move Google search results, as what I say ... The words weave their way out from here, and I can watch the war as it ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: abundance of irrationals!)
    ... >> If TO can't hack math, nobody is forcing him into it. ... > upon close strutiny are inherently inconsistent, ... As to the reality of mathematics, I take a moderately Platonic view. ... I do not disagree. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Sociological/Psychological Phenomenon
    ... > that they have no competence. ... > What is it about math in particular, ... Mathematics is a purely abstract endeavor that can be done ... are _you_ competent enough to tell the bumbling amateur from the ...
    (sci.crypt)