Re: JSH: At the Annals

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: 27 Nov 2004 16:40:00 -0800

norabaron@hotmail.com (Nora Baron) wrote in message news:<36024859.0411270853.2ba809f6@posting.google.com>...
> jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.0411261929.c12368a@posting.google.com>...
> > norabaron@hotmail.com (Nora Baron) wrote in message news:<36024859.0411261359.2d76fb15@posting.google.com>...
> > > jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.0411241724.4bdd326a@posting.google.com>...
> > > > I basically looked over the paper Advanced Polynomial Factorization,
> > > > considered all the arguments and various comments from journals,
> > > > editors and various people I've talked to about it, and rewrote and
> > > > renamed it.
> > > >
> > > > The result went to the Annals, which accepted it for review.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, I'm not concerned about sci.math posters coming later and
> > > > trashing the journal and yes I'm assuming few problems. After all,
> > > > I've gone over every step in the argument repeatedly to quite a few
> > > > people, from Barry Mazur, to Ralph McKenzie at my alma mater
> > > > in-person, to, yes, Usenet posters.
> > > >
> > > > There is no error.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm. See below ...
> > >
> > >
> > > > And also, I'm not terribly concerned about how it will be handled by
> > > > reviewers because I have so much information from what happened with
> > > > the older paper.
> > > >
> > > > Essentially, it's over, but I'm sure many of you will cherish your
> > > > ability to continue to badmouth my work and act as if it's nothing for
> > > > as long as you can because that's really all you can do at this point.
> > > >
> > > > I have included non-polynomial factorization, stepped out each step,
> > > > and noted the conflict with what follows from the ring of algebraic
> > > > integers, and noted it as an error within the discipline.
> > > >
> > > > The paper is quite solid.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is?
> > >
> > > I just wonder if you have revised it before it was submitted
> > > to the Annals. I mean, in the version which you posted
> > > very recently with A. Beckwith as a co-author, toward the end
> > > you say
> > >
> > > "Now letting m = 1, f = sqrt(5), where I can let u = 1 as
> > > its value doesn't change the a's, I have
> > >
> > > (m^3 f^6 - 3 m^2 f^4 + 3m) x^3 - 3(-1 + m f^2) x u^2 + u^3
> > >
> > > = 65 x^3 - 12 x + 1."
> > >
> > > But if you actually substitute m = 1, f = sqrt(5), u = 1
> > > into the left side, you get
> > >
> > > 53 x^3 - 12 x + 1,
> > >
> > > so that cannot be right.
> > >
> > > So you must have changed that part, huh?
> > >
> > > Of course, if you go back farther in the paper, you see that
> > > you define
> > >
> > > P(x) = f^2 [(m^3 f^4 - 3 m^2 f^2 + 3m) x^3
> > >
> > > - 3 (-1 + mf^2) x u^2 + u^3 f],
> > >
> > > and if you substitute m = 1, f = sqrt(5), u = 1 into THIS,
> > > you get
> > >
> > > P(x) = 65 x^3 - 60 x + 5 sqrt(5) = 5(13 x^3 - 12 x + sqrt(5)),
> > >
> > > so that doesn't work either. Hmm. I wonder what you and
> > > Beckwith actually meant to say here!?
> > >
> > > Maybe the Annals can figure it out for you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Andrzej.
> > >
> >
> > And I thought that "Nora Baron" might be David Ullrich.
> >
>
> What ??? I thought he was Wilma Scranton!
>
> > How many of you knew? Better yet, how many of you guys thought the
> > poster was actually a woman, eh?
> >
> > You really don't know women if you did, now do you?
> >
>
> You have it wrong. 'Andrzej' is fictional.
>

Really? So what was your purpose in ending with that name?

Possibly you didn't do it deliberately but screwed up, as it's easy to
type one's own name, now isn't it?

And now wish to try and recover?

How stupid do you think the undergrad readers are?

(Sci.math readers are very gullible as long as posters disagree with
me, they seem willing to believe just about anything!)

> 'His' math, however, is not. It's clear you read to the
> end of 'his' message. I note no substantive response. My
> guess is, the version of 'APF' you have submitted to the
> Annals still contains the dimwit error to which 'Andrzej' refers.
> Further, I would guess you knew it even before it was
> submitted, and in any case you are not withdrawing it. Why
> otherwise would you continue to post the erroneous version
> by yourself and A. Beckwith? How stupid do you think Annals
> editors are?
>

Hos stupid do you think readers are?

You lie just as I said you lie, and now people can see it now with
this question about whether or not you're a guy or a girl.

What's clear is that you are a liar.

As for my paper, I think the editors of the Annals can do their jobs,
so why should you worry about it?

Are you scared "Nora Baron"/"Andrzej"?

I mean, after all, the paper is at a journal. Why worry about it now?

> Thus your paper with Beckwith is a lie, compounded by your refusal
> to even try to fix it.
>
> The error that 'Andrzej' points out is not the main one.
>
> It's likely too you have read to the end of *my* message
> in this same thread. Several people now, very likely including
> yourself, understand what your central error is in 'APF':
> misuse of your own definition of "constant term". Yet you
> continue to maintain the lie that the paper has no error.
> The fact is, if that erroneous part is removed, there is nothing left:
> no lemma, no partial result, no mathematics worth mentioning.
>

You need to read my post "JSH: Understanding constant terms" and, in
fact, if you have the *balls* to do it you can try to point out an
error in it!!!

I mean, come on guy, you're a complete joke now!

Think about all those posters who would come back to defend you when
I'd tear into you, when they thought you were a girl, when you are a
guy, playing a girl!

Now maybe some of them would like to tear into you, eh?

> You either know this already, or you are lying to yourself.
> I would guess the latter.
>
> Nora B.
>

Ah, so this time you remembered to put "Nora B.", and have decided to
let "Andrzej" be the fictional character?

I can guess why, as I'm sure "Andrzej" will decide to retire from
posting, for some odd reason, eh?

Some of you readers out there are really dumb clods to be taken in by
this fellow posting as two different people--one male, one female.

But, like I've said, you're ruled by your emotions.

You need to learn to be ruled by logic, and hey, just because you
think you're part of some big gang here on sci.math where you're
backing each other up against the interloper--me--you don't know these
people.

They are not really your friends.

James Harris