Re: Math discovery versus math society
mensanator_at_aol.compost
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "JSH: Still hoping?"
- Previous message: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: surrogate factoring eqns are wrong"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Math discovery versus math society"
- Next in thread: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Feb 2005 15:55:42 -0800
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> I am on my fourth major mathematical discovery. It is a new way to
> factor integers. Mathematicians have so far managed to avoid
properly
> acknowledging all four of my discoveries.
>
> I am an amateur mathematician. About three years ago I started on a
> burst of creativity which has produced four major mathematical
> discoveries. Before that I had over four years of failures, some of
> them kind of big, as I'd proclaim I had wonderful simple proofs of
> Fermat's Last Theorem, only to eventually find out I was wrong.
>
> What I learned from public humiliation, and outright failure that
> happened more than once, is in mathematics, wishes don't make truth,
> great desire does not mean you are right, and if you are wrong, then
> you are just wrong.
>
> When you are wrong mathematically, it does not change. Giving it a
> couple of days won't make it where you are right. Denial is just a
> waste of time.
>
> Two of my four results are without debate in terms of actually
working,
> but they are debated in terms of how important they are.
>
> I have repeatedly brought up one, which is a formula that counts
prime
> numbers.
>
> There is no debate about whether or not the formula works.
>
> Math people just keep claiming it's not important.
>
> Now I have a set of equations with which you can factor:
>
> Ax= Az(-Az +/- sqrt((Az - 2M^2)^2 - 4TM^2))/(2j^2 - 2Az)
>
> Az= Ax(-Ax +/- sqrt((Ax - 2j^2)^2 + 4Tj^2))/(2M^2 - 2Ax)
>
> where T = M^2 - j^2.
>
> Here you have a two equations defining rationals Ax and Az, where M
is
> the number to be factored and j is an integer you pick to try and
> factor it.
>
> They do work, if you can pick a rational Ax.
>
> So, at this point, I'm not doing so well picking that rational Ax, so
> the math people are jumping up and down, getting excited, and
claiming
> my result is not important, yet again.
>
> Um, it's a new factoring method, at a base level, at such a base
level
> that no factoring method at this level has been discovered in
> centuries.
>
> Yeah, I can't quite get it to factor really big numbers yet (like
> hundrds of digit numbers but I can factor smaller numbers) but it's
new
> factoring method.
>
> Supposedly mathematicians care about such things.
>
> One of the four results that is not so easily demonstrated, as a
prime
> counting formula, or a new way to factor, I wrote up in a paper, and
> sent to a math journal, which after NINE FREAKING MONTHS, told me
they
> liked the paper and would publish.
>
> Well someone posted that they were publishing my paper on the
sci.math
> newsgroup, and some sci.math'ers promptly began attacking the journal
> and its editors in posts, talking about how horrible they were, etc.,
> and THEN some of them decided it would be a good idea to send emails
> challenging my paper.
>
> Well I got an email the NEXT FREAKING DAY from the chief editor of
the
> journal who told me that publication was a mistake, and then he
claimed
> that he'd accidentally told me the paper was accepted, but included
in
> his email text posted by a sci.math'er the day before.
>
> Then they just yanked my paper.
>
> An electronic journal so for those of you who have thought about
using
> those, consider this experience. Some editor can try to just yank a
> paper.
>
> They didn't even leave anything there at first, so the pages were all
> off, and eventually they settled on saying it was withdrawn:
>
> http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html
>
> And that's from a math journal, when maybe you thought math people
> followed freaking rules.
>
> That journal no longer exists. I don't know exactly why, but they
just
> quietly shut down, though you can see what was in the journal from
its
> mirrors which are still up.
>
> Weird math society. Freaking journal shuts down, its main website
GONE
> but you can still see it on freaking mirrors.
>
> So what do you do?
>
> You're an amateur mathematician, got major mathematical results, lots
> of people on Usenet hate you and will email, get a paper shut down,
> what do you do?
>
> I don't know what you'd do, as you're not freaking me, but I re-wrote
> the goddamn paper and sent it to a BIGGER journal.
>
> That journal is at Princeton. The editor in charge of the section
that
> has my paper is Andrew Wiles.
Is that the same guy you've been calling a liar?
>
> I'm not freaking worried about freaking sci.math'ers and stupid
emails
> with this goddamn paper!
Do you have his e-mail address?
>
> So yeah, it's great being me in many ways. I can peruse my own
> research into prime numbers, or deep properties of algebraic
integers,
> or play with my own method for factoring--trying to figure out how to
> get the goddamn thing to work!!!
>
> But also, there are the negatives, the people still calling me names,
> priding themselves on putting me down, feeling like they're doing
> something with their hostile postings, and their webpages.
>
> Hell! Life is something, eh?
>
> ...It's about time. History shows that what's happening now is what
> happens with truly massive discoveries, as they so upset the status
> quo.
>
> And don't yap about Einstein or some other discoverer who supposedly
> didn't go through this crap, as I have read the history thoroughly,
and
> you don't know as much as you think if you think even Einstein had an
> easy going.
>
> Besides, I'm no Einstein. I'm some guy who found out that there were
> these relatively simple equations and formulas that the math people
> missed, and I didn't.
>
> But they want to make me hurt for it.
>
> I say, screw them. I'll outlast them. And someday I'll dance on
their
> graves.
>
>
> James Harris
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "JSH: Still hoping?"
- Previous message: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: surrogate factoring eqns are wrong"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Math discovery versus math society"
- Next in thread: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
