Re: More math stuff, truth and social reality

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 03/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:00:02 -0600

On 7 Mar 2005 04:10:44 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:

>One thing that I learned from my misadventures and adventures in the
>area of amateur pursuit of mathematical discoveries is that the truth
>doesn't help you much.
>
>There are any number of ways I can demonstrate the validity and
>importance of my work across a number of areas, from prime number
>research to advanced algebraic number theory, to now, factoring, where
>the math people have basically set up one criteria to block the proofs:
>
>They deny.
>
>To break through, notice, I have to have the best and fastest out
>there.
>
>If I can't *personally* build the fastest prime counting function ever,
>they act like my work should be dismissed.
>
>If I can't factor better than anything else out there, they act like my
>factoring research should be ignored.
>
>With research where I can't so easily demonstrate, like with my other
>work in algebraic number theory, they just change the rules, so I get a
>paper published in a small electronic math journal, and most math
>people ignore it, while the sci.math'ers band together to email the
>journal!!!
>
>The journal breaks basic academic rules and yanks my paper, at first
>with no mention of it, only later saying it was "Withdrawn" which could
>actually mislead some people into thinking I withdrew it, when the
>editors of the journal did.
>
>Now that journal shut down, and the sci.math'ers talked as if it were
>nothing, as if it were the most normal damn thing in the world,

That's a blatant lie. You know very well that the near unanimous
opinion is that the journal should not have withdrawn that paper
after accepting it. Instead they should have published someone's
refutation.

>because
>the truth is not what these people care about, at all.
>
>Before I came along you may have naively thought that if some guy, even
>if you thought he was a bit obnoxious, came along and found his own
>prime counting function then that would be news.
>
>Not in today's math world, where mathematicians tell you they decide
>what's important or not.
>
>Before I came along, an amateur mathematician getting a math paper
>published showing a major result would have been news.
>
>That paper being yanked under email pressure from Usenet posters would
>have been news as well.
>
>A new paper covering that original result and more ending up at
>Princeton to be reviewed would have been news as well.
>
>But the math people come forward and post about how all the facts just
>make *me* look crazy.

No, what makes you look crazy is the way you go on about how
there Will be Consequences if your work is not Accepted.

>Somehow according to them, each and every detail
>can be explained away to the negative so that there's nothing at all to
>my research,

That's exactly correct.

>nothing of importance in anything I do, and oh yeah,
>shouldn't I just quit posting?

I for one have suggested that you quit posting only when you
start complaining about how everyone calls you a crackpot.

>But it's Usenet for God's sake! The math people changed the rules here
>too so that they can tell posters whether to even post or not!!!

_You_ have many times explicitly told people not to post replies
in "your" threads.

And _you_ are the _only_ person I've ever seen actually take
concrete steps in an attempt to force someone to stop posting.

>And
>they act like that's just normal as well!!!
>
>It doesn't matter what the area, if they want something then they say
>that's logical, reasonable, and the way it should be, despite what's
>actually a value, like posting and not just commanding other posters,
>on Usenet.
>
>They are not rational. They make up their own rules, and then break
>them as they see fit. The math people are not who you think they are.
>
>Notice we're talking about *mathematics*

Yes.

>where I have actual proof,

No.

>including mathematical proofs, which the math people blithely ignore,
>and then they lie about just about everything, and they keep getting
>away with it.
>
>You have no security, no foundation in the belief that the truth can
>help you when it comes to situations where a LOT of powerful people
>don't want to accept that truth.
>
>Look around you people. Look at how many things are debated into the
>ground despite the evidence.
>
>And look at how rarely the truth matters in today's world.
>
>
>James Harris

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

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • More math stuff, truth and social reality
    ... the math people have basically set up one criteria to block the proofs: ... the truth is not what these people care about, ... where mathematicians tell you they decide ... published showing a major result would have been news. ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH: Math people ARE different
    ... To me arguing comes naturally in the search for truth as people have ... The big surprise for me from the math community was figuring out that ... those so that the journals editions--and the papers published in it ... a lot of mathematicians are currently doing research. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Definition of truth
    ... Western and Eastern culture, and we both agree the truth ... produced by math or logic is "true." ... mathematicians have come up with some some ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • JSH: desperately clinging on
    ... JSH vs. Ullrich ... mathematicians who may now realize that the proof is correct can get ... postings are creating such frenetic activity from Magidin and now you ... My position has been and remains that you *must* tell the truth or be ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Statement of the problem
    ... they can no longer be trusted to tell the truth even about mathematics ... you to move to a partial differential equation, and mathematicians can ... used to count prime numbers by summing a partial difference equation, ... If academia has gone to "publish or perish" to such an extent that any ...
    (sci.physics)