JSH: Trivially easy math

The clever thing you can say about the mathematical ideas I use is that
I figured out a way to put algebraic functions that give roots to a
cubic opposite constants in such a way that the functions are forced to
have a factor based on those constants.

The gist of how it works is already known to you as polynomial factors
contain simple functions:

P(x) = x^2 + 3x + 2 = (x+1)(x+2)

has two polynomial factors that have linear functions plus the constant
terms as you have x, which is a function of x, and next to it 1 or 2.

Multiply by 7, and you can do it an INFINITE NUMBER OF WAYS but you are
compelled to pick ONE WAY to show the factorization, like

7P(x) = 7(x^2 + 3x + 2) = (7x+7)(x+2)

as that is just one way where I multiplied the first polynomial factor
by 7.

So yeah, the mathematical ideas I use are basic, and notice that the
distributive property is how you know how to multiply an expression
like that by 7.

If I started with

7P(x) = 7(x^2 + 3x + 2) = (7x+7)(x+2)

notice that it is FORCED that setting x=0 to clear out functions of x,
will reveal that only the first factor was multiplied by 7 and that is
NOT a special case!!!

It doesn't change at x=1, or x=6, or x=8347837. You know that many
ways, where one is to see it, but it's also possible to prove it.

Simplest thing is to note that the constants are, constant, and
independent of x.

Some of you, with my equations, seemed to fall into the trap of
thinking that functions can force constants, when you should know it's
the other way around, as constants are immutable.

They are constant. The number 2 is a bit more powerful in ways you can
say than the symbol x, as the 2 is just 2, while the x can change.

Given

x+2 = 3

it is the constants that force x, and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Functions don't force constants. Constants force functions.

The real story here is not difficulty in understanding the mathematics.

What really bugged me was not so much the refusal of this newsgroup to
accept the truth, as hey, you're a group, and you display group
behavior, but the mathematicians I contacted, like Barry Mazur, and
especially Andrew Granville and Ralph McKenzie didn't react right.

I still wonder what were they thinking?

Whether it's soon or this story continues for a while longer with the
math community in denial, eventually it comes out. It's just too
dramatic with a dying journal, easy math, and big claims going under
like the tanking of Wiles's claims of having proven FLT for it to last
much longer.

But those people could have been heroes at the beginning instead of
dragged down as scoundrels at the end.

I mean, like whether you realize it or not, at a MINIMUM they will lose
their academic positions, but it could get much worse, when they could
have done the right thing, and had their place in the history books as
heroes instead of zeroes.

Andrew Granville is the big puzzle to me, as I ended up contacting him
on multiple issues as I also contacted him about my prime counting
research--which also incidentally is HUGE in terms of its mathematical
impact, especially on the Riemann Hypothesis--and he deferred on my
paper to his chief editor, but that's no cover.

More than anyone else I see him as right in front of a train when he
could just step off the tracks, save his career, and still emerge
relatively unscathed.

Yup. He can do the right thing now.

I have results all over number theory now in multiple areas. You
people will probably do your group think indefinitely, but you're
hoping that no one checks thoroughly and there are probably some people
who will check thoroughly who will see personal gain--in outing you.

It's about time, money and power, as increasingly, I am the one with
the high ground and the real power here, while with each day, yours
diminishes. So increasingly, I get to make things move just by saying
a few things.

When I post now the math world has to tremble, even if it does so
quietly, hoping that no one else notices.

I think you people will fight to the end, until the ground is sold
right from under you, as it's not like I will tell you when it's over.
What motivation would I have?

I could be talking to mathematicians right now, on the inside, while
posting to you now, without you having a clue of going's on, and since
I said that, I'll also add, I'm not.

It's still quiet. So far there isn't any indication of movement from
the math community.

But, that could change, and you people will probably be the last to
know.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • JSH: Unfair burden
    ... Surrogate factoring is my answer to a math community that does not ... Mathematicians are still fighting to ignore my research which pushes ... IN answer I get lies about even the most basic mathematics so that the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Take a breath
    ... I rather doubt "the leadership in the math community" finds any comfort ... in my USENET posts. ... The world has shifted in its trust of mathematicians. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Take a breath
    ... I rather doubt "the leadership in the math community" finds any comfort ... The world has shifted in its trust of mathematicians. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Take a breath
    ... I rather doubt "the leadership in the math community" finds any comfort ... The world has shifted in its trust of mathematicians. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud
    ... Let's say that down the line someone proves that surrogate factoring ... Your prime counting function works fine. ... But mathematicians have said it's not important, ... But the math community ignores it or posters on sci.math say it's not ...
    (sci.math)