JSH: Closer to the Edge of Distributive Factoring

In looking at postings now where people are still arguing against the
distributive property I see many of you using techniques that you
clearly think are valid, which I shoot down with a very short logical
argument.

Yet you keep putting them up.

Let me tell you a story.

When I was in college I was reading through a physics text and noticed
something looked wrong. I looked it over a couple of times and went to
my professor with it.

Turned out, I was right, the book was wrong.

I think few of you arguing with me over the distributive property could
ever accomplish the feat of finding an error in a textbook because you
seem to be trusting souls who learned stuff that you hold onto even
when it's been proven wrong.

Sorry, but human beings are fallible creatures--they make mistakes.

Now that I have an even simpler proof that I am right, where I can
focus people on the complex plane where they lose factor arguments, you
will see posters turning away from math in their posts to simply make
social commentary, flaming me.

You can have been taught something that is quite wrong, used it for
years, and only now run into the wall of a mathematical proof that just
yanks it away from you.

Some people can handle the truth. Others cannot.

My analysis is that a LOT of what mathematicians teach today is just
bogus stuff that has to do with arbitrary human needs, often needs of
the moment.

It's like you think that mathematics is something you create, and that
it is just a tool for human interests, and has no outside validity, so
if you want, you can just make up rules!!!

Sorry, but correct mathematics is actually logical where conclusions
follow logically from basic axioms.

If you make up rules that run into contradictions with logic and those
basic axioms, then your rules are wrong, not mathematics.

It's not your creation, and people make mistakes.

A lot of you have been taught wrong.

That's life. Learn the correct techniques if you can, or refuse and
hold on to things that don't work.

The mathematical truth doesn't change, and it doesn't care what you do.

It never did, and it never will.


My analysis is that a LOT of what mathematicians teach today is just
bogus stuff that has to do with arbitrary human needs, often needs of
the moment.

It's like you think that mathematics is something you create, and that
it is just a tool for human interests, and has no outside validity, so
if you want, you can just make up rules!!!

So you get more of posts that are just flames, but are intelligent,
well written flames that sound sort of sensible, to convince that I'm
just some deluded person who refuses to accept the truth from
well-meaning and highly intelligent souls who just wnat to help me out
of the goodness of their hearts.

So why the propaganda? Why all the wars played out on newsgroups?

Because the system is broken. I've been shut down to a few outlets and
remember sci.math people helped to do that with that email campaign
against a paper of mine that did get published.

BUT you people killed one math journal and helped to block the truth,
but some of you can also help, which is what posters are afraid of, so
they have to convince you to ignore the truth.

Remember, I have already contacted top mathematicians like Barry Mazur
and Andrew Granville.

Your system is broken.

So extraordinary means are necessary and the math wars play out on the
web and Usenet.

On the web I have my math blog while the mathematicians fighting me
have Crank.net and other webpages put up against me.

On Usenet I have my posts, while posters fight to obscure--notice how
quickly they pile up threads--and keep you convinced that I must be
wrong.

Your system is broken from top to bottom.

Consider, my research proves that Andrew Wiles did not prove Fermat's
Last Theorem.

Would you if you were in his position? (Not saying I'm certain he
knows, but it wouldn't surprise me by now if he did know.)

As I did years ago when I had key results that I wanted easy reference
to at any time in the future, I'm creating a quick quide, where this
time it is to the simple proof in the complex plane and the quadratic
with which examples can be found that eradicate all reasonable
objections.

In the complex plane, given

7C(x) = (A(x) + 7)(B(x) + 1)

true for all x, where A(0) = B(0) = 0

let

C(x) = (A'(x) + 1)(B'(x) + 1)

where A'(0) = B'(0) = 0

and making that substitution, gives

7(A'(x) + 1)(B'(x) + 1) = (A(x) + 7)(B(x) + 1)

and by the distributive property

A(x) = 7A'(x) and B'(x) = B(x).

That result valid over the complex plane allows me to cement the case
for the full argument proving I have been right with my research where
you can directly SEE the result with integer roots of

a^2 -(1+fx)a + (f^2 x^2 + 2fx) = 0.

There if you pick x and f integers and f not 1 or -1 and coprime to x,
if you find rational roots one root will have f as a factor while the
other will be coprime to f, and that rests on the distributive property
as shown in the previous proof.

It's a remarkable case where the distributive property itself is the
linchpin to an important result.

It is the kind of simple result that shatters all reasonable objections
and reveals the social nature of resistance to these results from the
mathematical community.

What could motivate people to use so much energy and effort and even
challenge a math journal, bring it to its knees, so that it pulls a
published paper, and later it shut down, so they even KILLED a math
journal?

The answer is that I figured out this fairly clever way to get A(x) in

7C(x) = A(x) D(x) + 7 D(x)

to be the root of a monic polynomial with integer coefficients, where
C(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients.

So I figured out this remarkable way to get a function that is the root
of a polynomial that is in the ring of algebraic integers balanced
against 7.

That's it.

So why is that such a big deal?

Because balanced against 7, you know that 7 multiplies through that
function that is a root of a monic polynomial with integer
coefficients, so when that function is non-rational, it is the root of
a monic polynomial irreducible over Q.

But, you can also prove that 7 cannot be a factor of the function IN
THE RING OF ALGEBRAIC INTEGERS which leaves you with two choices:

1. Either the distributive property fails--maybe failing in the ring
of algebraic integers?

2. There is something odd about the ring of algebraic integers.

I choose 2. and that's where all the emotional problems start, as human
beings have a puzzling ability to fight mathematical proof when it
affects things like their paychecks.

LOTS of math professors have built their careers, getting little things
like their doctorates on research that is now challenged.

Being typical human beings they do what most of you would do--go into
denial.

I mean, mathematics is all nice and cool when it's not a big deal, you
know?

But when your GODDAMN PAYCHECK is involved then screw all that nonsense
about truth and beauty and all that crap about mathematical proof!!!

So that's what they've done.

Some of you have paid the price as before you became math majors I was
talking about this problem--though not explaining it as well I'm
afraid--and they could have changed before now and taught you the
correct mathematical ideas.

But if they acknowledge the truth, their paychecks could be affected.

So instead they lied.


Note, the complex plane is an area known to most mathematicians, while
the ring of algebraic integers while known is more of an esoteric area
important to number theorists, by proving my key result on the complex
plane, I remove the excuse of other mathematicians that the results
were all out of their area.

Proving that there is a systemic problem across the entire discipline,
and not just in number theory.

But do you think he'll come out and admit that?

If you were him and you found out, would you tell the truth?

I do seem to remember hearing that he and Barry Mazur were close
colleagues.

What if he's known for years now?


James Harris


.

Loading