Re: JSH: The "Published" paper he dosen't what you to know about.


jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
gjedwards@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Beckwith has Ph.D's in mathematics AND physics, but I'm sure plenty of
sci.math'ers will happily tell you that means nothing.


What about all the posters on here with Ph.D.'s ? Do their views mean
nothing?

The point goes to the claim made by various posters that I am alone in
my views and unsupported by any mathematicians. Of course, proof is
what's important,

So how come Princeton rejected your paper?

but my point is that proof doesn't matter to
sci.math'ers, neither does outside support matter to sci.math'ers who
simply refuse to ignore proof, support for my research, or anything at
all in their flat denial of the truth.

So I'm pointing out that people who trust sci.math'ers about my
research need to understand that sci.math'ers outright rejected
publication in a peer reviewed mathematical journal, some of them
convinced the editors that a paper which at best had minor errors was
wrong--with them banking on the very point that makes the paper
dramatic and important showing the coverage problem of algebraic
integers--and they don't even care about a Ph.D in mathematics when
someone supports me.

So how come Princeton rejected your paper?


The message from sci.math regulars who post in opposition to me is that
nothing will convince them.

Nothing.

They are a law unto themselves with nothing but contempt for any
opinion presented against what they claim is concrete evidence against
my research, even though astute readers can see no refutation in this
thread.

Why not?

Because the supposed evidence against my paper was the reality that IN
THE RING OF ALGEBRAIC INTEGERS the conclusion could be shown not to
hold.

I've noted that as correct, so they have nothing else.

But hey, people know Usenet is a joke in the math world anyway, so it's
not like the opinions of sci.math'ers have any weight anyway.

So how come Princeton rejected your paper?

My
posting here has been for two reasons:

1. When brainstorming it's a place I dump ideas, just tossing stuff
out there sometimes to see what sticks and often just as part of what I
call extreme mathematics.

2. Closed out of the mainstream mathematical world, I have few places
to go. Got a blog, and I can post on Usenet where it doesn't matter
because sci.math doesn't matter, but at least I get the FEELING of
doing SOMETHING.

So I'm stuck here with the nobodies.

If you think sci.math matters, give one example, anything. Something
that indicates that any part of the mainstream mathematical society
even knows that the newsgroup exists.

So how come Princeton rejected your paper?


So the other thing is entertainment value. You people don't matter, so
I don't mind.

So how come Princeton rejected your paper?


But here and there I can get a laugh in my misery, while the
mathematicians with real power keep their distance.

So how come Princeton rejected your paper?



James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: The "Published" paper he dosent what you to know about.
    ... What about all the posters on here with Ph.D.'s? ... neither does outside support matter to sci.math'ers who ... refereed journals? ... mathematicians with real power keep their distance. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: The "Published" paper he dosent what you to know about.
    ... What about all the posters on here with Ph.D.'s? ... neither does outside support matter to sci.math'ers who ... But hey, people know Usenet is a joke in the math world anyway, so it's ... mathematicians with real power keep their distance. ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH: Communication breakdown
    ... reality that a simple counterexample would exist against my work--if it ... The purpose of this brief return to Usenet was to highlight the reality ... and mathematicians in general are ignoring the truth here. ... out the truth, and maybe it won't matter, but at least it's something I ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Communication breakdown
    ... > reality that a simple counterexample would exist against my work--if it ... > and mathematicians in general are ignoring the truth here. ... > out the truth, and maybe it won't matter, but at least it's something I ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: 7^sqrt(8) > 8^sqrt(7) proof
    ... Dr D F Holt wrote: ... and it might be a matter ... You should say "some mathematicians" since they do ... "proof" by calculator? ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast