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

marcus_b wrote :

[cut of a very interesting analysis of some of JSH reasons for anger, then...]


Tim Peters wrote:
...

but underlying many of his arguments I
sense anger at rings that don't behave like a unique factorization domain
(or sometimes just an integral domain) when he wants them to. They "block"
him, they have "problems" and "flaws", and mathematicians "lie" when they
say such rings are perfectly fine the way they are.

Certainly there is anger. It's not at all clear that "the"
object ring gives him what he needs - it of course lacks some
of the nice properties of the ring of algebraic numbers, and
the next step in the FLT proof even if he gets what he wants
from "the" object ring is totally murky as far as I can tell.
There is enormous anger because mathematicians haved mercilessly
proved him wrong every step of the way. There is HUGE anger at
what happened with the electronic journal SWJPAM. Harris thinks
getting a paper published in a Peer-Reviewed Journal is the
final absolute stamp of approval, the one act that proves your
proof, and that it cannot be reversed. But it was! It was like
a starving man having a delicious sandwich placed in his mouth,
and then having it yanked out and thrown away before he can even
swallow a bite! His righteous outrage at this horribly unjust, almost
unprecedented event constantly recurs to his consciousness. Prominent
mathematicians - the Powers That Be - politely (or nervously ...)
listen to his ravings and then give him the brush-off. There
is deep confusion as well. And as you implied in another post
yesterday, there are signs of deterioration. At one time Harris
was able to talk intelligibly about the Barlow-Abel relations.
I think *** Winter has said that Harris once had a valid proof
of one nontrivial case of FLT for n = 5. Those days are long
gone. He makes more trivial errors, forgets the form of his own
beloved polynomial. Now he cannot bring himself to even check
his work with computations. The cause? Either prolonged mental
distress and frustration, or the now-ingrained habit of lying to
himself and everyone else to prop up his delusions and refusing
to face the truth, or alcohol. I don't think he is mentally ill
yet but he is getting there. He is too young for senility. I
think the most likely explanation is alcohol. Look at the recent
pattern. He submits a few posts early in the weekend, maybe on
Saturday morning. He gets angrier as the day goes on. Finally
he stops. I am guessing that is the alcohol taking hold.

I would like to shoot from another direction, one which, I believe, has never really be even considered by James, or the newsgroup. Why are allmathematicians lying ? Obviously to preserve their reputation, status, tenure, etc. Where would Wiles be if he had to acknowledge that all his work was flawed, and good for nothing ?(never mind that this almost happened when a fatal flaw was discovered in the first proof (in 1993), and that instead of the lies which JSH predicts should have occurred, we all know how the disaster was avoided)

But how can we all almost forget that every non-algebrist (in this newsgroup, David Ullrich is the first name that springs to mind) would give his right arm to be the first to prove that a fatal mistake pervades ideal theory? *That* would certainly have no consequence on their work (complex analysis, probabilities, non-commutative geometry, or what else), and they would not jeopardize their Field Medals or their salaries, would they? So how come no one comment favorably on James' work, or, even better, steals it and publishes it in mathese jargon, with all the nice flourishes which grant you approval in Princeton?


.