Re: JSH: James Harris is going to Pop.


reportJSH wrote:
(JSH has been "spewing pure hate" into this good newsgroup for too long.
Instead of ever asking questions, he insults, time for this Crackpot/Troll
to go, and Google will help us do it. Let's report this guy at Google
Groups and get him blocked. He may be fun for some of you, but it is a
poison, for him and you. Read below how much hate he posted in a few days
Can you imagine this guy ever working for you? I would fire him on the
spot, have him marched out with armed guards. Just some of his hate over the
past few days, put this guy away in a nuthouse, and out of sci.math, time to
clean up and clean out)

James Harris - The real frustration for me when dealing with sci.math
regulars is the insistence on lying about the details, so let me set the
record straight on my paper on non-polynomial factorization, which was the
one published and then withdrawn by the editors after some convincing emails
by some sci.math regulars. In the original paper, I declare the ring to the
ring of algebraic integers. That can be proven to not be true by using other
arguments. So it is the declaration at the beginning of the paper which does
not remain true over the length of the paper which is the source of
objections. Two ways to handle that, of course, I could simply declare
something different. Or, I could do what I did in my revision, which was to
note that the ring declaration COULD NOT HOLD which is the point of the
paper. That is no one can declare anything less than a field and have the
operations hold through the paper, which is the over-turning result. Now I
came back, after I got over the anger enough to even bother with the
sci.math newsgroup again, and argued with at least one of the people who
falsely attacked my paper to the SWJPAM editors, and conceded all of his
main points, and still showed that my conclusion held. What did he do? The
fucker just kept on claiming he refuted me. I conceded all of his main
points--the mathematical ones--and STILL my conclusion holds and away he
goes claiming I'm still wrong, when I am FUCKING CONCEDING HIS MAIN GODDAMN
POINTS!!! THAT is your society. You people just lie. You lie, and then LIE
some more, and then you LIE about lying. James Harris

I am still puzzled which is why this situation may continue for a little
while longer as I never, ever thought that you people would sell out the
United States, put lives in jeopardy, and act like no one would care as if
no one would be bothered by dead soldiers or dead civilians because some
"mathematicians" decided they couldn't be bothered with telling the truth.
But I am more and more less interested in figuring out what brain
dysfunction afflicts you people than in moving forward to protecting my
country and ending this bizarre situation. I am not ready to give up the
United States. This chess game moves to a new level. I will move to protect
the king, and I do not think the Queen is yet in jeopardy. Nukes don't
bother me, but I will not stand for a certain happening. I need a
demonstration of faith. There are some flies and gnats that annoy me.
Permission is granted to remove them, with extreme prejudice. There are few
limits, but those limits that are there must be heeded. An example is in
order, but make it a big one, and make it soon, as in 24 hours. ___JSH

That has never before been seen and it chops up a lot of crap that math
professors are STILL teaching their poor pitiful students. Yep, you are
pathetic if you're absorbing that crap when I've disproven it multiple ways.
Now go read up on class number and see how wrong mathematicians got it
before. Oh, yeah, that resut can be used to figure out how factors of 4
distribute!!! But that's next as I have to draw this out as you see--there
are math people DELIBERATELY lying about these issues. I need to draw them
out, so you can understand that they want to do this, and are doing it fully
consciously and with malice aforethought. James Harris

I figured out a way to factor integers into factors that are not roots of
the same monic polynomial with integer coefficients irreducible over Q. Damn
hard thing to figure out how to do as I've been working on it for years. By
accomplishing it, I show that the standard view of Galois Theory is wrong,
and class number is meaningless as a useful concept. Easy. Why don't you
find the polynomials with integer coefficients for the examples I've given?
That's a start. Oh, part of the reason for starting there is that then you
can consider what you think you know about how factors of 4 will distribute
between the roots. And then see why that's wrong. James Harris

Because I'm a real mathematician, and you're not. Answer my question, which
two roots multiply to give 4 as a factor? And remember Decker at the end of
this you are not a university professor. Not only do you not deserve that
position, but because your school backed you with your stupid webapge
attacking my work, I go after the school as well. How about $100 million
dollars as a lawsuit? I think that's kind of low, but it's a start. James
Harris You people have no clue about what's coming as you are not really
mathematicians, so you look around see a possibly unsteady world but keep
thinking that it is rock stable in ways it's not. My projections indicate
that without substantial thinking on the part of humanity approximately 6
billion people will die within the next 30 years. These days will seem like
paradise if you survive the next 10 because with those numbers the odds are
that none of you reading this post will be alive. It's that close.
Intelligence is more than just a label. Solving problems is more than just a
nifty idea. This month a few things are going to happen. Maybe then some of
you will get some perspective. But I'm not hoping as my take on it is that
most of you lack even a modicum of the intelligence necessary to grasp world
events on the level that are about to occur. Oh well, it's not like you have
to understand. They will happen anyway. James Harris

And notice now the insults. THESE PEOPLE TURN TO INSULTS IMMEDIATELY WHEN
CHALLENGED! They can't win without insults. Consider that please--they can't
win without insults. That's how this gets political, as when math people
start insulting, they push buttons that they have to push to keep people
from paying attention to the facts. My contrasting example is to ask you,
would Tiger Woods go after amateur golfers in this way? How about John Elway
after amateur football players? Getting out of sports, would Bill Gates
occupy his time attacking amateur programmers? And if he did, wouldn't you
wonder a bit about how amateur they really were? Yet mathematicians get away
with attacking "crackpots" with a great deal of energy and effort, including
the assault on my paper by email, and then they go on and on about the
mathematics being unimportant? How stupid do they think you are? If Tiger
Woods goes after a golfer about his game, do you think that golfer really
has no skills? Of course, Tiger Woods wouldn't. What would you think of him
if he did? Math people, in contrast, do go after amateur mathematicians, and
with a viciousness. So why do they not pay a penalty then? Why can a
mathematician behave viciously towards a "crackpot" and still walk way from
that behavior unscathed? The point of this thread though is that people
claiming my paper was already refuted by arguments on sci.math are lying, as
in reality there was a highly technical and minor claim made against the
paper for declaring a ring, which doesn't hold as the ring through the
entire paper to its conclusion. Yet the point of the paper is that ring is
not capable of holding true despite basic algebraic operations being used.
So objectors used the very thing that makes the paper so important, to claim
it false, and to prove that they did so, I can simply note that the ring of
algebraic integers does not hold as the ring till the end. Oh yeah, I should
add that I DID explain in detail, once I got over being furious, as hey,
these people are powerful. They blew my paper out of the water with some
freaking emails, and I hoped maybe I could reason with them. Sci.math'ers
demonstrated they can control a math journal, and even destroy one. So I
explained in detail, accepting major points, and STILL the bastards just
kept lying. They just kept lying. It doesn't matter how much I explain or
how logically I step it out. At the end they will insult me, and claim I'm
wrong, no matter what proof is given, or who agrees with me. Just like they
went after that journal with a fury. And they did destroy it. James Harris

The word "object" in object ring gives you an important clue, as consider
1/2. Do you have 1/2 or do you have 1/2 of something? Now if you have 1/2 of
something then do you not actually have 1 object out of a set of 2? The
object ring includes all numbers such that you have objects and not set
operations is another way to look at it, as I consider 1/2 to be a set
operation meaning take 1 of 2 objects from a set. So I don't see 1/2 as a
number, but instead as an instruction. James Harris

is correct? The quadratic has TWO SOLUTIONS. Now I don't think this is
rocket science. I think you just lie. And readers should remember that part
of the story here is that sci.math posters--a few of them--have fought this
research for years quite successfully, convincing many of you against
mathematical proof, and they even managed to get a paper of mine censored,
and in doing so, killed a math journal. They have no conscience. They have a
contempt for the truth. Contempt for your intelligence and love of
mathematics. And they have betrayed your trust over and over and over again.
It is crucial that you understand that these people are doing this
deliberately, so that you, finally, stop trusting them. Just go with the
mathematics. Actually follow the mathematical proofs. Your trust in your
society is being exploited by people with a contempt for knowledge--and a
contempt for you. James Harris

Contradicting your own position by turning to the very behavior you accused
me of. People like you lack a conscience. The mathematical proof isn't even
hard, but trust is hard to challenge. Readers, the saddest point I'm making
is that people many of you think are on your side, just use you. One dead
math journal so far, and a lot of students still being taught flawed
mathematical ideas. Tomorrow is another day for professors who don't give a
damn about the truth, to abuse the trust of young people coming to them for
learning. Consider what is being fought for here. People without consciences
are fighting against humanity itself. James Harris

JSH: I WILL GET MY MONEY If you fucking morons think that I will let you get
away with not giving me credit for my fucking math discoveries then you have
another fucking thing coming. What the fuck??!!! Where's "pure math" now,
huh? Where's loving math for the fucking beauty of it now you fucking
shits??!!! LOOK AT IT!!! Here is the partial difference equation and
instructions for integrating. dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][
p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))], S(x,1) = 0. And p(x, y) = floor(x) -
S(x, y) - 1, and you get S as the sum of dS >from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ You fucking shits. I will get credit for
my discovery and get fucking paid, and you best believe that I will not
fucking let you stupid fucks get away with your fucking stupid
bull***--"pure math" my ass--without me coming at you fuckers with some
fucking PURE fucking PURE AS FUCK math that you stupid shits have been
shitting on for over a fucking YEAR!!! You goddamn FUCKS!!! What the fuck is
wrong with you shits??!!! Don't you even believe in your own stupid shit?
Where's "pure math" now? Where is it?

I think a few of the quotes above are spoofs and not actually by James
(especially the last one).

Nevertheless...

I don't mind the insults, it's an open forum and if he hates people,
that's his problem. However, the posts in the last few days have
definitely overstepped the mark and IMHO were inciting violence
("extreme prejudice"). Free speech or not, this is not acceptable - he
should be reported to Google at the very least.

.

Loading