Re: JSH: How could they?

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:06:26 -0700, marcus_b
<marcus_bruckner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 26, 12:35 pm, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Is there any rational explanation for why mathematicians around the
world would ignore important methods that give a short proof of
Fermat's Last Theorem, or a key finding in the prime numbers field, or
a new way to factor?

Yes. There is a very simple straightforward rational explanation.

Your "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem is wrong. This has been
pointed out to you many, many times. This is related to your
equally wrong "proof" regarding factorization of polynomials
and your mistaken belief that your results contradict Galois
theory and the theory of ideals. The fact that you do not
understand the counterexamples and counterarguments to your
claims is, naturally, the reason you think there is no rational
explanation for mathematicians' refusal to accept what you
have done. No one can convince you that you are wrong because
you cannot understand their arguments.

You make asinine claims about the "randomness" of a completely
deterministic, 100% predictable sequence.

Your "key finding" in the prime numbers is equivalent to
Legendre's formula. Your 'partial differential' is simply
smoke and wishful thinking. You have given no reason whatever
to expect that it may lead to important results.

You can continue to think you have made advances in all of
these only because you do not understand the counterarguments.
Look back at your record of failures. In virtually all cases,
the only way people have successfully convinced you that you
were wrong was to reduce your claims to a numerical inconsistency
which you could not deny: essentially, they showed that your
claims implied 2 + 2 = 3. Only that sort of reduction penetrated your
incredibly thick skull. And sometimes even that was not enough.
W. Dale Hall showed, before you had even submitted your paper
to SWJPAM, that a numerical counterexample refuted your major
claims. You closed your eyes and ears to that. You refused
to understand it! You submitted your paper anyway. Later
you paid the price.

Now with factoring, you think you can turn the tables:
produce a factoring algorithm which successfully factors
products of large primes. You are right. Such an algorithm
would convince people that at least some of your math was
right. If you could use it to factor arbitrary products of
100-digit primes where you did not know the factors in advance,
people would sit up and take notice.

So why hasn't it worked? Why are you still struggling for
recognition?

Over and over again you have claimed to have the solution.
You start threads with titles like "At Last, Factoring Solved!"
or "Got it!" or whatever. But your claims all fall apart.
Someone else shows that your method is worse than random guessing,
or you yourself see a flaw in your argument. And now, here you
are again begging for recognition of yet another minor variant
of your usual attempt, another algorithm which is untested, but
for which you apparently want credit in advance.

Stop trying to puff yourself up and factor an RSA number.
That's all it would take. Stop fantasizing about doing it and
go on and do it.

It's completely rational that people reject your "work". You
haven't given them the slightest reason not to.

Is it at all possible that the world has waited for leadership
from the US and Britain?

I'm tackling factoring to stop the madness, but the question remains,
how has the madness survived?

The madness is internal. The madness is your madness.

What crucial stupidity has motivated the entire world of
mathematicians to sit back for over five years, even when a math
journal imploded, they sat back?

How could they?

What can explain such profound idiocy on a worldwide scale?

Any answers?

See above.

Why is the math world, a world of dense, stupid, fools?

It's not. You have it backwards. You have everything
inside out.

Any answer?

I'm looking at finishing this in the worst possible way,

What do you mean by that?

and I want an
answer for why it was necessary.

Are you all just fools? Or is there something else? Something you
thought you knew, perhaps?

Yes. We have been keeping it secret from you. You are
virtually 100% wrong about everything you claim to have
accomplished. We kept telling you this, but in a secret code that
you do not understand. That secret code is called "rigorous
mathematics". You think you are smarter than everyone here.
Unfortunately for you, that is not true. You are completely
out of your league, even in this limited frog-pond.

Some lie told to you by people in this country who convinced you that
lying could win?

Look at your own record. You keep erasing posts in which you make
grandiose claims of proof. You say your critics lie, that they are
suppressing your work. Then your erase your work. Even the peanut
gallery can tell why you do this. If you were right you would not
need to erase. But you keep doing it. You say your critics lie
about what you have proved, then you retract the proof. But for
some reason you keep saying that your critics are liars. This
pattern keeps repeating. Look at it objectively. What does it say
about you? Why do you keep trying to cover your tracks?

Someone *is* lying here. Someone is lying to himself. Guess
who it is. Get a clue, man! Are any of your critics erasing THEIR
posts?

I think so. I think many of you were convinced that the group always
won and that it was pointless to fight such powerful people.

Is that why you keep deleting your posts? Were you also convinced
by lies?

You criticize SWJPAM for yanking your paper with no explanation.
You claimed they caved in to pressure, that your paper was actually
correct. Now you routinely yank your own posts! Usually with no
explanation! And you keep claiming that people lie about what you
have done, which you have just yanked. Doesn't this give you just a
wee hint that something is deeply, seriously wrong, that someone -
who could it be? - has slid into delusional illness?

So they dragged you down with them, and you get to share in the same
consequences.

Just ask yourself: how is it you can be wrong virtually all the
time, and never wrong at all?

("JSH -- always in error, never in doubt.")

Although I'll take one exception ...

JSH may actually have a valid _idea_ (but not a valid statement, and
no proof at all) regarding the randomness of the primes, mod 3. It
seems to me that there's an insightful underlying idea there, and a
way to state it rigorously as a legitimate conjecture. I made an
attempt at formulating one such conjecture in the thread "About
random, primes and statistics". Note -- the fact that the sequence of
primes is deterministic does not imply that the sequence has no
nontrivial probabilistic aspects.

quasi
.

Relevant Pages