Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud

On Sep 1, 11:27 pm, junoexpress <MTBrenne...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I believe the burden of proof is on you.

Not necessarily if you believe that a concept can be of interest in
and of itself to people who are supposedly experts in a field.

Stupid.
Nobody will be even the slightest bit interested in it until you give
some indication (I'm not even saying proof, which I know you can't do)
that it's performance is in *some way* optimal.
Why should they waste their time on your half-baked ideas when they're
trained in the field and know they have ideas that are at least worth
working on.


But if the idea turns out to be a brilliant one which means factoring
is not a hard problem after all, then how can mathematicians who not
only couldn't figure it out, but who ignored it when presented with it
be considered to be true experts in the field?

What if THEY are the ones deluding themselves and doing research that
is valueless because they actually lack real mathematical ability?

So they are incapable of seeing important research as well?

Challenging Santos to commit every dime is part of that action, as to
con artists, what really is more important than money?

I don't know, you tell us. You've been perpetuating a con job on
sci.math as long as I can remember, always promising something and
never having delivered on one promise. If that's not a con-job, I
don't know what is. What's even worse is that a lot of it you've done
dishonestly, using others to work out things you can't do, all the
while boasting how much smarter you are then the rest of humanity.


Except I HAVE delivered. Instead of just arguing with people over my
proof of Fermat's Last Theorem I wrote a paper over a key results that
followed from it and got it published.

Posters on sci.math then declared that the journal system was flawed
and that math journals routinely publish false papers!!!

Others mounted an email campaign against the paper and convinced the
journal editors it was false, so they yanked it, and later the journal
shut down.

With my prime counting research I first found my prime counting
function, and then proved how it was different from anything else
previously known as to this day no one can give any other partial
difference equation used to count prime numbers, and no other known
that finds primes on its own.

Posters on sci.math when challenged with those points shift the
definition of "difference equation" to a non-standard one, and ignore
the second point about finding primes or just lie about it.

Repeatedly, by all normal standards, I achieve and posters deny in
unreasonable ways all achievements while making dubious achievements
of their own--like killing a math journal.

REASONABLE people who listen to me talk about the factoring problem
can note that I'm making sense, while posters arguing with me, can't
even be bothered to present a mathematical argument against my
research or in support of their claims.


I challenge you as well to pledge every penny you own to anyone
worldwide who loses money if surrogate factoring turns out to be what
your community is saying it is not.

SURE, PUT ME DOWN FOR EVERY PENNY, YOU MORON.

M

You are not really anonymous and your statement is noted.

At least you have the courage of your convictions.

If the math community is wrong here, I say that its members should be
held accountable as experts in the field, whether they demonstrate
they actually are or not, as they've created an impossible situation,
where at this point it's hard to see how there is a way to present
this information without a potential shock.

A collapse of confidence in the modern math community seems ever more
likely.

It puzzles me but I have an explanation as old as humanity--greed.

By faking math that is "pure" in that it is useless and hard to check,
some people could get money for nothing, but lacking real math ability
they could fight against actual mathematical proof and lead the world
down a path to financial ruin.

The balance is the future of human knowledge against the wealth of
those who trusted people who don't know what they were doing.

I vote for knowledge and the continued Progress of the human species.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • JSH: Math people ARE different
    ... To me arguing comes naturally in the search for truth as people have ... The big surprise for me from the math community was figuring out that ... those so that the journals editions--and the papers published in it ... a lot of mathematicians are currently doing research. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • JSH: Tail does not wag the dog, simply explained
    ... which is defined to contain numbers that are roots ... Mathematicians built up a lot of machinery around the use of these ... sudden because of one paper and math people lying all over the place ... Math journals do not just die. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud
    ... is not a hard problem after all, then how can mathematicians who not ... Posters on sci.math then declared that the journal system was flawed ... and that math journals routinely publish false papers!!! ... of their own--like killing a math journal. ...
    (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 ... refereed journals? ... mathematicians with real power keep their distance. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Objectivity
    ... And then I thought to myself, hey, maybe I just like fiddling with math ... and there I was again arguing out ideas and complaining about posters ... So you get two things happening, I have crap ideas, which posters say ... explanation for why "mathematicians" would behave this way. ...
    (sci.math)