JSH: Relevance of the denial
- From: JSH <jstevh@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Being someone in the difficult position of trying to inform the world
about a big problem in abstract number theory where the experts in
that area refuse to acknowledge it, I'm very much aware of the
importance of showing non-rational behavior from people who are
working so very hard to convince you that there is no support for my
research.
The relevance for physicists is they have sold various mathematical
techniques which increasingly I am certain do not work.
My leverage in getting heard is my own research, which has growing
influence around the world.
New ideas take time to gain hold, especially when there is entrenched
hostility from people already established in an area, but there has
been some time that has already passed.
With the years comes use.
Google searches are a fun and easy way for me to map growing interest
in my research and to see what pulls more interest most rapidly and
not surprisingly to me, my least "pure math" results are the biggest
drivers.
But I do Google searches all the time and have other data on a
continual basis. POSTING about Google searches allows you to see what
happens with the math people when you give them information they
cannot stand.
So these posts are all about the replies they garner.
Nothing like seeing the behavior up close and personal.
Oh yeah, I still am amazed though by the take-over of the Google
search: devastating error
And I'm also looking more into the question of just how bad is the
weird math error for Galois Theory, as, of course, there is group
theory which is so successful.
Trouble is, I already know of a case where Galois Theory is said to be
relevant, where it turns out there are just two ways mathematically to
look at the problem, which is with binary quadratic Diophantine
equations.
There an odd bit of coincidental mathematics is key. It is so weird
once you understand it, and then understand how much can pivot on such
simple things:
Here intriguingly I can also cite someone! I rarely get to cite the
research of anyone else as most of my own research is from scratch:
Pell's equation without irrational numbers
Authors: N. J. Wildberger
(Submitted on 16 Jun 2008)
Abstract: We solve Pell's equation in a simple way without continued
fractions or irrational numbers, and relate the algorithm to the Stern
Brocot tree.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2490v1
Problem for Professor Wildberger though is that solving Pell's
equation is considered one of the plums of the theory using irrational
numbers so math people don't want to know it can all be handled with
rationals only. I have yet to see evidence that his paper has
garnered much support or interest (if there is evidence please give
it).
Oh yeah, of course, if I my research is correct then it stands to
reason--if you believe in humanity AT ALL--that it would be picked up,
and used. Our species is supposedly kind of efficient at such things,
right?
So to some extent, it's all about time.
James Harris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: Relevance of the denial
- From: JSH
- Re:JSH: Relevance of the denial
- From: generalzod
- Re: JSH: Relevance of the denial
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: JSH: Relevance of the denial
- Prev by Date: Through no fault of their own, some have fewer options.
- Next by Date: Re: Origin of Inertia
- Previous by thread: Re: Introducing the **REAL** global conspiracy
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Relevance of the denial
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
