JSH: Formally peer review and published
JSH
integers are a simplification of research I had formally peer reviewed
and published in a mathematical journal, where the editors later
chickened out, caving to Usenet pressure, pulled my paper, and then
could manage only one more edition before the journal DIED. Its
archives are maintained by EMIS:
http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/
So yeah, last time I checked I'm listed as a published mathematical
author. EMIS also revived the paper which the editors withdrew, where
you can see again the famous link:
http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html
I don't link though to the revived paper (but thanks EMIS!) as I've
greatly simplified the argument to quadratics versus the cubics I was
using before:
7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x)+ 7)
where the a's are roots of
a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.
And I demonstrated in other threads that yes, since I am the one who
is mathematically correct I can SHRED people who fight the argument.
I hate doing it though. I feel terrible and have been so polite for
so many years. Maybe only by being more brutal can I show some of you
where you actually are.
I can walk into any major math department in the world and humiliate
the head of that department in minutes.
But not just I. ANYONE who knows of this error, and realizes the
ongoing academic fraud can do the same.
So yes, proud people. Maybe even arrogant people who are on paper
major mathematicians, respected, with established positions, can at a
moment face humiliation.
They live with it. Can you?
Can you blow your years learning bogus math, fighting to work your way
through hard courses of study in number theory, to get good grades, to
impress people I can humiliate in ten minutes with basic algebra?
To be one of them?
So why don't I do it? Why don't I say, ride over the University of
Berkeley which is minutes away, and confront some mathematicians about
this number theory error?
Because there is strength in numbers.
Even if I got into the math department a simple call to security, and
some stupid sick idiot can go on with his life as if he really is a
mathematician instead of being a fraud. A fake. A wannabe who
actually failed to prove maybe anything as EVERYTHING he supposedly
has proven depends on this error.
No. I'll teach people about it. And eventually they will come. So
you can wait if you wish for that day, when someone puts some
equations in front of you and SHREDS your delusions of being a
mathematician. Like your supposed betters do.
Formally peer reviewed and published.
Just words when human beings hate mathematics in truth, based on their
actions, no matter what anyone else may call them.
James Harris
Mark Murray
> I don't link though to the revived paper (but thanks EMIS!) as I've
> greatly simplified the argument to quadratics versus the cubics I was
> using before:
>
> 7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x)+ 7)
>
> where the a's are roots of
>
> a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.
What you still don't see is that visible, integer factors can appear
to vanish.
Example:
7 = (1/3 - sqrt(3)i) times (3/4 - (9 sqrt(3)/4)i)
NO sevens on the right!
M
Mark Murray
> I can walk into any major math department in the world and humiliate
> the head of that department in minutes.
Famous already. Twitter reveals:
# oh well, final preps to fame, setting censors in place (hopefully
won't get famous for a while and can go back to nutty tweets),
after tweet
about 4 hours ago from web
# been fun, maybe looking at final preps to fame, so guess i'll
have to tweet like a normal famous person soon. it was so much
fun though...
about 4 hours ago from web
# finally, i was starting to get bored. maybe now the future can
begin...
begin... 7:27 PM Nov 30th from TweetDeck
> But not just I. ANYONE who knows of this error, and realizes the
> ongoing academic fraud can do the same.
>
> So yes, proud people. Maybe even arrogant people who are on paper
> major mathematicians, respected, with established positions, can at a
> moment face humiliation.
>
> They live with it. Can you?
I'm waiting. Stop talking about it and do it.
M
David Moran
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:949db4ee-726d-49b0...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Too bad you're ineducable and don't know when you've been defeated. Then
again, it provides entertainment for those of us who are educated.
Dave
JSH
But are you? I challenge that assertion with a simple request, divide
off the 7:
7(175x^2 - 15x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x)+ 7)
where the a's are roots of
a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0.
It can't be done in the ring of algebraic integers.
Prove your education's worth--or lack of it. Divide off the 7.
(As an aside, yup readers, here's how you could personally humiliate
Andrew Wiles or any number theorist worldwide--give him the equations
above and just ask him to divide off the 7, in the ring of algebraic
integers!)
James Harris
Rotwang
And here's a simple request for you, divide off the 7:
7*(25x^2 + 5x + 2) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x) + 7)
where the a's are the roots of
a^2 - (x - 1)a + 7x^2 = 0.
It can't be done in the object ring.
David Moran
James Harris
Why do I need to prove anything to you? Anything I say you'll say is a lie.
Dave
hagman
simply because
7(175x^2 - 15x + 2), 5a_1(x) + 7, and 5a_2(x)+ 7
are not algebraic integers.
However, if you substitute x with an integer (simplest case: x=0),
this becomes
7*2 = (5a_1+7)*(5a_2+7)
where the a's are roots of a^2+a=0; so we may take a_1=0, a_2=-1
in which case we reveal the great identity
7*2 = 7*2
Mike Terry
>
> And I demonstrated in other threads that yes, since I am the one who
> is mathematically correct I can SHRED people who fight the argument.
> I hate doing it though. I feel terrible and have been so polite for
> so many years. Maybe only by being more brutal can I show some of you
> where you actually are.
>
> I can walk into any major math department in the world and humiliate
> the head of that department in minutes.
>
> But not just I. ANYONE who knows of this error, and realizes the
> ongoing academic fraud can do the same.
James, you sound just like a guy I remember on some skit show ("Kids in the
Hall" maybe?). He used to sit on a park bench, announcing in a gleeful,
whiny voice: "I am squashing your head! I am squashing your head!" He is
using his thumb and forfinger to achieve this impressive feat - but of
course, the camera angle makes it clear to the viewer that the people are
some distance from the man, which is why their heads appear small (and
squashable) to the man. Nobody is the slightest bit concerned by his
claims, and in fact it is clear the people do not even realise they are
having their heads squashed!!
:-)
Mike.
JSH
You don't HAVE to do anything here.
I'm simply checking out this path as it shifts the problem from me
working to convince the mathematical community to having a potential
army of regular citizens from any walk of life who wish to challenge a
math person at any time.
So yeah, you could be at work, and someone could give you that
challenge. You could choose to answer them, or not.
The point is a shift in strategy. Your mom may ask you to divide off
that 7, as I'll be emphasizing that people like you may be living a
life that is itself a lie--knowingly accepting mathematical error.
Your dad may ask you.
That is the new strategy I'm testing out in these threads.
A new way to approach this problem. Enlist aid from regular people
around the world to just, ask a mathematician.
James Harris
fishfry
<949db4ee-726d-49b0...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The results I'm giving showing a problem with the ring of algebraic
> integers are a simplification of research I had formally peer reviewed
> and published in a mathematical journal, where the editors later
> chickened out, caving to Usenet pressure, pulled my paper, and then
> could manage only one more edition before the journal DIED.
JSH, you could reframe this incident as a journal that died because it
was sloppily edited; evidence of which was their acceptance of your
article.
Mensanator
> In article
> <949db4ee-726d-49b0-987e-0c0051273...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The results I'm giving showing a problem with the ring of algebraic
> > integers are a simplification of research I had formally peer reviewed
> > and published in a mathematical journal, where the editors later
> > chickened out, caving to Usenet pressure, pulled my paper, and then
> > could manage only one more edition before the journal DIED.
>
> JSH, you could reframe this incident as a journal that died because it
> was sloppily edited;
"Sloppily"? As in "not at all"?
> evidence of which was their acceptance of your article.
This was one of your famous "test of mathematicians" where
you deliberately submit a false paper to see if they catch it?
Why do you keep taking the wrong spin?
You could make a great tabloid case that the editor was embezelling
funds from the school that had been allocated for the journals
support,
that the school quietly pulled the plug on the journal that would
otherwise create a lot of bad publicity if they actually prosecuted
the editor. Too bad they didn't, think of how much fun you could
have had testifying in court. As a bad-ass whistle-blower, your name
would be feared amongst other journals and you would get the respect
you crave.
Alas, it didn't happen that way and you're just the same old jerk
you've always been.
JSH
Then they should be investigated, correct?
Shouldn't concerns be raised about such an event and questions asked
as to how it happened so that it can be prevented in the future?
You'd wish for an investigation, right?
I'm in California, in San Francisco. I can contact my Congressional
representatives about this case, asking that the Congress consider it.
Would you join me in that effort? Possibly a grass-roots effort from
Usenet could help raise attention.
Then it would be settled. Do you wish me to contact Congress?
James Harris
Mensanator
Wouldn't you have to contact a representative from
Oklahoma?
>
> James Harris
Junoexpress
<news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> James, you sound just like a guy I remember on some skit show ("Kids in the
> Hall" maybe?). He used to sit on a park bench, announcing in a gleeful,
> whiny voice: "I am squashing your head! I am squashing your head!" He is
> using his thumb and forfinger to achieve this impressive feat - but of
> course, the camera angle makes it clear to the viewer that the people are
> some distance from the man, which is why their heads appear small (and
> squashable) to the man. Nobody is the slightest bit concerned by his
> claims, and in fact it is clear the people do not even realise they are
> having their heads squashed!!
>
> :-)
>
> Mike.
Yes, it's from "Kids in the Hall" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=1pKXMcfx1d8)
One of the *best* characterizations of JSH ever.
Of course, in JSH's case, he probably sits in front of the math
department of his local university playing "I'm taking away your
tenure and suing your university for billions."
M