Reply from German editor about my paper
Dirk Van de moortel
"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message news:3c65f87.03071...@posting.google.com...
> Well looks like I got bit on the "factor of" versus "factors in common
> with" controversy as a reply I just received from the chief editor of
> a German journal talks as if I'm saying that none of the a's has a
> factor of 5, that is 5. He also thought my lemma was a trivial result
> and he mentioned polynomial factors. Then he put me on a spam block,
> which I discovered when I tried to reply back to him.
:-)
>
> Hmmm...I guess I'll not get much leeway from Germans.
>
> In any event, if I'm facing real problems with the is "factor of"
> thing I'd just as soon change it, so I'll be evaluating my paper today
> to see about making changes to be more in line with common usage.
> I'll also consider the "coprime" part, which confused a mathematician
> at Cal-Tech, and I'm kind of sure there was at least one other that
> said so, which may mean that others were confused but never admitted
> it.
>
> It seems that mathematicians are kind of fragile on this terminology
> thing, so I'll try and get closer to standard usage, and then I'll
... end up with a paper that describes how to add 1 and 1
to get 2?
Dirk Vdm
David C. Ullrich
>Well looks like I got bit on the "factor of" versus "factors in common
>with" controversy as a reply I just received from the chief editor of
>a German journal talks as if I'm saying that none of the a's has a
>factor of 5, that is 5.
The only reason there's any "controversy" is that you refuse to
believe the evil people on sci.math who are actually trying to
help you make sense. How about that, this editor says "a
has a factor of b" means exactly what "everyone" has been
saying it means, not what you've been insisting it _should_
mean. What a surprise.
>He also thought my lemma was a trivial result
>and he mentioned polynomial factors. Then he put me on a spam block,
>which I discovered when I tried to reply back to him.
Wonder why he'd do that?
>Hmmm...I guess I'll not get much leeway from Germans.
As opposed to the editors elsewhere, who have been
enthusiastic about your work, right?
>In any event, if I'm facing real problems with the is "factor of"
>thing I'd just as soon change it, so I'll be evaluating my paper today
>to see about making changes to be more in line with common usage.
>I'll also consider the "coprime" part, which confused a mathematician
>at Cal-Tech, and I'm kind of sure there was at least one other that
>said so, which may mean that others were confused but never admitted
>it.
You're really determined to waste the time of half the mathematicians
on the planet, eh? Posting nonsense to sci.math is one thing -
when you send email (or whatever) to individual mathematicians
like this they have to either reply or be impolite. You really
shouldn't do that, at least not until you have something that's
both correct and interesting to say.
(How could you tell whether you have something correct and
interesting? Ask on sci.math. No, that doesn't work because
they're all liars. Except that every time you've bothered a
journal editor or a "top mathematician" it's turned out their
opinion is the same. Huh.)
>It seems that mathematicians are kind of fragile on this terminology
>thing, so I'll try and get closer to standard usage, and then I'll
>find yet another journal. I say that as saying "3 has a factor of 12"
>is actually correct, as 3 has itself as a factor and 3 is a factor of
>12, but mathematicians have gotten themselves stuck one way, and
>there's no point in fighting their slang.
>
>I'm curious about what will come up next.
Hint: your obstinately non-standard use of "has a factor of" is
not the only problem...
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
Virgil
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> It seems that mathematicians are kind of fragile on this terminology
> thing, so I'll try and get closer to standard usage, and then I'll
> find yet another journal.
"Fragile"? Quite the reverse.
Mathematicians are rigorous as hell about "terminology things",
requiring strict definitions to be made and followed. Anything less
leads to logical anarchy, as JSH frequently demonstrates.
It is JSH who is "fragile" on the subject, tending to get his
"proofs" fractured by every minor misapplication of terminology
possible.
Randy Poe
> It seems that mathematicians are kind of fragile on this terminology
> there's no point in fighting their slang.
If everybody in the world uses a phrase a certain way, and
you use it a different way, a way unique to you, how is it
that EVERYBODY ELSE is speaking "slang" and you're correct?
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:585ab5d8.03071...@posting.google.com...
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?&va=autism
| Main Entry: au·tism
| Pronunciation: 'o-"ti-z&m
| Function: noun
| Date: 1912
| 1 : absorption in self-centered subjective mental activity
| (as daydreams, fantasies, delusions, and hallucinations)
| usually accompanied by marked withdrawal from reality
| 2 : a mental disorder originating in infancy that is
| characterized by self-absorption, inability to interact
| socially, repetitive behavior, and language dysfunction
| (as echolalia)
| - au·tis·tic /o-'tis-tik/ adjective or noun
| - au·tis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Dirk Vdm
Virgil
> Oh well, there are other countries, other math journals. Maybe I
> should try the Chinese again?
>
> No wait, I think it might be time to see about the Russians again.
> They're supposedly good at math.
>
>
> James Harris
But then the Russians would be just whom you don't want!
John C. Randolph
Jimmy,
You're out of your depth. You're not going to get a reputable journal
to publish your paper. Your best bet would be to add some hints about
cosmic implications and get some newage (ryhmes with 'sewage') rag to
print it.
-jcr
lanny budd
> with" controversy as a reply I just received from the chief editor of
> a German journal talks as if I'm saying that none of the a's has a
> and he mentioned polynomial factors. Then he put me on a spam block,
> which I discovered when I tried to reply back to him.
>
This journal is eager to publish your work -
Will Twentyman
> "John C. Randolph" <j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote in message news:<3F152198...@nospam.idiom.com>...
> in a "reputable journal" which means that the journals I've faced so
> far may lose a lot of their luster once the full story comes out.
>
> As for being out of my depth my little paper so far has drawn comments
> and questions from someone as notable as Barry Mazur, though I hope he
> doesn't now regret replying to me about it, and has been looked at
> without claim of error by at least two of the editors of the New York
> Journal of Mathematics, which includes Andrew Granville who referred
> me up to the chief editor, and I hope he does't regret that either.
>
"You're wrong" is a comment. "What are you trying to say?" is a question.
> Now then it seems to me that a lot of you may think of me as just some
> "crank" but that lot of you don't even register on the screen for a
> lot of the people I've already received comments from, as they don't
> know you and probably don't care to know you.
>
> But, of course, you can still think that your opinions about me
> matter. As if opinion is mathematics, as I fear that for many of you,
> opinion IS mathematics, which is why you don't register and shouldn't
> as you don't understand the point.
>
> Mathematics is about truth, not social opinion.
>
Then why are you tossing around names like they will change the truth?
>
> James Harris
--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
neepy
He could always try "Social Text"...
Bhuvan
"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> burped forth in
news:3c65f87.03071...@posting.google.com...
> Now then it seems to me that a lot of you may think of me as just some
> "crank"
REALLY???? You haven't figured that out YET???? The mere number of people
that have commented on your delusions of grandeur hasn't cued you YET to the
fact that I, along with numerous other posters, think that you're a CRANK???
GO FIGURE!!!
> But, of course, you can still think that your opinions about me
> matter. As if opinion is mathematics, as I fear that for many of you,
> opinion IS mathematics, which is why you don't register and shouldn't
> as you don't understand the point.
>
> Mathematics is about truth, not social opinion.
>
>
> James Harris
Sooooo, when people tell you the truth about your crock-of-shit
'mathematics' (notice usage of quotes!), that's not the truth?? The fact
that mathematicians, in all these ng's, have consistently corrected your
errors, that you have been directed where to get your answers, that even the
editor of a German publication has added you to his block list, is NOT the
truth, in your opinion, is laughable.
As far as finding a periodical to publish your results, have you tried the
Weekly World News?? They love 'scandals' like this one, and I'm sure they'll
put you right next to the "Page 5 Girl".
Until then, get a life you self-absorbed kook.
~Bhuvan
Maxim Stepin
> in a "reputable journal" which means that the journals I've faced so
> far may lose a lot of their luster once the full story comes out.
"correct and profount"? And what if paper impies non-standard meaning
for some standard math terms, like "factor" and "coprime"?
Should the reputable journal reject the paper on that basis or not?
The Last Danish Pastry
news:d4bd1f7c.0307...@posting.google.com...
Ah... your mention of "Social Text" prompted me to re-read an article by
Alan Sokal called "What the Social Text Affair Does and Does Not Prove".
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/noretta.html
At one point he says:
<<Now, what precisely do I mean by 'silliness'? Here's a very rough
categorization: First of all, one has meaningless or absurd statements,
name-dropping, and the display of false erudition. Secondly, one has sloppy
thinking and poor philosophy, which come together notably (though not
always) in the form of glib relativism.>>
How fitting to be lead to that quotation from a JSH thread.
--
Clive Tooth
http://www.clivetooth.dk
David C. Ullrich
>"John C. Randolph" <j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote in message news:<3F152198...@nospam.idiom.com>...
This one's a keeper:
>Well *supposedly* a correct and profound math paper can get published
>in a "reputable journal" which means that the journals I've faced so
>far may lose a lot of their luster once the full story comes out.
Now that was just standard JSH - no matter _what_ entity rejects
his work it reflects more on the entity than on him. A journal
declined to publish his paper, that's going to be Bad for the
journal when the Truth finally comes out, all perfectly standard
stuff. The good part starts here:
>As for being out of my depth my little paper so far has drawn comments
>and questions from someone as notable as Barry Mazur,
Somehow the fact that it's "drawn comments from" a big shot
proves something. Right.
>though I hope he
>doesn't now regret replying to me about it, and has been looked at
>without claim of error by at least two of the editors of the New York
>Journal of Mathematics, which includes Andrew Granville who referred
>me up to the chief editor, and I hope he does't regret that either.
Better yet: When the editor of a journal looks at something and
then sends it to a different editor that proves something? Well
actually maybe it does, but not what he thinks it does... heh-heh.
>Now then it seems to me that a lot of you may think of me as just some
>"crank" but that lot of you don't even register on the screen for a
>lot of the people I've already received comments from, as they don't
>know you and probably don't care to know you.
Have any of these people agreed to _publish_ this paper that
you're so proud that they've commented on? Getting someone
to _comment on_ something is a big deal. Right.
Actually many of "us" have had editors of journals comment
on papers with words like this: "Dr. Ullrich: I'm pleased to
inform you that your paper [title] has been accepted for
publication in [journal]". Let us know when someone
comments on your work in words that remind you of that.
>But, of course, you can still think that your opinions about me
>matter. As if opinion is mathematics, as I fear that for many of you,
>opinion IS mathematics, which is why you don't register and shouldn't
>as you don't understand the point.
>
>Mathematics is about truth, not social opinion.
Another goodie, although not as original as the stuff above:
Math is about truth, not social opinion, _except_ that the
fact that someone's "commented on" my paper proves
something about it - when people are making explicitly
disparaging comments is when math is not about social
opinion, but when people are making comments that
I'm too dense to recognize as polite brushoffs _those_
misunderstood opinions count for something.
Gib Bogle
> Ah... your mention of "Social Text" prompted me to re-read an article by
> Alan Sokal called "What the Social Text Affair Does and Does Not Prove".
> http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/noretta.html
Sokal deserves an award. Maybe the Nobel Prize for humour.
Gib
Lawrence E. McKnight
>"John C. Randolph" <j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote in message news:<3F152198...@nospam.idiom.com>...
>Well *supposedly* a correct and profound math paper can get published
>in a "reputable journal" which means that the journals I've faced so
>far may lose a lot of their luster once the full story comes out.
>
>As for being out of my depth my little paper so far has drawn comments
>and questions from someone as notable as Barry Mazur, though I hope he
>doesn't now regret replying to me about it, and has been looked at
>without claim of error by at least two of the editors of the New York
>Journal of Mathematics, which includes Andrew Granville who referred
>me up to the chief editor, and I hope he does't regret that either.
>
>Now then it seems to me that a lot of you may think of me as just some
>"crank" but that lot of you don't even register on the screen for a
>lot of the people I've already received comments from, as they don't
>know you and probably don't care to know you.
>
>But, of course, you can still think that your opinions about me
>matter. As if opinion is mathematics, as I fear that for many of you,
>opinion IS mathematics, which is why you don't register and shouldn't
>as you don't understand the point.
>
>Mathematics is about truth, not social opinion.
>
Well, you may have gotten letters from some editors, but when there
was a period of time when my duties as a graduate assistant was to
assist the editor of a journal, selecting which papers to send
referrees to, etc. When a stange paper came in which was riduculous
on the face of it, it was not sent to a referree, but returned with a
non-commital letter. You might have gotten some of those.
>
>James Harris
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
Randy Poe
JIR is still publishing? Excellent. I thought they had
gone defunct or merged with some other publication or
something.
- Randy
John C. Randolph
>
> "John C. Randolph" <j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote in message news:<3F152198...@nospam.idiom.com>...
> in a "reputable journal" which means that the journals I've faced so
> far may lose a lot of their luster once the full story comes out.
If things were different, they'd be different. (That's what we call a tautology.)
If you ever come up with a 'correct and profound' math paper, then give
it another shot. In the meantime, you're just huffing and puffing and
wasting editors' time.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
Umm.. I think they're careful to limit their journal to people who
*know* that they're writing jokes.
-jcr
Christian Gross
>
>Mathematics is about truth, not social opinion.
>
Being an engineer.... I would say not entirely...
Mathematics may point to the truth, but it depends entirely on what
you consider to be the truth. Consider Stephen Wolfram. Many
consider him a bit of a yahoo. I read his "A New Kind of Science"
book. Quite profound. But yet no respect, even though probably in
about 100 years people will look at him as well look at Newton.
Convincing people is not about saying, "Here is the answer you wanted.
Read it and learn the truth". It is about convincing. Because
sometimes we are wrong...
Christian Gross
C. Bond
[snip]
> The mathematial argument in that paper begins with a truth, and
> proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true.
Only if the steps are error-free. Consider this:
a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
a+b = b
2a = a
2 = 1
How would a mathematician (or, indeed, any rational person) interpret the result that 2 = 1? Here's how:
Certainly 2 does *not* equal 1. Therefore the argument must contain an error. And, indeed, it does.
Similarly, you have concluded that the "ring of algebraic integers" is incomplete. But there is no such thing as an
"incomplete ring". Either the algebraic integers form a ring or they do not. Your conclusion is tantamount to
claiming that the algebraic integers do *not* form a ring. But it is been proven that the *do* form a ring.
Therefore your argument contains an error.Furthermore, if your conclusion leads to the assertion that the algebraic
integers do not form a ring, then all your setup step which are based on operations "within the ring of algebraic
integers" re, prima facie, contradictory.
> All any mathematician, or *anyone* who wishes to challenge the paper
> need do, is break that chain.
>
> None can.
>
> James Harris
I just have! Along with several others. Ignoring or misrepresenting the refutations will not dispose of them
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
Wayne Brown
> All any mathematician, or *anyone* who wishes to challenge the paper
> need do, is break that chain.
> None can.
Many have.
--
Wayne Brown | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Will Twentyman
> "C. Bond" <cb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3F1AA941...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>James Harris wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>The mathematial argument in that paper begins with a truth, and
>>>proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true.
>>
>>Only if the steps are error-free. Consider this:
>
>
>
>
>>a = b
>>a^2 = a*b
>>a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
>>(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
>
>
>
>
>>a+b = b
>
>
> Then there's a divide by 0 error. In this classic example, the
> symbols are here used to obscure the reality.
If you were defending your proof, you would begin by promptly either
ingoring this or pointing our attention to something unrelated.
>
> Those confused may be taken in by illusion--people can see something
> as valid if they get confused by the symbols, but at the start you're
> told a=b, so you have
>
> (a+a)(a-a) = a(a-a)
>
> and it's not a valid step to divide off a-a, as that's 0, and you
> can't divide by 0. The trick is that a=b is stated but then b is
> still shown, so your mind may tell you that a does not equal b,
> because a doesn't LOOK like b. But how they look doesn't matter to
> the math, as a=b, tells the tale.
>
>
>>2a = a
>>2 = 1
>
>
> <deleted>
>
> I noticed a poster DID reply to this classic example, but didn't point
> out the obvious, possibly because the assumption is that everyone
> knows why the argument is flawed. Now someone might call it a proof,
> but it's clearly not, as a proof is correct. That's easy to get
> confused because you may hear people talking about proof, when they
> have a *claim* of proof.
>
> Most importantly, notice that a short, flawed argument can be handled
> by showing a break in the logical chain at a single point.
Then why do you fail to address breaks in your logical chain that others
have pointed out? Why do you fail to deal with the counter-examples and
counter-proofs?
>
> That's mathematics.
Virgil
jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
> Then there's a divide by 0 error. In this classic example, the
> symbols are here used to obscure the reality.
>
> Those confused may be taken in by illusion--people can see something
> as valid if they get confused by the symbols
Remarkable that JSH can find where the errors are except in his own
work.
David Bernier
James Harris wrote:
[...]
> You present the logical break--the smoking gun.
>
> That's mathematics.
Why do you think you're right and tons of people are wrong?
David Bernier
Maxim Stepin
> You don't need to find another proof to duel with it. You don't need
> to attack the person finding the argument. You don't need to argue
> persuasively.
>
> You present the logical break--the smoking gun.
>
> That's mathematics.
>
> If you have the evidence, present THE logical break.
>
> The proof is out there.
Then follow your own logic and present the logical break in proof of M-M theorem.
Why you spent so much time presenting pseudo-counterexamples and instead?
I think you can't follow your own logic, James.
W. Dale Hall
James Harris wrote:
> Will Twentyman <wtwen...@read.my.sig> wrote in message news:<3f1aa917$1_2@newsfeed>...
>
>>James Harris wrote:
>>
... stuff deleted ...
>>>
>>>I noticed a poster DID reply to this classic example, but didn't point
>>>out the obvious, possibly because the assumption is that everyone
>>>knows why the argument is flawed. Now someone might call it a proof,
>>>but it's clearly not, as a proof is correct. That's easy to get
>>>confused because you may hear people talking about proof, when they
>>>have a *claim* of proof.
>>>
>>>Most importantly, notice that a short, flawed argument can be handled
>>>by showing a break in the logical chain at a single point.
>>
>>Then why do you fail to address breaks in your logical chain that others
>>have pointed out? Why do you fail to deal with the counter-examples and
>>counter-proofs?
>
>
> How am I supposed to answer those questions? If you're right then I'm
> someone who has deluded himself to the point I'm no longer rational.
> Having lost trust in my own mind, what would I have left? Yet if
> you're wrong, then what can I say in response?
>
You can state that the other person is wrong, and point out the error,
as you're demanding of others [yet continue to evade the responses].
I, for one, have pointed out [and will do so again in this article]
a point where your proof breaks down. I do not point out a statement
that fails to follow from its predecessors in the argument, because
your argument is so foggily written that virtually *every* statement
fails to follow from those that precede it.
Rather than slog through a pile of eminently unreadable, ill-formulated
pidgin-mathematical blathering, I point out where you make an incorrect
statement. As you yourself will attest, a correct argument cannot (given
consistency, which you are not addressing, nor do you have the knowledge
to address) produce an incorrect result. Your result is demonstrably
incorrect (as I point out), therefore your argument fails.
> What I will say is that if you point to a single logical break in the
> chain, that is all that's necessary to sink a proof claim. So your
> questions are automatcially suspicious with the claims of
> "counter-examples" and "counter-proofs".
>
That is one way to rebut an incorrect argument, but it is also
sufficient to demonstrate that the argument produces an erroneous
conclusion. You are doing yourself no service by evading that point,
especially when the erroneous conclusion is one you promoted in
your paper. That is important, since you cannot claim that someone
else somehow mangled your argument to produce the error. If anyone
understands that argument, it must be you, and if you produce
errors in it, then no one else can be blamed for being somehow
mis-interpreting what you say, or particularly inept at doing
what you call "simple math".
To claim that my demonstration (that you have a false result) is
somehow suspicious, or that anyone else's questions to you, based
on that result, are suspicious, is unconscionable.
If you can't support your argument in a *particular* case, how then
can you dare to claim that it holds *in general*?
For you to repeatedly state, "It's a correct argument, because no one
has found the statement where it goes awry," is NOT a legitimate defense
against a demonstration that your argument produces an erroneous result.
> Now let's suppose that you believe what you're saying, and you're
> facing me, whom you must think is a deluded person, would you use your
> *best* most succinct evidence i.e. the "smoking gun" or would you try
> to build a case?
>
Stop the posturing. This is not about a legal case, this is not about
a commitment proceedings, this is about your continuing parading of
a thoroughly discredited argument, with claims of its being a new
result about algebraic integers. Given that you don't even know what
a ring is, or what a polynomial is, or a variable, for that matter,
why do you feel that your pitiful efforts have exposed the sham
that you imagine mathematics to be? Maybe you've exposed the sham that
mathematicians imagine you are?
> If you're trying to convince others, you might build a case, but why
> bother if you have a smoking gun? If you have videotape of a witness
> shooting the victim, why bring in character witnesses?
>
Whom is it that you imagine you're referring to?
Do you imagine that someone other than you needs any convincing? From my
perspective, all this effort is directed towards getting you to realize
that you're playing in a game where you refuse to learn the rules, and
where you have no particular skills, aside from doing prodigious amounts
of trivial calculations, and constructing text that only you can
decipher. Why anyone would care to convince your sorry self of the
error of your ways is at times a puzzle to me, but a large part of this
is to stand up in the face of your incorrigible arrogance and stupidity,
and to refuse to let the newsgroup be taken over by such punks as
yourself.
> If you have a victim giving a positive identification of the
> perpetrator, why worry about fingerprint evidence?
>
Why all the flailing about? Why not just say what you mean?
> In mathematics, the logical break in a "proof" is THE smoking gun.
>
Idiot. Your proof is *all* logical break, punctuated only by, well,
punctuation. There is no connected argument in your paper, not one. The
closest you come (which is still laughably distant from a good argument)
is the "Factorization Lemma", and that is either trivially true:
Let g divide P. Then g = r + c, where c is a constant
and r may or may not not be a constant.
Or absolutely irrelevant; others have pointed out how it is a crock,
and I won't be repeating their arguments. You've seen them, but true
to your own no-class upbringing, consistently ignore them.
> It is irrefutable, and cannot be bridged or fixed. No witness now
> born, nor that will ever be born can stand against it. And no
> rational jury will ever rule against you once you present it.
>
Back to pseudo-argument. Get off that soapbox before you hurt yourself.
> A flawed argument cannot stand on its own. That's why it's flawed.
>
No, a flawed argument is flawed because it contains errors. It cannot
stand on its own because those errors lead to more errors.
Just like the error that I pointed out. Error. Yours.
> You don't need to find another proof to duel with it. You don't need
> to attack the person finding the argument. You don't need to argue
> persuasively.
>
Can somebody say Amen, brother! Can I get a Hallelujah? Glory be!
> You present the logical break--the smoking gun.
>
> That's mathematics.
>
Do you still deny that your argument is producing an error?
> If you have the evidence, present THE logical break.
>
The evidence,
From the paper:
Therefore, with the factorization
65 x^3 - 12 x + 1 = (a1 x + 1)(a2 x + 1)(a3 x + 1)
one of the a's is coprime to 5, [...].
This does not follow from the preceding text [the whole earlier part of
the paper].
Why not? Because it's false:
I have found common factors between the a's in the following
factorization:
65 x^3 - 12 x + 1 = (a1 x + 1)(a2 x + 1)(a3 x + 1)
and the number 5. Those factors are algebraic integers and not units.
You claim, by virtue of your own apparently unassailable method of
argument, that the a's are coprime to 5. Does your definition of
coprime numbers allow for common factors between the numbers?
I have proposed that these polynomials
q(x) = 8 x^2 - 76 x -185
r(x) = 8 x^2 - 4 x - 45
s(x) = 4 x^2 - 37 x - 104
have the property that, for any root z of the polynomial
p(x)= x^3 - 12 x^2 + 65,
we have
q(z)*r(z) = 5
r(z)*s(z) = z.
I've shown how this can be verified, by doing the following
multiplications (courtesy of DOE Macsyma):
First, here are the products that I'm making claims about:
q(x)*r(x) = 64 x^4 - 640 x^3 - 1536 x^2 + 4160 x + 8325
r(x)*s(x) = 32 x^4 - 312 x^3 - 864 x^2 + 2081 x + 4680
Next, a couple of products of p(x) = x^3 - 12 x^2 + 65 with
polynomials of degree 1:
(64 x + 128)*(x^3 - 12 x^2 + 65)
= 64 x^4 - 640 x^3 - 1536 x^2 + 4160 x + 8320
(32 x + 72)*(x^3 - 12 x^2 + 65)
= 32 x^4 - 312 x^3 - 864 x^2 + 2080 x + 4680
Finally, we compare the results and see this:
q(x)*r(x) = (64 x + 128)*p(x) + 5
r(x)*s(x) = (32 x + 72)*p(x) + x,
Note that, for any value xo that makes p(xo) = 0,
that same value xo will make q(xo)r(xo) = 5, so
r(xo) is a factor of 5.
That value of xo also makes r(xo)*s(xo) = xo, so
r(xo) is a factor of xo.
In short, r(xo) becomes a factor of *both* xo and 5.
Since r(x) is a polynomial with integral coefficients,
r(xo) is an algebraic integer whenever xo is.
It is similarly simple to demonstrate that, whenever
xo is a root of p(x), then r(xo) is a root of the
polynomial mpr(x) = x^3 - 969 x^2 + 315 x + 5:
First, expand the polynomial mpr(r(x)):
mpr(r(x)) = (r(x))^3 - 969 (r(x))^2 + 315 (r(x)) + 5
= (8 x^2 - 4 x - 45)^3 - 969 (8 x^2 - 4 x - 45)^2
+ 315 (8 x^2 - 4 x - 45) + 5
= 512 x^6 - 768 x^5 - 70272 x^4 + 70592 x^3
+ 731136 x^2 - 374400 x - 2067520
Next, multiply these two polynomials:
p(x) = x^3 - 12 x^2 + 65,
and
w(x) = 512 x^3 + 5376 x^2 - 5760 x - 31808
to get this:
p(x)*w(x) = 512 x^6 - 768 x^5 - 70272 x^4 + 70592 x^3
+ 731136 x^2 - 374400 x - 2067520
Notice the equality
mpr(r(x)) = p(x)*w(x).
That means for every value of x, the polynomial you get by computing
r(x), then evaluating mpr(x) at that value, is equal to the product of
p(x) and w(x).
If xo is a root of p(x), you have p(xo) = 0, so p(xo)*w(xo) = 0, and
therefore r(xo) is a root of mpr(x).
Note that there are three such roots of mpr(x), and (taking the three
roots x1,x2,x3 of p(x)), three values
r1 = r(x1) ~ 968.67481
r2 = r(x2) ~ -0.01517
r3 = r(x3) ~ 0.34036
correspond to the three real roots of mpr(x). As such, their product
must be -5.
Your earlier claim that the a's must be coprime to 5 implies that the
r's must be units (since they're common factors of ai with 5, in the
ring of algebraic integers).
If you multiply units, even you must realize that the product is again
a unit.
Therefore, -5 (and equivalently, 5 itself) must be a unit in the ring
of algebraic integers.
Do you agree or not?
If so, then say so. I'll make it easy; here's a form for you
to fill out and post to your full array of newsgroups:
I, James S. Harris, affirm my belief that, in
the ring of algebraic integers, the (rational)
integer 5 [five] is a unit.
James S. Harris.
If not, then show me (hey, don't worry about me, show your public!)
where my error is. I've done all the multiplication; you can verify
or refute all this very easily, given the ability to multiply
or expand polynomial expressions.
Show how highly you value algebra: Do some.
It's easy: ordinary polynomials, ordinary polynomial multiplication,
nothing up my sleeves, no salesman will call. You don't even need
to solve any equations. Just multiply, combine terms, show me wrong!
Prove me wrong. Your mama says you can't.
Show us all how much you got that power, how powerful your powers
are, and how you aren't afraid to use your powers for good instead
of evil!
Crush that damnable Evil Mathematics Cabal, once and for all!
>
> The proof is out there.
>
>
> James Harris
So is your published error.
Unfortunately, error trumps proof.
You lose.
Dale.
Will Twentyman
> Will Twentyman <wtwen...@read.my.sig> wrote in message news:<3f1aa917$1_2@newsfeed>...
>
>>
>>>"C. Bond" <cb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3F1AA941...@ix.netcom.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The mathematial argument in that paper begins with a truth, and
>>>>>proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true.
>>>>
>>>>Only if the steps are error-free. Consider this:
>>>
>>>
>>>That's what a logical step is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>a = b
>>>>a^2 = a*b
>>>>a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
>>>>(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
>>>
>>>
>>>Everything is fine at this point as a-b=0, so you have 0=0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>a+b = b
>>>
>>>
>>>Then there's a divide by 0 error. In this classic example, the
>>>symbols are here used to obscure the reality.
>>
>>If you were defending your proof, you would begin by promptly either
>>ingoring this or pointing our attention to something unrelated.
>
>
> unsatisfying, but people can get obsessed with their own ideas.
>
> So it seems to me you're claiming that with my current work I've
> become fixated on arguments that are actually flawed. That's an
> interesting proposition and one I will entertain. Luckily, it's
> mathematics so if you are correct you can point out the break in the
> logical chain of my paper.
>
> I look forward to your response. If I'm wrong at this point, I think
> it'd be fascinating.
>
>
>>>Those confused may be taken in by illusion--people can see something
>>>as valid if they get confused by the symbols, but at the start you're
>>>told a=b, so you have
>>>
>>> (a+a)(a-a) = a(a-a)
>>>
>>>and it's not a valid step to divide off a-a, as that's 0, and you
>>>can't divide by 0. The trick is that a=b is stated but then b is
>>>still shown, so your mind may tell you that a does not equal b,
>>>because a doesn't LOOK like b. But how they look doesn't matter to
>>>the math, as a=b, tells the tale.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>2a = a
>>>>2 = 1
>>>
>>>
>>><deleted>
>>>
>>>I noticed a poster DID reply to this classic example, but didn't point
>>>out the obvious, possibly because the assumption is that everyone
>>>knows why the argument is flawed. Now someone might call it a proof,
>>>but it's clearly not, as a proof is correct. That's easy to get
>>>confused because you may hear people talking about proof, when they
>>>have a *claim* of proof.
>>>
>>>Most importantly, notice that a short, flawed argument can be handled
>>>by showing a break in the logical chain at a single point.
>>
>>Then why do you fail to address breaks in your logical chain that others
>>have pointed out? Why do you fail to deal with the counter-examples and
>>counter-proofs?
>
>
> someone who has deluded himself to the point I'm no longer rational.
I believe it's clear that many of the people posting to your threads
believe this is exactly the case. Perhaps not to being no longer
rational, but certainly self-deluded.
> Having lost trust in my own mind, what would I have left? Yet if
> you're wrong, then what can I say in response?
>
> What I will say is that if you point to a single logical break in the
> chain, that is all that's necessary to sink a proof claim. So your
> questions are automatcially suspicious with the claims of
> "counter-examples" and "counter-proofs".
See below.
>
> Now let's suppose that you believe what you're saying, and you're
> facing me, whom you must think is a deluded person, would you use your
> *best* most succinct evidence i.e. the "smoking gun" or would you try
> to build a case?
There have been several observations that you conclude results in the
general case from a specific case. This is a logical gap. You have
never addressed these, merely reasserted your position. Below you will
find 3 quotes, from two different articles with commentary before each
one. Together, they should summarize nicely the constrasting
perspectives between you and those who disagree. I have seen these
arguments many times seperately. They are now, as far as I can tell, in
one place. Together they form several huge gaps. If I have missed
something, please point it out. As I understand how the discussions
have gone so far, these are still outstanding objections.
>
> If you're trying to convince others, you might build a case, but why
> bother if you have a smoking gun? If you have videotape of a witness
> shooting the victim, why bring in character witnesses?
Because the smoking gun only works if everyone will agree that there is
smoke.
>
> If you have a victim giving a positive identification of the
> perpetrator, why worry about fingerprint evidence?
>
> In mathematics, the logical break in a "proof" is THE smoking gun.
It has been provided multiple times. You consistently fail to address it.
>
> It is irrefutable, and cannot be bridged or fixed. No witness now
> born, nor that will ever be born can stand against it. And no
> rational jury will ever rule against you once you present it.
>
> A flawed argument cannot stand on its own. That's why it's flawed.
Then please retract yours. You've been asked to do this before and
failed to.
>
> You don't need to find another proof to duel with it. You don't need
> to attack the person finding the argument. You don't need to argue
> persuasively.
>
> You present the logical break--the smoking gun.
When you refuse to see the smoke, we are forced to other methods.
>
> That's mathematics.
>
> If you have the evidence, present THE logical break.
>
> The proof is out there.
>
>
> James Harris
Let's take one counter-example I provided on 7-15. You never responded
to this (apparently google and my newsfeed aren't passing everything
that is posted). BTW, I'm interested in knowing if the problem lies
with google or my newsfeed.
The thread was in "Re: Advanced Polynomial Factorization: VERY much
simplified"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Harris wrote:
> Will Twentyman <wtwen...@read.my.sig> wrote in message
news:<3f12f68f$1_2@newsfeed>...
>
>> James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> nora...@hotmail.com (Nora Baron) wrote in message
news:<36024859.03071...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>> jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message
news:<3c65f87.0307...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>
>>
>> [deleted]
>>
>>
>>> It's like with 2(x2+2x+1) = (x+1)(2x+2), where here you can see how
>>> the 2 divides out, but if you couldn't see, and couldn't guess, like
>>> if you had
>>>
>>> P(x)= 2(x2+2x+1) = (a_1 + 1)(a_2 + 2),
>>> with a_1 a_2 = 2x2, a_1 + a_2 = 4x,
>>
>>
>> Correction 1: 2 a_1(x) + a_2(x) = 4x.
>
>
>
> Hey, you're right. Thanks!
>
>
>> Correction 2: only if a_1(x) = x, a_2(x) = 2x.
>>
>> If you want to allow anything else, your assertion is incorrect.
And you consistently want to allow the a_i(x) to be non-polynomials.
>
>
>
> Hmmm...which might lead a *rational* reader to suppose you're trying
> to claim that it doesn't work with non-polynomial factors.
>
> How about this?
>
> p(x) = sqrt(2(x2+2x+1)) = sqrt((a_1+1)(a_2+2))
>
> with a_1 a_2 = 2x2, 2a_1 + a_2 = 4x?
>
> Mathematicians, what a crew. But you know what? They take themselves
> SO seriously, even when they're fighting basic algebra.
>
> So why would *mathematicians* fight algebra? Because they're actually
> like English professors...really stuck-up English professors...who
> believe they're owed a certain amount of respect.
>
> But you see, English professors can pooh-pooh a literary work, so
> mathematicians acting like really stuck-up English professors think
> they can pooh-pooh valid mathematics, which inevitably leads to them
> attacking the foundations of mathematics because math is funny that
> way.
>
>
> James Harris
Let's stick with the original problem.
P(x)=2(x2 + 2x + 1)
P(x)= (a_1(x) + 1)(a_2(x) + 2)
a_1(x)=sqrt(x)
a_2(x)=2x sqrt(x) - 2x + 6 sqrt(x) - 8 + 8/(sqrt(x)+1)
These are valid factorizations in the algebraic functions.
a_1(x) a_2(x) = 2x2 - 2x sqrt(x) + 6x - 8 sqrt(x) + [8 sqrt(x)]/[sqrt(x)+1]
Therefor, a_1(x) a_2(x) =/= 2x2.
Put bluntly: I *am* claiming that non-polynomial factors don't have the
properties you want them to have. Simply put, non-polynomial
factorizations do not behave like polynomial factorizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from Easy Proof of Mathematician lies we have THE holes. I point
out that the second step of your Lemma appears to be incomplete. Have
you at ANY point gotten anyone here to accept it? You are concluding
from the behavior at x=0 the behavior for all x. This simply cannot be
done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lemma 1.1. Factorization Lemma:
>>Given a factor g of a polynomial P(x), further defined as a factor
>>for all x, which means that the value of g for a value 'a' of x is
>>a factor of P(a), within the ring of algebraic integers, there exists
>>r and c such that
>>g = r + c
>>where r=0, or is not coprime to x, and c is a factor of the constant
>>term P(0).
The notation here could be improved. g should be g(x), r should be
r(x).
>>Proof. Let x=0, then g must be a factor of P(0), so at that point
>>c = g.
>>(1) If when x does not equal 0, g=c, r=0.
>>(2) If when x does not equal 0, g =/= c there must exist r which
>>varies with x, and as r equals 0 when x equals 0 it is not coprime to
>>x.
>>
I'm not sure step 2 makes sense. I don't see why it makes r coprime
to x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again from Easy Proof... with my original comments about coprime
deleted. Based on my first objection, your observation about the value
of a1 a2 a3 is clearly false. You have allowed the a's to vary too much
to safely draw your conclusion. Your conclusions about the values of
the a's at m=0 follow from that. Secondly, you jump from talking about
m=0 to m=1, and assume that the a's will behave THE SAME WAY even though
you have acknowledged that their values are dependent on m. Third, you
plug values in like crazy and assume that the resulting polynomial will
be bound be the same constraints as the original with unknown parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>2. Primary Argument
>>Given
>>65x3 - 12x + 1 = (a1 x + 1)(a2 x + 1)(a3 x + 1)
>>in the ring of algebraic integers. Let
>>P(m) = f2 ((m3 f4 - 3m2 f2 + 3m)x3 - 3( - 1 + mf2 )xu2 +
u3 f)
>>Here f is a non unit, non zero algebraic integer coprime to 3 and x,
>>and u a non unit, non zero algebraic integer coprime to f. Note P(m)
>>has a factor that is f2 .
>>That expression comes from expanding (v3 +1)x3 - 3vxy2 + y3 ,
>>using the substitutions v = - 1+mf2 , and y = uf, where additional
>>variables provide an additional degree of freedom.
>>Consider that a similar idea can be used to factor 3, prime in
>>integers, as x2 +7x+10 = 3, allows you to find factors of 3 in the
>>ring of algebraic integers.
>>Now consider the factorization
>>P(m) = (a1x + uf)(a2x + uf)(a3x + uf)
>>where multiplying out shows that
>>a1a2a3 = m3 f6 - 3m2 f4 + 3mf2 = f2 (m3 f4 - 3m2 f2 + 3m)
****
>>so a1a2a3 = mf2 (m2 f4 - 3mf2 + 3).
>>Therefore, at least one of the a's cannot be coprime to m, and at
>>least one of the a's must equal 0 when m=0.
>>(Note: The a's are roots of a monic polynomial with algebraic
>>integer coefficients so they are algebraic integers.)
>>Notice that the constant term P(0) is given by
>>P(0) = f2 (3xu2 + u3 f)
>>and also that P(0)/f2 = 3xu2 + u3 f, which is coprime to f.
>>Then I have the factor of P(m), g1, where g1 = a1x + uf, where a1
>>is not coprime to m.
>>From my factorization lemma, I have that, when m=0
>>g1 = c = uf
>>meaning f is a factor of the constant term.
>>Therefore, exactly two of the a's equal 0, when m=0, to get the
>>factor f2 in the constant term P(0), while one must not equal 0, or
>>f3 would be the factor.
>>Now as noted before in general P(m) has a factor that is f2 , and
>>separating that factor off, gives a constant term coprime to f;
>>therefore, given g1 = a1x + uf
>>where with m = 0, g1 gives a factor of f it must have that same
>>factor in general, proving that two of the a's have a factor that is f.
>>Therefore, one factor is coprime to f.
****
>>Now letting m=1, f=sqrt(5), where I can let u=1 as its value doesn't
>>change the a's, I have
>>(m3 f6 - 3m2 f4 + 3m)x3 - 3( - 1 + mf2 )xu2 + u3 = 65x3 -
12x + 1
>>which may be more easily seen from using v = - 1 + mf2 = 4, y=1
>>with (v3 + 1)x3 - 3vxy2 + y3 .
>>Therefore, with the factorization
>>65x3 - 12x + 1 = (a1x + 1)(a2x + 1)(a3x + 1)
>>one of the a's is coprime to 5, which shows where some of the alge-
>>braic integer factors distribute despite the factors being irrational.
>>E-mail address: jst...@msn.com
James Waldby
David, you've phrased that question in an interestingly
ambiguous way. I suppose you probably mean, "Why is it
that you think you're right and tons of people are wrong?",
but JSH may very well take the question as "Why do you
think it is that you're right and tons of people are wrong?".
(The respective answers might be, "Because I'm a nut" and
"Because of that evil, secret mathematical conspiracy".)
-jiw
Virgil
> The argument is over an esoteric branch of mathematics in an area
> called "pure math", and what's interesting is how personal and vicious
> the attacks are.
At least the ones authored by JSH, such as this one, seem to be
personal and vicious beyond reason.
>
> I charge people who deny the mathematical proof I've presented with
> either being liars or incompetent, and they come back as can be seen
> in this thread.
When you abuse them as you have just done, why are you so surprised
that they do not take it kindly?
>
> What I've learned is that the public doesn't care. And maybe
> mathematicians should think about that carefully.
If the public doesn't care, that would mean that the mathematicians
can do anything they want to JSH without fear of reprisal. Is that
what you mean by thinking carefully?
>
> I haven't hidden my motivation in pursuing "pure math" proofs: fame,
> and money from fame.
And so far, you nhave only achieved infamy.
>
> But what I've found is that mathematicians are in a defunct area, and
> that probably by pushing "pure math", which has so clearly been shown
> to be defensible even when it's wrong by my experience, they've lost
> because the public doesn't really believe in it as a meaningful
> concept.
But the applied mathematicians and physicists and engineers do
believe in it, and they are the market for pure math.
>
> Sure, there are mathematicians who will win the Nobel equivalent prize
> anyway, and walk away with the nearly million dollars, even when the
> public doesn't really know if it's b.s., but most mathematicians won't
> ever get the chance.
It is quite impossible for a mathematician, as a mathematician, to
win a Nobel prize, since ther is no Nobel prize in mathematics.
Whether someone who is a mathematician might win it in some other
field is apossibility, since a chemist once won the Nobel peace
prize (after having won the chemistry prize).
The quality of JSH's research here, as elsewhere, is deficient.
[snipped some of JSH's bile secretions]
>
> James Harris
Lawrence E. McKnight
[snip....
>
>The argument is over an esoteric branch of mathematics in an area
>called "pure math", and what's interesting is how personal and vicious
>the attacks are.
>
>I charge people who deny the mathematical proof I've presented with
>either being liars or incompetent, and they come back as can be seen
>in this thread.
>
Dang! Broke another meter!
[snip...
Larry
David Bernier
I'm wondering if James Harris thinks there's a silent majority, too
afraid to speak up for fear of being ostracized by the
the Powers that be... (I heard the root for
ostracize has to do with oysters, their shells having being used to
cause pain and suffering ... ?)
I remember a psychology study which involved the investigators
and N-1 of the participants being told the real purpose of the study,
which was to see how participant number N would react to
confident assertions of things that were evidently false,
and where hapless participant N was told no such thing.
For example, the co-conspirators might maintain that the
number one producer of coconut oil was Russia...
David Bernier
Xcott Craver
>
> (I heard the root for ostracize has to do with oysters, their shells
> having being used to cause pain and suffering ... ?)
Not exactly.
> I remember a psychology study which involved the investigators
> and N-1 of the participants being told the real purpose of the study,
> which was to see how participant number N would react to
> confident assertions of things that were evidently false,
> and where hapless participant N was told no such thing.
I read a study in which N people were asked to estimate the
length of a stick lying in front of them. N-1 were instructed
to purposely pick a severely low estimate (e.g., 2 feet for a
4-foot stick.)
I find this much more fascinating than N-1 people agreeing on
an evidently false statement, because here the claims of other
people are pitted against something you see right in front of
you.
--X
David Bernier
Xcott Craver wrote:
> David Bernier wrote:
>
>>(I heard the root for ostracize has to do with oysters, their shells
>>having being used to cause pain and suffering ... ?)
>
>
> Not exactly.
Is it that the shells were used as ballots, for voting someone
out?
>>I remember a psychology study which involved the investigators
>>and N-1 of the participants being told the real purpose of the study,
>>which was to see how participant number N would react to
>>confident assertions of things that were evidently false,
>>and where hapless participant N was told no such thing.
>
>
> I read a study in which N people were asked to estimate the
> length of a stick lying in front of them. N-1 were instructed
> to purposely pick a severely low estimate (e.g., 2 feet for a
> 4-foot stick.)
>
> I find this much more fascinating than N-1 people agreeing on
> an evidently false statement, because here the claims of other
> people are pitted against something you see right in front of
> you.
My recollection was somewhat off . You say you read that study.
How did the the the person with no instructions to underestimate the
length of the stick react?
David Bernier
José Carlos Santos
> Xcott Craver wrote:
> > David Bernier wrote:
> >
> >>(I heard the root for ostracize has to do with oysters, their shells
> >>having being used to cause pain and suffering ... ?)
> >
> >
> > Not exactly.
>
>
> Is it that the shells were used as ballots, for voting someone
> out?
Right. That's how things were done in Athens.
Best regards
Jose Carlos Santos
Xcott Craver
>
> My recollection was somewhat off . You say you read that study.
> How did the the the person with no instructions to underestimate the
> length of the stick react?
He would often give an answer somewhere between the daffy
underestimate and its length, significantly less than what
people estimated in a control group.
My memory is not so good, but I think this was in an issue of
Perceptual and Motor Skills, probably 1996 or before, and I
think N was 4. I can check my memory next time I'm at the
library.
--X
neepy
This sounds like a variation on the Asch paradigm, devised by Solomon
Asch in the 1960s. Asch used much bigger groups than N=4; the results
(= people tend to "go with the majority" even when they "know" the
majority are wrong) have been replicated since the 60s; the effect may
be getting weaker (people are wising-up to the sorts of tricks
psychologists get up to), but the implications (in "real life" it is
hard to speak up when you are in the minority, even if you believe you
are right) probably stand (and fit with "commonsense" anyway).
Posthumous Philosophical Polemic
> Well looks like I got bit on the "factor of" versus "factors in common
> with" controversy as a reply I just received from the chief editor of
> a German journal talks as if I'm saying that none of the a's has a
> factor of 5, that is 5. He also thought my lemma was a trivial result
> and he mentioned polynomial factors. Then he put me on a spam block,
> which I discovered when I tried to reply back to him.
>
> Hmmm...I guess I'll not get much leeway from Germans.
>
>
Even I've managed to get published in peer reviewed journals in
combinatorics and logic, partly because I don't insist on imposing an
idiosyncratic nomenclature on others. This proclivity of yours can
fairly be called irrational, I'm afraid.
Dr. Matroid.