Some of my research forces troubling conclusions with regard to mathematical community, especially number theorists, where is useful to step through relevant math again.
For instance now have noted ability to determine much from a generalized factorization.
In the complex plane:
P(x) = (g1(x) + 1)(g2(x) + 2)
where P(x) is a primitive quadratic with integer coefficients, g1(0) = g2(0) = 0, but g1(x) does not equal 0 for all x.
And I went in the direction of multiplying both sides by some integer k, introducing new functions to gain symmetry, and showed could find those functions as algebraic integer roots:
k*P(x) = (f1(x) + k)(f2(x) + k)
Where show all in this post, but primary point is that in so doing, could prove a coverage problem with the ring of algebraic integers. And it's not even complicated. Is like if you SAY you only want to use evens, and then have a mathematical argument where you claim that 2 is coprime to 6, because you've excluded 3 which is odd. But of course that's specious, as SAYING to use only even numbers does not change the actual reality.
Across number theory this problem may emerge if there is a claim of a unit factor in ring of algebraic integers. Where algebraically with a more complete ring, without this problem, that is clearly not the case. And I had a more complex argument showing the same thing with cubics and an entirely different approach which was published in a math journal. Talked a bit about here.
The problem of course is you may have some number theorist who may have research which is invalidated by this result, when he thought he had valuable contributions to human knowledge. And that could be key to his social status, I hypothesize. And maybe there were enough people like that where they decided to run from the math, and survive in their positions.
Given the amount of time that has passed since I first pointed out the problem, with a published paper, where the journal chief editor tried to pull after publication and journal shut down, maybe he was one of them. And if were me, like to think I'd want the truth, but is not me. I'm the discoverer.
Looking across human systems it actually would have been more remarkable if they'd accepted the truth. Which is kind of sad that what they did instead is not surprising, and is continuing.
Of course you may have students being taught by people without real mathematical accomplishment, so how can they guide to any? And learning erroneous approaches which means can have invalid mathematical arguments on which they build their OWN careers, when house of cards will collapse eventually.
Or, can simply say, best guess is an unknown number of these number theorists could be simply frauds. And it's not like they can teach what they do not know, you know? Discovery IS hard. The coverage problem gives an opening for people who might never experience that adulation, acceptance, and social status, any other way, because real mathematics can be just WAY hard.
Also it's just sad. Have pointed to number authority recently as math can be very enjoyable, and satisfying with RESULTS where in number theory, yeah you can do cool things with real ones.
Like check this out:
(922 + 962 + 1442)(70482 + 6882 + 10322 + 17202 + 24082) = p2 + 1231q2
Where p = 1507976, and q = 4920 are solutions. And I actually relied on this result for a post about number examples I like to stare at, where post with it is, here.
Why does society allow deliberate and continuing error from powerful, influential people at high levels in very important positions?
I think that is a GREAT question. Consequences are so HUGE. For me though? Not so much. I just kept discovering, after all. For the discoverer? Is just more information. Knowledge obtained.
My place in history, after all, is guaranteed. Rest of you? Are competing for some kind of a place.
Where for lots of you? Just is not going to happen.
Just not competing very well. For many of you, this result alone guarantees that nothing you do in mathematics, assuming having that mathematical audience, will be taken seriously without wondering where were you, in this tragedy of the mathematical world?
While I've been talking it, for years.
Oh yeah, took some time for me to get perspective. And weird thing? These kind of stories spread FAST, so lots of people must know by now. But then they do nothing much. Which is weird to me I guess. But watching with other stories in other areas, apparently are waiting for an appropriate authority to handle?
Which to me? Is kind of interesting. So yeah, some of you math people? They DO know. The Public.
And when they look at you? What do you think they're thinking?
James Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment