Knowledge does move fast in our times. And readily admit rely on that much with my own research. So yes, can now say definitively that I had one of the greatest mathematical discoveries, when figured out there was a simple explanation for why count of primes connects with continuous functions like x/ ln x and that ROARED, through math circles.
Then other things didn't happen and our world learned some things, while most humans did not.
My assumption was to assume I was missing something, which is pursuing simplest explanation which actually worked out great.
Then in 2004, when demonstrated with a published paper that with existing rules a person could create an apparent contradiction from a coverage problem apparently that roared too, through math circles. That coverage problem DOES allow mathematicians to fake mathematical discovery should note. And world learned more, but most humans did not.
And I assumed maybe I was missing something, or who knows, maybe was even WRONG. Which was the smart thing to do, so I pondered: How do you know mathematical truth?
And I came up with a functional definition for mathematical proof.
Is is SO cool. And is it unintuitive that I assume that I'm wrong and get MORE? Is one of the best things ever. In math it is better to work with the possibility you are wrong than to ever rest on certainty you are right. As math can be SO subtle.
If you ARE right, try as you will, your math will handle every attack. Math does not care.
So yeah, web spread the information widely and I learned could simply use blogs, as less and less relied on other means like Usenet. Though DID go on Usenet through Google Groups deliberately in the past to maximize wide distribution and lessen censorship ability.
When one looks at how others reacted to my discoveries is not telling about me, but is about them.
And there is some naive I think. Mathematicians who do not realize they were accurately judged from then on by their behavior, even if also judging their peers.
World apparently judged as well but assessing is harder. Nations can be so cagey. There is a use for academics even they may not fully understand. Do they really need to be correct?
But we DO understand emotion with truth. Is so telling really. Which confused me greatly for years as I got this JOY from answers. I really did want to know. Took quite some time for me to more fully comprehend how could there be these people who did not.
Where lately I noted I increasingly was worried less about correctness when proven as solidified tools for determining, than with trying to handle my global attention reality.
But so much faith maybe from some in a world they never understood.
Like you think recognition is from awards? That's funny. Or maybe you think the press coverage is what makes things happen?
There was a time that I did, will admit, which is embarrassing to me now. But is better to be honest I think. But how was I supposed to know better?
Took experience for me to learn.
And yeah, if you think brilliant mathematics and great discovery is primarily about winning awards or getting covered by press people then you have no clue why and how math discovery works.
And should those of us who do know inform such people who do not? In the past I thought yes, with persistence. Now am like just share well as one can--and trust, as now am more interested in talking to others who know.
We know.
James Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment