Translate

Friday, January 19, 2018

Some overview early 2018

Last year was great for me as managed to settle some things, and now am focused on posts that assume people who read can check math versus me focused at all on any other assumption.

My mathematical approaches are focused simply, with most requiring only knowledge of algebra and modular algebra, which aids in checking. And with me is a true modular algebra versus what I notice primarily elsewhere is modular arithmetic.

And have had a powerful technique since December 1999, which involves subtracting conditional expressions from a tautology which is a complex mathematical identity, like:

x+y+vz = 0(mod x+y+vz)

Of course then there is no doubt about correctness as long as get each mathematical step correct. And made an absolute proof demo post where prove that:

If: x2 + y2 = z2 then: (v2 - 1)z2 - 2xy = 0(mod x+y+vz), where v can be any value.

With much discovery using this technique and following from it, have gained confidence with it, and there is that troubling area of why others have not cheered to my knowledge.

But had a clue from decades ago when a modular approach to packing of spheres was summarily rejected when I sent to the Proceedings of the AMS back in 1996. Long before I was very much aware of a coverage problem with ring of algebraic integers in 2003. Best explanation is that modern number theorists long ago started resisting valid mathematical discovery! Which explained much last year.

Now that is so great a resistance they are not acknowledging a new primary modular inverse method I found last year, and my analysis indicates their focus is on: control the mathematics by controlling public opinion of the discoverer. Where originally I dismissed that approach as meaningless.

My focus is on the math. For a long time I scoffed at the notion that my credibility mattered as it does not as to correctness. But DOES matter as to people checking! As yes, can be a problem if assertions are simply dismissed so mathematical proof is not considered.

The idea of a democratic aspect to mathematical industry I find distasteful. But then again, mathematical industry is dynamic not just on what works, but on people knowing what works.

That number theorists, who I think are the pure mathematicians who are the primary culprits, can fight mathematical discovery is not as surprising to me now, as human behavior in this area is well-known. In this case my best guess is that government funding for research that is invalidated by valuable and valid discovery is a major part of it. So the monetary motivation provides easy explanation for much.

Which seemed obvious to me over a decade ago, but is wacky enough was worth carefully checking that assessment. Is remarkable though, how a system designed to facilitate pursuit of human knowledge was turned upside down.

It is of interest that going to applied mathematicians does not break that as they are cowed and outnumbered. Beaten down I think deliberately by people who knew somehow before their research was usually worthless. And now know mathematically why, from me! That story is SO wild. I do love it, do admit.

Is now of interest how things play out as time marches on.

Mathematics contained? Intriguing to even think possible, eh? I think so.


James Harris

No comments: