With what ambitions?

Back summer 2002 was pivotal for me, because quite a bit had finally happened. Like had mysteriously to myself even, found myself suddenly curious about counting prime numbers and within a few weeks had my own prime counting function. But then also thought had finally figured out a way with my complex identities would call tautological spaces to prove Fermat's Last Theorem.

Luckily for me my way to count primes was bigger than I realized then, and also soon would discover there was something VASTLY bigger than Fermat's Last Theorem which would take me well over a decade to fully understand.

To me some of the most fascinating mathematics can ponder endlessly where key to understanding is so simple really. So much is easily proven with a relatively simple factorization using only elementary methods.

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. Then would use: g₁(x) = f₁(x)/k and g₂(x) = f₂(x) + k-2 and get to symmetry:

k*P(x) =  (f₁(x) + k)(f₂(x) + k)

But would be YEARS before had that simple route. And am SO GLAD as to me the emotional impact is the hard part, and now have had over a decade to process many things. So yeah, the math turned out to be easy.

But got a publication early, after a bit of work!

So yeah did the pitching to journals for a bit, including trying to get an editor who was at my alma mater Vanderbilt University to publish. But he would not, even after I visited to explain in person. Yeah was disappointed there. But did give me a reason to visit my old school for a bit.

Persevered until found a journal which would consider and send out for formal peer review. And of course by early 2004 was trying to get a handle on actually getting published, and THEN so much very strange occurred as the chief editor went wild and tried to delete out my paper.

But yeah, where was their ambition? Have talked one of the BIGGEST errors in the history of intellectual thought. Why weren't math people lined up to be a part of history in the making? And it gets more interesting with the story of a math graduate student have talked with:

My reference social problem example

And yeah still going back to 2004, and over 14 years later now can get perspective on what those people probably realized back then--would be a hard fight.

What is fascinating about it to me, is that in my opinion, you get a very pragmatic and objective assessment of the mathematical community that proof would NOT be enough. And even that publication in a formally peer reviewed mathematical journal would not be enough.

Of course that is naive. Mathematical proof has the characteristic that it will not change. And NOW can get some perspective of how can simply grind against social resistance, with relentless patience.

Yet will admit has fascinated me that getting a place in the history books even if took so long might be after you were gone was never enough in case after case. Where have noted my shrug, and admit made things easier for me! I would not have to share credit.

But it is SO weird. For years would rush to get to results and wonder if my habit of sharing relentlessly might lead to me being upstaged! Those fears turned out to be unwarranted. I would be allowed to leisurely make some of the biggest discoveries in the history of mathematics, without competition.

And as I piled on results learned to be less worried myself about where things would go with mathematics. You just have to believe in it, until could also move onto other things.

Am NOT a mathematician. These days find am involved in a lot more than mathematics, where plenty of other things are extremely challenging as well. Guess need to keep myself occupied? Is more fun that way.

Relaxed quite a bit more with my find of my own modular inverse method. Which is what allows me to raise that question again, of how could intelligent people within the mathematical community get things so wrong about how things would go?

Was as if, time after time, people who could check, better than me for some time actually that I was correct, behaved as if the truth would never matter. Which to me? Said they had no faith in mathematical proof against social things. They must have firmly believed that social would rule out over mathematical truth.

But how could they learn such a thing? To me seems so bizarre.

Could go on and on about what is a deeper mystery harder for me to resolve as involves other people. Have theories. But yeah for quite some time was confident certain things MUST happen once proof was released to the world. What apparently did happen was people used the results. Which is cool. But so much else didn't which is a mystery to me readily emphasize.

However, people who are REALLY into something will get excited over their favorite subject. Like imagine Major League Baseball and a relentless homerun hitter. Fans could not contain their excitement. Other ballplayers could not ignore the competition. And sports is a ready reference to me.

Clearly have faced people just not that into mathematics in reality, regardless of any professional label or personal claim.

So in short? I realized, were not really mathematicians. Well that was helpful to me as became my opinion. Simplified things for me. After all, true mathematicians would be excited about mathematical truths regardless of social consequence. And would quickly have been serious competitors with advantage of being in their own area. For me had training in physics, but even then only undergraduate.

Is a mystery to me, will admit. Without questioning folks, wonder how could get an answer.

Yet here we are in 2018, so am looking at facts over 14 years later. So yeah, even on ambition alone is remarkable how clearly there was a consensus that mathematical proof was not enough to guarantee a place in history.

So fate would dictate would be my place, alone.


James Harris