Have been gratified that one of my telling recent results has gained a bit of popularity on the blog.
Reducing:
c1x2 + c2xy + c3y2 = c4z2 + c5zx + c6zy
where the c's are constants. And have talked how to reduce that in general to a form:
[A(x+y) - Bz]2 - Am2 = (B2 - AC)z2
And that is simple enough. (That m is actually a simple function of x,y and z. Why don't I give its explicit value?) Is VERY easy. So yeah is possible in general to reduce a three variable quadratic. And near as I can tell that is new!!! But to me is just one more example of better mathematics where I have piles.
And have emphasized how makes easier with this post:
Quadratics easier with more degrees of freedom
Which also links to where those A, B, C variables are explained. And am wondering if there are other folks wonder as I do, how can stunning advance not get more visible attention like from established mathematical people?
Am curious. Lots of times through the years for over a decade have felt confident some answer or advanced mathematics would move things in social ways. And still looking for that to happen.
Have plenty of math which to ME is simply weird. It is also demonstrably more effective than prior math and apparently is dominating the world with use, but where is the chatter? Where is the celebrity? There is much mystery in that area.
Consistently apparently people in established mathematics have chosen to keep crap. Like my most stunning result still was showing how to write a perfect argument under established rules which was wrong under those same rules. Contradiction!!! Got that published over a decade ago, and things got messed up.
(Yeah you need to be seriously clever to figure out how to do it, and realize a bit of splash would be to get a publication demonstrating. I may be the only person in human history with THAT achievement on this scale.)
People apparently use my results, which is good. But then don't bother to do anything about the other, which I call the social problem. Was a reason distanced myself from mathematicians. I am NOT a mathematician. Am a mathematical discoverer. To me numbers are interesting and I'd prefer to know how they work!
Like what my published paper actually did was show that declaring in the ring of algebraic integers can lead to contradiction, as I could use mathematics correct in that ring which would lead to a result outside the ring.
Talked it all in what I think is one of the most important posts on this blog:
Easily explaining a historical miss
Where actually thought that might do it! Yet here we are. If you are a math person and you declare things in the ring of algebraic integers you are engaging in an error which was proven to be one, over a decade ago. (Does anybody though? Will admit, have not checked so don't know.)
My favorite expression to ponder in that area is beautifully simple.
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.
The simplest example is: P(x) = x2 + 3x + 2
Solving for g's in general is easily done with some substitutions, where one will seem superfluous, but is important. To solve with my approach we will need a new variable k, and two new functions.
Introduce k, where k is a nonzero, and new functions f1(x), and f2(x), where:
g1(x) = f1(x)/k and g2(x) = f2(x) + k-2
Multiply both sides by k, and substitute for the g's, which gives me the now symmetrical form:
k*P(x) = (f1(x) + k)(f2(x) + k)
The purpose of forcing symmetry is...rest of it is at the post:
Simple Generalized Quadratic Factorization
Like to copy from my own posts. So copied a bit there. So yeah elementary methods blow up prior established number theory which people kept on doing even though the things that do not work? Do not work. Where there is plenty of evidence is bogus math--if you look for it. I quit looking years ago as found was depressing.
While I piled on results like even found there was another basic way to find the modular inverse, which then of course is my modular inverse method and went on and on about it for a bit.
Situation of course is a HUGE advantage to me which I finally started admitting, and there is no motivation for me to stop mathematicians from doing fake research except being a good citizen. And have tried some things, but admit will not fully address again until 2028, if necessary.
Why is a huge benefit to me? Removes competition. Makes me bigger in human history. And other things as well where I don't like to explain. Things like not having to behave certain ways or lecture or even bother with academics really.
So why would people prefer fake math? Because it can be easier. Notice even with my simpler results the discovery was actually, well took centuries. With the fake math people can pile on fake results. There's an infinity of them. More than enough to support current number theorists--worldwide.
Yeah, my results probably remind how hard real math can be. Its discovery can elude endlessly. (Yeah I know that rhymes.)
If it weren't for my curiosity would gleefully leave the situation alone, maybe. Possibly am too cynical about myself. But it is relevant to me that at this rate I'm it for the early 21st century and without any real competition from scientists either, would probably be it completely. Like in the future there will be no reason to name anyone else as significant in science or mathematics during this period. Which I think is cool.
Is also kind of sad. But feel like is my duty to seize the opportunity. Is a very rare one. And actually should not exist at this time. So yeah my competitive nature relishes the advantages that puzzle me still. But who knows, maybe someone else will step up. Time will tell.
If weren't so curious, could just let it go and appreciate the gift that appears to be mine.
Ok yeah, am competitive. Why wouldn't I be? But oh yeah, much mystery here! People are behaving in ways that blow up a lot of fictional scenarios. Well yeah fiction around discovery is usually completely out of whack. So that is NOT a surprise. Guess could ramble on some more, but why bother?
Would just go in circles. Am curious. How is it possible? Yet regardless the attention that tests me. And the certainty of a future that...but how can I really know?
James Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment