Re: JSH: Math journals do not just die

[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
If p mod 3 is not random, then what are the rules?

What rules beyond 50% probability can you give?

[gjedwards@xxxxxxxxx]
if p mod 3 is 1 then (p+1) mod 3 is more likely to be 2 than 1.
if p mod 3 is 2 then (p+1) mod 3 is more likely to be 1 than 2.

[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
But why?

I'd tell you "read a book", except you'd have to study hard to learn
enough to grasp the real issues here. I summarized them in recent
posts over the past few days, so read those instead if you really care.
To judge from the above, the full story on the distribution of residue
pairs is subtler than you or gjedwards realize so far.

And the group should remember this thread is about math journals not
just dying.

I had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal.

Yup, the Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, a minor
web-only journal that folded after about 9 years of operation.

The sci.math newsgroup erupted in fury when they found out.

How come you never give the rest of this story? Like that your
argument had already been refuted on sci.math, yet you tried (& somehow
managed) to get it published anyway.

Some of them emailed against my paper,

In particular, W. Dale Hall calmly emailed the editor with a clear
counterexample to your claimed result. He's posted that email to
sci.math several times in response to your egregiously misleading
accounts of what happened here, and people tempted to swallow your line
of self-serving bull about this should look that up.

the journal editors yanked it,

They definitely should not have said it was withdrawn if you didn't
withdraw it. That sucked for you. They didn't want to be to
associated with a false claim of proof of an incorrect result, and
there are ethical ways to handle that, but they picked a sleazy way
instead. Have I ever mentioned to you that you reap what you sow?
Probably ;-)

a few months later the journal just shut down.

It's not /that/ unusual for a minor journal to shut down. Given the
way they totally screwed up their handling of your paper, from
publishing it to begin with, to creating the false impression you had
withdrawn it after they learned it was wrong, it was probably "the last
straw" for its already poor reputation.

Remember that you like to point out that they also published someone
else's "proof" of P=NP, as if that made your previous claims of
miraculously fast factoring methods more credible. What you don't seem
to "get" is that SWJPAM was /already/ suffering from a bad reputation
thanks to publishing the flawed P=NP "proof". Your paper probably did
have a hand in killing the journal -- and for reasons that are obvious
to everyone except you.

Totalitarian control.

LOL -- nope, try again.

... [more of the same] ...

.