Re: JSH: Math journals do not just die

tim.peters@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[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.


Then I challenge you to give a guiding equation.

With the prime distribution itself, 1/(ln x) is approximately the
probability that x is prime when x is a natural number.

I think that if I am wrong with this p mod 3 thing then there should be
rules, which in mathematics are embodied in equations.

Give the equation or equations.

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.


http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/

I suggest readers go to that page to get some idea of the worldwide
reach of the journal before it died, as that is one of the site
mirrors.

And what electronic journals are very old?

Remember, this is like a court case where I am asking you to consider
the possibility that members of the math community routinely lie to
you.

They are not used to being challenged because most people trust them.

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.


Easy to say, when it's not true.

The major specific objection was that provably certain variables
DECLARED to be in the ring of algebraic integers definitely were not at
a key point, when that was the point of the paper.

So objectors on sci.math slyly used the very point of the paper to
claim it wrong.

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 actual story is simpler. I'll try to explain it so that it makes
sense to people without a lot of mathematical background.

Mathematicians have these things they call algebraic integers, which
simply enough are roots of monic polynomials with integer coefficients.

An example of algebraic integers are roots of

x^2 - 3x + 2 = 0

where you hae (x-2)*(x-1) = x^2 - 3x + 1 and monic just means the
leading coefficient is 1 or -1.

But notice if you have something like

2x^2 - 3x + 1 = 0

you have (2x - 1)(x - 1) and it's not monic, but one of its roots is 1
which can be written as the root of a monic polynomial with integer
coefficients, so it's an algebraic integer.

But if you have

2x^2 - 5x + 1 = 0

both of its roots are non-rational, so you can't just write it out and
SEE the solutions and in this case the roots are not these things
called algebraic integers.

I found a clever way to show that you could get a problem with how
mathematicians consider numbers that are roots of expressions like the
latter one.

BUT people arguing with me, took the very thing I showed to claim that
I was wrong, as the standard way is what I was showing the
contradiction with!!!

It's like if Einstein was supposedly refuted by people noting that his
works conflicted with Newton.

Posters in objecting to my paper rely on the standard view, which the
paper is meant to refute and it's the kind of bizarre situation which
would make anyone angry and puzzled.

I challenge the poster to enter into a more technical discussion by
stating the supposed problem with my paper, and I'll easily answer in
technical detail.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Psychology of the denial of "core error"
    ... its roots would be in some sort of ... ring be the ring of ... a_1 and a_2 are NOT algebraic integers. ... With errors in mathematics you can get this odd ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Inconsistency with algebraic integers
    ... My issue is not with whether or not taking the roots of monic ... polynomials with integer coefficients will give you a ring or not, ... one root has 7 as a factor in the ring of algebraic integers, ... Faux mathematics can be appealing because it allows you to "prove" any ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Inconsistency with algebraic integers
    ... My issue is not with whether or not taking the roots of monic ... polynomials with integer coefficients will give you a ring or not, ... one root has 7 as a factor in the ring of algebraic integers, ... Faux mathematics can be appealing because it allows you to "prove" any ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: ?
    ... The polynomial equation ... Both are algebraic integers. ... of the roots must be divisible by 7, ... he is right and 150 years of solid elementary mathematics ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH Summery #4
    ... the 7 pop up, in only one factor, so that the mathematics clearly shows I'm ... usage of Galois Theory and the theory of ideals. ... where, oddly enough, you are forced to have a ring with fractions!!! ... with the Decker equations, in the ring of algebraic integers, where the goal ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast