Problem is "pure math"
- From: jstevh@xxxxxxx
- Date: 30 Jan 2006 19:52:04 -0800
Cryptology may rely on a lot of mathematical ideas considered "pure"
for lack of practicality, but ultimately it is about a practical
activity, and falls outside of the "pure math" domain.
So why bug you people with my pure math problem?
Because practitioners of pure math can just go over to no longer
following mathematical principles to holding onto ideas that are wrong,
as I've found out.
I think some of you take mathematics seriously, and you are more
practical.
So how is it possible? How could Galois Theory as used be wrong? How
could a problem sit in number theory for over a hundred years with no
one knowing?
The "pure" aspect of the mathematical ideas is the problem, as without
practical application, ideas that do not work could not easily be shown
to not work.
With a hundred years of inertia built up using these ideas, when I
showed them wrong, it was easier for number theorists to just keep
going, no longer really mathematicians at all, but now an element of
the mathematical community that had broken off to the point that
mathematical proof is useless with them now--when it conflicts with
what they wish to believe.
They have gone their own way in number theory, outside of those areas
that are not "pure" like with cryptology ideas from advanced number
theory that actually work.
The facts that don't work with the number theorists and members of the
sci.math newsgroup may work with some of you:
1. The results I have ARE peer reviewed and published, though the
journal did do a bizarre retraction, and then did later die.
2. The results rely on very simple techniques, mostly basic algebra,
and are concise and simple enough for me to just give them in posts,
which I've done, so you can check them for yourself.
3. Unlike Galois Theory, my research applies to rationals so you can
check with integers, and actually directly see the numbers following
the mathematical proof.
By every reasonable measure, my results are mathematically established.
However, they do things like remove Wiles's claim of having proven FLT,
and that is actually minor compared to the full impact.
Entire textbooks have to be re-written.
I mention Wiles simply because FLT is something you think is big, but
the full impact of the result cuts across number theory at so many
levels that it's very hard to gain any meaningful comprehension of it.
Quite simply, it is the biggest result of its kind in the history of
mathematics.
And that means the resistance to it may go on for some time, but
history shows, the truth will eventually win out.
It just may take some time.
So far about three years have gone by since this result was first fully
extant. Three years showing that your fellows in number theory have
gone off into their own little world, where mathematical proof is no
longer enough.
Three years to show you that this is not an easy situation, and it's
going to get harder, no matter what happens next.
James Harris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Problem is "pure math"
- From: Anon E. Maus
- Re: Problem is "pure math"
- Prev by Date: Re: porting GnuPG to PPC {Re: Computing big numbers}
- Next by Date: Re: *** surviving my new CANCEL attack***
- Previous by thread: Re: REPOST: Osama and the J. Edgar Hoover Memorial Vacuum Cleaner
- Next by thread: Re: Problem is "pure math"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
