JSH: Depressing reality, prime reality
in [Math]
|
Prev: Dissection puzzle
Next: PRIME NUMBER DIVISOR , CLEAR EXPLANATION , BY INVERSE 19 ( AT THE REQUEST OF PROFESSOR ESCULTURA PHD)
From: harry on 7 Mar 2010 16:00 "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote in message news:a-KdnVQum8v9cQ7WnZ2dnUVZ8i-dnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in message > news:877hpo7tim.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org... >> junoexpress <mtbrenneman(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >> > 1) Prime number axiom >> > 2) Tautalogical spaces >> > 3) Soln of Pell's eqn >> > 4) Soln to the Traveling salesman problem >> > 5) Proof of Fermat's Last theorem >> > 6) The flaw fatale in the ring of algebraic integers >> >> Defined mathematical proof? > > And don't forget: > > Non-polynomial factorisation > The Object Ring > also; the "hidden negative square root of 4"
From: rossum on 7 Mar 2010 18:04 On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:54:23 -0800 (PST), junoexpress <mtbrenneman(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 7, 5:03 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: >> As I see it, James _knows_ that he is great, special, exceptional etc. >> He has decided that his greatness resides in his mathematical skills. >> Unfortunately, either through ignorance or malice the world refuses to >> acknowledge James' mathematical prowess. >> >> rossum > >I get it : another "axiom". > >M Absolutely right. I have written a paper on it, though I am afraid to publish it in a Journal because I do not want to be responsible for a whole Journal being closed and putting all those Mathematicians on the scrapheap. JSH - an Axiomatic Approach Axiom 1: JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician. Being an axion of the system, this is unchallengable from within the system. We are at liberty to speculate whether or not JSH is the greatest mathematician ever, but we cannot challenge Axiom 1. This axiomatic system is also consistent - there is no inconsistency between the axiom and itself. The greatness of JSH is already apparent. Theorem 1: There are parts of mathematics that only JSH understands. If someone else understood all the mathematics that JSH does, then that person would be as great a mathematician as JSH, and that is not allowed by Axiom 1. Theorem 2: All mathematical results produced by JSH are new, exciting, ground breaking, revolutionary and very important. This follows directly from Axiom 1; since JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician, therefore all his results are the worlds greatest mathematical results. JSH has a complete and rigorous proof of this, but unfortunately it falls into the area of mathematics covered by Theorem 1, so we cannot hope to understand it. This theorem applies to all of JSH's results. If JSH rederives the Chinese Remainder Theorem, then that result is also new, exciting, ground breaking, revolutionary and very important. Whoever first discovered the CRT thousands of years ago was not aware of things like complex numbers, transcendental numbers and so forth that JSH is, hence JSH's result cannot be viewed in the same light as the original proof, which was made in a far less complex environment. Borges' "Pierre Menard ..." (http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/borges-quixote.html) is relevant here, particularly the passage discussing "truth, whose mother is history, rival of time ...". Corollary 2.1: JSH's factoring methods are new, exciting, ground breaking, revolutionary and very important. This follows directly from Theorem 2. Lemma 2.2.1: RSA factoring is in danger. By Corollary 2.1 we know the importance etc. of James' factoring ideas. This requires that these methods will be able to factor RSA numbers quickly; if they were not able to factor such numbers quickly then the methods would not be revolutionary etc. Since we know that these results are important they must have a great impact on the Factoring Problem. Once we have understood the full impact of these factoring ideas we will be able to factor very large numbers very quickly. However, due to our lack of understanding, as per Theorem 1, James has not yet been able to assign a timescale to how long it will take us to fully comprehend the depth and importance of his factoring methods. Corollary 2.2: JSH's Diophantine methods are new, exciting, ground breaking, revolutionary and very important. This follows directly from Theorem 2. Merely because we cannot see the importance of James' results does not mean that they are not important. Theorem 1 may well be in play again here. Corollary 2.3: There is a problem with the Ring of Algebraic Integers. James has repeatedly tried to explain the problem to us, but due to Theorem 1 we are not able to understand his explanation. This is our problem, not James' problem. Maybe in a few hundred years, when the rest of mathematics has caught up, future mathematicians might be able to understand. rossum
From: Joshua Cranmer on 7 Mar 2010 18:25 On 03/07/2010 06:04 PM, rossum wrote: > Theorem 1: There are parts of mathematics that only JSH understands. > > If someone else understood all the mathematics that JSH does, then > that person would be as great a mathematician as JSH, and that is not > allowed by Axiom 1. Well, that only proves that only JSH could understand all of mathematics, it doesn't show that there are parts that only JSH can understand. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: junoexpress on 7 Mar 2010 18:54 On Mar 7, 6:04 pm, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:54:23 -0800 (PST), junoexpress > > >I get it : another "axiom". > > >M > > Absolutely right. I have written a paper on it, though I am afraid to > publish it in a Journal because I do not want to be responsible for a > whole Journal being closed and putting all those Mathematicians on the > scrapheap. > > JSH - an Axiomatic Approach > > Axiom 1: JSH is the world's greatest living mathematician. > > Being an axion of the system, this is unchallengable from within the > system. We are at liberty to speculate whether or not JSH is the > greatest mathematician ever, but we cannot challenge Axiom 1. > snip (a very nice explanation of why JSH's other discoveries MUST be true ;>) ) > > rossum Thank you very much: this clears up *years* of confusion on *my* part. I also appreciate your prudence in withholding publication of this major find (as I'm sure everybody else does too). I now see how futile my replies were, since if I was right and James were wrong then that would be an instantiation of me being a better mathematician than James. But James IS the greatest mathematician EVER, so this can never be true and therefore I can never be right, and James must always be correct. How stupid of me to have ever argued with him! In the future I will know to just listen to him and learn, rather than fight such true and pure knowledge. How could I win anyways in the face of such air-tight logic? BTW is your "Axiom 1" logically equivalent to the statement that "a theorem is anything that James knows is true"? I believe it is although I cannot prove it. M
From: Jim Ferry on 7 Mar 2010 21:54
On Mar 5, 9:08 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There is a lot of satisfaction with having my own axiom, which I had > the honor of naming as I'm the discoverer, which is of course, the > prime residue axiom, and yes, posters can reply in the negative or > derisively, but there you see the difference between finding something > and talk. Axiom 1: Axioms are never named by their formulators. Axiom 2: Axioms are never named after their formulators. Does this axiomatic system model the practice of mathematics accurately? Yes! I assert that it is so, willfully ignore any counterexamples, and denounce those who disagree with me as corrupt imbeciles. So now that that's settled, I hereby name the prime residue axiom, "Musatov's Axiom #19". And it's too early to say, but it could be Mustov's greatest legacy. |