My hope is that some of you will read through the replies to my
threads recently posted and notice the irrationality I'm facing, as I
have a big problem here with math society running away from the truth.

The threads a

Use of variable independence, core error
Core error, proof checking

Now then, I *have* written a paper, and I *have* sent it to math
journals.

I *have* explained in person to a distinguished mathematician.

I *have* explained in detail on Usenet.

Mathematicians seem intent on running away, I guess, in fear.

So it's up to you.

Remember, a problem with an over hundred year old definition isn't
something that will turn your world upside down, while it does for
mathematicians, so maybe some of you can be more objective than they.

And maybe that's why it took a physics major to find this thing, as I
like emphasizing that I'm not a mathematician, not to knock them, but
to inoculate myself from social forces--social forces are powerful,
after all.

If I saw myself as a mathematician, then I might be running now in
fear from the result as well.

But it's not really that bad, as it's actually fascinating that it
could happen.

In any event, here's an interesting email that should give you some
perspective.

I received it from the chief editor of the highly prestigious New York
Journal of Mathematics, notice the dates to see how long I've been
working he

--------------------------------------------

Dear James,

We generally don't publish short notes. I'm not sure what journals to
suggest, but NYJM probably isn't the right place for this one.

Best,

Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: "JAMES HARRIS"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: Fw: Submission to New York Journal of Mathematics



Professor Steinberger,

As suggested by Professor Granville, I'm forwarding my paper to you.
___JSH

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Granville"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:50 PM
Subject: Submission to New York Journal of Mathematics


Dear James,

I am sorry but this looks more like a submission for the chief editor,
Mark Steinberger, than for me. I only accept submissions directly
in number theory.

Sincerely

Andrew Granville




Some of you may remember Andrew Granville as the mathematician who
argued with Marilyn Vos Savant, when she claimed to have found a
problem with the work of Andrew Wiles.

Mathematicians behave one way when it's for social approbation, and
now I see them behaving another, when it has to do with a definition
problem at the heart of what's called mathematics.

Remember, what's commonly called mathematics is a body of discoveries
by people like me--discoverers--who faced the truth, for the benefit
of humanity. Now that a small error has crept into that body of work,
we need to get it out.

Running away doesn't solve the problem.


James Harris

James Harris wrote:

My hope is that some of you will read through the replies to my
threads recently posted and notice the irrationality I'm facing, as I
have a big problem here with math society running away from the truth.

The threads a

Use of variable independence, core error
Core error, proof checking


Yes, so many threads. Why don't _you_ answer the questions in the ones
you've started before you start new ones?

--
G.C.
Note ANTI, SPAM and invalid to be removed if you're e-mailing me.

James Harris wrote:

My hope is that some of you will read through the replies to my
threads recently posted and notice the irrationality I'm facing,
[snip]

The percieved mote in your own eye is a beam in theirs.

Psychotic ineducable boring moron,
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

(James Harris) wrote:

My hope is that some of you will read through the replies to my
threads recently posted and notice the irrationality I'm

expressing.

Jim

George Cox wrote in message ...
James Harris wrote:

My hope is that some of you will read through the replies to my
threads recently posted and notice the irrationality I'm facing, as I
have a big problem here with math society running away from the truth.

The threads a

Use of variable independence, core error
Core error, proof checking


Yes, so many threads. Why don't _you_ answer the questions in the ones
you've started before you start new ones?

Your insinuation is false as I answer in all the threads. I just get
bored easily, and besides, it's worth it to talk to sci.physics and
sci.logic on a separate thread.

The situation here is rather bizarre, where the proof that I'm right
is not only simple, but it relies on one of those easy, but neat
things, which is when you have a situation where there are variables
independent of one particular variable, you set it to 0, so you can
consider them without that variable distracting.

It's not complicated, but here that neat technique shows a problem
that mathematicians don't want to face. I've written a paper, I've
talked to mathematicians in person, I've emailed, and I've posted.

They don't want to look at this thing and accept the math.

However, the problem is a definition problem that has sat in this area
called algebraic number theory for over a hundred years, so it might
have some impact.

It turns the math world upside down as mathematicians believe their
base, their foundation, is perfect, when I've just shown that it is
not.

Is it a small error? Well, we need mathematicians to find out just
how important the errror is, and currently, they've gone bye-bye.

You see, mathematicians are running. They are running like there's no
tomorrow, and I'm on the chase. If you want to wait until I figure
out how to chase them down, then don't come crying later about the
consequences.


James Harris

On 11 Oct 2003 07:36:55 -0700, (James Harris) wrote:

My hope is that some of you will read through the replies to my
threads recently posted and notice the irrationality I'm facing, as I
have a big problem here with math society running away from the truth.

You keep hoping that. Like you haven't noticed that many people
_are_ reading those threads, and none of them sees you facing
any irrationality.

Well just keep hoping.

The threads a

Use of variable independence, core error
Core error, proof checking

Now then, I *have* written a paper, and I *have* sent it to math
journals.

And has it been accepted? Any crackpot can send anything
he wants to journals - the fact that you've sent something
there proves nothing.

I *have* explained in person to a distinguished mathematician.

And did he agree you were right? If not then what's your point?

I *have* explained in detail on Usenet.

Yup. And people have explained in detail why you're wrong.

Mathematicians seem intent on running away, I guess, in fear.

And it's _every_ mathematician. Not just 90% of them, not
just the ones on usenet. Journal editors, people you send
email to, people on usenet, people you visit in person -
_nobody_ agrees you're right.

Do you really think it's plausible that _every_ single
mathematician on the planet is running in fear?

So it's up to you.

Remember, a problem with an over hundred year old definition isn't
something that will turn your world upside down, while it does for
mathematicians, so maybe some of you can be more objective than they.

And maybe that's why it took a physics major to find this thing, as I
like emphasizing that I'm not a mathematician, not to knock them, but
to inoculate myself from social forces--social forces are powerful,
after all.

If I saw myself as a mathematician, then I might be running now in
fear from the result as well.

But it's not really that bad, as it's actually fascinating that it
could happen.

In any event, here's an interesting email that should give you some
perspective.

I received it from the chief editor of the highly prestigious New York
Journal of Mathematics, notice the dates to see how long I've been
working he

--------------------------------------------

Dear James,

We generally don't publish short notes. I'm not sure what journals to
suggest, but NYJM probably isn't the right place for this one.

Best,

Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: "JAMES HARRIS"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: Fw: Submission to New York Journal of Mathematics



Professor Steinberger,

As suggested by Professor Granville, I'm forwarding my paper to you.
___JSH

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Granville"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:50 PM
Subject: Submission to New York Journal of Mathematics


Dear James,

I am sorry but this looks more like a submission for the chief editor,
Mark Steinberger, than for me. I only accept submissions directly
in number theory.

Sincerely

Andrew Granville




Some of you may remember Andrew Granville as the mathematician who
argued with Marilyn Vos Savant, when she claimed to have found a
problem with the work of Andrew Wiles.

Mathematicians behave one way when it's for social approbation, and
now I see them behaving another, when it has to do with a definition
problem at the heart of what's called mathematics.

Remember, what's commonly called mathematics is a body of discoveries
by people like me--discoverers--who faced the truth, for the benefit
of humanity. Now that a small error has crept into that body of work,
we need to get it out.

Running away doesn't solve the problem.


James Harris

************************

David C. Ullrich

David C. Ullrich wrote in message . ..
On 11 Oct 2003 07:36:55 -0700, (James Harris) wrote:

My hope is that some of you will read through the replies to my
threads recently posted and notice the irrationality I'm facing, as I
have a big problem here with math society running away from the truth.

You keep hoping that. Like you haven't noticed that many people
_are_ reading those threads, and none of them sees you facing
any irrationality.

Well just keep hoping.

The threads a

Use of variable independence, core error
Core error, proof checking

Now then, I *have* written a paper, and I *have* sent it to math
journals.

And has it been accepted? Any crackpot can send anything
he wants to journals - the fact that you've sent something
there proves nothing.

What about mathie sadists, Ullrich? Can any mathie sadist have his
way with an amateur mathematician on sci.logic/sci.math--secure
in the certainty that none of his colleagues will publically
reproach the *schadenfreude* ethics and morality that is part-
and-parcel of a Mathie's Creed?
(see 'Collusion in the 'Hood',
. com?

And how about the mores of your 'Hood? Don't
these guarantee every article of Mathie Faith
against encroachment from without
(see 'Camaraderie of the Experts',
. com), while
encouraging charlatans like you to primp and preen?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
David Ullrich:

"It's certainly true that mathematicians do not _write_
proofs in formal languages. But all the proofs that I'm
aware of _could_ be formalized quite easily. Are you
aware of any counterexamples to this? Things that
mathematicians accept as correct proofs which are
not clearly formalizable in, say, ZFC?"

John Correy:

"How about the following?

C3 EyAx[x in y - Et(x in t) & A] (with y not free in A)
Classification

C4 AyAx[Az(z in y - z in x) - {(set y & set x) - y=x}]
(Equi-membered classes are identical iff these are sets.)

From C3 it follows that there is a class of non-self-membered classes.

1) EyAx(x in y - Et(x in t) & ~(x in x)) C3

Hence

2) Ax(x in r - Et(x in t) & ~(x in x)) 1,EI

and

3) r in r - (Et(r in t) & ~(r in r)) 2,UI

so that

4) ~Et(r in t) 3

and

5) ~(set r) 4

and

6) ~(r=r) 5,C4

so that

7) Ex~(x=x) 6,EG"

. com

David Ullrich:

(...) __
///\
(...) _./////_ _
.-' __'-. //\
(...) / (o) \\ === \////
} // `` -=(((
`\ ---. /\\\\
'\'.`/_____.;' '-'
`-` `\/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
"The most successful ideological effects are those which have
no need for words, and ask no more than complicitous silence."
--Pierre Bourdieu

On 12 Oct 2003 18:10:52 -0700, (John) wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote in message . ..
On 11 Oct 2003 07:36:55 -0700, (James Harris) wrote:

[...]

"It's certainly true that mathematicians do not _write_
proofs in formal languages. But all the proofs that I'm
aware of _could_ be formalized quite easily. Are you
aware of any counterexamples to this? Things that
mathematicians accept as correct proofs which are
not clearly formalizable in, say, ZFC?"

John Correy:

"How about the following?

Sigh. Yes, the following, if the reasoning as actually
correct, can be easily formalized in ZF.

Before pointing out how ridiculous that statement
is, note that for example the "in" operator below
is not going to correspond to the "in" in ZF, it's
going to be just some predicate, with axioms
involving it.

C3 EyAx[x in y - Et(x in t) & A] (with y not free in A)
Classification

C4 AyAx[Az(z in y - z in x) - {(set y & set x) - y=x}]
(Equi-membered classes are identical iff these are sets.)

From C3 it follows that there is a class of non-self-membered classes.

1) EyAx(x in y - Et(x in t) & ~(x in x)) C3

Hence

2) Ax(x in r - Et(x in t) & ~(x in x)) 1,EI

and

3) r in r - (Et(r in t) & ~(r in r)) 2,UI

so that

4) ~Et(r in t) 3

and

5) ~(set r) 4

and

6) ~(r=r) 5,C4

so that

7) Ex~(x=x) 6,EG"

.com

David Ullrich:

(...) __
///\
(...) _./////_ _
.-' __'-. //\
(...) / (o) \\ === \////
} // `` -=(((
`\ ---. /\\\\
'\'.`/_____.;' '-'
`-` `\/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
"The most successful ideological effects are those which have
no need for words, and ask no more than complicitous silence."
--Pierre Bourdieu

And the funniest usenet posts are those that see failure to
be amazed at the poster's obviously revolutionary brilliance
as a conspiracy.

************************

David C. Ullrich

In sci.physics James Harris wrote:

Your insinuation is false as I answer in all the threads. I just get
bored easily, and besides, it's worth it to talk to sci.physics and
sci.logic on a separate thread.

Not surprising. Spoiled children get bored quickly when they don't get
what they want.

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
| if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"