Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="JSH, post: 3619219"] He didn't even offer to talk to me in person until I forwarded him an email from Barry Mazur commenting on an early draft of the paper. Remember, I'd sent him a paper to review for publication in a journal for which he was an editor, and when I pressed him on acceptance, he said he couldn't quite understand it. After I forwarded him Mazur's email, he offered that I could visit and explain it in person. Besides it's trivial algebra: If you have a polynomial P(x), where P(x) = 1225x^2 - 15x + 14 I figured out a way to creatively factor it, AFTER you multiply by some constant like 7, so you have 7*P(x) = (5a_1(x) + 7)(5a_2(x)+ 7) where the a's are the two roots of a^2 - (7x-1)a + (49x^2 - 14x) = 0. The bored but curious can easily verify those equations work and easy checks are at two points: x=0 and x=6. And I got that wacky factorization by creative re-distribution after multiplying by 7, as you have 7*P(x) = (49x^2 - 14x)5^2 + (7x-1)(7)(5) + 7^2. I say the distributive property doesn't care about the value of x, so that you can find how it multiplied through using x=0 and generalize from that to any value and can SEE that to be true at x=6. But if that's true it blows up some widely held ideas in number theory as mathematicians can prove that in something they call the ring of algebraic integers, NEITHER of the a's can have 7 as a factor if the functions give a non-rational number which you can see at x=1. So the result is clever, simple, but revolutionary though easily proven. Counter example claims have been made against my non-polynomial factorization research as well. I know that people can claim more than they can actually show, but that refuting those claims is often useless, as it's a social issue, not about what's true. I have published research which was pulled by the editors after publication and then the entire freaking mathematical journal died a little later. I have comments on my research from the TOP mathematicians in the mathematical field who did nothing. I talked about my prime counting function with Bruce Eckel who told me he'd never seen anything like it and offered that he might put it in one of his editions...that was years ago. Once in frustration I contacted a U.S. Attorney's office and they couldn't quite work themselves around the issue of mathematicians lying about mathematical research. I no longer believe at all in the system. Your claims are meaningless to me because I know from years of experience how people lie in this area. And it's not isolated. In cosmology there is Dr. Halton Arp, who was an assistant to Hubble who can show with better evidence than those who argue with him that cosmologists are saying that quasars are farther away than they are, but they just call him a crackpot. Besides, no matter what you may believe or not believe your assertions against my optimal path algorithm have zero impact, so I have no motivation to consider them relevant. To get some sense of that just routinely do a search in Google on "traveling salesman problem" to see where the algorithm you claim you can show doesn't work, happens to be in the rankings. It is moving up in those rankings. The world is saying your are wrong. It's a wonderful reality test. And what happens later? Over time it's determined that the algorithm works just fine. You are just some nobody who mouthed off against it on newsgroups to no avail, who will probably not even be remembered for even that error. I've been in this saga for over a decade. I know who matters and who does not. Your comments have no impact. James Harris [/QUOTE]

Verification