|
|
<jstevh@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1159582308.315422.23990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Some recent threads simply explaining yet another way to see the
> coverage problem of the ring of algebraic integers have floundered on
> the issue of convergence and what it means with rings like the ring of
> algebraic integers, where I introduce the concept of an exclusionary
> ring.
JSH - MY FLOUNDERING HAS UNCOVERED MY LORD OF THE RINGS THEORY.
>
> The concepts are simple, luckily, as I can mostly use something basic:
>
> S = 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 +...
>
ONLY FOR ALL x > 1
> where the issue is convergence, so that if S converges in whatever ring
> you're in--notice none given yet--you can go to
<SNIP NON-MATHAMETICAL CRAP>
> Because the exclusion does NOT apply if 1-x is a unit in the ring of
> algebraic integers.
>
> So if it is a unit then the series can converge within the ring, but
> otherwise the exclusionary rule--the definition of algebraic integers
> as roots of monic polynomials--prevents.
JSH - UNIT OTHERWISE EXCLUSIONARY DEFINITION PREVENTS !
>
> Now I feel confident there are posters who will want to dispute me on
> the ability to use convergent infinite series in the ring of algebraic
> integers, but I want more than namecalling, or other childish rants,
> and I want more than someone saying they read it different in some
> number theory text.
JSH - IT CANNOT COME FROM BOOKS ANYMORE
>
> The problem here again is that people who don't know mathematics that
> well, can write books.
JSH - MAN CAN WRITE COOKBOOKS, TOO.
>
> And other people can believe things that are wrong for quite some time,
> and LOTS of people can believe things that are wrong, so simply saying
> a lot of people have believed other things for a long time is not the
> way to reply back to me here.
JSH - LOTS OF PEOPLE BELIEVE AND REPLY THAT I AM WRONG.
>
> If any of you actually know mathematics versus being people who can
> repeat what you're told as if that's all that matters, then you can
> explain the status quo view.
JSH - MATHEMATICS VS. PEOPLE, NOT THE STATUS QUO, ANYMORE.
>
> You can explain the mainstream beliefs of the mathematical community in
> this area without relying on insults, without simply claiming that I'm
> wrong, and without doing anything other than objectively replying.
JSH - I'M WRONG AND WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN REPLY OBJECTIVELY.
>
> I know that can't be done, so I say that upfront to remind readers that
> a lot of people around the world are fighting the truth with my
> research to preserve their delusion of expertise, which is all about a
> lot of people getting some mathematics wrong.
JSH - FIGHTING TO MAKE SURE MATHEMATICS STAYS WRONG, AND DELUSIONAL.
>
>
> James Harris
>
|
|