Some of you may wonder what I'm up to as I talk about the over one
hundred year old definition problem in "core mathematics", and I think
you should realize that I'm looking for *greater* scrutiny, so that my
results are known to the world.

Now I've gone the traditional routes to getting a result published,
and mathematicians have behaved very badly, basically shutting down
those routes, though there is a possibility they'll redeem themselves
as I currently have a paper at a math journal, and I've been told it's
under peer review.

But given what I've seen before, I'm not holding my breath.

Here's an example of an exchange that I've posted before, but I want
to point out to readers that the journal is the *highly* prestigious
New York Journal of Mathematics, and Andrew Granville, one of the
editors in the exchange, gained his own bit of fame from arguing with
Marilyn vos Savant in defense of the work of Andrew Wiles, when she
made a challenge to it.

<Quote>
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
</Quote>

<Quote>
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
</Quote>

Now then, if you have a major math result, but can't get past journal
editors, what can you do?

Well I've also contacted mathematicians directly, and in fact, I went
to my alma mater recently to talk to a Professor McKenzie, called
"distinguished" on the Vanderbilt web-page about him.

I was quite happy in that I could explain my work in person, against
challenges, to a distinguished math professor and then non-plussed
when he claimed it was out of his area, and shuffled me out of the
door, as it was 4 pm and the math department at Vanderbilt University,
apparently goes home at 4 pm (I noticed a lot of people on the floor
leaving along with him, like a whistle had sounded).

Actually, I was surprised to find that the mathematicians at
Vanderbilt, whom I noticed as Professor McKenzie was late, so I
wandered a bit, looked mostly bored. I didn't see a single student
come up for office visits, and the professor next to Professor
McKenzie was playing Solitaire!

In any event, I digress. The main point is that for me, greater
scrutiny is a major plus, as then I can get past chief editors like
Steinberger, and then I don't have to care if a mathematician like
Professor McKenzie needs to go home as it's 4 pm and quitting time!!!

Math society, on the other hand, can't hide the truth if I get that
greater scrutiny as then I can prove my case to a wide audience, and
if they deny, people will see that inexplicably mathematicians are
indeed lying, and perpetuating a fraud.


James Harris

[Old stuff snipped]

I was quite happy in that I could explain my work in person, against
challenges, to a distinguished math professor and then non-plussed
when he claimed it was out of his area, and shuffled me out of the
door, as it was 4 pm and the math department at Vanderbilt University,
apparently goes home at 4 pm (I noticed a lot of people on the floor
leaving along with him, like a whistle had sounded).

Actually, I was surprised to find that the mathematicians at
Vanderbilt, whom I noticed as Professor McKenzie was late, so I
wandered a bit, looked mostly bored. I didn't see a single student
come up for office visits, and the professor next to Professor
McKenzie was playing Solitaire!

In any event, I digress. The main point is that for me, greater
scrutiny is a major plus, as then I can get past chief editors like
Steinberger, and then I don't have to care if a mathematician like
Professor McKenzie needs to go home as it's 4 pm and quitting time!!!

Math society, on the other hand, can't hide the truth if I get that
greater scrutiny as then I can prove my case to a wide audience, and
if they deny, people will see that inexplicably mathematicians are
indeed lying, and perpetuating a fraud.


James Harris