There is no joke…if anything it’s on me. The company is no more, that part is true. The propaganda against my work has taken its toll on Singularics and my personal reputation. Not claiming any conspiracy, just the evidence in the blogs on me over the Internet. Just fact…all I ever work with.

But it has been no joke…never was on my part. I love the math and continue to work on securing the Internet.

Sorry about any confusion.

Jeffrey N. Cook

http://www.JeffreyNCook.com

Fooled me for a while. }:-}

]]>The tone of conspiracy oppressing the insights of spectacular thinkers who are unrecognized is particularly entertaining.

Perhaps the gentleman would be so kind as to *demonstrate* is exciting new hyperdrive (or whatever it is) so that the great unwashed, unbelieving masses might observe the phenomena.

I’d love to see it.

My opinions only, as always, and only my opinions.

]]>In any case, I welcome a mathematical debate or discussion with anyone at any level over my paper and/or my credibility. Probably not here though, as I think Bruce would rather this thread simply die away. But I will respond here if you prefer. Else, feel free to raise any questions or comments or the like at my blogged response to Mr. Schneier’s accusations of fraud and my work: http://blog.singularics.com/ . Here’s a snippet:

“Thus, being co-founder and CTO of Singularics, I feel perhaps in a small part the responsible party for best explaining the factual value of our technology and the validity of the mathematics underlying it, being its primary engineer. This post is an honest response to the inaccurate criticism…”

My best,

Jeff

]]>To answer your question, I’m unimpressed. According to the site:

Okay, but for x / 0 to be defined don’t you need to change the mathematical system that you are using?

No.

Then, in the answer just above the “dog” example, it describes (very poorly) a change to the mathematical system in use. Just in case one missed it, a (possibly separate) change to the mathematical system is made when “equality” is re-defined, shortly after the “dog” example.

By this point, the mathematics in question aren’t a field, they aren’t in a Reimann sphere, and they’re not well defined.

In such a case, you can no longer steal things from field theory without being extremely careful not to trip over the variant mathematics in use – but that’s done all over the “alleged proof”.

This is either a deliberate attempt to confuse those with little mathematical background, or the symptom of a self-proclaimed “mathematician” who needs to take a remedial course in proofs.

]]>Fascinating. I guess I’ll stick to reality, at least what I understand it to be (at this moment in time). Though, I must say, I would hope to see math as an exploration of sanity and other corners of the mind be married to biomedical research.

]]>http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/the_doghouse_si.html

are actually fairly compelling from a standpoint of pure debunking.

I was particularly impressed with the logic in the “doghouse example” that starts at the top of the page.

Thoughts?

(Moderator: don’t make me put sarc tags on that.)

]]>Your soft-sell, concern-trolling approach was an interesting one, but counterproductive, since it only led people to spend more time pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Coming back to try again after most people had lost interest in the thread–and on a weekend, when fewer people read blogs–was actually smart: if you’d managed to sneak in the last word, it might have raised some doubts for readers who don’t understand any of the math in the thread. But “Leaderboard’s” tone, approach, and use of language were much too similar to “Joe Trader”‘s to pass unnoticed, and — not to give away too many secrets — when people go out of their way to point out that they just happened by, it almost always means they didn’t.

Your worst mistake was trying to sockpuppet on a security blog without using a proxy. That’s just embarrassing. Overall, I give your efforts a D minus.

]]>http://www.singularics.com/science/mathematics/discussion/

are actually fairly compelling from a standpoint of pure logic.

I was particularly impressed with the logic in the “dog example” mid way down the page.

Thoughts?

]]>I created a “new branch of mathematics” (an extension of machine theory) back in grad school. I’m sure you’ve never heard of it. Why?

Because I could never actually get a useful result from using it. More specifically, I was able to using a different branch of machine theory to do everything that my “new branch of mathematics” could do (that had any practical use). For that matter, the existing mathematics was simpler than my “new branch of mathematics”, and wasn’t prone to fall into rather nasty traps (where any physical representation of the machine would be required to be infinite in size to function).

I’d submit that the vast majority of attempts at “new mathematics” are much like that. The better mathematicians don’t bother to publish, realizing the problems prior to publication; the worse mathematicians publish, not realizing that they’re either making a horrible mistake or that there’s an existing branch of mathematics that solves their problems as well, or better than their “new branch of mathematics”.

Submission and Annarithms are just a particularly bad example of the later – there are both horrible mistakes and any problems they can solve are solved at least as well using powers.

These days, due to the wide variety of branches of mathematics, I’m highly skeptical when someone claims to have created “new mathematics” without a degree in mathematics – it’s far too likely that something as good or better already exists (that they are unaware of), even if there are no horrible mistakes.

]]>