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

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.

didn't mean to give the impression I thought any of his ideas were anything other than total nonsense. Quite the opposite; some people were giving him some credit for "creating new theory" when these ideas have been well developed in real mathematics, and I was hoping to inform on that topic.

]]>A few of his problems could be explained away if he were using a Riemann sphere (which is plausible). Unfortunately, in both of his mathematics papers that I read, his math elsewhere assumes that he's not using a Riemann sphere, and in his text of his "proof", he basically states that he doesn't understand that division by 0 is a problem, or even why. Later on, he expresses extreme ignorance in what a proof is (you know, what he's alleging to be doing) and invents a "solution" to division by 0 via an approximation function (of course, omitting data which would quickly show his approximation function to be wildly inaccurate).

]]>One of his "big advances" is re-writing exponents in his own nomenclature "submission". Unfortunately, during his describing of this format, he makes fundamental errors in mathematics that I'd hope that anyone passing an Algebra class wouldn't make (specifically, he pretends that there are no problems with 0 being in a denominator).

His other "big advance" is similar, is - he re-writes exponents (again) as "Annarithms", and in steps 10 and 11 in his "paper" makes other fundamental math errors (in his paper, e^(-Pi*i) = Pi*i, and e^(-inf) = 0).

]]>Note that if you're talking about a field, 1 and 0 are defined (and the multiplicative and additive identity). Of course, if you ignore division by 0, you're probably not in a field. (This may be provable, but I have little interest in trying at the moment).

markm-

Complex analysis also uses information from singularities - for example, you can perform integrals around them. Once again, Cook's apparent complete cluelessness as to mathematics that was developed 40 years ago is a large warning sign.

]]>Here's the relevant wikipedia article if this sounds pseudomathematical to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere

This picture of the complex plane can also lead to beautiful computer visualizations, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX3VmDgiFnY

Enjoy!

]]>Dont dismiss his proof simply because he devised a new math. Before complex numbers, sqrt(-1) was "commonly thought to be undefined" until someone built a whole theory aroudn it.

The acid test for new theories such as that is usefulness. Complex numbers proved to describe a whole host of things in very consise notation, and maintained field logic.

Don't get me wrong, he makes PLENTY of other hangable mistakes... but inventing a new theory isn't one of them.

]]>Don't dismiss him because he defines a whole new territory. Taking the square root of a negative number was "thought to be undefined" until someone decided to invent the imaginary axis. They even had the gutso to call it imaginary!

Turned out that imaginary axis was pretty darn useful, and consistent. Nowdays its part of any engineer or mathematician's toolkit.

Don't get me wrong, he makes plenty of other mistakes worth dismissing him over, but the simple fact that he tried to give a definition to something historically undefined isn't one.

One key detail of the complex number system is that the result turned out to be useful. The resulting number system followed many very useful patterns which lead to drastic simplification of things previously defined only with trig functions. The mathematical operations were also defined rigorously, instead of just assuming that they operate as a field.

]]>Now, real mathematicians do analyze the *limit* of f(x)/x as x approaches zero. While 0/0 is undefined, if f(0)=0 and f(x) approaches 0 fast enough as x approaches zero, the limit may be defined. Calculus is based on such analysis: dy/dx is the limit as dx approaches zero of

(y(x+dx) - y(x))/dx

which is the slope of y(x) and is defined if y(x) doesn't jump at the point in question. If you want to be a mathematician, physicist, or engineer, you'd better be able to learn this mathematical legerdemain at the beginning of your freshman year.

But it's not called "neutronics", and this guy's work sounds like a schizophrenic garbling of freshman calculus and physics. If it's not a joke hoax - and the only way to test that is to inquire about investing and see if he takes your money - it's a scam or a schizophrenic. (The last two cases are not mutually exclusive...)

]]>He wants his device to move up, but his device is moving antimatter up (and presumably, the same amount of matter down, at the same velocity). As the antimatter (but not the matter) will tend to annihilate with matter, producing a lot of energy, thus pressing against anything nearby, the antimatter will tend to press his device down (not up, as he apparently wants).

On the other hand, I'm likely spending far too much time on someone's work who deliberately conflates mass and weight.

]]>Alex has over 100 legit connections.

i'm in his network and can view them

http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexpetty

Please note his title.

]]>

He doesn't understand Newtonian physics, and his problems mount as he tries anything else (and he does).

I like that his "Cook Coil" 1) creates antimatter, then 2) shoots it up (away from the direction he wants to move).

It seems that if you could do that, 1) not creating antimatter, or 2) at least shooting it in the direction you want to move would help his device immensely.

But I'm guessing that he threw out Einstein's "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?" Around the time he threw out Newton's "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" and algebra.

Well, at least his work is mildly amusing.

]]>http://www.jeffreyncook.com/jeff%20cook%20mathematics/Submission%20Rules.pdf

Item 2 is wrong.

I'd expect any student of Algebra to be able to inform me why it's wrong (why? because it doesn't account for the case where x=0 in item 2).

Unfortunately, this problem seems to be part of the foundation for his "branch of mathematics".

It just gets worse... For example, he doesn't like limits (nor does he understand Newtonian Physics, complex numbers, nor vectors), so he invents "functions" (that he never properly defines) to get rid of them.

It just gets worse, and worse, and worse.

Mr. Cook's mathematical work is about as interesting as a "proof", using a standard algebra, that 1=0. Yes, if you ignore the problems with 0 being a denominator, it's real easy to do. It's also really useless.

And yes, it is possible to create an algebra which has some of the features that Mr. Cook wants (but dosen't bother to define) in his algebra. Dr. Anderson has made one such interesting attempt, by re-defining division:

The only problems with Dr. Anderson's attempt are:

1) his algebra is not a field.

2) his algebra is self-contradictory (i.e. you can proove anything you like).

Mr. Cook didn't even bother giving definitions, but it appears that he's doing something similar, but far less rigorously or consistently.

]]>Of course, if they are really asking for money then it crosses over into fraud. Carlos Castaneda comes to mind as someone who went to the dark side.

]]>As soon as I looked at this guy's web page, I felt that I knew him... because he so strongly resembles a beloved relation of mine.

My relative is wonderfully optimistic, charming, breezy, funny, and has a really shaky grasp of reality. He gets enthused by high-flown concepts, which he rarely connects to anything concrete. What he's imagining is so vivid for him, and he speaks of it with such conviction, that it's easy to believe it along with him... at least, for a little while.

It's hard to be angry with him, because when he's robbing you, he also makes you feel good.

He's a fountain of entertainment with his jokes and stories, and there seems to be no sharp dividing line between the jokes and stories (on the one hand) and what he believes to be true (on the other)... it's as though everything is a variant of theatre.

So if I have it right, and Mr. Cook IS like my relative, what he's doing isn't exactly a hoax (because he partly believes it), and it isn't exactly sincere (because he's having his joke). It's his own crazy way of sending love to the world. It sure made my day!

]]>And I'd agree with fpsurgeon - it's either a very well (too well, really) constructed hoax, or someone who is delusional.

]]>108) 2πi=0

This he deduces from the identity that exp(2πi)=1 and then taking the log of both sides. I wonder why he doesn't take the next obvious step and divide by πi and thus prove that 2=0. Once you accept 2=0, anything becomes provable.

]]>http://www.amazon.com/Woe-Hunted-Jeff-Cook/dp/1424106222/

Unfortunately, it's out of stock. :(

]]>Surely you've heard the old standard, 'burden of proof is on the claimant'?

That is, if this is a valid solution to the RH, then it's up to Dr. Neutronic and his Amazing Singularic Decoder Ring to prove such. The fact that his text includes 'any failure to understand my hypotheses are the fault of the reader and not mine' should be a tip-off that this is all nonsense.

]]>@agniyo

From the Summary:

"analyze regions of mathematics commonly thought to be undefined, such as the point where one is divided by zero."

Division is a simple operation, 9 divided by 3 asks the question: How many 3's do you need to add together to get 9? So 1 divided by 0 asks the question: How many 0's do you need to add together to get 1? There is no "new math" you can invent that will answer this question. 1/0 is undefined due to the definition of the division operator.

--

JimFive

No formal proof or vaildation for (87), (95), and (103) are given. But if this assumption is false the whole proof falls appart.

Function (86) can be shortened to x*log(c_1*x)+c_2 for large x, where c_1 and c_2 are constants. But this nothing more than a simple, well known, prime number approximation. ]]>

Twice by that point, at least, he has basically stated "I can make a model of system X, which is validated against a subset of the legal inputs for system X. Since it was validated, I can now state what system X would do using my model."

There's one great section around page 20 where he deals with a particle which is speeding up asymptotically. He "solves" this by applying a curve fit to each side, and seeing where the two curves fit. That intersection is CLEARLY the "speed" at the time where the speed is undefined.

In addition to this classic modeling mistake, it seems that his method for proving the Riemann hypothesis is to take a weaker form of it, then prove that he can write a function which is, within error bounds, identical to the Riemann Zeta function, then argue that since his function (which is close to correct) has proven intercepts only at 1/2, then the Riemann Zeta function must also follow suit.

I didn't read the last part, but it really does look like that's where its going (again, I made it to page 21). Classic application of models beyond the scope where the model has meaning. I expect him to continue making said assumption.

And I will continue to rely on RSA!

]]>http://www.iowashingtondc.com/address_services.asp

(Despite my choice of name here I am not affiliated with them: I didn't find the IO site until after my previous post. A coincidence worthy of crackpot theorists.)

]]>http://newt.org/EditNewt/ContactUs/GingrichCommunications/tabid/163/Default.aspx

]]>Thanks, I needed that! ;)

]]>That this is such an obvious masturbatory prank akin more to performance art than fraud, is hilarious.

That a blog-full of Bruce Schneier followers is even typing one char in an effort to try to prove / convince others that it is utter nonsense is priceless.

It couldn't have been more obvious if he inserted 'poopy fart cakes / cherry pie = the root of all evil + the ascent into heaven' somewhere in his proof.

Some stay at home nerd's mom cut off his WoW account, and he got bored. Did a pretty good job of fooling some of you guys though, haha.

]]>http://xkcd.com/386/

:P

]]>I agree with Joe Trader: Can anyone come up with a reasoned, *mathematical* rebuke to this work, amidst all this wry and masturbatory clamor? How can a poster's ability to evaluate the substance of this work be assured, when his or her own arguments are simply hollow, and at least a little snide?

]]>Is two years long enough for Clay Mathematics Institute or any other mathematicians to study and validate (or not) this proof ?

Or is he misunderstood ?

:)

]]>Dave C.]]>

http://www.singularics.com/science/mathematics/OnNeutronicFunctions.pdf

Here is a snippet to whet your appetite:

While I do not feel it necessary to show all my math, such as reductions, rearrangements or the like, not even with Complex Arithmetic, I do describe as best I possibly can to describe the meaning of nearly all my equations is at least a short word or two in plain English. So many papers today leave too much room for the reader to make assumptions, which I do feel is completely abhorrent. With that said, I do still make this mistake myself from time to time as well; it seems to me to be an unruly habit of many a modern mathematician. However, I have tried with all my might to keep the reader informed with every step I make throughout; but I clearly own the fault when the reader does not follow and offer my apologies herein if such comes about. With all that said, I shall now divulge my purported proof of the Riemann Hypothesis...

]]>There - I've developed Supersonic Encryption™. Someone send me a cookie, preferably chocolate chip.

]]>A lot of people say, "I'm not qualified to know if its legit but it looks like it is."

Notice the contradiction. If you can't tell if its a proof, how can you tell its not star trek speak?

There are quite a few of the these crackpots. They can factor numbers in p time. But can't actually give an example etc etc etc.

No data, No examples, No dice.

Its not our time that should be on the line for every crackpot. We have to do some real science and work out some real math and get some real funding.

]]>