This artifact of the 2019-2022 pandemic in Atlanta, GA is some combination of the fact that I was severely drugged on campus at Georgia Tech during that time. And surely also some point-and-click (lesser than script kiddie) a--hole with physical access to my computer systems thinking they are "getting away with murder" or somehow putting something over on me by modifying and inserting obnoxious classic counter examples in analysis type gotchas into the sources of these typeset manuscripts (Do you know what that means, Maxie?). As in the GT ACO/Math syndrome communicated to me in one class that there is only one right (correct) solution to any given problem -- and moreover, that it must conform to some arbitrarily defined short length. Kind of like the difference between understanding graduate level complex analysis by reading Gamelin and knowing the non-intuitive slick proofs from Ahlfors. What pray tell are we (the, as in singular, not entire) applied mathematicians to do after qualifying exams? I suppose the ACO/CS veterans might reason about the Turing tape / halting problem. Existential philosophy is a notable b-tchy difficult woman, indeed.
More information is contained here for information's sake. That is, for the conspiracy theorists at large. I also sincerely expect that this collection should top the best of the memorable flawed proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis on arXiv and/or viXra (thank you, Trevor, for that reference point).
More to the point, irritating Princetonian arrogantia and mass proliferation of misinformation be damned: I want my $1M! (and I want it now) My childhood IQ score was a 165, for whatever lifetime merit achieving that statistic really means forever and ever after. NB, one good online confidant and amateur historian of mine suggested that his was a 161.
To quote an email exchange from the pandemic era of this generation (to the tune of Kelis, of course): 🎵 Damn right, it's better than yours. I could teach you, but I'd have to charge. 🎵 (My source code, it's better than your's, I could teach you, but I'd have to charge ...)
Michael Lacey alleged that I was a "hacker" rather than
professional mathematician at one point after he saw me give
a live demonstration of my official contribution as a "hacker app"
(displaying the hot pink 'Chicky' theme, mind you) with a
Chameleon Mini RevG device. This man is so cocky and techically
NULL that he really believes I can be put away like Kevin Mitnick
for being a software-type hacker (like ESR). Or possibly murdered,
if need be, for pissing him off. Why do we have to justify this
with a big bad hacker label? In room of like-minded men that
already agree with you, what is the point of the bullsh-t?
There's an intimidation factor that gives men like this a
quick cheap thrill, for sure.