0

It looks like you are stego-smearing me on your Facebook page.

In particular, the phrase, "great opportunity right in our city schools" --> QIA

....seems to imply that I "do not have the IQ to prove the Hodge Conjecture."

I assume that you do know what math is. I even wrote a Hodge Conjecture proof and emailed it to your department upon the request of Dr. Koneiczny.

It was claimed, without evidence, that my proof was incorrect--it was dismissed apparently without being read.

I had only emailed my proof to your fraudulent UMW math department after I had asked for the name of a journal to which to submit my proof. I wasn't even asking for a review from your organized crime group of professors. (I have every right to be rude to you; you are a criminal in a precise sense, and that is not factually false, although I acknowledge that you will very likely not have been arrested by the FBI, in spite of the facts.)

I asserted that as a non-specialist in the field, it is possible that I do not understand the exact statement of the Hodge Conjecture; I read the paper carefully, took notes, and tried to assess some notation and conventions that were unfamiliar to me. If my understanding of the statement H.C. was correct, then my proof was 100% certain to be correct.

Your faculty did not offer to clarify the statement of the H.C. When I asked, "Do you understand the statement of the Hodge Conjecture?" Dr. Helmstutler, Dr. Lehman, and Dr. K, did not respond to this simple question.

Much of my other research is definitely correct--I checked it carefully.

I am not interested in sharing my proof in public right now...I am instead pasting my claimed "clarifications of definitions" that you ignored and did comment, perhaps not reading my proof at all, like the lazy prejudiced bozos that all of you UMW o.c. math department con artists are.

Here is what was in my file. If any Usenet writers would like to comment on this, I'd be happy to write about this. UMW as school is worthless, particularly including the highly right-wing/law-breaking/dishonest/fake math department.

I. PROBLEM STATEMENT DEFINITIONS
- A claim that I need to verify: One subset of the set of all Hodge Classes is
the set of all valid morphisms (i.e., continuous functions) from, given all
finitely bounded manifolds M in P^2, M to the complex plane. I.e., we define
the subset P^2_HC of HC as follows: (P^2_HC (subset of) HC) = { X | M is a
manifold in P^2 and X is a morphism from M to C } .
- Fix an arbitrary algebraic variety V (an algebraic variety is a set of
solutions to a system of polynomial equations, in this case in P^2). A class is
a set with a restriction on membership defined by a wf. Given a fixed arbitrary
algebraic variety V, an algebraic cycle is a linear combination of classes of
algebraic subvarieties of V. (The points are treated as vectors, and the "sum"
of the classes represents all possible sums of vectors from the individual
classes.)
- An m-manifold is a topological space such that for each point in the main set
X, the neighborhood of that point in the space is homeomorphic to m-dimensional
Euclidean space.
- Given a topological space X and a point p in X, a neighborhood of p is a
subset V or X such that an open set U is such that p is an element of U and U is
a subset of V.

So, Usenet types...do you know if what above is right?

I'm pretty sure UMW refused to even what I wrote, even after Dr. Konieczny requested that I send the proof.