On Friday, July 19, 2013 8:33:02 PM UTC-5, Victor Porton wrote: > FredJeffries wrote: > > > > > On Monday, July 15, 2013 10:26:18 AM UTC-7, Victor Porton wrote: > > >> Hi all, > > > > > >> I have written the book "Algebraic General Topology. Volume 1" with a > > >> wholly new approach to general topology. > > >> Currently the book is available online in PDF form: > > >> http://www.mathematics21.org/binaries/volume-1.pdf > > > > > >> The book is accessible even for beginning students (the only prerequisite > > >> is basic set theory). > > > > > >> It is under peer review of a mathematics publisher now. > > > > > >> Please nominate me for Abel Prize thanks to my authorship of this book > > >> which revolutionizes general topology. > > > > > > What problems have you been able to solve using your techniques? > > > > Abel Prize is given not only for solving old problems, but also for: > > > > "created powerful new techniques, introduced unifying principles or opened > > up major new fields of research." > > > > My work hash created powerful new techniques, introduced unifying principles > > and opened up major new fields of research.
Evidence that a technique is powerful would be required beyond your appreciation thereof. Acceptable evidence that a technique is powerful is usually in the form of new proofs of old results that provide particular insight that allows stronger results to be proven, and most especially **solving problems that previous techniques were unable to solve**.
Evidence of "opening up major new fields of research" is required beyond your appreciation and speculation. Acceptable evidence that a technique has "opened up major new fields of research" usually consists of *actual evidence in the form of work by others* in these new fields, and not merely the promise that such fields have been "opened" with no follow-up.
You really are clueless.
> As for now, my research has not lead to solving any pre-existing open > > problems.
Therefore, there is no evidence that it contains any "powerful techniques" at all.
> But it is quite natural as my research is in a very child > > (preliminary) stage.
Therefore, it cannot have opened any new fields to research, seeing as how it is still in its infancy.
> Before using my research to solve some pre-existing open problems, we need > > to work on continuation of my research itself.
That means that your research is not mature enough to evaluate it to the level you claim it has achieved. Thus, you yourself provide the evidence that your claims regarding your research and its value are useless and unwarranted. As such, you yourself provide the necessary arguments to reject your claim to an Abel prize at present.
In short: hoisted by your own petard. Now shut up.