The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Math Topics » alt.math.undergrad

Topic: Steven Cullinane is a Crank
Replies: 8   Last Post: Dec 31, 2005 4:19 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 21
From: Srilanka
Registered: 7/5/05
Re: Steven Cullinane is a Crank
Posted: Jul 5, 2005 2:40 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Larry Lard wrote:
> (initial note: as an intermittent Harris-baiter, I'm unused to
> defending people charged with crankery. But there's a first time for
> everything)
> crankbuster wrote:

> > You have all run across desperate google ads by this guy called Steven Cullinane who claims to have discovered something called "Diamond Theory".
> Have we? All of us? No, not all of us.

Well, when I looked at your reply, on the right margin of the page,
sure enough there was another crank ad from Mr. Steven Cullinane:

Galois Geometry
Surprising symmetry properties
of the smallest Galois spaces

Believe me, this guy is a nut!

> > He preaches his "advanced mathematics" from multiple domains:
> >
> > "Plato's diamond throws new light on
> > finite geometry and combinatorics."
> >

> _Prima facie_ a collection of and association between a number of
> disparate results from group theory and combinatorics. Nothing that
> immediately appears wrong; a minimal (if that) amount of crankish
> language. Conclusion: not a crank.

O.K. suppose I take an arbitrary array of binary numbers and count its
"symmetries". I quote a huge number, say, 50!/(5!3!2!). I call this the
emerald theorem (because my array is shaped like an emerald I once saw
in a funky dream). Worse, I quote G.H. Hardy, Walt Whitman, T.S. Eliot,
and whatever else comes to mind. I call this "collection of and
association between disparate results" - "Emerald Theory". Then I pay
Google to advertise my site on every page that has matching keywords. I
would be a Crank.

No, Sir you are too kind. Steven Cullinane is a crank of the worse
kind. If he were just doing this much we could just pity the guy and
ignore him. But unfortunately, he thinks he can trash *other*
mathematicians and get away with it!

> >
> > "The Diamond Theory of Truth"
> >

> I am hesitant to comment too deeply on philosophical matters, because I
> find it hard to tell apart what is counted legitimate discourse, and
> what is labelled crankish. I will only say that there appears to be
> nothing here that would be out of place in a philosophy textbook.
> Indeed, most of the test on this page is quotation! Conclusion: A
> philosopher. They're either all cranks, or none.

Why so many different domains to spread the same gibberish? Methinks he
spams Google PageRank...

> >
> > "The Proof and the Lie"
> >

> The most interesting link you give. This is the one linked to from
> (see below); when that link was first added, I gave this page
> a look, which I have quickly done again now; nothing major seems to
> have changed.
> The thesis of this page is simple:
> Accounts of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (which was done by
> proving (one particular case of) the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture) have
> all stated that the connection TSC makes between elliptic curves (EC)
> and modular forms (MF) is a surprising, unexpected, or (in particular)
> NEW connection to make. This statement is however wrong - connections
> between these two domains were already well and widely known prior to
> Wiles' result.
> The adduced evidence seems to provide a cogent argument.
> The mistake (imo) the page makes is in the language and tone
> surrounding its thesis - this incorrect assertion (that EC and MF were
> thought completely unrelated) is technically *not* a 'mathematical
> lie', it's more of an error of story-telling; and using such hyperbolic
> language over what is, at heart, a minor issue doesn't inspire
> confidence in the reader.
> Conclusion: Eccentric, but not a crank.

Fair enough, but what makes one squirm is the vehemence with which the
page is written and agressively advertised on Google. It's as if you
make a small social error and you are shouted at, beaten up and
murdered. This guy is jealous of the Harvard/Princeton mathematicians.
I'll bet they ignored his "Diamond Theory" so he is taking his
"revenge". Unfortunately for Mr. Steven Cullinane, it backfired on him
and he got listed on!

> >
> > As a punishment for unjustly criticizing others and for being a nuisance in general, Steven Cullinane has now been officially declared a Crank:
> >

> - The very page you cite shows that the link to one Cullinane's of
> webpages was added on 26 Feb *2004*. It is surely stretching the bounds
> of 'now' to use that word in connection with this listing.

I beg your pardon! I should have said that Mr. Steven Cullinane was
designated a Crank on the 26th of February, 2004.

> - is in no way about 'punishment' for 'unjust criticism' or
> general nuisance. It's a collection of links. And there's nothing in
> any way 'official' about it.

Yes, is too good for Mr. Steven Cullinane! This guy should be
locked up in gitmo!

> - In fact given my argument above, he probably shouldn't be listed at
> at all!

No, he certainly should be, more often!

> >
> > Public Announcement
> > Crank Watch International

> Interesting way to debut on Usenet, I must say.

Never heard of you either!!

> --
> Larry Lard
> Replies to group please

Crank Watch International

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.