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 » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: minimum credentials for any mathematician to have a peer review of
any of his/her work of any important math offering

Replies: 5   Last Post: Sep 24, 2017 3:18 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
francois.grondin2003@gmail.com

Posts: 31
Registered: 11/27/14
Re: minimum credentials for any mathematician to have a peer review
of any of his/her work of any important math offering

Posted: Sep 22, 2017 10:34 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On September 22 2017, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I noticed some mistakes in your post that I corrected.

> In the near future, we are going to ask, why and how in the world did we let sci.math be cluttered up with fake nonsense such as these::
>
> 1) Archimedes Plutonium's grid numbers
> 2) Archimedes Plutonium's solution to the 4 Color Mapping (including borders)
> 3) Archimedes Plutonium pretending that ellipses are not conic sections, being unable to find any flaw with the Dandelin spheres when asked
> 4) Archimedes Plutonium's border of infinity at 10^604
> 5) Archimedes Plutonium's theory that the universe is a huge atom of plutonium
> 6) John Gabriel's new calculus
>
> The answer as to why is obvious-- greenhorns love to be famous even though they are fakers of math.
>
> How to prevent sci.math from being polluted and bogged down by fakers? You can't. Even though they are proven wrong, they come back with more wacky theories.
>
> I always knew I would never make it big in math when I realized I have never been able to write a valid proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes. In other words, I'm unable to spot my flaws, my mistakes in my renditions of Euclid Infinitude of Primes.
>
> So, the bare bone minimum requirement for any mathematician spouting that he/she has a proof of something, something important, is to first learn and understand some mathematics. That is a minimum requirement for any mathematician to be considered worthy of a review of other work.
>
> Examples::
>
> Without understanding math, Wiles should have never been able to give a valid proof of Fermat last theorem (FLT).
>
> Hales gave a valid proof of Kepler Packing.
>
>
> Here are some conterexamples::
>
> Without proper training in mathematics and in physics, I've been polluting sci.math with a lot of goofy theories. Many tried to show me wrong, asking to prove my claims. All I have done since is repeating my posts over and over, hoping that someone with real credentials would consider me seriously. Repeating a lie or a nonsense over and over never makes it true.
>
> John Gabriel pretends he is the only real mathematician in the world. He claims that all mathematics since the Greek era is flawed, and that only him understand calculus. Using dictionary definitions instead of rigourous mathematical definitions, he built his "new calculus". Many showed him the flaws, but he dismissed with stupid arguments and insults anyone arguing against him. Contrary to Archimedes Plutonium, he is a math teacher, but he definitely failed undertanding calculus.
>
> You see, these last two guys are infamous sci.math cranks. Don't give them serious attention, because their offering is only crap.
>
> AP


You're welcome.




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.