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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Peer Review of Old Math, replaced by// can you pull out Excalibur
from the stone?

Replies: 1   Last Post: Sep 30, 2017 6:47 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
Peer Review of Old Math, replaced by// can you pull out Excalibur
from the stone?

Posted: Sep 29, 2017 10:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

All of us love that legendary story of King Arthur, where everyone come to pull out the sword from the rock, in order to be King of the land. Everyone loves it, and then here comes this young toddler waif, who pulls it out with a single finger, and puts the sword back in again.

The way we have done mathematics with peer review is a totally corrupt system of doing math. We have little hitlers, little despot gatekeepers at journals selecting what they want to be published, with hands in the till and "you scratch my back, I scratch your back."

A system aimed at furthering salaries of math professors, not at furthering the Truths of Mathematics.

Math failures and fakes have been the normal for 50 years now-- Godel's nonsense of incompleteness, Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping, Conway's surreals, Wiles's FLT, Tao's Number theory nonsense, Hales's Kepler Packing phony baloney.

All that nonsense and fakery due to a failed system in math what is called Peer Review. It is not mathematics, but a tribunal of little math dictators, failures of math, that want to impose their craziness over all of math.

We need to get rid of it, peer review, but we need something to replace it. We cannot leave a vacuum. So what I propose is what I went through in math. By 1991, I had discovered a huge flaw and error in Old Math understanding of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes proof. I found that 84% of published proofs of Euclid's IP by math professors were invalid proof attempts-- the guys just never could do a correct valid proof.

So, that should be a test for ever considering any NEW MATH, that comes along. Before Wiles is treated with a look at his FLT offering, could Wiles ever correct any error or pollution of Old Math? No, hence, trashcan his FLT offering.

Before Hales pollutes the mathematics world with a 1,000 page computer nonsense of Kepler Packing, show us where Hales ever corrected any Old Math.

You see, if anyone in math wants to place in front of "all of math community a new piece of math", before they are allowed and afforded that "look at their new math", show us where they ever discovered errors and gaps and pollution of Old Math.


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 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.