Prev: is there a notion of algebraic (analytic) function?
Next: A proper job by Mathematical Intelligencer covering the errors of Euclid's infinitude of primes proof; how it would look #605 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 26 Jun 2010 20:04


Bill Dubuque wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The bad news is that Hardy & Moongold [7] and the editors of Mathematical
> > Intelligencer chose to lift Archimedes Plutonium's work without reference
> > or attribution on this subject and present it into Mathematical
> > Intelligencer as their own original work without so much as even a
> > recognition of all the work done by AP on this subject, for the
> > issue of attribution is lacking in this article. Maybe the magazine
> > feels that sci newsgroup posts are unworthy of referencing and that
> > ideas and posts are free to lift from the sci newsgroups.
>
> In fact it's quite common that authors fail to acknowledge discussions
> on electronic forums. This has happened to me many times, e.g. see my
> emails below for a striking case regarding my old Wronskian-based proof
> of Mason's ABC theorem. Certainly your huge number of posts here on
> Euclid's proof have helped make it widely known that Euclid's proof
> was not a proof by contradiction and, moreover, that many authors
> were not aware of such. A quick google search shows that Michael Hardy
> participated in one of these early threads in 1994 [4], so one would
> presume that he knew of such discussions here, esp. since he seems
> to be a fairly active member since then (using many different email
> addresses - which makes it a bit difficult to locate all of his posts).
>
> So it seems a bit strange when Michael Hardy claims in the article
> that he first learned Euclid's proof was not by contradiction only in
> 2007, from Jitse Niesen on the Citizendium web site (presumably [5]).
> Also, it seems like a strange coincidence that one of his "students"
> thought he discovered a way to turn Euclid's proof into a proof of the
> twin-prime conjecture - as you often claimed here. Perhaps Michael's
> memory for sources is fuzzy. Or perhaps his editor's did not like
> references to newsgroups. In any case I just wanted to let you know
> that you are not alone - it's happened to me and probably to many
> other frequent posters. Below are said emails on one of my examples:
>


Thanks for the information Bill. Can you talk about the obligations of
a journal
of science or math, as to checking the references or literature so
that a new submission is
not a trespass over earlier works by other people?

Bill, what I want to know is that a magazine like Nature or Science
has a review
process of new incoming submissions to check to see if the information
has already
been given credit for to others in an earlier time and so these
magazines usually will reject
a submission if the information was in large part covered by another
author in an earlier time, and Bill, would math journals like
Mathematical Intelligencer
be bound to such same credit to author rules?

When I was in an active talk with a science magazine to publish a
feature of the Atom
Totality, I was told that my work went through this scrutiny process
of checking the older
literature to see if mine was original, and was obviously original and
that a check through the science
channels revealed no authors, ever, having dealt with Atom Totality
and Superdeterminism.

So I suspect that such rules of submissions to physics journals being
vetted for earlier work must be a part of math journals vetting rules
procedure? I cannot see that math would have a looser vetting of
submissions.

I can see how editors would say "no electronic references". But in
this case of where
someone takes a huge chunk of my work and publishes it as his/her own
ideas, is rather
a injustice.

Bill, can you discuss what procedures math journals have to protect
earlier authors of the
same ideas, such as your Wronskian?

Can you say something as to whether there are legal issues when a
publisher publishes the same ideas without reference to the original
author?

All that Michael Hardy and Catherine Moongold had to do was to include
Archimedes Plutonium, sci.math posts on Euclid's Infinitude of Primes
1993 to present.

Simply the recognition that much of what Hardy & Moongold are saying
was covered earlier
by Archimedes Plutonium.

And the saddest part of this story, is that the Mathematical
Intelligencer (MI) article does not
have a valid proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes showing. That
neither Hardy nor Moongold
could furnish a valid Euclid IP by contradiction. And their offering
of a proof by construction
based on ystein Ore is overabundantly messy, where Stillwell gives a
more lucid and easier
construction proof.

So I doubt that Hardy or Moongold knows what a valid Euclid IP by
contraction is. And they
should be ashamed of themselves and the editors of MI by calling out
so many mathematicians claiming their Euclid proof was in error, yet
Hardy and Moongold never deliver
a valid Euclid proof by contradiction themselves.

In one of the earliest paragraphs of this article, it says words to
the effect "that the Euclid
number, all the primes that exist multiplied together and add 1, is
not necessarly a prime number". By that statement alone from Hardy and
Moongold, it is obvious that neither Hardy nor Moongold can do a valid
Euclid Infinitude of Primes by Contradiction. Because to do a valid
proof by Contradiction, then the Euclid number of P+1 is necessarily
prime. This is something that Hardy and Moongold have yet to learn.
And this is what makes their article
in MI a travesty of Euclid's proof. The only thing Hardy and Moongold
got correct is that
Euclid's proof was a constructive proof.

But for Hardy and Moongold, unable to do a valid Euclid contradiction
proof and then to go
and lambast numerous mathematicians for errors, yet Hardy and Moongold
not even able to
do a valid Euclid contradiction proof is really sad that math
magazines are of such poor quality. Perhaps that is why they picked a
math dropout and an electrical engineering student
to write a article on Euclid.

So, editors of Mathematical Intelligencer, keep up the poor and shoddy
work of publishing
shoddy math.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: is there a notion of algebraic (analytic) function?
Next: A proper job by Mathematical Intelligencer covering the errors of Euclid's infinitude of primes proof; how it would look #605 Correcting Math