can we expect logical answers from math journal editors? #4.06 Correcting Math
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences," and who'll win the "Nobel" for BP's cap&trade nostrum (circa Waxman's '91 bill) ??
Next: parallels of finite-number versus infinite-number and direct vs. indirect Euclid IP #4.07 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 22 Jul 2010 16:53 So when Chandler Davis, editor of Mathematical Intelligencer MI emails me saying that MI cannot afford to add a reference citation of Archimedes Plutonium sci.math postings from 1993 to 2009 which covered all of Hardy/Woodgold's Prime Simplicity article and where Hardy actually participated in my threads in 1994 talking about the Euclid proof. That I am trying to tell Chandler that there are codes of conduct as to referencing source material. That I expect a paragraph listing **sci.math** on a corrections page of a future edition of MI. And so Chandler explains to me that he cannot do that, not because of codes of conduct, but he cannot add a reference citation because as he explains it: The Euclid proof is old and closed math and that it is trivial math and that many others before Hardy/Woodgold, before Archimedes Plutonium had complained that it was a direct method. So I question Chandler Davis's judgement call and his logic for not adding a correction. If Euclid proof is old and closed and trivial, then apparently it is not closed nor trivial, for then why bother with even a article by Hardy/Woodgold? Is it old and trivial and closed when Archimedes Plutonium wants a paragraph of correction, citing my prior two decades of earlier work before Hardy/Woodgold ever showed up? So what is the Ethical Code of Conduct as per citing references in magazines? If someone writes a book on the electronic news media of sci.math and another sees some ideas in that book and goes ahead and publishes it in MI without citing that source. To me that is stealing of intellectual property. To me, no editor should be offering a judgement call of : (1) when Hardy/Woodgold write about Euclid which was covered by AP ten years earlier, it is not trivial (2) but when AP wants a citation for his work that takes precedent over Hardy/Woodgold (3) then Chandler Davis says that Euclids IP is outdated and trivial Seems to me that if you have the job of journal editor of mathematics, seems to me that you should make decisions that are not spurious and random, because math itself is not spurious and random. So I am asking for the Producer of Mathematical Intelligencer? Is it Tracy Catanese, I ask Chandler, but Chandler says that only he and other editors can resolve this problem. So is there a code of conduct of citing references by magazines. I know when I was in High School and the lesson was learning how to write papers that cite sources, that we were never in trouble by overciting, but in trouble if we have a skimpy list of citations because then it becomes a question of stealing intellectual property from those sources neglected. I know when I applied some biology research to a biology journal in the 1990s, that it came back with denied publication because someone prior had already had those ideas in print. And that biology really has alot of diligent editors checking for prior work done. It is probably the case that most every math journal editor pays no attention to any sci.math material. But those days are over with because sci.math should be treated as if it were a journal in and of itself. So that when I write a whole book on Euclid's IP and 10 years earlier than Hardy/Woodgold, that Chandler Davis is obligated to list Archimedes Plutonium as a reference citation. Obligated by the publisher code of conduct of citing sources. And that there is no judgement call on the part of Chandler Davis as to whether to cite AP or not cite AP. 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 |