Prev: Subgroup Inclusion
Next: Springer publishes crank's proofs of FLT, Goldbach
From: Michiel Hazewinkel on 21 Dec 2009 21:34
Quite a number of years ago I received a manuscript of Nico Benschop concerning Goldbach and Fermat (with a veiw to publication as a book in my series). At the time one of the main mistakes concerned the structure of the groups of units of the integers modulo n. I wrote him about it. Also I rejected the manuscript, considering it total nonsense. I am still of that opinion.

Michiel Hazewinkel
From: Michiel Hazewinkel on 21 Dec 2009 21:37
Quite a number of years ago I received a manuscript of Nico Benschop concerning Goldbach and Fermat (with a veiw to publication as a book in my series). At the time one of the main mistakes concerned the structure of the groups of units of the integers modulo n. I wrote him about it. Also I rejected the manuscript, considering it total nonsense. I am still of that opinion.

A book on this has now been published by Springer. Most unfortunate (unless I am totally mistaken).

Michiel Hazewinkel
From: scattered on 22 Dec 2009 08:49
On Dec 22, 7:37 am, Michiel Hazewinkel <mich...(a)xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Quite a number of years ago I received a manuscript of Nico Benschop concerning Goldbach and Fermat (with a veiw to publication as a book in my series). At the time one of the main mistakes concerned the structure of the groups of units of the integers modulo n. I wrote him about it. Also I rejected the manuscript, considering it total nonsense. I am still of that opinion.
>
> A book on this has now been published by Springer. Most unfortunate (unless I am totally mistaken).
>
> Michiel Hazewinkel

What? Are you insinuating that somebody whose home page contains such
gems as

"The sawtooth of Evolution :
.. . Extremes increase _ - + * ^ and then collapse \___ . . &c (with
positive Carry ?-) "

is a crank? Don't you just see the brilliance? I hope Springer is
going to publish his refutation of big bang cosmoloy (at least I think
he has refuted big bang - his homepage is too brilliant for me to know
for sure). Springer better act fast before The National Enquirer snaps
up publication rights.

-scattered


From: Charlie-Boo on 22 Dec 2009 09:20
On Dec 22, 7:37 am, Michiel Hazewinkel <mich...(a)xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Quite a number of years ago I received a manuscript of Nico Benschop concerning Goldbach and Fermat (with a veiw to publication as a book in my series). At the time one of the main mistakes concerned the structure of the groups of units of the integers modulo n. I wrote him about it. Also I rejected the manuscript, considering it total nonsense. I am still of that opinion.
>
> A book on this has now been published by Springer. Most unfortunate (unless I am totally mistaken).
>
> Michiel Hazewinkel

Please give a self-contained explanation of the biggest flaw. What is
normally done when flaws are discovered in books? I know of many
flaws that have occurred. I believe some are not unwitting. Two
particularly egregious examples are in “An Introduction to Kolmogorov
Complexity and Its Applications.”, Vitanyi, and “Adapting Proofs-as-
Programs”, Poernomo et. al.

Are you aware of other publications consisting of only bogus
writings? To what extent do you think this occurs?

BTW All three of the books that you and I refer to have something else
in common: All are published by Springer.

C-B
From: José Carlos Santos on 22 Dec 2009 11:16
On 22-12-2009 14:20, Charlie-Boo wrote:

>> Quite a number of years ago I received a manuscript of Nico Benschop concerning Goldbach and Fermat (with a veiw to publication as a book in my series). At the time one of the main mistakes concerned the structure of the groups of units of the integers modulo n. I wrote him about it. Also I rejected the manuscript, considering it total nonsense. I am still of that opinion.
>>
>> A book on this has now been published by Springer. Most unfortunate (unless I am totally mistaken).
>
> Please give a self-contained explanation of the biggest flaw. What is
> normally done when flaws are discovered in books? I know of many
> flaws that have occurred. I believe some are not unwitting. Two
> particularly egregious examples are in �An Introduction to Kolmogorov
> Complexity and Its Applications.�, Vitanyi, and �Adapting Proofs-as-
> Programs�, Poernomo et. al.
>
> Are you aware of other publications consisting of only bogus
> writings? To what extent do you think this occurs?
>
> BTW All three of the books that you and I refer to have something else
> in common: All are published by Springer.

I owe a copy of another one: Glyphbreaker, by Steven R. Fischer.

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Santos
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Subgroup Inclusion
Next: Springer publishes crank's proofs of FLT, Goldbach