User talk:Mathsci/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Mathsci/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I slightly formatted. If possible, when citing websites use the syntax [url name]. ---CH 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Since mathscinet is only available by subscription, I slightly changed your modification to display the actual MR reference number, which is usual practise nowadays. ---Mathsci 21:36, 7 February 2006 (CET)

Thanks for reverting to the pre-Syrran form. ---TheScienceGuy

As far as I can tell, you do not seem to have any scientific expertise. May I suggest that instead of pedalling half-truths (such as the claimed graduate course of Evans at the University of Glamorgan), you keep to facts that are verifiable? It is nonsense to suggest that a student is proposing two topics for a Ph.D. in physics at the University of Glamorgan, when the "university" does not even give undergraduate courses of any decription in this subject nor have any professed experts. At British Universities, Ph.D.'s are never conducted in this way. (I had 3 Ph.D. sudents at the University of Cambridge, one jointly between mathematics and theoretical physics.) If you continue to vandalise this wikipedia page, I think you are likely to be reported. Because you have admitted that you are not a disinterested party, I have reverted the page to its state prior to your interventins, with the addition of the corrected form of the two Civil List documents.

Perhaps you should read the agreement between myself and TheScienceGuy aka Lakhtakia on his talk page. We agreed to be neutral and, for a short while, he seemed to be living up to his end of the bargain.

I may not have a PhD but I do have a B.Sc(Hons) so I have some scientific expertise. You further note that I did not object to your removal of the story regarding Glamorgan, because, indeed, it was not 100% verifiable. Actually, if you check the history of changes, you will see that I removed the statement about undegraduate courses because that was certainly not correct. I also left in the text regarding Glamorgan's lack of physics department because that, too, is correct. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that it is not a student that is making the proposal but a co-researcher of Evans. And it is just talk for the moment.

Additionally, I posted references to Evans' rebuttals rather than removing objections. Hardly vandalism.

As you already know, I uploaded two PDFs as evidence for the Civil List. I also wrote that one could view the official list at the House of Commons Library. This was removed by TheScienceGuy/Lakhatakia. Somebody of your academic ranking could easily be granted permission to confirm Evan's appointment. But I am grateful that you kept the two links to the PDF and corrected the syntax.

Furthermore, in accordance to Wikipedia's standard, I have not insulted anybody nor used harsh language. This is how gentlemen should conduct themselves, no matter how much they disagree. So I would prefer it if you used neutral language rather than strong words such as "vandalism". I have been educated by several Rhodes Scholars and Cambridge PhD graduates at my alma mater. A few were arrogant but they never treated people like this. This is not how scientists should behave towards each other, regardless of rank.

Therefore, I have to conclude that you are also not a "disinterested party". Would you object if I posted 10 or so objections from critics and Evans reponses to each one ? Or is this also "vandalism" ?

Syrran 07:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusions seem to be incorrect. I simply stated that I had 3 Ph.D. students at the Univeristy of Cambridge. From which you infer that I am still employed there, which you do not know to be the case. Nor do you know in which department or college I was employed. It is quite clear from the University of Glamorgan's website that they claim no expertise in physics - it is taught neither at an undergraduate nor postgraduate level and there is no department vaguely associated with physics. When somebody is enrolled for a Ph.D., the name of a supervisor and tentative title are normally supplied.

I have in any case restored the two pieces of evidence from Evans' website that you presented as evidence concerning the Civil List. These seemed to be the only pieces of concrete evidence you could offer for your claims. The statements about the University of Glamorgan were hearsay, because you did not provide any verifiable sources.

Vandalism refers to your attempt to sanitise the wikipedia page, gradually attempting to remove all reference to pseudoscience. As t'Hooft has written, Evans' ECE Theory seems to be one of the prime examples of pseudoscience. Your implicit idea that people editing this wikipedia page must somehow be connected seems to be unfounded. On the other hand I presume that followers of Evans actively communicate between themselves about the state of the wikipedia page and their various conspiracy theories. --Mathsci 09:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, read my messages to you properly. It's boring to go over the same points again and again.

It is just a trivial detail whether you are still at Cambridge or not. It is irrelevant. You should still behave like a neutral moderator instead of a playground bully.

I already agreed that there is no physics department at Glamorgan. And I repeat again, it was just talk and, naturally, not verifiable. Why do you keep bringing up that issue ? It is not really that important to the AIAS and nothing has been discussed about it since. Therefore I never objected to its removal - again I repeat myself for your benefit. Besides, Glamorgan, which I know is not rated highly amongst academics, can choose how to run its affairs as it wishes. Let's not split hairs, okay ?

I *already* thanked you for keeping the two links for the evidence of civil list. I also stated that one could approach House of Commons Library for independent confirmation, in case that you think that the documents are fake. If you privately think that they are fake, then report Evans to the police for forging the QE II's signature and a document from 10 Downing Street.

I can not see how it is either vandalism or sanitisation to post rebuttals to Evans' critics and to remove harsh language and insults. The Wikpedia Five Pillars advise neutrality and fairness. You should allow a person to defend themselves. The records will show that I tried to maintain the neutrality of the entry as much as possible. Otherwise, we may as well be in the Stalinist Soviet Union with show trials and trumped up charges. Or his moden counterparts, Mugabe and "Lil' Kim".

Besides, I am editing Evan's wikipedia directly on his behalf and with his approval. An individual is allowed to edit his own entry and should not be subjected to idle threats such as being "reported". I will remind you of the John Seigenthaler incident. [1]

I never removed any references to Evan's critics. I see no reason why you might not be loosely connected to that very small team of people that oppose Evan's in a most ungentlemanly manner. I don't have proof, of course, but I also do not see you removing the patronising and insulting language from Evan's entry. So, while you might not be part of a "conspiracy", as you put it, you clearly show that you do not wish to fight fairly.

As for verifiable claims, please provide proof for the following statement: "This theory has not been accepted within mainstream physics. Neither has it been accepted by most fringe groups.". The Foundations of Physics Letters published several of Evans' papers in 2005. Go check for yourself. Unless I am mistaken, FPL is a mainstream physics journal. I am going to predict that you will make negative remarks about the editors in your reply. So be it.

Syrran 10:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to hear that you are editing the wikipedia page on Evans' behalf. I think that must place under doubt any statement that you write and is contrary to wikipedia practices. Thank you for making your position clear.

As for the University of Glamorgan, you reported hearsay in an imprecise way, giving no verifiable references. It is what appeared in the wikipedia article that I am objecting to, not your subsequent justifications. What I stated applies equally well to Ph.D.s elsewhere in the world, e.g. Europe, the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

The last statements that you refer to were not written by me. The first statement you quote is probably true, since no papers on ECE theory have been accepted by mainstream physics journals. You might be in a better position than me to comment on fringe groups in physics. --Mathsci 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the relevant wiki regarding Wikipedia practices in this regard ? If what you are saying is true, then it looks like that I may have to withdraw from editing. I did post several verifiable claims, rather than removing others (which you and TheScienceGuy have done, contrary to Wikipedia practices).

For the same reason, TheScienceGuy should also then withdraw himself as we believe him to be Akhlesh Lakhtakia or a close associate. We gathered this from the physical location of the IP addresses that some of the edits are coming from and the contributions to other wikis. You may check this for yourself. I don't know if you realise this but Lakhtakia has a personal history with Evans. Again, read TheScienceGuy's talk page, especially his comments about Evans' supposed "depression". Whoever he is, he has made his position equally clear that he is an opponent of Evans and his work.

And since you still not have answered my question about posting his critics' objections and Evans' rebuttals, I have to also conclude that you are not neutral in this affair, again contrary to Wikipedia's Five Pillars.

Regarding your patronising statement about fringe groups: Not that it matters to Evans but, in the interests of verifiability, the contributor should post a reference. Otherwise, it should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia practices.

I once again refer you to FPL to counter your statement "no papers on ECE theory have been accepted by mainstream physics journals". The link to the online version is: [2]

Below is one of the several articles on ECE published in 2005:

M. W. Evans, The Electromagnetic Sector of the Evans Field Theory, Foundations of Physics Letters, Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 2005, Pages 37 - 51, DOI 10.1007/s10702-005-2468-6, URL [3]

Syrran 12:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the physics world there has been a recent widely publicized case of people manipulating their own wikipedia pages:

Of course everybody is free to add references, clarifications, etc, but your attempt for example to remove the "disputed science" label did not seem to be in this spirit. Evans' science does not seem to be accepted by most mainstream physicists or mathematicians. This is confirmed by citation indexes and by the fact that there are no seminars on ECE theory at major universities or centres of research. Evans would otherwise surely have a proper academic job in Wales or elsewhere.

Incidentally, on a more abstract level, do you think that if somebody disagrees with another person's wikipedia edit, they should then participate in a campaign to have that person dismissed from their employment? To me, speaking as a non-expert, this would seem to be contrary to all wikipedia practices and would also seem to grossly overestimate the importance of unrefereed articles on the web.

--Mathsci 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the info box ? Well, perhaps I should edited the info box rather than removing it. I actually deleted it for aesthetic reasons. I find that the info boxes are not included when I save a wiki page for offline use. I found that annoying so I imagined others would. I am still new to wikipedia as you can tell from the incorrect syntax. Of course, you made that quite clear in the discussion page. Was that really necessary ?

The Bogdanov brothers don't look very friendly. I will have to read their entry carefully as it is quite long.

I see that you posted a few remarks on the discussion page. I think that you went a bit overboard. Could you tone it down a little, please ?

I am sure that only a few areas of science and scientists that can afford to hold or attend seminars. As I am sure that you will agree, they can be quite expensive events and that money has to come from somewhere. I have known an Oxford PhD and a Cambridge PhD who were not able to attend conferences because their grant money was too little. And they were not researching anything remotely controversial. One of them even had to survive on corn dogs for the entire period of the conference that he managed to attend ! But eventually, after many, many years, they managed to turn things around - by starting their own little conference. And it is slowly growing. Funny thing is, those two could have got all the money they wanted if they researched something else. But they enjoyed the struggling, it seems.

There are different types of disagreements. Some of them are rational and scientific. Others get a little weird. Call me paranoid if you want, but in light of your very recent comments on discussion page, it sounds like you are trying to trap me. Clever. You are probably referring to the matter between Myron and Akhlesh. There is much to this affair that you or I are not privy to. But I have seen some of the messages from Lakhtakia and Bruhn and they are quite strange and unpleasant. (What is their personal motivation ?)

I may have gone about it the wrong way when trying to balance Evans' wiki. I propose that we find someone who is neutral to edit the wiki. Perhaps one of the Wikipedia administrators. As you can tell, I left the papers criticising ECE in. Wikipedia prefers contributers to add rather than remove. But some comments by others were a bit silly and irrelevant, so I simply removed them and left in the references by his critics. To me, it would be obvious to any reader that there are people that dispute the theory. And so I thought that his critics would be satisfied. Guess I was wrong.

Syrran 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Remarks on Evans' blog about my wikipedia contributions seem ill-judged and intemperate. Some of them are quoted on the discussion page. I hope you distance yourself from them. It was to these remarks that I was referring. It is hard to take them seriously.

Seminars are held in universities as part of the normal running of any department. Given by invited speakers or departmental members, they normally reflect the interest of research groups there in current trends. This is one important barometer for gauging the influence of new ideas.

I do not at all agree with your statement "I propose that we find someone who is neutral ...". This is not how the wikipedia works. The world is not black and white, as you seem to imply. You have your own points of view, including received wisdom from the web pages of AIAS and an apparently unquestioning belief in the work of Myron Evans. You can try to represent these views, but other people, possibly more qualified than you, will then decide what they are worth.

I would prefer not to continue this discussion any further. I wish you luck in your future endeavours and thank you for being so reasonable.

--Mathsci 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: Syrran in real life is Gianni Giachetta, currently in Bern. He has a B.Sc. in computer science from the University of Cape Town and works as unpaid secretary for Myron Evans.

--Mathsci 09:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is Mathsci?

I am no supporter of Evans or any other crank, as you can see from my contribs and my own user pages, but Myron Evans is beginning to look like a diatribe written by one or more persons with a personal grudge. So I really need to know: is this account a sockpuppet for any of the following?:

What is your personal connection to the Evans affair?

It seems to me that critics of cranks like Evans have the moral high ground and should have no need to resort to anything underhanded, if indeed any of Evans's activities are really worth so much fuss in opposing (I find it hard to believe that there is any chance of a graduate program in "Welsh physics" appearing at Glamorgan, for example; the only evidence suggesting otherwise comes from the AIAS blog, which seems to me to deal mostly in Evans's bizarre fantasy life).

You can email me if you don't want to answer in public. TIA ---CH 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Chris Hillman's accusation of sock puppetry

I have emailed you with a precise answer to your question. I feel that you hastily jumped to an unjustified conclusion. As a professional senior research mathematician, I prefer to post anonymously. Even this job description gives a strong hint as to the country in which I am employed. I can easily be identified by my colleagues; indeed I referred to the wikipedia page on the Riccati equation during a recent talk at a conference in my subject, much to the amusement of the audience. I should add that this talk was explicitly coordinated with a preceding talk by another participant, so that technically I suppose I am a sock puppet of Vaughan Jones.

For other wikipedians:

I hereby publicly certify that to the best of my knowledge I have not been the sock puppet of MyronWyn,  
Loren Dillman, TheScienceGuy, Lars Koenig or Mirondella.

[In my future writings on the Lamé equation and uniformization, I hope that I might become the sock puppet of Felix Klein.]

My personal connection with the Evans affair is the same as yours, but perhaps less so :-)

There is nothing underhanded in adding references to mathscinet and UNCC documents that Evans himself made publicly available. Both these references speak volumes.

I am very glad that Evans' wikipedia page has been reduced to a stub. In its present form, however, not all the statements presented there can be verified by a wikipedia reader. Some link to the historical notes on the aias website seems necessary to make these statements verifiable.

I cannot understand why there are wikipedia pages on scientific cranks. However if these pages exist, the crankery should be made immediately apparent. I think my additions to this page have been: the mathscinet references which exposed the crankery; pointing out that the University of Glamorgan is a former polytechnic with no prowess in pure science; that Evans got himself fired from UNCC; and his invention of the idiotic term "Cartan geometry". --Mathsci 01:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, we are both trained in math, we have some common acquaintances (although Vaughan Jones probably doesn't remember me), and we both consider Evans to be a nut. (You mean "Evans-Cartan geometry" [sic] above; the theory of Cartan geometry, the common generalization of Kleinian geometry and Riemannian geometry, is of course mainstream mathematics, due to Élie Cartan, which I myself have occasionally tried to popularize.)
All this fuss could have been very easily avoided if you had put this information in your user page. Please consider doing that to avoid future misunderstandings with other Wikipedians. I can well understand why you might wish to avoid getting flack IRL due to your WP activity, so this decision is a tradeoff. If you insist on being anonymous here, you should try to react with much less anger should any future misunderstandings arise, as seems likely if you don't provide any information about yourself on your user page.
I could try to answer your implied question about why WP has articles on "notable cranks" at all, but lack the time. You should probably find and read some failed AfD proceedings on various such articles, including IIRC Myron Evans. This might enable you to begin to answer your own question, assuming by "why" you mean "prodedural why", not "moral why". ---CH 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is Chris Hillman?

You placed a similar question on my talk page. You asked me to email you with a precise description of who I am, which I did. I used the only email address I could find, which was ***. Is this really your email address? I see that you were a graduate student there, but you are not on the faculty (among whom I recognize one former student). Please could you confirm your email address? --Mathsci 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful, posting personal contact information (correct or not) violates WP:HAR. MathSci, I urge you to take a break until you can get some perspective on your recent activity. For example, many Wikipedians are busy with many things and you should not expect same-day responses to every query. Also, it should be obvious that I have no doubt whatever that Evans's claims are cranky so you are preaching to the choir on that score. ---CH 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. a former student of yourself now serves on the UW Math faculty? Naturally I am curious... ---CH 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I see you're editing this page at the same time as me ;-) Please don't confuse my private messages to you with the wikipedia pages, your messages are getting a little out of control! You already expected me telepathically to know your email address without giving any clue :(
Just to add to the confusion: the answer is a chemical acidity test. All the best :-) --Mathsci 21:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I should have explained that you can go to my user page and click on the email this user button. Now you know. ---CH 21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that explains everything! Sorry about the confusion and thanks for the information --Mathsci 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is R. J. Wiltshire's role in all this?

Hi, Mathsci, can you please see User talk:TheScienceGuy? Do you know if he means the R. J. Wiltshire whose (non-cranky) papers in gtr I already know? If so, do you know why he seems to think that Wiltshire is somehow involved in this? ---CH 21:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC).

I'm no more expert on this than you. But doesn't Evans' blog contain copies of his emails about the University of Glamorgan Ph.D. plan to Profs George and Wiltshire? Isn't he now trying to set this up in Charles University, Prague? Or perhaps he's actually more concerned with being Chief Scientific Advisor to the National Assembly of Wales. Where will it all end? Today Wales, tomorrow ... THE ISLE OF MAN!!! :-)) --Mathsci 21:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Is he? First I've heard of it. I have corresponded with someone in the physics department there too--- should I ask him what he knows? ---CH 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Rhodri Morgan, First Minister of Wales, is aware of this appointment, despite the fact that he receives daily emails from Evans. I presume this is the form that the advice takes. There are also people who write frequent letters to the Queen: some of these might imagine that they are on the Privy Council.
I know some members of the Physics Department in Swansea, but would be reluctant to bother them with this sort of enquiry. Of course it might produce some interesting new anecdotal evidence ;-) By all means, go ahead if you wish. --Mathsci 07:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you misunderstood: when I wrote "is he? First I've heard of it" I was referring to "Isn't he now trying to set this up in Charles University, Prague?". I have previously emailed mathphysics types at both Glamorgan and Charles University on unrelated matters, so when I get around to it I plan to ask if they know anything about Evans. ---CH 05:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bernoulli numbers

Yes, all these different conventions can be confusing :) I think that most modern books use the convention used here in Wikipedia. Count Iblis 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact what is even more maddening is that the wikipedia page on Bernoulli numbers uses both conventions. They define Bernoulli numbers by

 \frac {x}{e^x-1} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty B_n\frac {x^n}{n!}

which seems to me to be more or less the definition of Whittaker and Watson but then tabulate them according to your convention. When there is this sort of ambiguity in a wikipedia reference I would therefore prefer to define the coefficients directly using a different notation. if you do not mind. --Mathsci 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

After a second reading of the wikipedia article on Bernoulli numbers, it does seem to be self-consistent. Whittaker and Watson write

  \frac {x}{e^x-1} = 1 -x/2 + B_1x^2/2! -B_2 x^4/4! + ...

which gives the correspondence between the two conflicting conventions. --Mathsci 19:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy vs. mathematics

Dear Matsci, I shall not argue with you whether dialectics is part of mathematics, mathematical logic, or philosophy. As far as I know logic was part of philosophy, see Kant. Only with the axiomatic development of mathematics, logic became part of mathematics. Indeed there is no sharp boundary between mathematics and philosophy, and the more inconsistent one is, the better philosopher he is. Danko Georgiev MD 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical logic is certainly a subject represented in some of the most distinguished mathematics departments in the world. It is often also taught as an undergraduate course for those taking degrees in mathematics. According to conventional criteria, Smarandache seems to show no academic distinction in either mathematics or philosophy. His wikipedia biography has been allowed because he enjoys a certain notoriety, a notoriety due in part to his shameless self-promotion and to the fact that he is associated with several questionable journals which have no real existence beyond the internet: you yourself have published articles in these journals. --Mathsci 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lazy Editor??

Dear(??) MathSci, first I have created the Wikipedia article before the PlanetMath entry on Smarandache function in time order. Second, at the time of creation the Smarandache Notions Journal (SNJ) links were active and pdfs WERE downloadable. Third, the SNJ vol.6 LINK is still ACTIVE!!! but you deleted it. To convince yourself see my PlanetMath user page, and see the date of creation of the article! Also I have not only posted on Smarandache in PlanetMath, actually I work in mathematical logic and particularly on the issues of consistency, incompleteness, provability, and what implications all this might have on understanding of human mind and AI. Please do not revert boldly edits that you do not understand, and do not call others with offensive adjectives without checking the actual facts. Also whether you are mathematician or not does not matter, I don't think you have greater expertice in mathematical logic or philosophy than me. Do not vandalise articles that you don't understand. This applies to me also for various medical disciplines, but I have never boldly reverted medical articles on topics where my knowledge is not deep enough. I let others edit according to their own skills and knowledge. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 13:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No if you consult the history pages your links do not work. You wrote for example SFJ8.pdf instead of SNJ8.pdf and did not bother checking whether the links worked or not. The articles (and references) I found on MathWorld had 2003 dates attached to them: This predates the creation of wikipedia. Do you have any degrees (undergraduate, masters, Ph.D.) in mathematics or are you a self-taught amateur? As for your uninformed comments about me, let me just say that I have been responsable for marking mathematical logic questions on final undergraduate exams at one of the leading universities in the UK. --Mathsci 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, the tension is at its maximal value :-)) Considering the links, yes you were right, I did error, and the journal is called SFJ for vol. 1-6 and then SNJ. Some issues are missing. The fact that you have noticed the typo, does not mean that it is better to DELETE the links, it was easy enough to substitute "F" for "N". Concerning the Smarandache text at UNM YES, I have used this source for the constants -- SO WHAT? Definitions cannot be changed!!!!! AND IF I WERE LAZY I WOULDN'T SPOT ERROR FOR S_11 AT MATHWORLD -- see footnote 17 at Smarandache_function! Also, in general, I think that everyone "hidden anonymously" under nickname in internet and DOING BAD is coward. This is OBJECTIVE criterion and is not personal attack. You are always FREE to reveal your identity at your user page. Note: coward is person who is "afraid of ..", and I guess you are afraid to reveal your identity in Wikipedia BEFORE offending others. If you reveal your identity then you are NOT afraid, so my statement does not apply to you, or else if you don't reveal yourself then you are obviously "afraid of doing so", my claim is an actual fact, so truth is truth, no matter if it hurts. Whether you are in leading Uni of UK is of no importance, your knowledge in mathematical logic seems quite narrow, and I hope you don't believe that you are the almighty mathematician knowing everything :-)) p.s. PhD degrees are irrelevant. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use capital letters - it counts as shouting or ranting on the usenet. Please also accept that wikipedia permits pseudonyms no matter how much it apparently irritates you. Please also correct your own errors and check that links work before posting them; wikipedia is set up so that you can do this easily.
To shorten a talk - and for fun - I have sometimes referred to my wikipedia contributions at international conferences (the most recent was in Paris), so I don't hide my identity from my colleagues (all of whom have their very own Ph.D.'s). If you don't like Ph.D.s, why have you put MD in your own pseudonym?
I occasionally ask my romanian mathematical colleagues from the former INCREST whether they have heard of Smarandache; they usually have not, although one had heard about a Berkeley conference. In your case as a non-mathematician, it would be interesting to know why you have such a bee in your bonnet about mathematical logic, an area in which, given your own declared lack of formal training, you must know next to nothing. This area includes category theory, topos theory, forcing theory and model theory and is used as a tool throughout pure mathematics (and more recently theoretical computer science), so I do not understand at all what you have tried to say above - it seems quite confused. Is your admiration for Smarandache perhaps due in part to the fact that his alternative journal Progress in Physics has published articles by you that would normally have been rejected by a mainstream journal? I strongly dislike pseudoscience, which you seem to spend much of your own time actively promoting. Would you care to comment on the credentials of Stephen J. Crothers, a failed Ph.D. and another editor of Progress in Physics? --Mathsci 07:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I will not argue with you, neither for fun, nor for anything else. The article on Smarandache function has been repaired, if you want, go and delete it, you will fully justify my expectations "anonymous vandal". Concerning my work, and what is pseudoscience, please see the concise article written by me on "How to diagnose the pseudoscience?". Whether my work is going to be rejected or not by peer-reviewers is your own flawed opinion. In the past 2-3 years some of my pre-prints were brutally plagiarized, and then my submissions rejected by well-known professor who is in the editorial board in dozen of journals. It is this crime against me that urged me to go against all corrupted and anonymous peer-reviewers worldwide. Soon will be the time when the corrupted peer-review system will crush, and I will openly promote free wiki-editing, and free wiki-peer-reviewing online, plus free voting for published articles online. If one day this happens, all such anonymous "pseudo-PhD" corrupted cowards will see how much votes will receive for their erroneous or plagiarized work, which is being published at high level ONLY because they are also in the editorial board of such journals. This is the "bee" that worries me, I will never shut up my mouth against plagiarists. p.s. If you want to judge my work, please read some article and then comment on it. There is enough maths where you can search for errors, and exposing my incompetence. I wish you good luck with this :-) Danko Georgiev MD 09:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)