User talk:Mathsci/Archive 3

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

I believe the tomahawk of war is burried

I hope after you have deleted all warnings from your talk page, you will continue editing in civilized manner and will not continue the personal war against me. Concerning you "archived question" the answer is "NO" - I don't want to offer any collaborative project to you, nor I care about your qualifications. I have enough offers for collaboration of recognized mathematicians, whose names at least I know. Concerning Wikipedia please try to be more objective, and overcome your frustrations with others. Danko Georgiev MD 07:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comment. I was suggesting that if you were to find out my identity and employer, you might possibly decide to misuse this information. I am indeed a little worried by the fact that somebody like you, with no formal mathematical training, is editing wikipedia articles on mathematics - I think all mathematicians will find this disturbing. None of the contributions by you concerning Smarandache or his work seem to be objective. But after all if he is willing to publish your articles on physics, why shouldn't you devote yourself to his glorification on wikipedia, particularly if it irritates the scientific establishment that rejects your work? --Mathsci 08:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mathsci, I am really kindly surprized by your remark "you might possibly decide to misuse this information". :-) Thank you very much, but I am first professional physician and have a little higher moral standards than you might expect. I guess you have read carefully the following guidelines Wikipedia:Assume bad faith, if not, please read them, you might learn some technique that you currently do not use in your arsenal. Sincerely, Danko Georgiev MD 03:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In your case, however, you have unsuccessfully attempted publicly to attack the reputations of several professional physicists. This seems to bear no relation to whether or not you have taken the hippocratic oath, which only concerns the ethical practise of medicine. Many medical doctors also commit adultery, which indicates that, outside their professional lives, their moral standards are no higher than anybody else's. --Mathsci 03:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Your sentence is funny. I did not attack the reputation of physicsts, I have shown that some physicist's claims are mathematically inconsistent with the underlying formalism. Your posts show possibly good english grammar, but no whatsoever understanding of subtle semantical details. p.s. if everything produced the "pro" physicists were correct, then I guess there wouldn't be whatsoever need of peer-review, one just will look at the PhD degree and accept the manuscript, right? p.s.2. pay attention to singular vs. plural usage in my post -- I was talking about myself, not about what other physicians do or not doDanko Georgiev MD 05:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Why then did you mention that you were a professional physician? Unfortunately I think you'll have to leave it up to your readers to decide whether your physics articles are mathematically correct or not. From the wikipedia article on Progress in Physics, it's not clear whether any papers there are properly refereed. --Mathsci 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course that the readers should decide for themselves, however one cannot just look at something and say "nonsense" without understanding what the main thesis of the article is all about. I believe if one gets the main idea for overlap of "zero amplitude" region from one source due to destructive interference with "positive amplitude" region from another source due to constructive interference, and thinks a little how this is possible, he will see that it cannot be done with less than 8 waves. Due to normalization requirements if you split the wave and then you constructively interfere two of the parts, it will necessarily follow that you have to destructively overlap two other parts, otherwise you cannot get final outcome of 1. So finally you need at least 8 parts each being and you have to overlap them 4 and 4, where you should get both constructive and destructive interference. However in order to overlap those 4 waves, you have to lead them through space, and it happens that you meet first waves from opposing sources that anihilate before you even reach the region where you want to measure the final outcome. So it is predetermined which waves shall anihilate and which shall contribute to the final detection. Unfortunately some portion of the readers like you care about the author personal achievements in other areas, before they read what the author actually says on the concrete topic. This is what should be taught in Universities NOT to be done, when reading scientific articles, and that conclusions should be drawn by the content only! My friends mathematicians indeed follow exactly this last guideline. Since you are extremely irritated by my personality, plus you remain anonymous, so that you cannot bear the shame for your misunderstanding of the proper formulation of Smarandache constant, I have conlcuded that you are not math-pro as stated on your user page :-)) Whether I am right, doesn't really matter. Obviously you have no dignity to confess that you were wrong on that particular case. In contrast with you, I am not afraid to confess errors, so once I have withdrawn preprint at arXiv released in 2002, with the error repaired in 2006 publications. Danko Georgiev MD 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And one more note on your previous comment on passage of my article. If you just read a remark made in the cited article of mine, several lines above the quoted by you passage, it is written "First, one should be aware that all kets are time dependent, as for example instead of writing |ψ1(t1)>, |ψ1(t2)>, |ψ1(t3)>, ∙ ∙ ∙ the notation was concisely written as |ψ1> ..". Yes, physicists in textbooks concisely write |ψ1> for a whole range of time depended states along the interferometer arm, and this is result of the fact that the laser beam is spreading!!! So I have not abused anything, I have explicitly used method used in many textbooks, but never explicitly formulated by any physicist. Mathematically I was very careful what I am writing, and if you want to understand what is the meaning of various symbols used, you should read the article as each definition is introduced in its proper place. Danko Geo'rgiev MD 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
Yes, this is all splendid - I'm sure lots of other wikipedia users will be enthralled by all this valuable extra information. I note that on your wikipedia user page you reveal that you are researching for a PhD in a department headed by academics with PhD's. Is this some kind of misprint? You have written on this talk page that you regard PhD's as worthless. Please do explain yourself. --Mathsci 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it a joke? When someone says "it is splendid" or "it is trivial" but then makes blutant error on his next sentence, I am not sure whether the author is with low I.Q., or he is joking that he understands the vary basic and simple definitions that I start with, and should be known to everyone reading sci articles. Concerning PhD -- its only value is to find yourself a job, and if you read the Declaration of Scientific Rights that I also have translated into Bulgarian, you will see what moral values I defend -- if one is a fool, having PhD or not cannot make him smarter, it is exactly on the contrary -- such "bright" individual will teach the new students nonsense things, and I already have my personal impression from various conferences and symposia that about 20% of all PhD holders are "parody" of academicians. I have nothing to add, and I think I had enough exchange with you on maths, the good things I have learned from you are of enourmous help to me :-) Danko Georgiev MD 00:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Is what a joke? That you are a tiresome attention-seeking 27 year old graduate student enrolled in a PhD programme in Japan and that you nevertheless think PhD's are worthless? These views seem hypocritical and incoherent. You seem to resent the university system and yet want to be part of it. Please grow up. The moral values you so admire in the declaration of Smarandache's pseudoscientific journal Progress in Physics are bogus. This journal publishes inflammatory and blatently incorrect articles by authors banned from the Cornell archive and has no recognized refereeing procedure. That you chose to submit articles to this journal reveals a little more about yourself and the scientific quality of your articles, just in case there was any doubt. I hope that you are writing a PhD dissertation on something a little more substantial and less controversial than quantum consciousness. --Mathsci 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha-ha. My dissertation topic is really of use but not for me -- only for pharmaceutical companies that will earn millions of dollars on my back. Commercialized science is farce. And yes, in most of my free time I work on application of QM to study brain processes. Unfortunately my attitude towards conventional neuroscientists, and conventional physicists is this -- they are intellectually lazy hipocrats, neuroscientists say "we don't need maths and quantum physics" because this requires one to move his brain gyri, the same holds for physicists saying "consciousness is biology emergent out of physics" whatever this stupid sentence might mean. I am mathematician in my spirit, and what I do is mathematics. What my professional qualifications are is of no importance, simply I work in broad interdisciplinary field, where obviously there is no expert who can understand what I am doing. One such "prof" plagiarized once my work, and the result is lamentable, the plagiarist misunderstood some critical sentence so he published in the journal where is both Editor and peer-reviewer an utmost parody of biophysics. My letter to editor commenting on his paper was rejected, despite of the fact he misunderstood a textbook definition of what Manning-Onsager condensation of ions is, and I have provided clear note that a severe error is there in the calculations. Not a big surprize, right? :-))) Danko Georgiev MD 03:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. I have still not released public charge of plagiarism, since I don't want to waste my precious time in useless arguing. Corrupted system usually does nothing to punish the plagiarists. And concerning your previous remarks on my usage of GFDL released figure by Drezet, it is all resolved -- I have put reference to his paper, but it was not under the figure, so later I wrote request to the Editor of Progress in Physics to repair this. Drezet's emotional reaction was highly un-ethical as the image was just a drawing that I could produce by myself in 30 minutes and it was released by him under GFDL. I have never tried to cover the fact who is the author of the image, as this is easily verifiable by the cited paper by Drezet. Plagiarists usually do not quote anything on the plagiarized source, so please make difference between true plagiarism, and unsatisfied author who is cited, but feels unappreciated. And before you call me once again plagiarist, check Fig.3 HERE!, or I will really report you to admins for personal attacks and posting wrong content -- it is your duty to check the reliability of the information before you post. I will repeat again -- I know very well what is posted in the talk pages of the debates where I have personally participated. I am not on medication, and my memory is rather strong :-))) Danko Georgiev MD 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why I have replied to you so far

And possibly you wonder why I kept replying to your posts. Well, I usually trust people, so I hope you are really professional mathematician (although I am not convinced so far by the simple math error you did). I was thinking that if you are mathematician, and while trying to find error in my articles, possible your math thinking will lead you to reconsider the hypothetical possibility that some part of my exposition is correct. And possibly after some more thinking to actually understand that the final conclusions are correct also, so indeed the critique against my work is really not scientific, but based on extra-scientific factors such "do I have PhD in physics" and how do I dare to insist Unruh is wrong. Concerning prof. Afshar, this is one of the few examples of persons, who made big mistake in choosing their profession. AND in Europe usually "assistants" do NOT put "prof." in front of their names, which Afshar always does. He is assistent, and is not professor, at least in the European meaning. Danko Georgiev MD 03:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no uniform titles in Europe. In France for example there are at least four academic titles: Maitre de Conferences , Professeur, Chargé de Recherche and Directeur de Recherches. There are different titles in Germany, the UK, Spain, etc. In the USA, the title "professor" can mean assistant professor, associate professor or (full) professor. Please stop trying to weasel my identity out of me: this is simply trolling. If you cannot accept the fact that many WP editors and administrators choose to remain anonymous, please go elsewhere. --Mathsci 13:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks so much for uploading this image. I apologize for the trouble. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Mister PRO -- please stop putting banners on the released by me mathematical content before you check -- I have not used gif editor, and also I have used MAPLE software with all the color options being standard! Also I have posted the link to Miroshnichenko, and there was dispute between me and Miroshnichenko on the correctness of some animations of kinks and antikinks, which are wrong on his web site, and I have released correct gifs due to correct source codes (modified by me!) at Please find another hobby, you went too far in this personal war against me Danko Georgiev MD 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An administrator put the banners there not me. I thought you didn't know how to write in maple. How did you obtain or reproduce Miroshnichenko's maple files? How was the dispute with Miroshnichnko resolved? Why are your images and text almost identical to his? Mathsci 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Read the Dodd et al. 1982 book, to understand from where the information on the elastic ribbon model comes. You are pathetic in what you are doing, soon I will officially request admin to ban you, or else I will stop contributing to Wikipedia. Danko Georgiev MD 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It is easy to provide a one-line description of the elastic ribbon model, just as the original source of Miroshnichenko et al does. Is there something that prevents you from doing this? The idea of the wikipedia is to provide accurate information for non-specialists who might not have recourse to a library. (I myself own various books on solitons / integrable systems by Cherednik, Miwa, Jimbo & Date, Victor Kac, Graeme Segal as well as an undergraduate textbook by Drazin.)
I corresponded directly with Andrey Miroshnichenko at ANU. You should really cite the maple 5.0 worksheet produced by him and his collaborators that you used to produce the figures. Please also try to moderate your language on discussion pages and elsewhere on the usenet. Of the two possibilities you suggest above, I would vote strongly in favour of the latter. That way, instead of embarking on an impossible mission, you would have a little more time available to improve your knowledge of elementary mathematics and write your Ph.D. dissertation. Good luck :))) Mathsci 09:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The worksheets are cited by me extensively, and it is said that algorithms were originally developped by Miroshnichenko et al. STOP POSTING NONSENSE -- READ MY PAPERS BEFORE YOU SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT IS DONE ALREADY! Danko Georgiev MD 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not referring to your cogprints papers, currently unavailable even on your home page, but to your wikipedia edits. Your private research on solitons and neuroscience, whether correct or incorrect, is not the issue here. If you use somebody else's maple worksheets to generate WP images, you should mention that in the image file. Also in future please try to avoid using capital letters: it makes it look as if you're screaming. --Mathsci 05:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Conserning ethics, biomedical ethics and ethics in science, at least I have master degree, while you have none. This explains why you don;t make any difference between ethical issues, and Ricci flow, which is mathematical concept. I comment on ethical violations, CRIME done by Yau and Zhu and Cao, and I don't care about their mathematical qualifications. They have performed a crime, and the fact they are professors in mathematics is comepletely irrelevant for me. From general considerations in the jail there is enough space both for Ph.D. mathematicians as well as ordinary criminals without Ph.D.'s :-) I am generally speaking about ethics and crimes, and myself I have never threatened anyone. I provide evidence for unethical behavior which is to be considered a crime according to the Declaration of Academic Freedom. According to the very same Declaration of Academic Freedom you are criminal too! The usage of crime and criminal is in context of Declaration of Academic Freedom. And I believe it is time for you to read the Declaration of Academic Freedom AND STOP TORMENTING OTHER WIKIPEDIA USERS. Danko Georgiev MD 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary I have an MA from the University of Cambridge. Your invective about Yau and his collaborators is ill-informed. Since you seem so weak in mathematics, it might be better for you to remain silent on matters which are beyond you. Your references to Smarandache's crank journal, presumably the only place that will publish your crackpot physics articles, tells us a lot about your ethics. If by the way, you are going to start calling mathematicians criminals on these or any other wikipedia pages, it seems highly likely that you will be barred from editing wikipedia. If you feel tormented, that is a matter that is best discussed in private with your psychiatrist --Mathsci 04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)