If the development of science happens to be blocked, what a politician should vote for?

[porton]

An amateur discovered a theory that in a significant relevant sense is more general than group theory.

The amateur wrote a very long scientific article (~400 pages), put Creative Commons on it and then mis-published it (this time instead of publishing in a predatory journal, it was published in a Russian scientific site with no English UI to purchase).

So, the long article has very few downloads.

Nobody does research on this topic, because scientific priority tradition forbids publishing on others' research topics.

To made things worse, it was also discovered discontinuous analysis that relies on this fundamental theory.

So the world almost fully lost both this foundational axiomatic theory and discontinuous analysis. This essentially means no future science.

If you were a politician with power to decide, what law would you set?

• Canceling intellectual property laws seems not to help in this particular case: The long article is open access.
• The main issue seems to be in it being amateurish. So, it looks like that the solution would be to remove the concept of being an amateur. It is equal to removing the concept of scientific degrees. So, should we ban the words like PhD? But somebody would invent another word, so I see no reason that banning word PhD would solve this problem.
• Your proposals?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Either provide details that can be analyzed or this thread will be closed. As it is, this looks like some crackpot lost his mind over the rejection of his misinformed ideas and is now whining big time. There's NOTHING to discuss in this thread's current form. Do better!

 

[porton]

Just now, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Either provide details that can be analyzed or this thread will be closed. As it is, this looks like some crackpot lost his mind over the rejection of his misinformed ideas and is now whining big time. There's NOTHING to discuss in this thread's current form. Do better!

 

Thank you for your reply, I am doing your request that is I am providing details:

Here is that my now >400 pages math article:

https://math.portonvictor.org/binaries/volume-1.pdf

(The article does not contain some of my newest discoveries that I decided to keep to myself because the extrapolation of what I said in the original post witnesses that publishing it further could make things worse.)

The thing that is (in a sense) more general than group theory is my definition of "funcoid" using small delta (see the above text). It is more general because it does not use functions (a second class object in ZF) but only sets and relations (first class objects in ZF). However, TBH, my definition has 4 axioms rather than 2 axioms of group theory.

Also, funcoid can be defined equivalently using one axiom (but with more high-level objects).

The above text misses my later discoveries: discontinuous analysis and "space in general" (well, not quite in general, but in general topology). (I was afraid to publish further because of extrapolating this ill-effect to my future publications.)

Here is the Russian peer-reviewed publication of an older version of the same long article: https://znanium.com/catalog/document?id=347707

Another relevant fact is that I was essentially banned from arXiv after their moderators lying to me. (That is probably a result of them being uncareful.) The most relevant aspect of that ban is that they provided no explanation at all of the reason of their effective ban, so I have no idea if they think I am a crackpot or no, etc. Maybe the reason was just that I published too many articles in one day.

What else do you want to know?

Oh, one more relevant detail to simplify your validation of the facts:

Here a famous established expert professor claims (well, implies) that my concepts are mathematically correct:

https://ncatlab.org/toddtrimble/published/topogeny

Well, this professor does not value my discovery as a big one - opinions of different scientists on importance of some discovery may be different. I claim that he is very wrong in not considering my discovery as a big one and can give persuading arguments.

To make your task even easier, I will explain what the above referenced PDF file is:

It is absolutely usual research article on the topic of fundamental mathematics except of just two things:

• It is unusually long.
• It was put online about the end of 20th century, but it would be a typical 18-19 century text except of its length (no idea how scientists "succeed" to miss this research topic.)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, porton said:

Nobody does research on this topic, because scientific priority tradition forbids publishing on others' research topics.

You can’t publish the same thing, but one can build on an idea and reference the paper, which might raise its profile.

 

[porton]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

On the other hand, one can build on an idea and reference the paper, which might raise its profile.

Yes, but the trouble is that nobody (except of Todd Trimble that wrote a short comment) and about two prospective PhDs that referred to me without any quotes and any reason to refer except to refer to somebody to increase the count of literature references in their theses, that doesn't count.

To simplify your work further, I say:

To verify that I did a big scientific discovery, it's enough to read the very beginning of the PDF, because it is enough to know that I did found a new simple axiomatic system. Discovering a new simple and "elegant" axiomatic system is a big discovery in any case: either if it was thoroughly and correctly researched further or not. I claim that my book researches it correctly (small errors are possible, but that does not invalidate the entire stuff in my book) and rather thoroughly, but that's mostly irrelevant for the sake of this thread discussion.

By the way, I found also another simple axiomatic system: Oversimplifying my ideas, I found axioms for "finite and infinite formulas". That's the joke about an old lady (mathematicians) that saw everything except the glasses (formulas) but lost the glasses themselves sitting on her nose (not discovered axioms about formulas).

Yet another my discovery is that I am the first who put words "ordered semigroup actions" or "actions of ordered semigroups" (and researched the properties of this three-words phrase), while before me there were only two-words phases "ordered semigroups" and "semigroup actions". That sounds funny, but putting these three words together is a big discovery (but more is that I found a connection between these three words and general topology).

You can check this my claim using Google.

Not to contribute to the discussion but to add some humor:

• Scientist: What else research topic to think about?
• Advisor: Think out of the box!
• Scientist: Which box?
• Advisor: You have some mathematical object D. Think out of the box D(x), instead apply it to D itself, so write the formula D(D).
• Scientist: What D would be exactly?
• Advisor: Think about as many different kinds of formulas as possible!
• Me: formula(formula).

More humor:

• Scientist: We have the definition of uniform space: A filter on a binary Cartesian product + some axioms. To make it more general, we should remove some axioms. We are investigating about last 50 years which axioms to remove.
• Me: A filter on a binary Cartesian product.

[porton]

Yet humor:

• Scientists: Consider limit of a function on an arbitrarily chosen (and impossible to be pointed concretely) ultrafilter except of the principal ultrafilter "near" given point. The result depends on this incomprehensible for finite creatures choice.
• Me: Consider all limits of a function on all (ultra)filters (including the principal ultrafilter) "near" a given point.

Yet humor:

• Scientists: The properties of operators on a normed space are similar to properties of topological spaces... Operators are actions of semigroup... This semigroup is ordered.
• Me: Consider actions of ordered semigroups. That's a common generalization of topological spaces and operators on a normed space.

Yet:

• Scientists: There are several kinds of continuity, defined in different ways, having in common, well, the word "continuity".
• Me: All kinds of continuity are foa<=bof for semigroup elements f, a, b and its operation o.

And:

• What is science development discontinued by unlimited idiotism?
• When we lost generalized limit defined for every discontinuous function.

Yet:

• Student: Defining Lipshitzs derivative is a complex topic.
• Me: f'(x) = lim_{r->0}(h|->(f(x+rh)-f(x))/r)).

Yet:

• Hawkings got Nobel prize for finding the only explanation of black holes preserving information.
• Me: Another explanation (yet not mathematically checked, because I work alone).

Oh, a new thought I never had:

LHC scientific measurement system produces small black holes that accordingly Hawkings's theory quickly burst and therefore don't devour the Earth.

If not Hawkings's but my explantion happens to be right... They most probably don't burst at all... and devour the Earth.

Edited June 2, 2021 by porton

[porton]

So, I've posted to a physics forum, but it is still pending moderation.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, porton said:

Not to contribute to the discussion

!

Moderator Note

Very little you've said aids any kind of meaningful discussion. You really need to focus on one little thing at a time, and be as clear as possible. THIS IS NOT A BLOG! We're not going to discuss why your book didn't get published. This is a science discussion forum.

Thread closed.