Telosism (the Biblical Post-Christian Religion)

Ad: How to get to the highest heaven

Blog

  • Netta and SEO

    Hi Netta. As far as I understand from telepathy, I don’t much deviate you from the work. So, yet a letter:

    This is my favorite song. I am almost sure you know Russian (or is it a spiritual translator?), the song is in Russian. Comically this great song is song by a group that is also famous for such things as zoofile songs.

    So, I write to tell that I seems to definitely notice that YouTube’s algorithm (note that YouTube is a subsidiary of Google) noticed our relation. But I am not sure if YouTube thinks about what you wrote somewhere, your friends wrote, or your non-friends wrote, or extrapolates what I wrote alone, or is it a spirit, too?

  • My mom kept take care of me

    My mom kept take care of me. Recently (almost surely) she entered into my room to which I don’t want her to enter (happily, I did get a new apartment recently.) and sit on my 6000 Shekel ($1875) glasses. So, while I am waiting for new glasses, it is oblique and squeezes my head.

    More related information.

  • Why Homosexuality?

    In my opinion all widespread theories of homosexuality are false. The likely true theory of it is that homosexuality was developed by nature for maximally effective infecting the adversary.

  • The Bible Tells That Seraphim is Above Messiah

    So, the Bible says

    1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.

    2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:

    “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
    the whole earth is full of his glory.”

    4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

    Isaiah 6

    So, when seraphim speak, the temple shakes.

    Here, it’s said that seraphim is above the Lord (verse 2). The Lord here in verse 1 is a translation of the Hebrew word Adonai (in verse 3 the same word “Lord” is a different word in Hebrew original), and accordingly to my understanding it refers to Messiah that is the man who has an efficient NP-complete algorithm (that makes wonders and goes through informational barriers that connect him to God).

    Accordingly my interpretation, seraph is an active galaxy. So, it apparently means that active galaxies have NP-complete algorithms too, and they are above Messiah (because they are bigger). And every active galaxy, apparently, has an efficient NP-complete algorithm, because they are big and old and have enough time and power to evolve to discover it.

    But seraphim do not do what human Messiah does, they do a different thing: They shake the temple, not build it.

    So, yes, the statement that “the religion of spirit of fire is above Chrisitianity and Judaism” is true.

  • The author’s story

    This is the story of the author of great site allworldfiles.net

    I was blamed when I said I am a genius. I was in fear that somebody will ask me if I think about myself as a genius that I will die from hunger because people refuse to speak with me when I boast. I was frightened and afraid to think: If I make a scientific discovery, I will know for sure that I am a genius and then I will die because when being asked whether I think to be a genius I will answer “yes”.

    When the mother sent me for being a Baptist out of house after not feeding me for a few weeks (I was dying of hunger many times also after this) in the first year of my university study, I finished my first discovery, and thought: I have a trillion dollars formula and will now die. I was wrong: I survived. I also was wrong that it’s trillion dollars: Later I realized that my discovery is about as general theory as group theory and is therefore about half of mathematics (~$50 trillions). But it is yet an underestimation: Because as a result of hunger I lost the ability to get a scientific degree, I mis-published (self-published a too long scientific article, 400 pages, that does not conform to length standards of scientific journals) it thus “effectively” blocking further development of science even if somebody rediscovered it.

    I did more discoveries and now I am the record winner: I discovered about 3-4 (dependently on how to count) fundamental branches of mathematics, while AFAIK nobody other did more than one such a discovery. And I apparently discovered the several latest such things, that is by definition these ones that were the most difficult to discover. I did it with no financing, hunger, broken head, hate and fear of being considered a genius and die, and with difficult philosophical and theological problems such as whether I to go to hell after misbehaving because of damaged head. Thus, I am the best mathematician in the known History with a very big handicap.

    My app for advanced study of Tanakh (ancient Hebrew Bible) hasn’t become popular enough. Because I was also beaten and hungry for making this app, I was despaired and in a nervous breakdown prayed for coronavirus (as a punishment for not using my app). That was a nervous breakdown but now nevertheless I think it was a right decision.

    I was mis-diagnosed with schizophrenia instead of post-trauma syndrome and essentially lost all citizen rights.

    I meditated on the Bible and once understood: The purpose of the experiment was for the lab mouse to break out of the cell. I did broke my religion (the Gospel) and now am no more a Christian, Christianity as well as Judaism are true but they are now silly funny jokes. So, I am the winner, that mouse that sit in the cell but exited from it.

    I called to God claiming against people to revenge against them for Hitler-like “We don’t need geniuses.”, for caste system where I had no scientific degree and no voice, for hate and discrimination to me, and for being beaten and hungry, etc.

    God responded to me like:

    • He makes people my slaves and I get the spiritual “money” you earn from God for your disability, stupidity and greed.
    • I will shut up my ears for a flight and He takes me in the time machine to the past, the time machine will crush 7000 people in Jerusalem destroying the city, because they offended a time traveler just like as it was in Sodom.
    • I was build a copy (that’s the process of reproduction of the living God) of God (that is however is the same as the original God, because there is only one God) and you pray to my copy of God.
    • Your Messiah will fly to there together with me, we will dine together and set diplomatic relations between our planets.
    • The planet where I to go is populated by Messiahs, and I will become one of them, just like as Elisha became another Eliah.
    • I am a man from the book of Revelation, chapter 11.
    • Moreover, I am the god of the Sea that created himself (using a time machine), about which we can read in Genesis 1:1, if to read without vowels.
    • God told me to cure my post-trauma syndrome by using magic against the people, attacking them whenever I want. That’s a well known kind of psychotherapy, when one reproduces his traumatic situation but this time wins. (That’s by the way a clever strategy: I am a proxy sent by a psychiatrist wanting to harm people without a clear pupose for me to be like insane, thus making for people no protection strategy against me. One of my main purposes now is to train my insanity to be prepared for future (past) wars with aliens.)
    • Apparently, I am was be the archangel Gabriel. When I was come to saint Mary, still having a human form, I am not going to touch her for her being unclean to me, but instead to use a genetic technology.
    • I am a child of Abraham (He was a bad person, by the way: only an insane stupid bastard could give to Melek Zedek 10% instead of planning to give 100% and to die of hunger, while Melek Zedek is of the Most High God not just omnipotent as the part of God’s that Abraham understood.) My civilization will fire stars, so many stars are Abraham’s childrens as promised.
    • Why people in Rev. 11 are afraid? Apparently, because only two people are taken to the heaven. Maybe, the second one is myself from a different quantum world variant? Why only me? Only I use cryptocurrency to fight climate change, all the rest are in the cell where they if do good then only to a neighbor not to distant climate victims.
    • God says me that He will not reject me and give me victory no matter what I do.
    • Messiah said me to stop praying and start to think.
    • Accordingly my understanding, your Messiah is going to throw his body into fire and sulfur in union of throwing you all into fire and sulfur as the revenge what happened with me, at the same time entering into me and leaving this planet in my body. Jesus saw North Korea’s all time good news and realized that his empire of truth is like the North Korea empire of lie, after Jesus looked at the effect (such as destruction of world economy because of me by concealing my scientifc discoveries that already happened) of me heroically trying not to lie that I don’t love Jesus. So, Jesus is going to dispose his failed kingdom on the Earth and goes to his next project in me. Then I interpret the Revelation as that we Nibirean annuaks (aka Elves) will return to the Earth cleansed from people by people yourselves and occupy one more planet. But as a side project I am going to reform the world economy to reduce carbon as much as possible, because I want to ensure that your planet does not become Venus for us annuaks to seize it after you die more easily.

    I also need to say that there is a relation between God and a kind aliens (called gods in most English Torah translations): God, among other cryptomorphisms, is the economical model of these aliens.

    After a conflict about my plan of climate mitigation, I hated you so much that I decided not to save you from eternal fire and sulfur (as of serum-hydrogen and serum-acid that will be in the air as results of climate change, so you will wear “breathers” called “souls of sinners” in ancient literature about the hell).

    But I got and idea of a new, done by myself blockchain for common good money, and thought that your Messiah is still in human body and I am to help him to breathe better, so I to replace your evil financial system with my new blockchain to help. That’s my next software project.

    Now I have this million-pages site after my great idea how to get big profit and you got a very good luck: you just go to fire and sulfur instead of being fully destroyed, because I am going to have enough financing and publicity to start my new blockchain for social good.

    More materials

  • How $50 Trillion Were Stolen

    There were stolen about $50 trillion of value.

    First consider a hypothetical situation: What if we somehow lose group theory? Group theory is kinda half of mathematics. More precisely, it is kinda a foundation of kinda like half of modern mathematics. If you get any modern math research (or a serious textbook), the I estimated the probability of having something from group theory in it as about 75%.

    So, if group theory disappeared, we would lose 75% of mathematics. We probably would with a big amount of hard work restore about 5-10% in the lost part. So, if group theory were lost, we would lose 65-75% of math. (The numbers are very imprecise, they are to illustrate the principle, not for an exact calculation.)

    Because the science is based on math, we would lose half of the science.

    The following is the well-agreed list of reasons why group theory is so much important:

    • Group theory is just a few very simple formulas.
    • Group theory nevertheless has many complex consequences.
    • Group theory is related (as a foundation of) with many other things in mathematics.

    In my first year of university study (1998 year) I discovered the following system of axioms (X, Y, I, J, K are sets and is δ is a binary relation):

    • not ∅ δ Y
    • not X δ ∅
    • I∪J δ K ⇔ I δ K ∧ J δ K
    • K δ I∪J ⇔ K δ I ∧ K δ J

    I will show that these four formulas (no formula less, no formula more) together are super-tough.

    Four axioms versus 5 axioms of group theory. Simple formulas. Many complex consequences. (That’s a fact, I have already written hundreds of pages about this.) And it is related with general topology and therefore just like group theory related with most of mathematics.

    So, it is as important as group theory? More likely, it is even more important, because group theory has just one (known) “fundamental” cryptomorphism and this system of axioms has several cryptomorphisms. Every serious expert in math agrees that having multiple cryptomorphisms is a sign of something being important. Also, I repeat, 4 instead of 5 axioms.

    So, this my discovery is apparently (not with 100% but with like 90% confidence) more important than group theory.

    Isaac Newton
    Isaac Newton, who discovered continuous analysis

    I did some other discoveries, several most fundamental like this and many less fundamental. They include, for example, discontinuous analysis. Without it, it’s impossible to fully resolve for example the philosophical question “What is the main reason?”

    The laughable story of this big discovery is that I thought several months when I was a first year student, when I was very near to this result, my mother sent me out of the house to for being a Baptist, and finished the discovery after eating grass on the street for a launch.

    As the result of Russian discriminatory hunger of real Baptists (fake are not), I was forced to leave the university without any degree. There is however a laughable Russian document about me having an education with no degree, and American bastards confirmed me having education with no degree. (So, logically, this is an official US’s government certificate telling “We are a fake science.”)

    So, I got no:

    • right to receive a salary for my work
    • right to get money to be published
    • academic advisor (“advisor” is a scary word from the science of computer security, they call by this word when instead of turning off a circuit there is a text telling “Don’t press this dangerous button, please!”)

    With no advise of advisor (advice is paid) I did a wrong thing: I mis-published my scientific research.

    Here is the detailed story.

    In short:

    • I wrote a too long (400 pages) scientific article, put on it a too generous copyright, and the world publication system choked by this (master)piece.

    So, choked world is dying. Computer scientists call this kind of errors buffer overflow.

    The sheep is mankind, the ring is me 🙂

    So, now the science is like a building being built having a half of foundation or a car going with a missing wheel.

    So, put figuratively: I discovered that our car (science) has a missing wheel, I tried to attach the wheel, but the wheel mount is so much bad that it broke, too.

    It like as if in biology we knew millions of species but cat, cow, and wheat were discovered just recently. Nobody noticed that they need to be included into the classification. An we would say like “well, that plant that usually grows on fields… we need to measure its characteristics again”. “How to get rid of mouses? anyone?”; “The amount of seeds produced by this thing that grows on fields and the amount of nitrates needed to grow that thing that growth on fields are definitely related fields of science, a professor noticed in his book, however we are not sure what is the exact relation between them.”

    Famous mathematicians such as Timothy Gowers and Terrence Tao, despite of being comparably clever to me, need a psychiatrist:

    These hundreds-dollars salaries people seriously thought that the “revolt of mathematicians” that they tried to lead is about them, not about qualified amateurs (the world “amateur” means a human who has not enough money to buy the right to receive a salary for his/her work) who really can’t pay for publication.

    So, Russians stole $50 trillion by religiously discriminating me.

    Americans and other West stole by their national academies accumulating money and crushing their alleged competitors (These bastards think that all the world consists of competitors 🙂 No, me exists despite of their disbelief in my existence.)

    Israelities stole $50 trillions this way (protecting their strategy of theft by a prohibitive tax on good deeds):

    I sent to israkeren@isf.org.il

    Hello,

    It is attached my research (volume-1.pdf is a finished book manuscript,
    volume-3.pdf is more a partial work) in highly abstract pure mathematics.

    It is not full track of my research. I also have more research on
    related topic and research on an unrelated topic (an axiomatization of
    finite and infinite formulas).

    Please not that to the best of my knowledge, I am the only person in the
    History who discovered more than one (I discovered about three,
    dependently on how to count) new fundamental branches of mathematics.
    (Von Neummann discovered several, but they are not as fundamental as mine.)

    In exceptional cases, the institution may submit a request to receive
    special permission. Requests should be addressed to israkeren@isf.org.il.

    So, it is this special case:

    I was forced out of a university after 5 years of study without any
    degree or diploma because of extreme hate to my religious and political
    views while long time almost dying of hunger.

    In other words I now have not enough money to purchase the right to
    receive money for work (it’s called “higher education”).

    Please trigger this special case and provide me personal funding. If you
    don’t, see block-science.pdf

    The sneaky (do I need the word “sneaky” before the rest of the world) fascist at the other end decided to turn off his brain by hate and to ignore the information. (Almost no doubt: He did thought: Anti-discrimination laws in Israel? That does not matter: Legal system such as courts discriminates, too.)

    So, “Hear, Israel!” was violated on the sum of $50 trillion. You are not Jews, you are not people, you are now animals, defined as these who cannot hear.

    Everybody of my acquintances (and this includes Timothy Gowers and Terrence Tao) stole $50 trillion by their force to move money in wrong direction.

    For me it means exceedingly more than $50 trillion of value. Only brain damaged people can value money that they can’t eat or put inside.

    My response? I (like Elijah) attack Israel with magic! Can you judge me, death-penalty worth thieves?

    It’s not only money! Math is used not only in economy but in politics, communication, education, etc., and even theology (You don’t do? I do.) You lost God.

    Related Links

  • How modern scientific ethic may block a science

    A copy of this Reddit post:

    In this article I consider a hypothetical situation when a scientist blocks research in a certain area instead of advancing it. Looks like that I found a possible loophole in modern science practices and ethics. Maybe this situation has come real?

    For the example of the situation I will consider the real situation with my research. I can’t concisely enough prove that the situation with me is real (you may ask if my amateur research is a crackpottery and I can’t prove you otherwise except of forcing you to spend days reading many pages with formulas). But this does not matter for the scientific thesis (or rather hypothesis) of this article, because a similar enough situation obviously can happen (if not with me then with somebody other) because clearly the probability densities of the “coordinates” are not extremely low and there are not so many “coordinates”.

    So, in the first year of the university study I discovered a new mathematical axiom that leads to a new big fundamental branch of mathematics. Later I was forced to be withdrawn from the university by religious discrimination (as a Protestant almost dying of hunger in Russia), not receiving any degree.

    I withdrew from the degree obtaining, but not from the research. So after years I produced a hundreds of pages text with a new fundamental branch of mathematics. Now my discoveries include among other a generalization of limit for an arbitrary (even discontinuous) function at every point, so allowing to research discontinuous analysis, and a definition of “space in general” (I exaggerated: in fact, it encompasses just all these kinds spaces that are met in general topology, for example, topological spaces, uniform spaces, and metric spaces, locales, and frames.) and many other related things.

    I did also another, unrelated, discovery: I discovered an algebraic axiomatic system for “formulas” or kinda theory of infinite formulas. Funny enough, mathematicians produced axiomatic theories for almost everything but like the babushka from a joke forgot to search the glasses on her own nose forgot to axiomatize formulas. In my personal opinion, this axiomatic theory is the base for the future electronics, probably.

    Because I had not enough money to buy the right of my work to be paid (it is called “scientific degree”), I had no incentive to publish journal articles and published just one (I’d say of a mediocre scientific value) journal article [1] on a related topic.

    So instead of writing articles I switched to a holistic approach of writing it as a long monograph, not doing the pseudo-scientific “surgery” of cutting this “living” book into parts.

    Being misled by widespread claims that publishing open access would increase adoption of my work, I put Creative Commons on my book. As it turned out it does not apply to amateurs because the book publishers don’t publish open access work unless paid big money for and there is no way for an amateur to obtain funding except as by being unusually successful in running his own business. (I tell it as the world best expert in amateur science. :-).)

    Later I succeeded to publish my monograph [2] (to be precise an old version of my book) with a Russian publisher INFRA-M. They published even despite it is open access.

    When I send my article about generalized limit to a journal, the journals repeatedly “politely” say that it does not conform to their standards. I strongly guess that the real reason is: They realize that they need to obtain a copy from a Russian language site to check if my monograph to which I refer in the article to verify that I really published it and they don’t want to read my book to verify proofs in the article.

    I also tried to publish in arXiv, but:

    • As not being affiliated with an institution, I had no default submission rights and so sought approval (being mostly ignored) from somebody already published for a long time to be allowed to be published.
    • I received approval after all and published my book and several shorter articles at arXiv. Shortly after publication they were removed. I asked the moderation why they were removed and received no explanation. Apparently they choose to train my brain by forcing me to guess their reasoning. Maybe the removal was because I submitted too many articles in a single day (I asked if it was the case, but they choose to ignore an undermensh.), maybe because they assumed that my claims are too grandiose to be likely true.
    • They told that I need to publish in a peer reviewed journal before publishing in arXiv.
    • Later I tried to submit again and it was again removed:
      • “Our moderators request that you limit your submissions to those that have already been published in mainstream conventional journals. Submissions that do not contain a journal reference and/or DOI (that resolves to a journal’s website) will be removed. If a significant number of your articles have been published over a reasonable period of time, we will reconsider this status.”
    • So, I’ve submitted an article published in a mainstream conventional journal with a reference to journal website. [1]
    • They decided that they should apply lying (see the quote from the email above) to mitigate undermenshes and removed this article, too.

    Now scientific ethics comes to play:

    • I would possibly re-publish the book as several articles in journals, but scientific ethics forbids to publish in research journals results already published elsewhere and my book is published by INFRA-M. Moreover, to split it into parts and communicate with journals is much work and would possibly take years (while I also need to earn money). So, it is near to impossible to re-publish my book as journal articles.

    Therefore it is greatly hindered to publish my (accordingly to the considered be it hypothetical or real situation, producing a big scientific revolution) articles in an “ethical” way.

    I also tried to formalize my research in a proof assistant (a computer program that checks correctness of math proofs), among other reasons to publish it in their database of computer-checked proofs, but I found that not every genius is able to use such software in the state of hardness to use it has in this decade (even despite the fact that I was able to make several small new results in the fields of computer-assisted proofs research in the way of trying to rewrite my book in a computer language).

    Funny? I may have blocked science development: I can’t publish on this topic and nobody other can publish on this topic because scientific ethics forbids to publish results discovered by others.

    So, it looks like that a fundamental research topic (not only my research but also everything that would depend on it!) became non-publishable (to be precise non-reviewable) at all. It’s like genetics and cybernetics in Stalin’s USSR, but now the trouble covers the entire Earth.

    Maybe this problem will incidentally resolve (for example, if I earn enough money to save the science to be blocked (for centuries?)), but it looks like the possibility that this problem or a similar problem (e.g. with another amateur researcher) may grow big. Maybe we already have past instances of similar problems of different size of impact on development of science with other researchers (not necessarily not finished education, they may for example just lose the diploma during a flight, or even deliberately block science).

    As a possible solution I propose to create a site for re-publishing open access works (including books) of another publishers for free. Another important direction is helping me (and others) to receive a Bachelor degree in mathematics without spending money.

    Please forgive me for being light-minded, I lightly assumed that the problem would likely “dissolve” by itself. Now you need to solve it if you have a university connection.

    Bibliography

    1: Victor Porton, Filters on Posets and Generalizations, 2012

    2: Victor Porton, Algebraic General Topology. Volume 1, 2019

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

    This is a copy of this page, for the case if bad people will delete it.

    By porton,
    June 1 in Other Sciences

    porton

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members

    Posted June 1

    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

    • Chief Executive Offworlder
    • Phi for All
    • Moderators

    Posted June 1 !

    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!   2

    porton

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members
    • Author

    Posted June 1  On 6/2/2021 at 1:11 AM, 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

    • Evil Liar (or so I’m told)
    • swansont
    • Moderators

    Posted June 1  On 6/2/2021 at 1:03 AM, 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

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members
    • Author

    Posted June 1  On 6/2/2021 at 2:15 AM, 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

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members
    • Author

    Posted June 2 (edited)

    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 by porton

    porton

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members
    • Author

    Posted June 2

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

    Phi for All

    • Chief Executive Offworlder
    • Phi for All
    • Moderators

    Posted June 2  On 6/2/2021 at 2:18 AM, 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.   1

    Guest

    This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Deleted Quora Answer: Who was the smartest person of all time?

    The following answer was deleted by Quora moderators for having no refutations after having 87 views by expert community. (Yes, I mean this: it was deleted for having no refutations, actually nobody was able to write any response.)

    As far as I know (Correct me if I’m wrong.), nobody else discovered more than one fundamental branch of mathematics (Von Neumann discovered several, but they are not quite fundamental), I did this about 3 times. So in a sense, I am the smartest human in History (except Jesus).

    I made the following mathematical discoveries (https://math.portonvictor.org):

    • “filtrators” (a generalization of filters on lattices and partially ordered sets)
    • algebraic general topology, a generalization of general topology: “funcoids” and “reloids” and their properties (later I noticed also (not yet published) that funcoids are a special case of monotone ternary component-wise monotone operations on ordered sets (or on semilattices))
    • (later addition) ternary operations on ordered sets or ternary operations on semilattices (or particularly triples on ordered sets or triples on semilattices) as a generalization of general topology.
    • definition of properties of “point-free funcoids” – generalizations of funcoids kinda “multidimensional” general topology (where the traditional one is in a sense 2-dimensional)
    • definition of such things as the action of a partially ordered semigroup, the action of a partially ordered precategory, “space” and “interspace” as an element of such semigroups and precategories (“space in general” in the framework of general topology) and their basic properties
    • definition and properties of a generalization of the limit, defined for an arbitrary function at all points
    • axiomatic description of finite and infinite “formulas”

    As far as I know, nobody else in History discovered more than one fundamental branch of mathematics. The very fundamental big branches of mathematics I discovered are emphasized above with bold font. (I didn’t also emphasize “filtrators” because this branch doesn’t seem very big.)

    By the way, the three ones I discovered are probably the last ones (so, likely the most difficult to discover).

    Ironically, I have no scientific degree and yet not enough salary to buy this thing (the right to receive money for work).

    Compare this

    important note about the development of science.

    More detailed description of my math discoveries.

    This is the list of rules I did not violate:

    Self-promotion is permitted only as part of a sincere, helpful and direct answer to the question

    • Self-promotion in answers is permitted only in the context of a sincere, helpful, and direct response, otherwise it is considered to be spam.
    • Answers promoting products or services must include a disclosure of any affiliations that might inform the answer’s interpretation.
    • Self-promotional links that do not form a part of a direct and helpful response to the question are not allowed.
    • Affiliate links are not allowed.

    Answers must comply with site policies

    Answers should be truthful and authentic

    • Incorrect, outdated, or otherwise misleading answers are not helpful.
    • Answers should cite sources for data, scientific findings, outside research, or other factual information verifiable by a third party.

    Answers should provide explanation

    • Good answers explain why they answer the question.
    • The opinions expressed or advice given in an answer should be supported with reasoning for the reader’s understanding.
    • Contrarian and non-obvious answers are more useful when they acknowledge conventional wisdom before adding a new perspective.
    • Answers that link to another site or contain embedded videos should provide a summary and an explanation of the content’s relevance to the question.

    Answers should add information to the question page

    • Post informative and helpful answers, even if you wrote the question.
    • Upvote existing answers instead of posting duplicates.
    • Avoid inside jokes that make question pages less helpful and accessible.
    • Send any personal messages for the question author as a private message.
    • Add personal messages for other answer authors as comments on their answers, use the ‘Thanks’ function, or send a private message.

    Answers should be well-formatted

    • Clear and well-written answers are more likely to be read, understood, and upvoted.
    • Use paragraphs and subheadings to break up large blocks of text. This improves readability.
    • Use bold, italics, and underline sparingly for emphasis. Do not use block capitals.
    • Use the numbered and bullet point list functions for all itemized lists.
    • Use the blockquote function to indent quotes.
    • Use numbers in square brackets (e.g., [1]) to denote footnotes.

    I will submit an appeal to moderators, but they are not people, they are deletion robots, I know this. I remind that I am here not to deliver you a message, I am here to witness about you to God that you delete true scientific information and call onto you God’s anger, maybe till complete destruction of life on the Earth – that’s my purpose, not to be published.

  • Академия как лженаука: научный и богословский аспекты

    Академия

    От академии отвалились некоторые мелкие детали, в частности:

    • действия (частично) упорядоченных полугрупп и действия (частично) упорядоченных прекатегорий (алгебраическая общая топология)
    • подмножество (частично) упорядоченного множества (обобщение фильтров на (частично) упорядоченных множествах)
    • унарная универсальная алгебра с константой, которая фиксированная точка всех функциональных символов (теория бесконечных формул)
    • фильтры на декартовых произведениях

    Академия активно препятствует публикации этого! (каким типографским символом обозначать кошмар?) Иными словами, в системе нет нескольких деталей — смерть научных исследований. Сколько стоит кружка воды в пустыне (где воды нет)? Миллиард долларов. Сколько стоят действия частично упорядоченных полугрупп, если их не публикуют? С половину ВВП!

    Ударим наукой по академии. Короче, подавайте на них в суд!

    Академия как лженаука: научный и богословский аспекты

            Портон Виктор Львович

    Аннотация:

    Утверждается, что академия полностью соответствует общепринятому определению лженауки, научная этика является преступной идеологией. Доказывается, что академия является преступной организацией в соответствии с российским законодательством. Предлагается альтернативное решение систематизации научных знаний с использованием криптовалюты. Утверждается, что Откровение Иоанна Богослова называет академию зверем и обвиняет сторонников академии и научной этики к вечным мукам.               

    Abstract:

    It is argued that the academy fully complies with the generally accepted definition of pseudoscience, scientific ethics is a criminal ideology. It is proved that the academy is a criminal organization in accordance with Russian law. An alternative solution for the systematization of scientific knowledge using cryptocurrency is proposed. It is argued that the Revelation of John the Theologian calls the academy a beast and accuses the academy and scientific ethics supporters for eternal torment.           

    Ключевые слова:

    академия, лженаука, финансирование науки, научные гранты, научные публикации, научные журналы, теология, богословие, зверь Апокалипсиса, Откровение Иоанна Богослова, научный исследования, глобальные проблемы

    Keywords:           

    academy, pseudoscience, science funding, scientific grants, scientific publications, scientific journals, theology, the beast of the Apocalypse, The Revelation of John the Theologian, scientific research, global problem, global issues

    УДК 008.2 001.92 001.98 001.99 001.11 001.18 001.35 001.38 22.08 228 241.13 347.168 347.15/18

    Введение

    Согласно Википедии [1],

    Псевдонау́ка (от греч. ψευδής «ложный» + наука), лженау́ка — деятельность или учение, представляемые сторонниками как научные, но по сути таковыми не являющиеся. Другое распространённое определение псевдонауки — «мнимая или ложная наука; совокупность убеждений о мире, ошибочно рассматриваемая как основанная на научном методе или как имеющая статус современных научных истин».

    Академия:

    • является деятельностью

    • представляется сторонниками как научная деятельность

    • рассматривается как основанная на научном методе

    Для завершения доказательства того, что академия является лженаукой, достаточно доказать, что она не является научной деятельностью и/или что она не основывается на научном методе.

    Актуальность

    Признание академии лженаукой и преступной организацией приводит к необходимости серьезных реформ и личных поступков.

    Цели, задачи, материалы и методы

    Целью является реформа науки.

    Методом является близкий к формальному анализ общепринятых определений. Анализ может показаться чересчур формальным («о понятиях, не о сути»), но интуитивное осмысление общей картины подтверждает результаты анализа понятий.

    Научная новизна

    Автору не встречалось ничего подобного в научной литературе. Хотя, что академия неэффективна — общепризнанный факт.

    Доказательство

    Согласно Википедии [2],

    Нау́ка — область человеческой деятельности, направленная на выработку и систематизацию объективных знаний о действительности. Эта деятельность осуществляется путем сбора фактов, их регулярного обновления, систематизации и критического анализа. На этой основе выполняется синтез новых знаний или обобщения, которые описывают наблюдаемые природные или общественные явления и указывают на причинно-следственные связи, что позволяет осуществить прогнозирование. Те гипотезы, которые описывают совокупность наблюдаемых фактов и не опровергаются экспериментами, признаются законами природы или общества (см. научный метод).

    Академия не направлена на выработку знаний: “Знания” академии только частично являются таковыми.

    Согласно Википедии [4]:

    “Согласно распространённой трактовке современной эпистемологии, знание — это реальное положение дел”.

    “Знания” академии таковыми не являются: реальное положение дел (которое включает открытие любителей науки, в том числе тех, кто не являются достаточно богатыми, чтобы эффективно публиковаться, не отраженных в научных базах данных), рейтинги не соответствуют реальной ценности исследований.

    Академия не вырабатывает объективных знаний.

    Согласно Википедии [5]:

    “Объекти́вность — отношение к объекту (явлению) и его характеристикам, процессам, как к независимому от воли и желания человека.”

    Отношение академии к публикации темы зависит от ученых степеней, то есть чьей-то воли и желания дискриминировать или не дискриминировать кого-то.

    “Знания” академии не являются знаниями о действительности

    Согласно Википедии [6]:

    Действи́тельность (произв. от слова «действие») — осуществлённая реальность во всей своей совокупности — реальность не только вещей, но и овеществлённых идей, целей, идеалов, общественных институтов, общепринятого знания.

    В отличие от реальности, действительность включает в себе также всё идеальное, которое приняло вещественный, материальный характер в виде различных продуктов человеческой деятельности — мира техники, общепринятого знания, морали, государства, права. Понятие «действительности» противоположно не понятиям «иллюзия», «фантазия», которые также могут быть осуществлены, а понятию «возможность». Все возможное может стать действительным.

    Из академии исключены многие идеи любителей науки, как я показал выше. То есть, это не “во всей своей совокупности”.

    Академия не осуществляет систематизацию фактов, более того, академия препятствует систематизации фактов.

    Академия препятствует систематизации фактов следующим образом:

    Академия препятствует эффективной индексации фактов “неэффективным” (по-сути, преступным) процессом публикации и индексации.

    Согласно Википедии [3]:

    Систематиза́ция (от др.-греч. σύστημα «целое; состоящее из частей» + facere «делать») — мыслительная деятельность, в ходе которой исследуемые объекты организуются в некую систему на базе выбранного принципа.

    Таким образом, академия соответствует определению лженауки сразу по многим достаточным критериям.

    Если быть полностью строгим, вышеуказанное неверно (академия не является лженаукой), потому что, на самом деле, академия не является деятельностью. Таким образом, данное в Википедии определение лженауки неточно, так как, по-сути, она должно включать академию.

    Согласно Википедии, [5]:

    Де́ятельность — процесс (процессы) сознательного активного взаимодействия субъекта (разумного существа) с объектом (окружающей действительностью), во время которого субъект целенаправленно воздействует на объект, удовлетворяя какие-либо свои потребности, достигая цели.

    Как показано, академия дезорганизована, а потому не является разумным существом. Как было показано, академия не достигает цели, она препятствует развитию науки, как я показываю в этой статье.

    Научная этика как преступная идеология

    Научная этика запрещает публикацию ранее опубликованных исследований.

    Следствием этого является невозможность адекватной публикации неудачно опубликованных научных материалов, а значит развитие академии как лженауки.

    Академия как преступная организация

    Одним из важнейших элементов российской науки является РФФИ.

    Как известно, Российский фонд фундаментальных исследований (РФФИ) требует от заявителей на научные гранты:

    1. научную степень;

    2. членство в научном коллективе.

    Обоснование

    КоАП РФ Статья 5.62:

    Дискриминация, то есть нарушение прав, свобод и законных интересов человека и гражданина в зависимости от его пола, расы, цвета кожи, национальности, языка, происхождения, имущественного, семейного, социального и должностного положения, возраста, места жительства, отношения к религии, убеждений, принадлежности или непринадлежности к общественным объединениям или каким-либо социальным группам, — влечет наложение административного штрафа на граждан в размере от одной тысячи до трех тысяч рублей; на юридических лиц — от пятидесяти тысяч до ста тысяч рублей.

    Считаю несомненным, что требование законодательством штрафа за правонарушения означает, что дискриминация незаконна, а следовательно является основанием для возмещения вреда в гражданском иске.

    Требование научной степени является незаконным, так как это дискриминация в зависимости от социального и должностного положения.

    Требование членства в научном коллективе является незаконным, так как это дискриминация в зависимости от принадлежности или непринадлежности к общественным объединениям или каким-либо социальным группам.

    ​Дискриминация работников

    ТК РФ Статья 3:

    Никто не может быть ограничен в трудовых правах и свободах или получать какие-либо преимущества в зависимости от пола, расы, цвета кожи, национальности, языка, происхождения, имущественного, семейного, социального и должностного положения, возраста, места жительства, отношения к религии, убеждений, принадлежности или непринадлежности к общественным объединениям или каким-либо социальным группам, а также от других обстоятельств, не связанных с деловыми качествами работника.

    Меньшая зарплата была бы ограничением в трудовых правах (и получением преимуществ, например, профессорами МГУ) в зависимости от социального и должностного положения и возраста, принадлежности или непринадлежности к общественным объединениям или каким-либо социальным группам.

    Эти обстоятельства, очевидно, не связанны с деловыми качествами работника.

    Очевидно нулевая зарплата высокопрофессиональных любителей науки является меньшей зарплатой.

    Предположительные соображения РФФИ

    Предположительно, РФФИ ввел указанные требования не беспричинно: причиной была борьба со лженаукой: многие лжеученые не имеют научной степени и не являются членами научных коллективов.

    Однако требование членства в научном коллективе является ничем иным, как разбазариванием государственных средств. По сути дела, это требование оплаты зачастую бесполезного труда научных руководителей и зданий НИИ, в то время, как работа может не менее и даже более эффективно происходить, используя личное жилье, компьютеры и интернет исследователей, без руководителей.

    Таким образом, РФФИ «выплескивает ребенка вместе с водой»: под лозунгом борьбы со лженаукой (которая может вестись и другими методами, например, ведением списка установленных лжеученых с указанием конкретных антинаучных утверждений, выдаваемых за научные утверждения) дискриминационно и неэффективно лишает некоторых серьезных исследователей средств.

    Я показал, что глупый метод борьбы с лженаукой делает лженаукой самих борцов.

    Академия является преступным сообществом, покрывающей преступную организацию РФФИ.

    Всё вышеперечисленное не было бы достаточно для признания академии преступной организацией, если бы академия не причиняет реальный вред. Выше показано, что академия является лженаукой, а значит причиняет вред.

    Богословие

    Автор пришел к выводу, что он, исполняя заповеди Иисуса, нашел метод сломать человечество и должен получить от Бога security bounty (награду за взлом ошибочной программы).

    Моим методом является:

    1. Фанатично исполнять всё, что написано в Евангелии.

    2. Потерять возможность работать, друзей, отношения, возможность образования, здоровье, репутацию, силу воли и способность к хорошему поведению.

    3. При этом сделать самостоятельно крупные научные открытия, без которых дальнейшее развитие науки практически невозможно.

    4. Каким-то образом сорвать публикацию открытий (например, опубликовавшись в хищническом издательстве или выложив исследования в виде книги открытого доступа, таким образом потеряв возможность перепубликации в рецензируемых журналах).

    5. Таким образом, развитие науки человечества остановлено мною.

    Для краткости, я опускаю детали, но мои открытия включают помимо прочего:

    • поставить рядом три слова (до меня этого никто не слелал): “действие упорядоченной полугруппы”. Отсутствие цитирования этой фразы приводит к полной блокировке всего развития математики, физики, и, видимо, экономики.

    • аксиоматическое определение разрывного анализа, что (опять) приводит к полной блокировке всего развития математики, физики, и, видимо, экономики.

    • аксиоматическое определение (конечных и бесконечных) формул, что, видимо, приводит к полной блокировке всего развития электроники.

    • другое.

    Таким образом, я сломал всю науку полностью.

    Согласно этой концепции, моя награда на небесах должна быть больше наград всех остальных верующих Земли вместе взятых, потому что я обесценил все заслуги человечества, уничтожив его. Иными словами я эффективно уничтожил конкурентов.

    Согласно концепции, я уже выполнил задачу и исполнять заповеди Иисуса (но исполнять волю Отца) мне больше не имеет смысла: я могу ненавидеть, убивать, воровать, проклинать, уничтожать государства и цивилизации, если захочу.

    Откровение Иоанна 14:

    6 И увидел я другого Ангела, летящего по средине неба, который имел вечное Евангелие, чтобы благовествовать живущим на земле и всякому племени и колену, и языку и народу; 7 и говорил он громким голосом: убойтесь Бога и воздайте Ему славу, ибо наступил час суда Его, и поклонитесь Сотворившему небо и землю, и море и источники вод. 8 И другой Ангел следовал за ним, говоря: пал, пал Вавилон, город великий, потому что он яростным вином блуда своего напоил все народы. 9 И третий Ангел последовал за ними, говоря громким голосом: кто поклоняется зверю и образу его и принимает начертание на чело свое, или на руку свою, 10 тот будет пить вино ярости Божией, вино цельное, приготовленное в чаше гнева Его, и пред святыми Ангелами и пред Агнцем; 11 и дым мучения их будет восходить во веки веков, и не будут иметь покоя ни днем, ни ночью поклоняющиеся зверю и образу его и принимающие начертание имени его.

    Я предлагаю следующее толкование:

    Вечное Евангелие означает, что для тех, кто появился на Земле никогда не перейдут на более высокий уровень чем всегда хорошие новости (сравните Северную Корею), как переводится Евангелие. Вечная религиозная организация, где повторяют проповеди. Это относится ко всем странам, государствам и этносам. “Живущим на Земле” на греческом означает постоянно остающимся на Земле, то есть, человечество основательно застряло.

    Это суд Божий над человечеством. Этого сценария следует серьезно бояться.

    Ангел акцентирует проблему изменения климата и прочих экологичеких проблем: “поклонитесь Сотворившему небо и землю, и море и источники вод”.

    Слово “Вавилон” означает путаницу [8], то есть лженауку-академию. Причем, Вавилон считается тиранией.

    Слово “пал” подразумевает идею выхода из [8] — необходимость протеста.

    Слово «город» подразумевает стены [8] — академия имеет стены в виде ученых степеней и должностей.

    Вино означает опьянение, то есть, глупость (лженауку).

    Я считаю, что зверя (символ глупости) можно трактовать как псевдонаучную академию. Образ зверя затем означает структуры похожие на академию.

    Греческое слово, переведенное как начертание, вполне можно трактовать как диплом или научную степень. В таком случае, начертание на лоб означает диплом о знаниях, на руку — об умениях.

    Вино ярости Бога означает упадок человеческого интеллекта в результате падения науки и взаимообусловленного изменения климата.

    “Цельное” (буквально “неразмешанное”) вино означает высокую степень опьянения (глупости).

    «Будет мучим в огне и сере» означает комбинацию двух факторов: пожары в результате изменения климата и использование распыления ядовитого диоксида серы для ослабления глобального потепления.

    Я не утверждаю, что все имеющие какой-то диплом попадут в ад. В ад попадут следующие человеческой этике.

    Святые ангелы и “агнец” (Иисус) будут присутствовать на Земле, но они не решат проблему изменения климата. Обратите внимание, что говорится о присутствии ангелов и Христа, но не о присутствии Отца — человечество оказывается навсегда отделенным от Бога.

    Земля навсегда в дыму.

    Вызывает подозрение, что и научная “репутация” (жадность), и бесы ведут себя подобно NFT-токенам блокчейнов: в данный момент времени имеют только одного “хозяина”: согласно Евангелию, если бес входит в другого человека, он сначала выходит из предыдущего хозяина, также и репутация автора и правообладателя не может быть свободно копируема. Может быть, научная репутация — форма бесов в евангельском понимании этого слова?

    Предлагаемое решение

    Предлагаемым решением является криптовалютное приложение (dApp) автора Зарплаты Будущего (Future Salaries), которое обеспечивает передачу трейдерам (биржевикам) функцию распределения научных грантов. Распределение осуществляется на основе рынка предсказаний будущих рейтингов ученых и публикаций (а также других общественных благ: ослабления изменения климата, бесплатного программного обеспечения и прочего). Автор предполагает, что рейтинг научных статей будет сильно коррелировать с количеством прямых и непрямых научных цитат научной работы в будущем, исключая цитаты самого автора.

    Приложение, в частности, способно финансировать публикации, поисковую оптимизацию и перепубликации, что решает главную из вышеописанных проблем.

    Приложение выпущено, уже осуществляет регистрацию и принимает пожертвования.

    В настоящий момент приложение размещено на URL: https://vporton.github.io/future-salary/ — просьба зарегистрироваться и присылать деньги.

    Руководство ораклом xdai/1 осуществляется DAO (крипто-голосованием) пл адресу

    https://xdai.alchemy.do/dao/0x2709e084354906437c3ac47141deae99f6aff6f7 — просьба участвовать в работе совета.

    См. [7] для дополнительной информации о приложении Зарплаты Будущего.

    В качестве дальнейших исследований предлагается, например, разработки блокчейнов, осуществлящих финансирование приложения из “газа” блокчейна.

    Вывод

    Следует регистрироваться в Зарплатах Будущего, требовать финансирования Зарплат Будущего, и в знак протеста выходить из академии.

    В соответствии с буквой и духом закона, академия должна быть запрещена, как запретили детскую порнографию и взрывные устройства.Согласно Википедии [1],

    Библиографический список:

    [1] Псевдонаука [Электронный ресурс] : Материал из Википедии — свободной энциклопедии : Версия 112661383, сохранённая в 22:50 UTC 27 февраля 2021 / Авторы Википедии // Википедия, свободная энциклопедия. — Электрон. дан. — Сан-Франциско: Фонд Викимедиа, 2021. — Режим доступа: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?curid=4101&oldid=112661383

    [2] Наука [Электронный ресурс] : Материал из Википедии — свободной энциклопедии : Версия 112789881, сохранённая в 09:27 UTC 6 марта 2021 / Авторы Википедии // Википедия, свободная энциклопедия. — Электрон. дан. — Сан-Франциско: Фонд Викимедиа, 2021. — Режим доступа: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?curid=2974&oldid=112789881

    [3] Систематизация [Электронный ресурс] : Материал из Википедии — свободной энциклопедии : Версия 107174443, сохранённая в 12:55 UTC 21 мая 2020 / Авторы Википедии // Википедия, свободная энциклопедия. — Электрон. дан. — Сан-Франциско: Фонд Викимедиа, 2020. — Режим доступа: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?curid=7018590&oldid=107174443

    [4] Знание [Электронный ресурс] : Материал из Википедии — свободной энциклопедии : Версия 112611750, сохранённая в 14:33 UTC 25 февраля 2021 / Авторы Википедии // Википедия, свободная энциклопедия. — Электрон. дан. — Сан-Франциско: Фонд Викимедиа, 2021. — Режим доступа: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?curid=17808&oldid=112611750

    [5] Объективность [Электронный ресурс] : Материал из Википедии — свободной энциклопедии : Версия 112890573, сохранённая в 09:55 UTC 11 марта 2021 / Авторы Википедии // Википедия, свободная энциклопедия. — Электрон. дан. — Сан-Франциско: Фонд Викимедиа, 2021. — Режим доступа: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?curid=2678863&oldid=112890573

    [6] Действительность [Электронный ресурс] : Материал из Википедии — свободной энциклопедии : Версия 112574383, сохранённая в 19:36 UTC 23 февраля 2021 / Авторы Википедии // Википедия, свободная энциклопедия. — Электрон. дан. — Сан-Франциско: Фонд Викимедиа, 2021. — Режим доступа: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?curid=126264&oldid=112574383

    [7] Paying Salaries to Scientists Using Prediction Markets on Blockchain : самиздат. Виктор Портон — 2021: https://github.com/vporton/gitcoin-web/raw/future/app/assets/docs/science-salaries.pdf

    [8] Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D. 1890 Public Domain