I’ve sent the following letter to several ministries (including Prime Minister Naftali Bennett) of Israel government:
(“ternary relations” below is a typo, should be instead “ternary functions”.)
Hello Israel,
I am the man who works on carbon accounting, science financing, free software financing, journalism financing, and other common goods financing using cryptocurrency software, in other words, on the world-first post-capitalistic economy model.
I also discovered for example the following axiomatic systems (everyone not less general than group theory!):
not ∅ δ Y and not X δ ∅ and I∪J δ K ⇔ I δ K ∧ J δ K and K δ I∪J ⇔ K δ I ∧ K δ J triples on partially ordered sets (or on semilattices) ternary relations on partially ordered sets (or on semilattices) partially ordered semigroups partially ordered semicategories algebraic theory of formulas (“formulas of formulas”)
In a very silly reason, my publication of these formulas failed, and I became unable to publish them (the error classifies as buffer overflow). If you’d lose group theory, mankind would die for sure, you lost several times.
I was a Evangelical. Once I realized that Christianity is a distorted picture of the truth, and God said me that I will become one of the elves. (Also while being in Russia, I once had sex with an elvess who said that found me so much clever that I am worth to make a child for them, she said me that she is equally powerful and clever to Messiah. She proved that she is a real heaven being by several wonders, she also didn’t look like any human race.) I enjoyed that now when I don’t follow commandments anymore I can stop love (in an unknown incomprehensible reason why to love bastards) my enemies, including Christians and Jews, instead now I can kill you all. (God, thank you have not created me a dog, woman, man, Jew, but created me “Abraham”.)
I decided to viify myself and stop working on my carbon accounting in the middle: I will call myself an elf, etc.: Everybody therefore will hate me and ignore all the fields of science I discovered, and all people will die in heat, without both mathematics and economics.
But I have understood: It’s wrong to kill people, because even if we kill people, the radiation of your brains keeps doing harm. Destroying people’s souls, especially souls of tzadiks, to eliminate their harm is hard, therefore we have a better strategy: we want to keep you alive to be in contact with you. (I think, if you would not protect themselves from COVID, you would not have Delta, right? Likewise we don’t want to protect ourselves from you.)
Thus I make you an offer:
Collaborate on my blockchain project and don’t die from carbon and less us clean away together my viification of myself. Now I made my offer. Life and death I offered you today.
A prophecy tells that only Israel will take a certain measure. Probably, Israel should become the nation of publishers. It seems to be possible using a new revolutionary data structure that I invented for my blockchain. (It also can be used to backup a disk every second without interruption.)
https://blockchain.vporton.name Oh, my stories: https://after-gospel.vporton.name
I am not a homo sapiens. Russian alcoholics did this.
This year I decided to surrender to the enemy because I decided that I failed the plan of my former boss, Messiah. I went to a psychiatrist and said that I am the best spy in the galaxy to be isolated from humans and fail.
The liar psychiatrist said that he will give me a calming drug. But he gave me haloperidol. It is supposed to cause hallucinations, but the medical “brother” could witness in the middle of its effect I raised and walked by the room asking him for help because I felt somehow unwell. I myself witness that my mind was not modified at all, however I fell asleep.
Of 10 billion mankind I was the only one who seriously tried to use cryptocurrency against global warming. (That’s accomplished Revelation 11 prophecy: “Earthlings hated themselves.”, in other words, (in any reasonable model including carbon) the partial derivative (as defined in my theory of generalized limits) of the dependency of desire of common good on the desire “for themselves” is strictly negative.) I alone almost succeeded to raise cryptofinancing for common good and safe you from fire and SH + H2SO4 but failed due to a tiny mistake, then God explained me why He send you to hell.
In the entire History of mankind I am the only one who discovered more than one fundamental axiomatic system. So, I am the best mathematician in known History.
That my attack revealed a network a spies here in Shapira, Ashkelon, Israel (I live in a black neighborhood, BTW there are many beautiful girls here.):
When I exited from the house, I found almost no people on the streets. Their spirits were threatened by my attack on homosexuals, only me is not afraid. Only me is against hate of homosexuals in advance.
I started to ask people why there are so little people on the streets and after this many people instantly appeared, sent by the Ashkelon network of earthling’s spies.
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?
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, 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.
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.)
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
You to get disability in despising – the particular sin that triggered this security vulnerability (buffer overflow) of the civilization
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
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.
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
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:
(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.)
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:
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.)
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.
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
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.
