By the way I am trying to destroy “ant philosophy”: for example, taxi drivers think that they are most important and being specialized in money cannot drive me for free if in occasion I may need it thinking that they have unchangeable destiny to be ants, premiers of Israel think that they are destined to be despisors and therefore are slaves of unchangeable desire to be “mad” (unwilling to speak).
That is both lower and upper class think that’s their social function and this cannot be changed. “Ant philosophy”, people become brutes. That’s the fruit of interbreeding Marxism with fatalism that controls not only left wing but right wing, too. Together thay are very strong in madness, this kind of stupidity survives very well.
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
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.
