Category: Russia

  • 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 Later I was forced to be withdrawn from the university by religious discrimination (as a Protestant almost dying of hunger in Russia), not receiving any degree.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 bolditalics, 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.

  • Sectarian mathematician as an existential threat to Russia

    [This scholarly article was rejected by one and simply unanswered by two Russian fascist journals. I publish here.]

    Victor L. Porton, Ashkelon, Israel, a freelancer without a degree, porton@narod.ru
    Annotation. The author examines the situation of a fundamental scientific discovery made by an “unrecognized sectarian [in Russia this word is used to denote a religious cult]” and the possibility of rejection of his formulas by the Russian (scientific) community, which, according to the author, can lead to a “missing component” in Russian exact science, and, as a consequence, to a catastrophic lag in Russian science, education, and as a result of technology, labor productivity, economy and living standards. An analogy is drawn with the discovery of the theory of relativity by Einstein who lived in Nazi Germany. Such a situation really takes place with the author himself, which, according to the author, poses a real and existential threat to Russia. Possible measures for treating this “allergy” are given.
    Keywords. Religion in Russia, sect, sectarian, Russian science, Russian education, existential threat, interreligious hatred, religious discrimination, Russian fascism, science and religion, religion and science, public opinion, propaganda.
    1 Introduction                  
    Consider a situation: a society in a part of the world (for example, a country) peremptorily does not accept the views, positions, and reputation of one of its members. This person has made a fundamental scientific discovery. Could this lead to that society will consciously or unconsciously reject his ideas, or it would be “forced” to reject by shame, contempt, moral differences, hatred, and as a result will lose one of the fundamental elements of science? Could the loss of a small part of the exact sciences lead to a catastrophic lag?
    This situation has really happened in the past with Albert Einstein, who discovered the special (and later also general) theory of relativity in Nazi Germany, which rejected Einstein because of his Jewish origin. Perhaps this was one of the key factors behind Germany’s defeat in World War II, since the “absence” of special relativity makes it impossible to develop nuclear weapons.
    I argue that a similar situation was repeated in post-Soviet Russia.
    2 The real situation at a glance                  
    I, Porton Victor Lvovich, is born in Perm, currently a citizen of the Russian Federation and Israel.
    During my first year at Perm State University, I discovered my first new fundamental mathematical formula (more precisely, a new axiom or definition[1] ), which I now call the definition of a funcoid. In the future, based on this formula, I have developed a few hundred pages of fundamental mathematical theory, which I called “algebraic general topology” [1]. In addition, I also developed another (not directly related to topology) fundamental theory, which I called the “axiomatic theory of formulas” [2] . [Notes to the Editor: It may be necessary to postpone the publication of this article until my newer results are published so that there are more relevant bibliographic references.]  
    At the age of 15, I finally converted to the Protestant faith (at that time in its Baptist version). Soon after my conversion, I came to the conclusion that I should call myself a sectarian [the Russian word for a non-“Orthodox” cultist] and religious fanatic. This led to major problems: hunger and beatings.
    At the moment I live in Israel.
    3 Fundamentality and importance of discoveries                  
    I will list my main fundamental mathematical discoveries:
    • definition (and properties) of a funcoid
    • definition and properties of the so-called filtrators
    • 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)
    • definition and properties of generalization of the limit, defined for an arbitrary function at all points
    • definition of the basic properties of “point-free funcoids” – generalizations of funcoids
    • definition of the main properties of “multidimensional” generalizations of funcoids and pointless funcoids
    • axiomatic description of “infinite formulas”
    I’ve also done a number of other (less important) mathematical discoveries related to the above.
    A feature of the above discoveries is their extraordinary fundamentality for mathematical discoveries made at the end of the 20th and 21st centuries. Namely:
    • In one of the equivalent definitions (a predicate of two variables δ that is false on empty arguments on sets conforming to the axioms A ∪ B δ C ⇔ A δ C ∨ B δ C and C δ A∪B ⇔ C δ A ∨ C δ B ), the description of the funcoid is comparable simply to the definition of the group, if not simpler than it. Let me remind you that the concept of a group is one of the most fundamental and important concepts in modern mathematics. The funcoid generalizes and simultaneously contains (pre)topological spaces, (quasi)proximity spaces, and (directed) graphs.
    • The definition of a filtrator is even simpler: a filter is a pair of a partially ordered set and a subset of it (with the induced order).
    • Surprisingly, the actions of partially ordered semigroups and precategories were not investigated (this concept was not found at all on the Internet) before me. My “space in general” generalizes and contains at least all kinds of spaces of general topology: funcoids ((pre)topological spaces, (quasi)proximity spaces, as well as (directed) graphs), (quasi)uniform spaces, (quasi)metric spaces, locales, and frames.
    • The generalization of the limit for an arbitrary function makes it obvious the definitions of the derivative and integral of an arbitrary function, the sum of an arbitrary series, which makes possible a new branch of functional analysis that studies hitherto unknown properties of nondifferentiable and discontinuous functions.
    • The axiomatic description of formulas is also not inferior in simplicity to the definition of a group.
    The importance of the discoveries:
    • Obviously, fundamental mathematical discoveries are important.
    • Algebraic general topology is a breakthrough (and beyond) in research in the field of general topology (which by many scientists were considered mostly completed and the continuation of the research was considered unpromising). General topology is the basis of algebraic and differential topology, mathematical and functional analysis, that is, a “good” half of modern mathematics, as well as physics, engineering, apparently also economics and, possibly[2], statistics.
    • The generalization of the limit opens up tremendous possibilities in mathematical and functional analysis, which is the base for physics, engineering, economics, etc. It is not excluded (and in the author’s opinion it is very likely) that future physics will be entirely based on the concept of a generalized limit introduced by the author. It is viable to suppose that the discovery of discontinuous analysis by the author is as important as the discovery of (continuous and differentiable) mathematical analysis by Isaac Newton. 
    • The axiomatic description of formulas, perhaps (this issue has not yet been investigated), makes it possible to describe the whole electronic circuit as one “whole” formula, which means, perhaps, it will open up new methods for designing microcircuits, their optimization and expanding capabilities. It is not excluded (and in the opinion of the author it is very likely) that future electronics will be entirely based on the author’s theory of formulas. The same can be applied to other areas of computer science.
    4 What the lack of formulas can lead to                  
    It is a known fact [3] that mathematics is in a sense like a building, consisting of more fundamental parts and “superstructures” that cannot be built without a foundation. However, some parts mutually support each other. But in general, the division into more fundamental and less fundamental parts of mathematics clearly makes sense (although, apparently, still poorly researched and defined). 
    Be that as it may, my mathematical research clearly belongs to the “foundation”. The absence of a part of the foundation makes further “construction” extremely difficult, makes it hopeless, virtually impossible in some future.
    Let me give you an analogy: As you know, in a modern TV set there are several billions transistors, a failure of even one of them can lead to a complete lack of TV functionality.
    Another analogy: one “wrong” base in DNA can lead to deformity or death of a biological organism.
    Based on modern ideas about the building of mathematics, as well as the above analogies, it seems scientifically justified to assume that absence, for some reason, of even one fundamental formula in the culture of a country may lead to its catastrophic lag in development (economic dependence, slavery, military defeat, disappearance) in the future. Speaking about the future, it is natural to expect that this can happen within several decades (I remind you that the speed of development of technology and science tends to accelerate exponentially!)
    5 “Cultist”                  
    Sect concept
    The concept of a sect is not a scientific term and is used mainly by propagandists in order to speak offensively about someone.
    In Russia, however, even the so-called religious scholars are actively conducting anti-sectarian propaganda [4], which, according to the author, is nothing more than a state-funded pseudoscience. 
    However, some give this concept a more or less scientific definition “a sect is a closed religious group opposing itself to the main culture-forming religious community (or the main communities) of a country or region” [5] . This definition does not conform to the generally accepted one (“a religious, political, philosophical or other group, sometimes separated from the mainstream and opposing it, or an indication of an organized tradition that has its founder and a special teaching” [6]), but more accurately reflects the use of this word among the people and “anti-sectarian” propagandists.  
    “Confession” of the author
    I am a Protestant. First I became a Baptist, then I transferred to the Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith. Now I profess a new religion [7], that emerged as a reaction to religious discrimination. 
    I believed that I should openly declare my faith: (Luke 9: 6) “For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory both of the Father and the holy angels” and (Mark 8:38) “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of His Father with the holy Angels.”
    Moreover, I “abbreviated” my confession: “I am a sectarian,” “I am a religious fanatic.” I considered the word “sectarian” as one of Christ’s words, because the Gospel, 2 Cor. 6:17 contains the word “separate,” the Greek root of which has the same meaning as the root of the word “sectarian.” I considered the word “fanatic” one of Christ’s words, because the Bible says (Rev. 3:19) “be zealous”, and “jealous” and “fanatic” are words with a root similar meaning. Since Jesus demanded to confess his words “in this adulterous and sinful generation,” I considered it necessary to use the word “sect”, and not the words about “Protestant” that are incomprehensible to the majority of the “adulterous and sinful generation” [of Russians].
    I propose to conduct a scientific experiment (it can be dangerous to the life and health of the experimenter!) : Write the word “sectarian” on a cap or T-shirt and try to enter some [Russian] institution or other room with people. The hypothesis is that you will not succeed.
    According to the author, as punishment for “sectarianism” his mother stopped feeding him, hit him several times (at intervals of several days or weeks) with a frying pan by the head, and then kicked him out of the house (the mother does not remember this, we consider each other to be people with memory problems). Claiming that he is a sectarian and religious fanatic and calling people “sinners” the author could not get any help and continued to die of hunger. The author ate grass on the street (by the way, my first new formula, the definition of funcoid, was discovered precisely after such a “meal”[3]). Then my mother, for some unknown reason (perhaps her brain was overloaded with excessive anger and she lost her memory or she was afraid of criminal liability), allowed me to return to the apartment and provided me with enough food to survive.
    In general, during his studies in high school and university, the author was on the verge of starving to death several times and experienced other hardships (for example, sometimes lack of paper).
    I had to stop studying at the university, mainly in order to be recognized as mentally disabled and not starve to death due to the inability to find a job.
    In short, I have at the initiative of Jesus blocked my sense of shame, that protects people from discrimination and probable death from starvation because of discrimination.
    6 Features of the author’s religion                  
    Some of the author’s public statements:
    • On August 8, 1995 I was instantly healed by Christ from severe delirium, hallucinations and fits of anger, loss of the ability to read and count. 
    • To save my formulas and punish the “fascists” (see below) I began to pray and make wishes about a thermonuclear war with the aim of destroying Russia. During the “war” to destabilize the situation in the world to create an opportunity for an attack on Russia, I said “Destroy two skyscrapers [in the USA]” by airplanes), which happened later.
    • For the fact that people (and religious organizations) did not accept my statement that the Old Testament should be read without vocalizations[4], and “punished” me with hunger and other hardships, said “let there be coronavirus” and other (more terrible) curses.
    • Engaged in astral sex with St. Mary with the aim of offending Russia (“fuck His mother” is a famous Russian curse) lead so by God.
    • (Mistakenly) predicted the destruction of Perm by nuclear weapons as punishment for the fact that the love with Maria was not recognized. Then I walked around the city and shouted “Russian animals, Christ has decided to kill you, nuclear war is coming soon!” 
    • I consider all people to be freaks infected with a virus that affects the brain .
    • I argue that a period of about a month or two has been temporarily healed from the virus and turned into a superhero (with a brain-computer superior to the rest of humanity, gigantic strength and speed, as well as other superpowers).
    Thus, it is clear that my conflict with the Russian society in a sense has reached an extreme form. In my opinion, even the “Osama bin Laden’s formula” (if such one existed) would be a lesser threat to Russia than I, because Osama bin Laden belonged to the “traditional” [I refer to wording of a Russian legal law] religion (Islam), which means it is less “terrible” for Russians than I am, a person of a “non-traditional” religion (“sect” in the Russian vernacular). It’s just that Osama bin Laden is less despised than me, and it is contempt that is dangerous.
    This is the case when the threat of the use of nuclear weapons (regardless of its reality) can be as dangerous for the economy of a country as its actual use.
    7 The analogy with Nazi Germany                  
    The analogy to fascist Germany is obvious. Similarities and differences:
    • Important fundamental scientific discoveries.
    • The author belongs to a social group hated by the people.
    • Einstein was persecuted on a national basis, and I on a religious basis.
    • The persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany was reflected in official documents, the persecution of “sectarians” (primarily Protestants) in Russia is not officially recognized.
    • Einstein’s discoveries relate to physics, mine to abstract mathematics.
    • Einstein discovered SRT, when the discovery was “ripe”, I discovered funcoids about 60 years later than it was possible to do.
    • If Einstein had not been able to leave in time and ended up in a death camp, he probably would have suffered less than me, because in death camps they did not beat them by the head with pans, but only did not feed them.
    Open-ended question: How many Protestants have starved to death in post-Soviet Russia due to religious discrimination? It is a well-known fact that a person “caught” in sectarianism is usually fired from his job, and people without work often die of hunger.
    As I already wrote, it is worthwhile for an experiment (dangerous for the life and health of the experimenter!) To write the word “sectarian” on a T-shirt or cap and try to enter some institution. If this fails, the experiment will confirm my personal experience of the analogy “Dogs and sectarians are not allowed in” with Nazi Germany.
    In fascist Germany, the “problem” with Einstein was “solved” by the proclamation that SRT was discovered by “Aryan” scientists. In modern Russia, such a measure is impossible due to the prevalence of the Internet, including the blockchain, in which it is recorded that I am the discoverer of these theories. 
    8 Attempt at psychoanalysis                  
    I confess that I am not an educated psychologist or psychoanalyst, but due to the lack of other research on this topic, I will state my opinion on whether Russia may be deprived of my formulas.
    One should distinguish between conscience and shame [8] : 
    The difference between shame and guilt is that guilt arises when a person has repented for what he did. That is, it became unpleasant for him that he had done this act. This is an internal state. At this moment, a person usually lowers his head, goes inside himself and begins to experience emotions. Shame arises only when there are witnesses. This is a feeling of fear of being rejected, not accepted by society. Shame can arise when we are different from others.
    The shame of Russians in front of sectarians is definitely not conscience, it is closer to shame; perhaps a more accurate word is contempt. Judging from my experience, most Russians despise sectarians precisely because we do not drink, do not sleep with other people’s wives, etc. For this we are despised. This can be a sublimated conscience, namely the transfer of one’s own pangs of conscience to the shame of another object (sectarian) in order to get rid of the pangs of conscience. 
    Shame and contempt are often strong feelings: judging from my experience, the degree of contempt for sectarians, apparently, reaches a numerical overflow in the brain: people start screaming (including insults), fight, in general, react inadequately when they come to the conclusion, that interact with the “sectarian”.
    In my opinion, these strong feelings and the supposed numerical overflow in the brain caused by these feelings pose a threat to Russia as a power. The desire to get rid of everything connected with the object of hatred and contempt by the “sect” can outweigh rational motives and lead to the suppression of my formulas in Russia by certain information dissemination agencies, which means a catastrophic lag in Russia.
    Thus, in this case, shame has become a serious pathology of Russian society. This is very similar to an allergy: society rejects its own members.
    An example of this pathology is that the judge Solopova Olga has not opened a civil case, when I filed a claim for compensation. Thus, it has been proven that the shame of sectarianism can outweigh the requirements of Russian and international legislation.
    As a treatment for pathological shame and contempt, I propose to supplant them with conscience. In other words, Russian society must recognize discrimination, the killing of Protestants by hunger. The disease is serious and the treatment should be radical: it is necessary at the highest level, to use the word “fascism” and “genocid” to describe the attitude of Russians to the “sectarians”. Perhaps it makes sense to apply the same legal norms to the “concept” of “sect” as to the “concept” of “Jew”.
    It should be officially recognized that the ROC was actually a state church and, accordingly, the illegality of the existing state funding of religious propaganda.
    The activation of conscience (in order to mitigate the shame) must be accompanied by concrete actions (payment of compensation), otherwise the ousting of shame may become unstable and Russia will perish.
    9 Analogy with the Roman Empire                  
    The author also puts forward the following scientific hypothesis about the reasons for the death of the Roman Empire:
    Jesus, called Christ, set the goal of destroying the Roman Empire in order to liberate Israel, which it conquered at that time. He came up with an ingenious plan: he gave the students highly moral (in the sense, beneficial for a society that observes them) commandments and such life principles that they were to be hated by the Romans. As a result, everything Christian, including Christian morality and the works of Christian philosophers, were rejected by the Romans. In accordance with Jesus’ plan, this led to the degradation of Roman morality and philosophy. Literally, the demoralized Roman society was unable to resist the barbarians, whose development was not to the same extent limited (In the author’s opinion, the persecution of Christians by the barbarians was not as significant as the “persecution of Christians by barbarians” (in Russian language) gives only four results in Google as of 12 Dec 2020, with at least two of them referring to the irrelevantly late date, 476). 
    It should be noted that the Christianization of the Roman Empire (if the word “Christianity” is appropriate here, since the later religion of the Roman Empire had little to do with the teachings of such figures as Jesus and the Apostle Paul) did not lead to an improvement in the attitude of the Romans towards Israel:
    Judging by the surviving written records, starting from the II century, anti-Judaism in the Christian environment increased. Characteristic are the Epistle of Barnabas, the Word about the Passover of Meliton of Sardis, and later some passages from the works of John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Mediolan and some others.
    A specific feature of Christian anti-Judaism was the repeated accusation of the Jews of Deicide from the very beginning of its existence. Their other “crimes” were also named – their stubborn and malicious rejection of Christ and his teachings, lifestyle and lifestyle, profanation of Holy Communion, poisoning of wells, ritual murders, creating a direct threat to the spiritual and physical life of Christians. It was argued that the Jews, as a people accursed and punished by God, should be doomed to a “humiliating way of life” (Blessed Augustine) in order to become witnesses of the truth of Christianity.

    After the Edict of Milan (313) by the emperors Constantine and Licinius, who proclaimed a policy of official tolerance towards Christians, the influence of the Church in the empire steadily increased. The formation of the Church as a state institution entailed social discrimination against Jews, persecutions and pogroms committed by Christians with the blessing of the Church or inspired by the church hierarchy.
    So, according to Jesus’ supposed plan, the destruction of the Roman Empire was still necessary.
    Will the fate of the Roman Empire come to Russia, too? We are witnessing a terrible loss of morality by Russians: the meaning of life for most of them is pleasure or personal money, theft is considered a virtue, almost all television movies about how Machiavellians do evil, and in fact are propaganda of evil. Usually, those who call themselves Orthodox simply observe religious rites in order to increase their “karma”, without any purpose to serve God or do good, and are quite ready to go over to the side of the devil if he pays more (they are Satanists in accordance with the section “Satanism as a subculture» article [9]). The author assumes that the reason for this is hatred of “sectarian” morality, which, as you know, includes the rejection of theft, drunkenness, fights, swearing, etc.  
    Bibliography
    1: Victor Porton, Algebraic General Topology, 2019
    2: Victor Porton, Axiomatic Theory of Formulas, 2020
    3: авторы Википедии, Основания математики, 13 октября 2020 05:10 UTC, https://ru.wikipedia.org/?curid=2509222&oldid=109846469
    4: Дворкин А. Л., Религиовед: В Калининграде действует 30 крупных и сотня мелких сект, 1 марта 2014
    5: Дворкин А. Л., Сектоведение. Тоталитарные секты. Опыт систематического исследования., 2007
    6: авторы Википедии, Секта, 11 сентября 2020 05:09 UTC, https://ru.wikipedia.org/?curid=12654&oldid=109213549
    7: Victor Porton, End of Gospel,
    8: nasch-mir.ru, Чем являются совесть и стыд для человека?, , https://nasch-mir.ru/sovest-i-styid/

    [1] I will not analyze the difference between the axiom and the definition, since it is: a. does not correspond to the subject of the magazine; b. is not important for the topic of the article.             
    [2] The author does not have sufficient expertise in an l asti statistics.             
    [3] It should not be assumed that the possible narcotic effect of the herb helped me to discover the funkoids: I had only the last step to discover, since I had been thinking about this topic for several months before.             
    [4] A special form of vowel letters in languages ​​such as Hebrew. 

  • The story of a man from Revelation 11 in context of technologies

    A man had hard childhood and weird silly evil stupid surroundings. He suffered extreme hunger and extreme beatings as well as many other big and small troubles.

    He did a big discovery in the first year of a math faculty of a university.

    But hunger forced him to leave near the end and silly Russian education system left him without a degree. (I say a truth, I don’t lie: I have a certified document from an accredited academia that says that I have many years of education with mostly A grades and that I do not have a degree. Moreover, offical USA accreditation confirms this fact.)

    Many years of sometimes tough life, interchanged with sometimes math discoveries, sometimes conflicts, sometimes exestential philosophical troubles, as well as fear to go dying of hunger again, and many other things as in any humanlife.

    He did more fundamental math discoveries than any other man in the recorded History. He is the best mathematician ever lived.

    Due to extraordinaritly silly reasons his math research was half-published and so essentially lost for the world, in fact, reliably blocking further development of mankind science instead of a good effect. Nobody wants to help even a $1.

    Finally this man found a really good freelancing job. At first he didn’t work well, but during time he learned to start work on serious projects and earn good money.

    So, this man essentially became one of the leading (42th rating) employers in the world’s most advanced tech company.

    He wasn’t the best workers, some other earned tens times more because of working tens times better. But he kept thinking and became the world’s best strategitst.

    He took his main tech project: a project how to give money to everybody who wants to do good, for example, to people who resist carbon.

    But this project was failed by his silly behavior causing a silly conflict at the workplace, him being displaced, lose money… and world left without hope.

    Several negative factors went into one place and caused his failure after he almost reached a big success (he even was expecting to become a trillionarie).

    He thought: I have reached the top of the world: the world’s most advanced tech company. I found nobody who would collaborate with me: people of higher level tech training thqn me do exists, but nobody reached my moral level: This organization created claimed to do good, but in reality it does voting of not good people who among good things invest into such things as computer games that just break their brains. I am alone at the top, nobody is near to me. I am the best man on the Earth. Previosly I thought that I probably just am bad in finding partners. No, the fact is that on the Earth there is no man or woman who could be my partner. And I myself am a real phycho.

    So, he started to search in the Bible how to cancel rapture of the Church for him to be taken to the heaven alone, without them.

    And he found the arguments. He concluded he is one of the two witnesses of the Apocalypse.

    I am this man. More to be written.

    Is the second witness my other quantum copy? Or indeed a man who can be my partner exists? Or maybe it is a beautiful woman and we are to marry? (I feel spiritual presence of some woman. Who are you? Why don’t you visit me? (I have no idea what the trouble is.) I tried to be in contact with two women but found them cheaters pretending to want to be my helpers.)

    P.S. I got two new great ideas and my project that can resurrect world’s economy goes on again, maybe better than if it didn’t fail.

    Related Links

  • You to get disability in despising

    My mother despises me very much, effectively she despises me 100%. For example, in childhood she called me gadenysh, this Russian word denotes something like sick reptilian (but more exactly translates son of a reptilian). 🙂

    My mentally impaired mother infected all her acquintances.

    In the meantime, I made several big scientific discoveries (you can find more information in links at this site).

    Despising of the mother infected my wallet catastrophically reducing the amount of money.

    The sick wallet infected scientific indexes and search engines:

    • Despite I had the right of free education in Russia, I was forced to leave the university because I was sure I can’t get a persistent job and die of hunger.
    • I left the university.
    • As a result without a scientific degree, such as without such rigths as:
      • receive money for my work
      • publish long scientific texts for free (I lost the right to publish it in a short form as described elsewhere at this site)
      • participate in scientific conferences (without going bankrupt paying myself for tickets)
      • the right to have an advisor that advises how not to kill mankind by a pandemic of despising
      I so mis-pubished my scientific works. For example, I mis-published the definition of a new mathematical term funcoid.
    • Without funcoids human civilization has no chances.
    • Infected search engines that despise me is the last stage of this deathly sickness of mankind.
    • Likewise to search engines scientific databases and indexes (the databasese themselves are a pseudoscience, the indexes are a fake science or to be precise robotic fake scientists) are infected in a severe form by this despising to me. Scientific databases are AIs participating in scientific research that is researchers. So, scientists are misinformed and infected by despising to me.
    • As a last attempt of mitigation, I attempted to tell online to people who have the rights to get salaries for their work (people call such academics), but they behaved in such irreasonable ways as adiving me to ask an advisor 🙂 That needs a severe psychiatric cure.
    • Due to severety of the situation, I went to extreme measures: I called alien police (God’s anger). For example, I told Let it be coranavirus. I cursed even Israel and Church. (After much Bible-study I reached the conclusion that if Israel or Church offends a mathematician these organizations should be liquidated. Another reason for killing you was that my religious revelations were also not published.)
    • Then I even took the decision to dispose (kill) this civilization completely by my prayer.
    • Recently I got the idea to create this great-in-marketing site. So, now I can publish on my own.
    • So, I thought God can solve this trouble (Seriously, without my site God cannot?) and read Ezekiel 37. So, I though that God can cure mankind from this deadly pandemic of despising.

    This problem was worsened by formal and informal religious leaders and activists that commanded me to make peace with my mother. This task is clearly non-accomplishable, because of the kind the mental impairment she has: the mother’s memory seems to be writable only once, so the conflict is already written into her memory and cannot be erased and overwritten. (It’s questionable when she became mentally ill, but with or without this impairment she passed K-12 school and a lingyuistic course of a university with good grades, got a (by that time standards) well-paid job and also worked as a school teacher. She however should have be diagnosed and stopped, because apparently namely this kind of mental obsession caused her to conclude and keep in memory that I am a gadenysh and become obsessed with killing me and cause all troubles of mankind that are described here. This kind of mental impairment seems to be described in finction literature: Gogol’s dead souls seems to be exactly this mental illness.)

    Oh, by the way, there is an interesting analogy here: Modern science academy is impraired in a way similar to dead soul of my mother: a publication happens just once and a published article cannot be re-published again, even if the mendium of the publication was wrong. So, scientific dataabases’ indexes are impaired in way similar to the impairment of my mother’s memory.

    Join protest against despising. My most effective mesure against this severe mental illness is:

    If somebody offends you:

    1. Feel fear to activate brain protection at a high level, you are in process of being infected.
    2. Ask him/her to forgive you for offending you to turn on immunity.

    The particular reason of despising

    I remember very well when I was 13-14 years old, my mother saw my erected penis for the first time and felt in love. I immediately realized that I have a trouble and know no way to solve it. She liked to replace my troopers and do similar things that exposed my penis to her. She forced me to wear a particular kind of troopers that squeezed my penis very much to cause me pain and increase my sexual desire. When I became a Baptist, he felt a very great jealousy to Jesus because Jesus didn’t recommend to have sex with mother. So, to mitigate the obstacle in her nimphomanian love she tried to devoid me of Jesus by an attempt to erase my memory by a frying pan (I had 3-4 fryng pan hits by head during a few days or weeks). Once this nimphomaniac woman tried to rape me in the hardcore (physical) way: I had a beautiful yung girl acquintance and we wanted to marry, but my mother said that I need sex with her because I am so studpid that I will never have a girl and tried to rape me (obviously, I was not able to persuade her that she thinks and behaves wrong). But I, hungry teenager, in some wonderful way was able to escape from caressing of this thick woman.

    The active attack of my mother started after I realized that almost everything she says is wrong and rejected her as a source of teaching and example. (Thanks God, it is how I became independent, namely because of her being so much bad I became the freest man on the Earth.) The manic realized she lost a slave and tried to return me to emphathy at any price.

    Every time when I tried to fly from her, somebody by force returned me into the house to restore the love of the family. But a bigger problem was that fleeing away I would fly from the only source of (very scarce) food. Moreover, I often didn’t have money even for bus tickets.

    I visited social care workers, but they refused to take me to a childcare by the argument that I am to old to go there.

    I went to a court and they asked me for money (that I repeat I didn’t have) to pay the lawsuit expenses.

    The root cause of this problem is quite clear: People consider woman as having the right of being respected no matter what and therefore the chick was respected as every chick is respected.

    Also note that unlike me not respecting myself, accordingly all knowledge I have, every chick (incuding this) one respects herself, that is always considers herself right and her rights prevailing over others’ rights (especially over rights of the object of love of the chick). In every case a chick never considers me to protect my rights when I try to protect myself against her attack (they call my protection offending a woman and punish it by further attack). Legally, disallowing offending a woman is a rape of a man conducted by society because it purposefully eliminates a mean of protection by the man against the attacking chick.

    This led me to the following strategy: When a women offered me sex, I strained my fist in order to beat her faster than she beats me as a punishment for my refusal, because accordingly the society morality refusing sex constitutes the world’s most severe crime, offending a woman. (Well, now offending a homo- or transsexual seems to be an even bigger crime.) This strategy is especially important if you met a celebrity (such as porn actress or a singer), because their moral rights prevail especially high.

    So, I consider Putin not right in his critique of Western homo/trans/etc. rights, because Russian chicks have the same overwhelming rights as Western transsexuals.

    Related links

    On search engines