5 ms·

I thought you still need at least an affiliation which is why the crackpot version (which doesn't require anything) exists? http://vixra.org/ http://vixra.org/

by rawnlq 9y ago

I thought you still need at least an affiliation which is why the crackpot version (which doesn't require anything) exists? http://vixra.org/ http://vixra.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra

hprotagonist 9y ago
https://arxiv.org/help/registerhelp https://arxiv.org/help/registerhelp You only need-need an email address, I think. I've seen papers where the 'institution' of the author is their home address both on arxiv submissions and in traditional journals. I didn't trust them very much, but I have seen them.
openasocket 9y ago
Off topic, but you weren't kidding about it being the "crackpot" version. A quick check of the recent papers in the "Set Theory and Logic" section gave me this gem: http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0156 http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0156 . Which seems to argue that Cantor Diagonalization, a method of proof known for over a century and taught in most undergraduate abstract math courses, is completely wrong. There's also a 2-page proof that P != NP http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0076 http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0076 EDIT: this one probably takes the cake: http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0180 http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0180 . Completely nonsensical, ramblings about fuzzy logic and "topological experiments", the same sentences repeated multiple times. The actual work seems to be taking the formulas for a circle with a line through it, showing all of his work for some Algebra I + derivative level manipulations while still making basic mistakes (the one I caught is the final equation should be "= 1", not "= 0", because he didn't take the second derivative properly), to come up with a differential equation to describe his "intersection of a circle and a line" problem. Then concludes that this "fuzzy topological non-linear differential equation" will prove very useful in solving quantum gravity, somehow.
- flubert 9y ago
  If you want to seed doubts in your mind about the real numbers, you can get that at: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335 https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335 ...as well (skip to chapter 5 for the impatient).
  - openasocket 9y ago
    I'm fully aware of the complexities of real numbers. But I also know they are essential to derive any advanced mathematics. All the normal derivations and definitions of calculus depend on properties unique to the reals. And while it might be possible to re-derive calculus using computable numbers (I'm fairly sure it is, but not completely), a great many results using topology absolutely depend on the properties of the reals that the domain of computable numbers simply don't have.
  - pault 9y ago
    This is super interesting, thanks! I love articles that dive into the historical context and philosophy underlying important math discoveries. Context is everything!
- hprotagonist 9y ago
  ahh, this looks like an early beta version of The Book from Anathem: http://anathem.wikia.com/wiki/Book http://anathem.wikia.com/wiki/Book
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  The author in your last reference is pure gold. Here's another one of his gems, and I quote from the abstract: """ The author proposes several new concepts of physics such as it is not mass but the attracting force of mass which warps space, electricity can be generated from space at zero cost, making of graviton bombs are for real, it is possible to include gravitons and darkons in to the standard model of particle physics, unification of quantum physics with Einstein’s relativity can be performed on the foundations of a new spherical geometric applications, & new thoughts on big bang theory , particles and pre big bang. """ http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0017 http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0017
- mikebenfield 9y ago
  > Which seems to argue that Cantor Diagonalization, a method of proof known for over a century and taught in most undergraduate abstract math courses, is completely wrong. FWIW, this is a very common topic for mathematical cranks. It's somewhat understandable that in the 19th century this was kind of a controversial result, but it's really impressive that we still see crackpots swinging at the same target.

by rawnlq 9y ago

hprotagonist 9y ago

https://arxiv.org/help/registerhelp https://arxiv.org/help/registerhelp You only need-need an email address, I think. I've seen papers where the 'institution' of the author is their home address both on arxiv submissions and in traditional journals. I didn't trust them very much, but I have seen them.

openasocket 9y ago

Off topic, but you weren't kidding about it being the "crackpot" version. A quick check of the recent papers in the "Set Theory and Logic" section gave me this gem: http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0156 http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0156 . Which seems to argue that Cantor Diagonalization, a method of proof known for over a century and taught in most undergraduate abstract math courses, is completely wrong. There's also a 2-page proof that P != NP http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0076 http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0076 EDIT: this one probably takes the cake: http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0180 http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0180 . Completely nonsensical, ramblings about fuzzy logic and "topological experiments", the same sentences repeated multiple times. The actual work seems to be taking the formulas for a circle with a line through it, showing all of his work for some Algebra I + derivative level manipulations while still making basic mistakes (the one I caught is the final equation should be "= 1", not "= 0", because he didn't take the second derivative properly), to come up with a differential equation to describe his "intersection of a circle and a line" problem. Then concludes that this "fuzzy topological non-linear differential equation" will prove very useful in solving quantum gravity, somehow.

flubert 9y ago
If you want to seed doubts in your mind about the real numbers, you can get that at: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335 https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335 ...as well (skip to chapter 5 for the impatient).
- openasocket 9y ago
  I'm fully aware of the complexities of real numbers. But I also know they are essential to derive any advanced mathematics. All the normal derivations and definitions of calculus depend on properties unique to the reals. And while it might be possible to re-derive calculus using computable numbers (I'm fairly sure it is, but not completely), a great many results using topology absolutely depend on the properties of the reals that the domain of computable numbers simply don't have.
- pault 9y ago
  This is super interesting, thanks! I love articles that dive into the historical context and philosophy underlying important math discoveries. Context is everything!
hprotagonist 9y ago
ahh, this looks like an early beta version of The Book from Anathem: http://anathem.wikia.com/wiki/Book http://anathem.wikia.com/wiki/Book
semi-extrinsic 9y ago
The author in your last reference is pure gold. Here's another one of his gems, and I quote from the abstract: """ The author proposes several new concepts of physics such as it is not mass but the attracting force of mass which warps space, electricity can be generated from space at zero cost, making of graviton bombs are for real, it is possible to include gravitons and darkons in to the standard model of particle physics, unification of quantum physics with Einstein’s relativity can be performed on the foundations of a new spherical geometric applications, & new thoughts on big bang theory , particles and pre big bang. """ http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0017 http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0017
mikebenfield 9y ago
> Which seems to argue that Cantor Diagonalization, a method of proof known for over a century and taught in most undergraduate abstract math courses, is completely wrong. FWIW, this is a very common topic for mathematical cranks. It's somewhat understandable that in the 19th century this was kind of a controversial result, but it's really impressive that we still see crackpots swinging at the same target.