dankomed wrote:
> On the other hand I am against 100% positive biographies,
> and I have posted sharply against this person - Shing-Tung
> Yau, who tried to steal the Perelman's credits for proving
> the Poincare conjecture. Yau is example of person who has to
> pursued by law for doing a crime,

You should be more careful when making statements like
this, which border on libel. Although the situation
with Yau, Cao, Zhu, and Perelman has not yet fully
played out, the Cao--Zhu paper, submitted to a journal
edited by Yau, makes it clear that the authors
acknowledge the ``fresh new ideas'' of Perelman, and
indicates only that they could not understand all of
his ideas and were forced to try to reprove some of the
steps in their own way.

For a copy of the letter Yau's legal counsel sent to
the New Yorker and to Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber,
the authors of ``Manifold Destiny'', see

http://www.doctoryau.com/9.18.06.pdf .

> I know very well the whole story, and I have in my database
> the original paper of Cao-Zhu,

As do I.

You are misrepresenting their papers, both here and on Wikipedia.

Haha

Thanks for providing these links ratboy. :-)

Sorry for your misuderstanding, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torquemada
Tomás de Torquemada (1420 – September 16, 1498) was a fifteenth century Spanish Dominican, First Grand Inquisitor of Spain, and confessor to Isabella of Spain. He is FREAK, and I don't understand why the User:Tirquemada has chosen as a nickname, of such inquisitor freak.
Am I clear now?
Regards,
D. Georgiev

I never thought I'd read about Monty Python here on PM. :-)

LOL!

ok, I have understood the possible "joking" meaning of the Torquemada, but you have posted web link to original person, and not to the cartoon character. It is your own error that I have misunderstood you. Please cite in the future that your nickname comes from CARTOON. :-))) Regards, Danko

I have checked the mentioned Octogon J. I have registered, but the free registration did not gave me access to paid articles. Finally I got some clickable links to articles, but it redirected me to page where I had to pay 99$ by Visa or other card. I do belive the articles are real, I don't have time to lose with paid sites however :-) Maybe after all the E num is 4, although I don't care much about that.

OCTOGON Mathematical Magazine is not fake journal!
It is ROMANIAN LANGUAGE JOURNNAL - therefore online you cannot find english translation of the abstract. Browse in the web and you will see many professors published in Octogon, example
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/mathstats/staff/mond.html
references 190, 192, 213, 232.

Smarandache has Erdosh number of 4, I think that Torquemada cannot object to this fact

> What flabbergasts me most is this "generating new
> inequalities in geometry".

Speaking of inequalities, while trying to find the text of at least
one article published in _Octogon Mathematics Magazine_ (no luck), I
ran across the Research Group in Mathematical Inequalities and
Applications (rgmia.vu.edu.au), which boasts 1159 members. It
provides an archive of unreviewed preprints called the Research Report
Collection, or RRC. The actual papers are available only to RGMIA
members, but abstracts are public.

Here is one by Bencze, the main link from Smarandache to Erd\H{o}s:

M. Bencze, About Seiffert's Mean.

Abstract: In this paper, a number of inequalities are obtained using
Seiffert's mean.

http://rgmia.vu.edu.au/v3n4.html#pap14

The above paper is cited by a later preprint by one J. S\'andor:

J. S\'andor, On a Paper of Mihaly Bencze on the Seiffert Mean

Abstract: In this short note, the author shows that among the 65
inequalities presented in [1], some are trivial or known, or follow
from each other. The author also proves some inequalities to be
incorrect.

http://rgmia.vu.edu.au/v5n2.html (paper 2).

I am very excited to see my favourite discussion technique in action - "cooperate with the opponent". I have clearly suggested that the text:

"SM IS CURRENTLY NOT BLACKLISTED, BUT HIS PAPERS APPEAR IN ARXIV:GM, WHICH IS KNOWN TO BE THE "GARBAGE MACHINE""

should be inputted in the main article. As this is the SOLE argument to reject my previous error correction proposal, it will be very surprizing that this correction shall be "rejected" too.

Well, if we have second rejection we will see Smarandache's "parAdoXisM" in action :-), namely (follows solely mine opinion as MD)

"Humans are the best example of paradoxical creature - when some logic is provided against them - i.e. they are biased, cruel, merciless, did a crime, offensive, misbehaving etc. .. humans always find way to "defend themself" violating LOGIC. In Darwinian selection you should violated all LOGIC, all RULES when it forces you against self-destruction - otherwise you will lose the evolution games. So I believe "violation of logic" or "naturally selected paradoXicaL thinking" must have evolutionary advantage, because if creature destructs itself when the logic says so, this creature will lose the Darwinian game ... "

Well, this is my personal understanding of evolution, I see no flaw in my reasoning, and I expect Torquemada's logical or paraDoXical reply.

Danko

Are you perhaps a publicist for Florentin Smarandache? ARE YOU Florentin Smarandache? I can't help but wonder.

Regards,
Keenan

User Torquemada, already requested a test of my I.P. which was obvious NONSENSE. I am not obliged to accept such farce, but I did it. Although my I.P. was not revealed, my post without loggin in the system revealed user being kanazawa-u.ac.jp where my affiliated e-mail is.

Also one can read all my papers in molecular neuroscience, to understand that this cannot be written of person without MD, which Smarandache certainly does not have.

-------- copy-pasted mail ------

From: dankomed
To: Torquemada
Date: 2007-05-15 19:47:11

Subject: Re: suspicious

Message:
Dear Torquemada, don't worry I also have accused several times in Wikipedia that a person is "sockpuppet" there is nothing bad in this. Yet, when you accuse do not lose my time to read various posts, and search where to "post my sh$it". At least you were morally obliged to provide me a single clickable link, and say - click and post directly. In the future I will not be tolerant to your requests. You could do a single Google search and find my affiliated page at Kanazawa Uni also.
see the requested by you sh$it here, although I see no I.P.

http://planetx.cc.vt.edu/AsteroidMeta//Commons

and my official page here
http://www.p.kanazawa-u.ac.jp/~yakubutu/index.html
http://www.p.kanazawa-u.ac.jp/~yakubutu/jikoshou/danko2.jpg

install Japanese language fonts first

I think however you could download some of my recent works, to verify that I am not Smarandache. Nobody will publish in such a advanced area as molecular biology, and neurophysiology (my "invited" chapter for Electroneurobiologia, 2004), if he did not have MD.

After I have seen that Torquemada doesn't want to mention that Smarandache has Erdos number of 4, I decided to check my own Erdos number. Well, everybody can use the AMS service, here, to calculate the collaboration distance between authors
http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/otherTools.html
Surprizingly for me I discovered that I am listed in AMS as being author of 1 paper in Informatica (Slovenia) journal, and prof. James F. Glazebrook with whom I co-atuthored already 3-4 articles, has Erdos number 3. So my Erdos number is 4, and can be verified directly as my name can be chosen in the menu "Georgiev, Danko D.".

Here is the info
Danko D. Georgiev coauthored with James F. Glazebrook MR2263651 (2007f:92006)
James F. Glazebrook coauthored with Ronald George Douglas MR1357795 (96f:58160)
Ronald George Douglas coauthored with Allen Lowell Shields MR0203465 (34 #3316)
Allen Lowell Shields coauthored with Paul Erdös1 MR0178349 (31 #2607)

Read here this parody story at AMS how to get Erdos number 5 in a auction!!! Al this is parody
http://www.ams.org/mathmedia/mathdigest/200406-auction.html

Since I as neuroscientist (although not conventional :-)) have suprizingly found to have Erdos number of 4, it is ridiculous to deny that prof. Smarandache who is professor in mathematics does not have it.

Yes, exactly.
Here is prof. Glazebrook's homepage
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~glazebro/
and there is list with published articles here
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~glazebro/pubs.html

From looking at the information that dankomed supplied, I have deduced that my Erdos number is at most 5: Dr. James Glazebrook and Dr. Patrick Coulton coauthored a paper together, and Dr. Patrick Coulton and I collaborated on my master's thesis, Cyclic Rings.

You must be kidding me, this is ridiculous! The so-called generalization of the Euler-Fermat Theorem IS A TRIVIAL AND COMPLETELY USELESS COROLLARY to the Euler-Fermat Theorem! Euler published his theorem in 1736, and Smarandache evidently felt compelled to cite the pointless corollary in 1981...get it right, please. Alozano's entry is valid because it does not blatantly misrepresent the nature of the corollary, whereas that of kamala does.

Toquemada, whose name is not Thomas Biggles as it can not be found, plays himself identity games using various pseudonames in wikipedia, then in planetmath, etc.

Zorba, while I take it that this was meant ironically and whilst you
may have a valid point, please be careful how you go about making that
point. Responding to polemics in kind only escalates tension and makes
it impossible to have a productive, rational discussion; far too often
the PM fora has degenerated into battlegrounds.

"People are not obliged to use their real names here, especially if they are concerned about security."

Or if their real names are boring and don't reflect their heritage because an immigration official changed it generations ago.

Far from being too harsh and biased, Torquemada has shown admirable restraint. And I am actually grateful that I was able to find Torquemada's original post at all. Smarandache and his groupies are obviously combing the internet and suppressing any rational review of Smarandache's tripe. Torquemada is a lifeline out of the Smarandache abyss.

I stumbled onto some of Smarandache's nonsense in an e-book of what I thought was original number theory. It didn't take long to see that even Martin Gardner couldn't make Smarandache's decimal concatenation games appear clever or relevant.

Perusing the web, I am aghast at the effort Smarandache and his cult (if he actually has any followers that aren't his own fictional creations) have expended to portray him as some sort of towering intellectual. Any criticism of his submediocrity has been suppressed wherever possible, and any detractions that could not actually be removed from the web have been inundated with posts claiming that Smarandache's work is misunderstood and is deliberately being censored by the "mafia in science."

I wish Dr. Matrix (or Carl Sagan) could be brought back long enough to debunk this megalomaniac's scribblings. The sane among us don't seem to be sufficiently articulate to save the mathematically unsophisticated (and/or downright gullible) from mistaking this Romanian psychopath's ravings for genuine mathematics.

For those as yet unacquainted with this pest, here's an example of Smarandache's narcissistic mania: he "re-invents" three-valued logic, calls it "neutrosophic logic," and then floods the internet with e-books that have titles such as "Fuzzy and Neutrosophic Analysis of Women With HIV/AIDS." Don't believe me? Check it out: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//eBooks-otherformats.htm. Oh, yes, we're talking serious delusions of grandeur here.

Fuzzy logic for Smarandache is apparently the same as fuzzy reasoning. For example, his "contributions" to physics include what he calls the "Smarandache Hypothesis," a PROFOUND conjecture that EPR and the recent experiments with phase and group velocities imply that both matter and information can travel faster than light. Eric Weisstein politely points out that the conjecture has no merit: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SmarandacheHypothesis.html. No doubt Smarandache has condemned Weisstein as a science mafioso.

Smarandache will tack his name onto anything he can, regardless of who discovered it or discussed it first. He seems very proud of his "Smarandache function" (which you can Google). It's an interesting function with an obvious formulation, and as such it was first treated by Lucas over 100 years ago and is the topic of a fascinating paper by Kempner, published in 1918.

OOPS! Sorry Florentin. Guess "Smarandache function" is a misnomer. It should conceivably be called the Lucas-Kempner function, but no serious mathematician up to now has thought it any more than a curiosity, and certainly not important enough to give it a name. But not to worry. Smarandache stonewalls his lack of true originality by flooding the web with minor variants of "his" function. There's the Pseudosmarandache Function, the Smarandache Ceil Function, the Smarandache-Kurepa Function, the Smarandache-Wagstaff Function, and the Smarandache Near-to-Primorial Function, all garbage that a precocious 10-year-old with a set of 3X5 cards could "discover" by random shuffling.

Then there's this polymath's contributions to engineering, linguistics, literature (including poetry!), economics, business, finance, and philosophy. All seminal work. Well, seminal in the sense that Smarandache has ejaculated this goop all over the internet. Given his attainments, it must be his self-deprecating humility that compels him to remain as the chair of the math and sciences department (two departments in one!) at the 2-year Gallup branch of UNM. His department offers only two programs: the coveted certificate in Drafting/CAD, and the prestigious Associate of Sciences degree. One is amazed at the humbleness he exhibits by turning down all the offers that must be flooding in from Princeton, MIT, CalTech, and the Octavia Fellin Public Library.

Okay, I've made my point. The rational among us recognize him as a crank. The people at ArXiv have the right idea. Smile and nod and give him some server space and get on with the real research. There's no need to take the effort to challenge his work, any more than you'd want to waste time discussing carbon dating with a Creationist. Besides, Smarandache gives his fellow cranks something to do, and I'm sure many amateur mathematicians are grateful to him for providing problems that require very little background in theory. He might even provide material for a social science graduate thesis on just how to go about inventing an academic career by publishing tons of drivel on the internet.

So, if he's nothing more than a broadband buster, why do people like Torquemada and me write at length in order to discredit him?

Well, part of the problem is that the relatively uneducated take him seriously. They embrace his fallacies, go into public office, and then work to pass bills that do stuff like cut through all that transcendental number nonsense and legislate pi as equal to exactly 3. So that's unsettling.

But I didn't really care about resisting Smarandache until I discovered he had named one of his fantasy algebraic structures "Smarandache-Galois fields." How dare he? I've known high school kids with more mathematical ability than this fraud, and yet he has the arrogance to link his name with Galois. Hell, he doesn't even give Galois top billing. Of course, no serious journal would ever publish such blatant rubbish, even if the mathematics had some substance, but FORTUNATELY for the academic community we have the highly regarded "Smarandache Notions Journal" to promulgate works such as this.

What next? Smarandache-Gauss Quadratic Residues? Smarandache-Newton Iteration? Smarandache-Navier-Stokes Polynomials? Smarandache-Einstein Coefficients? The man's conceit is intolerable.

No doubt my rant here will be met with a storm of irrelevant and unintelligible cavils. (Most of the defensive flaming will probably issue from a single IP number in Gallup, NM.) I won't bother to respond. No amount of name-calling or quibbling or specious rhetoric or even mealy-mouthed equivocation regarding "open-mindedness" will ever bring quality to Smarandache's pap. There's a difference between an open mind and an open sewer.

I apologize for my pompous userid ("Euler641"). When I found Torquemada's island of sanity in the internet's sea of irrational Smarandache jetsam, I became so excited that I had to reply immediately, so I didn't bother to come up with a clever user name.

Again, the cognoscenti among us should all be grateful to Torquemada for fighting the good fight. One can't be too harsh when dealing with a villain like Smarandache. PlanetMath is to be congratulated for providing a forum that exposes Smarandache for the charlatan he is.

Is anyone taking Smarandache seriously besides you, Torquemada and Smarandache himself?