Fork me on GitHub
Math for the people, by the people.

User login

Florentin Smarandache

Type of Math Object: 
Major Section: 

Mathematics Subject Classification

00A99 no label found


Dear owner, I have just received e-mail concerning your entry automatically by PlanetMath. Please see that I am relatively popular Wikipedia editor with the fact I am engaged in struggle against self-promotion and pseudo-science! I even have opened entry against pseudoscience, self-promotion, plagiarism, corruption in peer-reviewed journals.
Why I think your entry is too biased? Well, a person cannot be only BAD. There are usually some real contributions that are good and deserved to be positively approached, even if there are some moments in someone's biography that might be used against him. So, I think that people can change their minds, and error done in the past should be forgiven. I have editted some biographies in Wikipedia of people who are described in black terms only, but the truth is that they have created also some good things. Please be aware that there is no perfect people, and you now contribute to creation of the myth "the black Smarandache", while indeed maybe he is human like all of us.
And finally, encyclopedia should contain ONLY material for which a person should be REMEMBERED. I don't think that several anonymous posts or idendity plays are such a profoud interest for professional scientists. I personally care what is the production of a given scientist, and not whether he is playing identity games or not.
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, while identity games in internet is something that a lot of people do.
Danko D. Georgiev, see

Dear Dankomed,

Let me start by saying that you are definitely biased in this topic, given that (a) your only two contributions to Planetmath are Smarandache entries and (b) you have openly defended Smarandache in the Wikipedia article. I will definitely be considering corrections and opinions about this entry from unbiased users.

This entry is a reaction to many other (biased!) entries in Planetmath which describe the work of Smarandache as if they were of great relevance. This entry is meant to put things in perspective by explaining what the majority of the mathematical community thinks about the relevance of his works. You said: "an encyclopedia should contain ONLY material for which a person should be REMEMBERED." In fact, I agree 100% with your statement. But sadly Smarandache would not be known to anyone if it wasn't for the controversy that is described in the entry, and he will be most likely remembered for this and not for anything else. So far, I have limited myself to describe what I have read in Wikipedia and in the forums here in Planetmath, i.e. the opinion of the majority and not the opinion of the few that 'preach' his ideas. Notice as well that my entry links to the Smarandache entries in question (in the see also list) so the reader can judge by him/herself.

It seems that the consensus here in PlanetMath is that the Smarandache entries are to stay in the encyclopedia, as a matter of "freedom of mathematical speech". If that is the case then this entry should serve as a complement so the casual reader is aware of the controversy surrounding these entries.

Finally, I want to reiterate that I will gladly and very seriously consider corrections and opinions about this entry from unbiased users and, particularly, from the more established users in the site.


Dear T,

first, I don't understand what is good in "Torquemada" as he according to my understandings is sick man and freak!
second, I don't know your identity, nor I know whether you are not 15 year kid playing in the web
third, the fact that I am a newcommer and have opened two entries so far in PlanetMath, does not give you right to say that I am biased. I have wide interest in all math fields, and I plan to contribute to math logic, solitons, and everything else I am in touch with e.g. Riemann hypothesis, Smarandache notions, etc.
If you see my wikipedia edits you will see that I edit a lot of things from science, to chess, to music, and I am also lyriki editor. What I have seen in your post is your own "spitting over Smarandache" and "personal attack" in your reply against me for creating only 2 entries; btw one of them is on well established object called Sm function. Yes, it is true that in 1980's Sm re-discovered it, but a lot of arXiv articles, and various published sources all over the world bear the name Sm function. So, this is established fact, and I don't know to what "majority of mathematicians" you are talking about.
As a human I have the freedom of speach, and the fact that I have said a word or two in favour of Smarandache, does not give you right to attack me directly. As I understand your reply you will consider corrections from "unbiased users", which does not apply to me??? Is that what you want to say??

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 .

Dear mps,

I know very well the whole story, and I have in my database the original paper of Cao-Zhu, and I have posted harsh critique in Wikipedia. NOW I HAVE SEEN THEY HAVE WITHDRAWN THE ORIGINAL PAPER read the Wikipedia entry on Grisha Perelman. YES, they have repaired ALL the maniac, grandoman claims from their paper like "CROWNING ACHIEVEMENT" etc, etc., see quotations provided from me in Wikipedia talk pages. I don't want to start this discussion again here in PlanetMath. Of course I do not attack personally nobody except Yau:

The story goes like this
[1] let us publish in China some propaganda for 1.5 billion people - saying Cao-Zhu are discoverers!
[2] let us publish first some grandoman, maniac paper without peer-review, [see my protest in Wikipedia against EDITORIAL CORRUPTION]
[3] let us hope we get the Fields medal
... oops
[4] we get caught in naughty action ... what shall we do?
[5] let us say "sorry", and hope we shall be forgiven, and considerred as good guys

This is certainly a CRIME, and laws if they cannot give them some sentence for crime NOW, THEN LAWS should be changed to accomodate such kind of crimes.

My official position is this - if law cannot do anything against Yau NOW, then it must be changed in order all future cases be punished as a CRIME. I hope my position is clear - I am not a lawyer to know the details, but I support position in which laws should be changed/modified [if their current form in not strong enough] etc, so that people like Yau go to jail. This is my personal position, and I have freedom of speach to make the society sensitive for such ABUSE of Editorialship, and academic position. These are crimes, according to the Declaration of Academic Freedom, which I have voluntarily translated into Bulgarian language. Original here [multiple language translations available also]

D. Georgiev

> 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.

If we were talking about some amateur trying to share his mathematical rediscoveries with the world, I'd say you're being one super-harsh mean-spirited SOB. But we're talking about Florentin Smarandache, someone who supposedly has a math degree and is employed as a math educator, making him a professional mathematician. He should know that this kind of heartless, cutthroat, caustic, sarcastic dismissiveness is part and parcel of being a professional mathematician.


Thanks for providing these links ratboy. :-)

I am very upset by the post to which I am replying.

dankomed said regarding Torquemada:

> the fact that I have said a word or two in favour of Smarandache, does not give you right to attack me directly

I do not classify calling someone "biased" (which is all that Torquemada did) as a personal attack. However, I definitely consider this comment as a personal attack:

> I don't understand what is good in "Torquemada" as he according to my understandings is sick man and freak!

Calling someone a "sick man" and a "freak" is inappropriate.

dankomed also said:

> I don't know your identity, nor I know whether you are not 15 year kid playing in the web

I do not care how old Torquemada is or even whether he is a mathematician or not. (The only reason I am saying "he" is that he has given his name as "Tom".) Even if he is only 15 years old (which I highly doubt), he has handled himself in a professional manner on PM, as evidenced by the posts that he has made. Recall that he exposed the MT20/Mathman20 "scandal", as seen here:

If Torquemada wants to withhold his personal information, that is his choice, and he has every right to do so. Note that you are able to look up every post a person has made from that member's profile. It is definitely more reliable to glean information about a person from those rather than from the fact that that person has chosen not to supply personal information.

> As a human I have the freedom of speach

I very strongly agree! But please bear in mind that posts on PM cannot be deleted unless its parent entry (in this case, the biography on Smarandache) is deleted. Please choose your words wisely.

> As I understand your reply you will consider corrections from "unbiased users", which does not apply to me??? Is that what you want to say??

Torquemada does not *have* to consider corrections from anybody! Please see the following collaboration:

Especially note towards the end of the third section:

"When it becomes clear the author is not going to do things your way, we suggest the approach from the next section. Under no circumstances will the staff of PlanetMath mediate disagreements about corrections."

BTW, I would like to know why such a policy in place. I am guessing that it is to create less of a headache for those who maintain PM?

The fact that Torquemada is even considering (and accepting) any corrections is a good thing. In any case, Torquemada has free speech too, and if he wants to express himself in a certain manner in any entry, he most certainly should be allowed to do so.

Have a nice day.


Sorry for your misuderstanding, see
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?
D. Georgiev

Actually, the choice of user name comes from me being a fan of the Monty Python... "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" is the well-known catchphrase of a sketch on Monty Python's Flying Circus. It features 3 padres dressed in crimson vestments and showing up unannounced in several interrelated sketches, mercilessly subjecting their victims to such evils as "The Comfy Chair" and "The Soft Cushions".

After entering, the Inquisition frequently got bogged down in recitations of their weapons:

"Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms!"


or even better:

By the way, besides the condemnable and regrettable persecution by the Inquisition of jews and moors, the tribunal also judged those who were trying to deceive the public, and those who would portray themselves as what they were not.


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

Just for kicks, I looked it up in the AMS website.

MR Erdos Number = 4 Florentin Gh. Smarandache coauthored with Mihály Bencze MR1619508
Mihály Bencze coauthored with Wing Sum Cheung MR2176283 (2006h:26035)
Wing Sum Cheung coauthored with Steven George Krantz MR1917683 (2003d:32028)
Steven George Krantz coauthored with Paul Erdös1 MR0957190 (89i:05225)

If you click the link for the first paper, "About very perfect numbers.", it has the very ominous line "{There will be no review of this item.}"


If CompositeFan found this "LOL" funny then you are going to think that what's coming next is "ROTF LOL" funny:

Math.Sci.Net is not infallible, and Octogon Mathematical Magazine (the journal with the link between Smarandache and Bencze) is not a reliable source, most likely not peer-reviewed and in fact I am starting to doubt that this journal actually *exists*. Here is an eye-opening link:

Click on any issue, say Volume 10, issue 1, April 2002. There are literally hundreds of articles in that issue alone. And about one out of three is by Bencze, about one third is by somebody called Zsido and the other third by someone called Zhao. Same thing for older issues.

Now, I don't want to ruin the party, but don't you think this is a tad fishy? Do you think a respectable journal would publish mathematical articles whole-sale like this?

I would be very interested to have a look at the actual pages of an actual single article published in Octogon, Vol 10, issue 1.

Sorry guys, no Erdos number for Smarandache after all.


The more I look into this journal the more interested I am in it... Check out this article (not available of course, but check out the abstract below):

About Hilbert's integral inequality
Source Octogon Mathematical Magazine archive
Volume 10 , Issue 1 (April 2002)
Pages: 9 - 12
Year of Publication: 2002
Authors: Chang-jian Zhao and Mihály Bencze

"In this paper, we first give a simple proof of Hilbert's integral inequality, ten [sic] we obtain a very well generalization."

Hmmm, I am extremely interested in this topic and in this 'very well' generalization. If anyone can send me a pdf file of it I would be literally stunned.

Here is another paper that I am dying to read:

On Holder's inequality and its applications
Source Octogon Mathematical Magazine archive
Volume 10 , Issue 1 (April 2002) table of contents
Pages: 30 - 36
Year of Publication: 2002
Authors: Chang-jian Zhao, Mihály Bencze

Abstract: The main purpose of the present article is first to give a simple generalizations of Holder's inequality by using the method of analysis and theory of inequality. Then as applications, we improve some new type Pachpatte's inequalities.

I am so intrigued about the 'method of analysis and theory of inequality' that I am not sure I'll be able to sleep tonight.

My greatest thanks to Mravinci for discovering this Octogon journal, it will provide endless entertainment.


This isn't just "ROTF LOL" funny, it's "LMBO!!!" funny!!! Thanks for looking into this. I too will possibly get no sleep tonight for similar reasons. :-)


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
references 190, 192, 213, 232.

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

> OCTOGON Mathematical Magazine is not fake journal! It is ROMANIAN LANGUAGE JOURNNAL - therefore online you cannot find english translation of the abstract.

Perhaps you cannot find abstracts in English of an entire journal, but you can find abstracts in English of an article. In Torquemada's post, he gave abstracts of some articles:

Also, look here:

The abstract of this article, "Sharp inequalities of triangles" by Dinca and Bencze, reads:

"In this paper we give a method for generating new inequalities in geometry. Let be the following notations: a,b,c the sides of triangle ABC, p the semiperimeter, h_a, h_b, h_c the altitudes, O the center of circumcircle, I the center of incircle, R, the radius of circumcircle, r the radius of incircle, I_a, I_b, I_c the center of excircles, r_a, r_b, r_c the radius of excircles."

One of the things that amuses me is that translations into English tend not to be done very well. I do have some experience translating from Romanian to English, and I can say that, in general it is not really that difficult of a task. Of course, it does help that I am a native English speaker, and I would be bound to get translations from English to Romanian completely wrong.

What flabbergasts me most is this "generating new inequalities in geometry". Of course it is hard to say without being able to read the article, but this sounds like it has little, if any, motivation. One can come up with thousands of random inequalities that are uninteresting to the mathematical community.

Torquemada said:

> I would be very interested to have a look at the actual pages of an actual single article published in Octogon, Vol 10, issue 1.

Me also, and I would not mind if they were in Romanian either!


> 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 (, 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.

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. (paper 2).

Again, this Octogon Math. Mag. is either fake or completely unreliable due to the fact that they publish in any single issue a large number of articles by the same people, who are probably the very same people 'editing' the magazine (in fact, the AMS - Math.Sci.Net has stopped indexing the journal). If the journal actually exists then there is no peer-review whatsoever so the publications there are as good as the classified ads of my local newspaper. If I publish a classified ad in Weekly-World-News ( with a conjecture of mine, can I count this as a research publication? In fact, the entries right here at Planetmath probably go through much more of a review that any article in this journal.

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


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.


oops, I have retracted a suggested correction of the main text. I have suggested that "GM" stands for "Garbage machine" to be incorporated in the post, yet I didn't believe this text is already incorporated. However after reading the article again I with great surprize have discovered that this shi$t is already there ..

It is my personal opinion that the Torquemada user obviously does not make difference between boundaries that a scientist might cross - obviously Torquemada is not scientist at first place, but a anonymous person [I couldn't google his name or find home page] who has solely a mission to "spit over Smarandache".

All this article is VANITY ARTICLE, and has no whatsoever scientific value. I will be gratefull if I am not attracted to discuss this topics again with biased users. I plan to quit this farce, so wish you happy "spitting" over Sm.

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


You can GOOOOOOOOOOOOGLE my name, see my home page, and also trace my affiliation history - Medical University of Varna, Emergency Department Varna, Naval Hospital Varna, Kanazawa University Lab of Mol Pharmacology, also if you read my brief cv published in my user page at Wikipedia, also link at my PlanetMath info, YOU WILL SEE I am 27 years old, in contrast to Smarandache who is over 50 years old. I am not his publisher, his advocate, or anything else. I stand against all corrupted scientific journals, corrupted academicians, administrators, blacklisters, etc.. because all of them already did "step over my foot".
I will not respond any more whether I am Smarandache, although it is fun for me - I don't mind to be thought of being math professor.

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 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

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.

and my official page here

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.

> User Torquemada, already requested a test of my I.P. which was obvious NONSENSE.

Obviously, it is *not* nonsense, as azdbacks4234 had the same suspicions!

Also, please try to refrain from using profanity. It will not help you get your point across any better. Rather, it can only make people upset. Thank you, and have a nice day.


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
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

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.

> James F. Glazebrook

Does he teach at the University of Illinois and/or Eastern Illinois University? If so, I know who he is and in fact have had him as a professor.

Yes, exactly.
Here is prof. Glazebrook's homepage
and there is list with published articles here

OK, I accept your remark. I prefer to stay away from this thread, when you talk with someone biased, it is easy to use the same style of your opponent. I prefer to discuss maths.

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.

Torquemada uses speculations and slandering. An IP from a network
means all people from that network, not one person only. So any of FS's students could post any message.

I was curious and did a search in arXiv:
From Smarandache's about 100 papers in arXiv Torquemada cites one of funny problems, which are indeed funny, but not representative.

Torquemada lied about Generalization of Euler-Fermat Theorem since it was first published by FS in 1981, not by alozano who got inspired from ths posting of kamala.

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.

> Alozano's entry is valid
> because it does not blatantly misrepresent the nature of the
> corollary, whereas that of kamala does.

Besides, I have never claimed authorship of this proof, since it is a follow-your-nose and trivial exercise which any one could solve in no more than 10 minutes.

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.

To begin, please note, the user's screen name is Torquemada. If you will, please refrain from this type of post; it serves absolutely no purpose. I see it as some sort of attempted attack on Torquemada, although it really doesn't make a huge amount of sense, as people frequently avoid using their real names on websites. Thank you.


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.

I am in full agreement with Keenan here. People are not obliged to use their real names here, especially if they are concerned about security. Some users are careful about never putting their names on anything. (I used to be like this before I decided to add my master's thesis to PM and put a link to my homepage on PM, after which I deemed it pointless to take such precautions.) My point is that a member of PM should not automatically be criticized for using a false name. Of course, there are circumstances in which "name fraud" is unacceptable at least as far as etiquette is concerned, but none of these circumstances seem to apply to Torquemada.


"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.

Names on PM are frauduent? i am shocked! Here i thought all along Euler
was the real person!

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: 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: 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.

Such gibberish.

Avoiding negative statements about someone is suitable for eulogies and gravestones only. Regardless of how "human" Smarandache is, or how "relatively popular" you are as a Wikipedia editor, or how many biographies of people you have distorted for whatever agenda you're pursuing, or any of your other irrelevant fatuosities, the fact remains that Smarandache is a self-promoting con man who is posing as a legitimate mathematician and scientist.

The fields of mathematics and science are self-correcting. Just as the philosopher's stone and phlogiston have been exposed as fallacious and subsequently discarded from rational thought, so too should charlatans like Florentin Smarandache be exposed and ejected from the mathematical and scientific communities.

No, an encyclopedia should NOT contain only material for which a person should be remembered. That's censorship and it shows you have no intellectual integrity. People like you perpetuate not only errors in science, but also historical revisions such as the lies that the Holocaust never happened and that Stalin was a great leader. Have you edited Hitler's biography yet? For some reason, people have a lot of negative things to say about him.

In which language do you edit Wikipedia? Romanian? Certainly not English. Your abominable spelling and broken grammar are typical of a Romani who just fell off the boat in New York harbor. You certainly don't write like a man who has been educated in ANY language, and your unsophisticated notions concerning what constitutes good biography betray a childish an insubstantial mind. Hacks like you are the reason Wikipedia will never be considered a reliable reference source.

This is how you will be remembered.

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


Subscribe to Comments for "Florentin Smarandache"