| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Math - Symbolic Forum » FLT and New Math
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mehran Basti |
 Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 7:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Newsgroup:
Let me ask you the following question:
“
Why, you think they are promoting Fermat Last Theorem and ignoring my research on New Math?
Difficult question, I suppose. “
Both of us, A. Wiles and myself graduated from the same department (Pure math at Cambridge) and the same year.
One pursued after Ph.D. degree, a conventional mathematics within the mainstream research, and the other one wanted to revolutionize classical mathematics not done since more than a century.
One has his work purely abstract proofs; the other one left those kinds of ideas and concentrated with solving issues.
So, what do you think the math community is really thinking?
What are the main distinctions between our research goals?
What are the implications of both results from social, political as well as academic issues?
What Cambridge University really thinking about these issues?
Bearing in mind the long history of Cambridge in science.
Although you already may have known about my articles on FLT on sci.math.newsgroup.
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vladimir Bondarenko |
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 8:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Difficult question, I suppose.
Not in the least.
Why, you think they are promoting Fermat Last Theorem and ignoring my
research on New Math?
Because Andrew Wiles is a real mathematician with new results
and you are a crank with no new results.
On May 3, 10:59am, Mehran Basti <Basti...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: Dear Newsgroup:
Let me ask you the following question:
Why, you think they are promoting Fermat Last Theorem and ignoring my research on New Math?
Difficult question, I suppose.
Both of us, A. Wiles and myself graduated from the same department (Pure math at Cambridge) and the same year.
One pursued after Ph.D. degree, a conventional mathematics within the mainstream research, and the other one wanted to revolutionize classical mathematics not done since more than a century.
One has his work purely abstract proofs; the other one left those kinds of ideas and concentrated with solving issues.
So, what do you think the math community is really thinking?
What are the main distinctions between our research goals?
What are the implications of both results from social, political as well as academic issues?
What Cambridge University really thinking about these issues?
Bearing in mind the long history of Cambridge in science.
Although you already may have known about my articles on FLT on sci.math.newsgroup.
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mehran Basti |
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 8:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Newsgroup:
I have already answered my questions from many perspectives in variety of newsgroups like sci.math.symbolic, sci. math. sci.physics and sci.physics. relativity (so I do not repeat myself).
I do not pay attention to non-professionals in the newsgroup, since they know nothing about my new math and just commenting, presumably based on the math community reaction to my results.
Let us hear from professional math community, this is also a difficult one, since the community is heavily controlled.
In short, until they allow this results to be known and criticized scientifically, we are wasting our times.
But I encourage you to think deeply about the questions I have raised on this thread.
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mehran Basti... |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Newsgroup:
From the perspective of the New Math the following actions will eventually happen:
1-Most of the classical equations of physics, such as Bessel, Legendre, Associate Legendre, and others will be recalculated using Riccati differential equations methods (i.e. manipulation of higher order linear differential equations).
This will enforce the writings of graduate textbooks about these issue, and use of software in conjunction with the textbooks.
2-Similarly many graduate textbooks about Algebra will be written based on solving of polynomials with Riccati.
Thus influencing less research on Galois methods and other algebraic theories.
Eventually, they will see that differential equations methods substitute algebraic methods as powerful tools.
3-Certainly applications in variety of issues will manifest themselves in the markets. And new textbooks relative to tables of essential functions will be written.
I believe the new textbooks; will be with software to read the materials.
The other main application will be impact of the new math on numerical applications, thus writing of these textbooks in the future.
4-We will see a big impact in hiring of new graduates and research grants about the new science.
About the other issue i.e. FLT, people eventually forget 200 pages of abstract proofs of A. Wiles, and his colleagues as classified as “no use”. Most of the fields in which, A. Wiles developed his methods to answer FLT, will be dismantled anyway (assuming no fixing of the promotion of FLT actually happened!).
The power of the New Science will break the current resistance of the Math community establishment, and new procedures for hiring practices and scientific activieties and new value judjments will manifest itself.
These are the differences between FLT and New Math.
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vladimir Bondarenko... |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mehran Basti... |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Sounds like you're trying to make a case that
professional success is
an academic issue.
Your statement mean sad news for America. I wonder why America is in such a crisis? The roots are in higher educational crisis.
I see into it that, once my New Math is taken off, I help ailing American higher education to be fixed in the right direction.
I have more than 2 decades of experience in variety of academic institutions, I am not an insider and my lines of research are independent of the current leaders.
Thus I do not intellectually forced to protect their wrong interests.
The scientific truth will prevail.
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mehran Basti... |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Newsgroup:
It is true that the roots are also in lower education problems, but my main experience is within higher educational system (which has a lot of problems).
But not an insider means I am not part of any establishment particularly in research (and I play no games with them).
Since I am totally independent, it will be a challenge for me to disseminate my research without establishment approval!
This is difficult since they want some sort of approval of those supporting A.Wiles at Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, etc. or similar issues.
This is not possible from my position, since in the first place I believe there was a fixing issue somewhere , forcing the blockage of advancements of my research.
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mehran Basti... |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Newsgroup:
I try to answer some of the questions (raised) telegraphically!
What I am saying is that, my mathematics, would have been highly
successful, and we would have had many rich fields (already), if 1n
1993, instead of playing games with FLT in public, they had also
promoted this research.
But, there is a strong academic power struggle within the math
society, which even prevented dissemination of my works.
This is one of the major intellectual roots of American crisis.
Governments in the U.S.A. spending a lot of money to promote
scientific communications, but they have been silent all along.
They think they own the math community, but they have forgotten events
of the history.
I have a unique experience, which will be useful in shaping ill
American math community.
My New Math is very strong and whether they like it or not, it will
revolutionize mathematics, as well as its academia (i.e. rules).
The reactions to my situation, already reveals a lot about their state
of thinking and their actions, so these are my unique experiences (I
am greatly familiar with their social and historical status as well as
political power).
The academic success more and more becoming a game plays, rather than
merit.
I have to present my lecture notes and disseminate it myself, without
interference of the establishment of the Math community, particularly
those supporting A. Wiles.
This will be a great challenge for me, there is no way I will accept
their position or play any games with them.
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vladimir Bondarenko... |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:54 am
|
|