Saturday, May 09, 2009
JSH: EMIS has my old paper back up?
Looks like EMIS has my paper back:
http://www.emis.de/journals/Annals/SWJPAM/Vol2_2003/2.ps.gz
I find that curious enough that I will read replies in this thread. I haven't been reading replies to my previous postings, as, what's the point?
Crazed and obsessive people I at times call the "angry idiots" dominate those threads and don't say anything new.
Here I'm curious as to whether or not anyone knows why it'd be back up now.
Oh yeah, those wondering how crappy this paper really is given the drama around it can now see it for themselves, if that link works. (It worked just now when I noticed it.)
Some sci.math'ers thought it worth upending the journal system to attack that paper with an email assault. The editors pulled it from the journal after publication and managed just one more edition before folding, shutting down.
The American journal had its archives kept up by EMIS, a European agency. Europeans saving the records of an American journal. But maybe they care about knowledge in a way people in this country demonstrably don't.
Makes me wonder how much my own country, the United States, truly values mathematical research versus Europe.
People show what they truly value by what they do, not by what they say.
[A reply to someone who wrote that James' lack of attention to typographical detail in his paper surely goes all the way from the care on the text to the mathematical reasoning.]
That's a non sequitur. Minor typographical errors do not prove a mathematical line of reasoning to be flawed.
It is interesting that you think so though, but readers considering this issue now years later know that extraordinary things happened after that publication: sci.math'ers mounted an email assault against it, the editors caved and yanked the paper after publication, they managed one more edition of the journal and then quietly shut down, but even weirder, its hosting university, Cameron University then scrubbed ALL MENTION of the journal from its websites!!!
They trashed a decades worth of papers, which should be disquieting to people who publish in electronic only journals.
EMIS saved its archives though, and now it seems saw fit to save my paper as well.
Discounting all of that over typos indicates you are very much, um, not rational.
That paper historically may be considered one of the biggest in mathematical history.
Deference to it by the editors will not seem strange to historians.
Leaving in minor errors might have seemed like the best thing to do to the editors, kind of like, how dare you correct something that huge? But then they went into shock at the reaction of their community, and fell apart.
Your mathematical community betrayed their trust, and destroyed a journal in the process.
You broke your own rules.
[A reply to someone who told James what he should do in order to publish his article.]
I gave up on the math world. I'm working now on financial problems—more money in it.
Besides, I have the satisfaction of correctness. And can puzzle on the world's inability to see a massive error that may be stopping potential future progress.
Newton had calculus over two hundred years ago, and Archimedes had a lot of calculus thousands of years ago.
But calculus is most important today.
No one may ever know what human beings will not be able to do, if they're still around, in a couple of hundred years ago because of this block, but then again, that's why history gets to be interesting.
Who knows, if major discoveries weren't often lost human beings might be routinely doing interstellar travel by now.
But instead we're muddling around here burning up our resources and over populating—stupid species.
My guess is that the fate of humanity has already been decided. Against that backdrop my little tale is just something amusing. Not worth worrying about in the big picture.
http://www.emis.de/journals/Annals/SWJPAM/Vol2_2003/2.ps.gz
I find that curious enough that I will read replies in this thread. I haven't been reading replies to my previous postings, as, what's the point?
Crazed and obsessive people I at times call the "angry idiots" dominate those threads and don't say anything new.
Here I'm curious as to whether or not anyone knows why it'd be back up now.
Oh yeah, those wondering how crappy this paper really is given the drama around it can now see it for themselves, if that link works. (It worked just now when I noticed it.)
Some sci.math'ers thought it worth upending the journal system to attack that paper with an email assault. The editors pulled it from the journal after publication and managed just one more edition before folding, shutting down.
The American journal had its archives kept up by EMIS, a European agency. Europeans saving the records of an American journal. But maybe they care about knowledge in a way people in this country demonstrably don't.
Makes me wonder how much my own country, the United States, truly values mathematical research versus Europe.
People show what they truly value by what they do, not by what they say.
[A reply to someone who wrote that James' lack of attention to typographical detail in his paper surely goes all the way from the care on the text to the mathematical reasoning.]
That's a non sequitur. Minor typographical errors do not prove a mathematical line of reasoning to be flawed.
It is interesting that you think so though, but readers considering this issue now years later know that extraordinary things happened after that publication: sci.math'ers mounted an email assault against it, the editors caved and yanked the paper after publication, they managed one more edition of the journal and then quietly shut down, but even weirder, its hosting university, Cameron University then scrubbed ALL MENTION of the journal from its websites!!!
They trashed a decades worth of papers, which should be disquieting to people who publish in electronic only journals.
EMIS saved its archives though, and now it seems saw fit to save my paper as well.
Discounting all of that over typos indicates you are very much, um, not rational.
That paper historically may be considered one of the biggest in mathematical history.
Deference to it by the editors will not seem strange to historians.
Leaving in minor errors might have seemed like the best thing to do to the editors, kind of like, how dare you correct something that huge? But then they went into shock at the reaction of their community, and fell apart.
Your mathematical community betrayed their trust, and destroyed a journal in the process.
You broke your own rules.
[A reply to someone who told James what he should do in order to publish his article.]
I gave up on the math world. I'm working now on financial problems—more money in it.
Besides, I have the satisfaction of correctness. And can puzzle on the world's inability to see a massive error that may be stopping potential future progress.
Newton had calculus over two hundred years ago, and Archimedes had a lot of calculus thousands of years ago.
But calculus is most important today.
No one may ever know what human beings will not be able to do, if they're still around, in a couple of hundred years ago because of this block, but then again, that's why history gets to be interesting.
Who knows, if major discoveries weren't often lost human beings might be routinely doing interstellar travel by now.
But instead we're muddling around here burning up our resources and over populating—stupid species.
My guess is that the fate of humanity has already been decided. Against that backdrop my little tale is just something amusing. Not worth worrying about in the big picture.
# posted by James Harris @ 13:44 
