Math paper retracted because some of it makes ?no sense ...

What do you do when a math paper that contains some ?constructions and arguments [that] make no sense mathematically? gets published?

If you?re Applied Mathematics Letters, you retract the paper, ?For the origin of new geometry.? Here?s the notice:

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher.

This paper does not meet the minimum research and mathematical standards of Applied Mathematics Letters; for example, some of this paper?s constructions and arguments make no sense mathematically. Though handled by the previous editorial office, the available records lead us to believe its publication was the result of an administrative oversight and apologies are offered to readers of the journal that this was not detected earlier.

We know a bit about the journal?s ?previous editorial office.? As we wrote in an April post titled ?Math paper retracted because it ?contains no scientific content,? the journal?s editor, until last year, was Ervin Rodin. During his tenure, the journal

retracted two bizarre papers last year, one of which was written by one of the co-authors of this latest retracted paper, and the other of which cost the publisher $10,000 when the author ? an intelligent design advocate ? sued. Rodin has also been replaced at Applied Mathematics Letters, by Alan Tucker.

The author of the newly retracted paper is S. Kalimathu, who is also the author of the paper that ?contains no scientific content.? His email address, we note, changed between papers; it used to be ?ohm@budweiser.com.?

The paper ? which, perhaps not surprisingly, has not been cited, according to Thomson Scientific?s Web of Knowledge (they don?t track citations from The Onion) ? is quite something. Its discussion begins:

Our constructions and proofs are consistent. We have not introduced any new hypothesis in this work. So, the author?s findings are consistent. As we have already mentioned Eq. (2) deduces the parallel postulate of the Euclidean geometry. But we have pointed out in the abstract that the fifth Euclidean postulate problem is one of the most famous mathematical impossibilities. So, although our finding is consistent, it poses a very serious question about the foundations of geometry.

In other words: There?s nothing new in this paper, so it?s consistent with something, we?re not sure what. But we have raised a very serious question! OK, people have been raising that question for centuries, but this is important, dammit. The fact that we haven?t actually added anything to the discussion of that question? Please move along, nothing to see here.

The December 2012 issue of the journal includes one other unrelated retraction notice, for ?Oscillation of integro-dynamic equations on time scales:?

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and Authors.

The article was found to contain errors which will be corrected in a revised version to be submitted to Applied Mathematics Letters.

The journal?s new editor, Alan Tucker, tells Retraction Watch there are no other retractions planned.

Update, 6:50 a.m. Eastern, 12/6/12: Author S. Kalimathu ? whose full name is Acharya Sennimalai Kalimuthu, we now learn ? responded to our request for comment, invoking Einstein and a logical fallacy about Nobel Prizes:

Please and please note that I do NOT agree with retraction of this relevant paper.Can you tell me WHAT IS THE FLAW? AND WHERE IS THE FLAW? A result is a result,A result is a result,A result is a result, and?A result is a result,.

Let us recall what Einstein told about simplicity:

IF YOU CAN NOT PUT YOUR IDEA IN SIMPLE, IT SHOWS THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SUBJECT.

Who is expert? We are all so called experts.Only God is expert.

I am going to re write this particular paper in 20 long pages and get published. Kindly note that papers rejected by referees and editors have won the NOBEL PRIZE.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

Source: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/math-paper-retracted-because-some-of-it-makes-no-sense-mathematically/

Tagg Romney Bosses Day Cabin Fever 2 nhl Alexis Wright Zumba binder full of women Microsoft Surface