A Study of Primes Through Non-Resonant Sine Waves

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

They do not have the competence to make a judgment about the mathematical value of a paper.

Wrong.

You are mischaracterizing the paper by implying that it needs to meet formal standards for professional publication.

Instead, it is an informal amateur paper, and was never represented to be anything else.

In fact, your gross mischaracterization of this paper demonstrates that you, yourself, are incompetent to make a judgment about its value.

Someone submitting a paper in a public forum should meet certain minimal standards of scholarship.

Where do you see that in the rules of this forum?

Answer: You don't.

You are misrepresenting this forum's nature. From that misrepresentation, you have drawn mistaken conclusions and assert unjustified statements.

The paper under discussion does not meet those
standards. It contains a lot of handwaving, non-standard use of notation, and much too little rigor to be taken seriously. In a general way it is much too informal to have much merit.

Of course it's informal!

No one ever claimed it was formal. No one ever claimed that the author sought to have it accepted or evaluated as though it were from a professional.

Finally, it is no mystery that sine functions (and their compositions) are periodic in a way that corresponds to the periodicity of modular arithmetic.

Were the explanations of all "mysteries" of mathematics already existing in your mind when you were born, a la Athena?

It doesn't happen that way with any of the rest of us.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I treated this paper no differently from other papers that I get asked to
review.

... which was a mistake, because it is different from other papers you get asked to review. It's amateur, and never represented itself as professional or striving to be such.

In the amateur case, it is inappropriate to dismiss it with "The paper has no merit whatsoever", because it has merit on an amateur level. What was more appropriate was to constructively comment on specific aspects and direct the author toward resources where he could learn more.

There have been a number of papers that I have been asked to referee
that I sent back very quickly (to the editor) with the simple note that
the paper was so poor as not to merit diligent scrutiny.

Was the editor editing an amateur publication, or a professional one, in each case?

I have even had two papers of mine rejected with the review:
"not much merit" and "not very interesting". In both cases I simply
asked for further explanation, revised them accordingly, and submitted
them elsewhere.

Had you submitted them to a professional publication, or an amateur one?

[retina]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I am qualified to make such a judgment about a mathematical paper.
Cheesehead & retina and others are not. They have never: (AFAIK)

(1) Acted as an editor of a research publication,
(2) Acted as a referee for a paper wanting to be published,
(3) Acted as a reviewer for a paper already published,
(4) Had to deal with a professional review of a paper that they
submitted for publication,
(5) And have never acted as a teaching fellow (with grading responsibilities) for a math course.

They do not have the competence to make a judgment about the
mathematical value of a paper.

That is certainly true for me. Luckily I never even considered making any judgement on this paper, or any other paper. I wouldn't know where to start.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Here is a minor contra-example.
I understand that it is picky, but trade names are specific like that.

The part of my post you failed to quote was: "If Bob's arguments are erroneous, say so in public and, especially, explain why they are erroneous.".

Your observation is valid but I draw a distinction between typographical mishaps and errors in a logical or mathematical argument.

Paul

[Dougal]

Originally Posted by xilman

The part of my post you failed to quote was: "If Bob's arguments are erroneous, say so in public and, especially, explain why they are erroneous.".

Your observation is valid but I draw a distinction between typographical mishaps and errors in a logical or mathematical argument.

Paul

Has yet to admit that he made a mistake on this thread.http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12473

[flouran]

I suggest it's best if we actually get back to the paper rather than this pointless argument concerning Bob.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dougal

Has yet to admit that he made a mistake on this thread.http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12473

I've just reviewed that thread and have not changed my earlier conclusion reached when the discussion was still current.

As far as I can tell, Bob's argument was that many respected mathematicians used one particular definition of a Mersenne number. The counter-argument was that many other respected mathematicians used a different definition. The integers represented by Bob's et al. definition are a proper subset of the integers defined by the alternative proposal.

IMO, neither group in that discussion has made an error in a mathematical or logical argument, the subject of my previous post in this thread. Disagreements on definitions and notation are commonplace in most fields of enquiry. They can, and frequently do, lead to heated argumentation but I don't personally regard them as erroneous unless they lead to internal inconsistency or to marked disagreements with experimental or observational results.


Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

That is certainly true for me. Luckily I never even considered making any judgement on this paper, or any other paper. I wouldn't know where to start.

Quite a few of us on the forum do have the requisite experience. You start by demonstrating a competence in your subject, generally by publishing papers yourself.

Referrees' confidentiality inhibits me from saying whether or not I've been a referee for any of Bob's papers. I can say that I have been a referee for a number of papers in mathematics and the sciences. I can also say that Bob himself has sent me pre-submission copies for comments so that he could consider whether my comments would help him improve them.


Paul

[Dougal]

It is FALSE that another definition allows p to be any positive integer.
I have heard this false assertion many times. Repeating it does not
make it true.

This is not true.It was shown that there is another definition.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dougal

This is not true.It was shown that there is another definition.

Fair enough.

Bob?


Paul

[10metreh]

Originally Posted by Dougal

This is not true.It was shown that there is another definition.

If you could actually put spaces between sentences then maybe Bob might answer you slightly less rudely.