Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Somewhere to publish your ideas ?

  1. Feb 13, 2005 #1
    Hello i am looking for a webpage without snobish referees that only want famous people to publish their job,i am looking for a webpage where anybody can publish their own ideas,i have tried at arxiv.org but this snobbish members require you to have an endorser,and of course this is very hard to have (i have tried sending my ideas to teachers at my university but i didn,t have a response),perhaps i will change my name to jose euler gauss riemann to see if they take me into account.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 13, 2005 #2
    This again?
     
  4. Feb 13, 2005 #3

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    please get some professional help.
     
  5. Feb 13, 2005 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's very easy to create your own webpage these days.
     
  6. Feb 13, 2005 #5

    Zurtex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    www.geocities.com

    It's free and easy.

    But in mathematics you must show great rigor and proof in how you came up with something, what its purpose is and if it is a method for something why it is more useful than what is already out there.
     
  7. Feb 14, 2005 #6

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Let me for the umpteenth time try and explain why you are getting nowhere.

    1. The maths you use is arguably not new. The methods in it have been known for many years (some of them to Riemann, most of them to Ramanujan, and all of them to Wiener).

    2. Your presentation is bad. At one point in your last doc you misspelled Riemann.

    3. You're not submitting in the correct format (doc for heaven's sake!)

    4a. There is nowhere near enough material in the paper anyway (merely 3 pages of doc that if properly typeset would be about half a page in tex.)

    4b. You do not cite any references.

    5. The material simply explains what happens when you apply the inversion formulae to some functions. This is not interesting in its own right and certainly not publishable.

    6. You've at no point proven that you can in anyway evaluate these triple infinite integrals that require you to know where the zeroes of the Riemann Zeta function are (we don't even know where they all lie, for heaven's sake).

    7. At best you have a numercial curio, and one that anyone could have come up with - it displayed no ingenuity to get to the answer, and once arriving at the answer stops short of doing anything interesting with it.

    8. Have you seen the length and breadth of a mathematics paper? Try reading them on ARXIV to see what standard you should be aiming at.

    Please note, I firnly believe what you have is correct, but it is not of sufficient merit to be published in any format.
     
  8. Feb 14, 2005 #7
    Lenght is relevant in a research paper?
     
  9. Feb 14, 2005 #8

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    you are overlooking the other comments made in that post. The academic weight is computable from combining the density with the size.
     
  10. Feb 15, 2005 #9

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    A paper of 1 page can be good enough to win the Field's Medal. But it is more than just length - I said amount of material with an implicit 'new'.

    His paper to which I allude, and was available in the Number Theory forum last time I checked, is both short and lacking in ideas, rigour, conclusions, calculations, examples, theory, references, an abstract, a "for further research" part, what this doesn't tell us (how to do an integral to evaluate pi(x), the prime counting function), what we'd like it to tell us, where to look for the answer.... None of those alone is essential, but some collection of them is desirable.

    What is there is plausibly correct, but the author himself fails to convince anyone of its merits. And claiming that it is easier to evalutate a triple integral

    1. over an infinite volume with an unknown location of poles,

    2. whose complexity is independent of the argument of pi(x), and

    3. which would require you to be accurate to within 10^-{4n} when calculating the integral numerically when x is of order 10^n,

    than to use the sieve method of even Legendre is never going to gain much credence until he tells us how to do the integral.

    What is in that "paper" is the starting point to him getting material which might be publishable. Though the feeling is that that isn't going to happen unless he either knows all the zeroes of the zeta function, or finds some incredibly good way of evaluating triple integrals numerically. One of which is worth 1,000,000 USD.
     
  11. Feb 15, 2005 #10

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Perhaps you need to rethink your position. It may be unoriginal, already discredited, or transparently unsound.
     
  12. Feb 15, 2005 #11

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    insanity (in-san-it-ee): A disorder of the mind in which one repeatedly takes the exact same actions, under the exact same conditions, and somehow expects a different result.

    Eljose, why don't you just fill out an application to go to a university?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2005
  13. Feb 15, 2005 #12

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    Mr eljose,

    If all by yourself, you have done something anywhere near correct and relevant, as perhaps you have done, then with guidance at a university, pointing you towards feasible topics, and advising you of known results, you could well do something very nice. You might consider Tom Mattson's suggestion.

    It would also bring you in contact with others in the field, and thus allow you to become better known yourself at some point.
     
  14. Feb 15, 2005 #13
    Ok,ok perhpas i should give it up, i sent to teachers at my university but got no response,in fact there si a curios thing about that..(a form of collorary)
    w(x)=sum(1,8=infinite)d(x-n) where d(x) is the Dirac,s delta function then if we have a Dirichlet generating function g(s)=a(n)/n^s then
    w(n)a(n)/n^3=M^-1[g(4-s)] (Mellin inverse transform)

    i think it could be useful to get the values of some arithmetical functions such us mu(x) or Phi(x) (for integer values only ....)
     
  15. Feb 15, 2005 #14

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    !!!

    Who suggested that??? We didn't say "give it up", we said "go to school"!
     
  16. Feb 16, 2005 #15

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper


    Again, only if you can evaluate the integrals with any accuracy, and since you're dividing by n^3, you need to make sure the error in the integral is less than 10^(-9) to even evaluate it for n=1,000. And I can work out pi(1,000), or mu(1,000) very quickly and easily in less time, using recursive formulae. Even the worst implementation of Legendre can pull out pi(1,000) in an incredibly short time. So why not work out the point at which it is more cost effective to calculate that integral to an error of 10^{-3n}, or 4n in the case of you pi relation, instead of,, say using Meissels formula.

    Mathematicians do not instantly publish everything the write down, eljose, that's not how it works. They wait until they have a body of work that merits a wider audience. You've already had more discussion about your work with a general audience than anyone I know doing a PhD.
     
  17. Feb 16, 2005 #16
    Too bad :-( sometimes i wihs i had born 200 hundreds years ago to be able to discover something interesting such us differential calculus or teh variational principles of mechanics....nowadays almost all ideas are done.
     
  18. Feb 16, 2005 #17

    Zurtex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I don't know about that, when I look at maths as a whole I can't help but think we are only scratching at the surface of something far more immense and it is the confines of our imagination and the limited real life problems we have that has built us this path we have made so far.

    Anyway you will become a great mathematician if you can do any of these: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SmalesProblems.html :wink:
     
  19. Feb 16, 2005 #18

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wonder why they keep publishing journals then.
     
  20. Feb 17, 2005 #19

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If that is what you consider interesting and the limits of mathematics then you really ought to read some books on the subject, or go to some lectures.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?