User talk:Mathsci/Archive 2

Controversies
Dear Matsci, I have never been banned from Wikipedia, your info is wrong. There were various votes for banning of various people, yet nobody ever was banned. Also, the fact I am participating in hot disputes is NOT evidence that my theses are wrong. Considering Unruh's reply, it is complete nonsense. You can see my reply. Unruh has never formulated clear math statement that is wrong in my mathematics, he said some quantum states suggested by me are "not existent". Indeed I have suggested states that are being in coherent superposition with other states. The fact that a wavefunction is superposing another one, or is not superposed, is quite IRRELEVANT criterion for the existence of the wavefunction at first place. If you call such utter nonsense "the best fruit produced by a PhD holder" then it quite pitty for the whole educational system. Please do not search and read garbage on Wikipedia talk pages, please read my published article, and then spot a sentence that is wrong. :-) Danko Georgiev MD 07:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And IF you are such a great mathematician see the diagram released by me at Unruh's interferometer, and before even reading the dispute try to calculate yourself the contribution of waves passing along path 1 and waves passing along path 2 to the final click at the detecors. As the arrangement is that the paths 1 and 2 constructively interfere to get 1 at paths 6 and 8, and destructively interfere to get zero at paths 5 and 7, then it is quite obvious math calculation that the common wave (sum of path 1 and path 2 contributions) evolving along paths 6 and 8 splits randomly into two halves, to deliver both waves from path 1 and 2 to both detectors. This is my thesis, so I wish you good luck in disproving it. The good thing is that I am not the sole person who reached the same conclusions. In 2007 (half year after me) prof. Tabish Qureshi and also PhD student Daniel Reitzner, published independently identical conclusions. Ah, how could I forgot - Shahriar Afshar himself did the calculation and reached the conclusion that which way info is erased in Unruh's interferometer (of course he later derived different conclusions regarding the Afshar experiment, saying that Unruh's experiment is different kind of experiment at first place. My "Reply to Unruh" in Progress in Physics is indeed extension of Qureshi's work and I provide the first one-to-one mapping of waves between Unruh's and Afshar's setups) :-))) Well keep doing your good anonymous job, and don't spam on my talk page with materials from the Wikipedia talk pages. I know them very well. Danko Georgiev MD 07:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why have you put "the best fruit produced by a Ph.D." in quotation marks in your first monologue? These are your own words, not mine.
 * Why have you put "the best fruit produced by a Ph.D." in quotation marks in your first monologue? These are your own words, not mine.


 * Your talk page is not a home page - what you have placed there seems more appropriate for a user page. After a quick perusal of Afshar's archived blog, it's hard to believe the reliability of any statement that you attribute to him. As far as I can tell your attempts at research in physics do not seem to have been accepted by mainstream physicists. As a mathematician, I find that almost all of the sentences on mathematics inserted by you in the wikipedia articles on Samarandache verge on the meaningless; in this case, however, it seems completely appropriate. --Mathsci 15:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are three mathematically meaningless consecutive sentences chosen at random from your reply to Unruh cited above:

One may analitically continue both functions $$\psi_{15}$$ and $$\psi_{16}$$ along path 1 as well, in this case the two functions are indistinguishable before BS2 with $$\alpha=1/2$$, while after BS2 the wavefunctions become distinguishable with  $$\alpha=1/\sqrt{2}$$. The time dependence of $$\alpha(t)$$ is because the orthogonality of the two states is function of time. The usage of the same Greek letter with different numerical index as a name of a new function is standard mathematical practice in order to keep minimum the numer of various symbols used.


 * --Mathsci 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear MathSci, I like when someone provides exact quotation, and claim on it. You say my 3 sentences are wrong, however I don't understand is it due to lack of math knowledge of yours or what?
 * first you should know very well what "math function" means - it is ANY mapping between two sets, in the case of the function that I describe, it is function of two arguments $$x \in \mathbb{R}$$, $$y \in \mathbb{R}$$, and the function value for each set of points {x,y} is the quantum amplitude $$q \in \mathbb{R}$$. So for time before BS2 the wave passes along arms 1 and 3. For this interval the functions $$\psi_{15} \equiv \psi_{16} \equiv \psi_1$$, so $$\alpha = 1/2$$. It is mathematically correct as the definition is redundant $$\psi_1$$ equals to 2 halves of itself! Also $$\psi_{15} \equiv \psi_{16}$$, and they are indistinguishable. Where did you see error? After BS2, there is transformation of $$\psi_1$$ by the beam splitter so due to normalization requirements multiplication by $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$ is needed. At this place each function $$\psi_{15}$$ or $$\psi_{16}$$ has value of 1, for distinct pairs {x,y} therefore both functions are completely distinguishable, they are two different function. It is clear that for pairs {x,y} that belong to the wavefunction $$\psi_{15}$$, the other wavefunction $$\psi_{16}$$ will have zero value. Analitical continuation of function, means continuation of function in domain where it is not defined. So initially the $$\psi_{15}$$ and $$\psi_{16}$$ are defined for domain of {x,y} points that belong to paths 5, 6. By the analitical continuation I have extended the functions in spatial region that correspond to paths 1,3. What I have done is mathematically clear procedure. One can define "math function" in any way he linkes, including I can define continuous or discontinuous function for each spatial point, and to give it any functional value I like, if in ideal case I can handle with infinite and not countable set of points that are the set of reals. Maybe my English is not good, but I see no math problem in what I have done. :-)) ps. The third sentence IS THE MOST CLEAR OF THEM ALL :-)) yOU say you are professional mathematician, so you should be aware of Godelian proof of his theorem, basicly one must keep the number of the elementary symbols in the formal system - FINITE! This is in order to be able to apply the Godelian nomeration. So in the Godelian scheme, if you want to write function a, b, or c, you should use only two symbols f and *, thus a=f, b=f**, c=f***, this is what I have said in my thirs sentence. I don't use *, but use arabic numbers. I did not want to define various functions α,β,γ,ζ,λ,ς, etc.. and to make my essay overcomplicated. I have used only symbol $$\psi$$, and then have put index to make new function. This index is just "change of name", and number "15" is fifteen, and not doubled index 1, 5, and is mathematically acceptible way, although for Unruh the indexing might look perplexing and he thought it is double index. Danko Georgiev MD 10:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lazy editor (continued)
The discussion you started on my talk page now appears on the archives of my talk page. You requested there a comment on your competence in published mathematical work. You also suggested that the use of wikipedia pseudonyms by professional academic editors was cowardly and made some remarks about "pseudo-Ph.D.'s". I shall reply here.

Unlike you, I have never been banned from editing wikipedia articles. From wikipedia discussion pages it can be seen that you apparently reproduced somebody else's diagram in a recent article in Progress in Physics. You avoided stating that this diagram was not created wholly by you; later you justified yourself by making remarks about GFDL and minor modifications made by you. Isn't this plagiarism? Unruh's rebuttal of your article in Progress in Physics also accuses you of misrepresenting his views; he even suggests towards the end of his article that a key step in your mathematical argument is wrong, because you apparently did not appear to understand the role of complex inner product spaces in quantum mechanics. These published objections of Unruh seem correct to me and seem to question your mathematical competence.

Please try if possible to get over your irritation that people with genuine Ph.D.'s are participating in the wikipedia encyclopedia. (If you can't, why not get your favourite internet university to upgrade your MD to a Ph.D.?) Finally, although I post anomymously I am in fact also referred to in wikipedia mathematics articles under my real name. Unlike you, I am not responsable for my own name appearing and the scientific work referred to has no controversy attached to it. --Mathsci 06:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found another example of your incompetence at editing mathematical wikipedia articles. You have attempted to modify the article on Andrica's conjecture by copying and pasting most of what appears in the corresponding MathWorld article http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AndricasConjecture.html Whole sentence structures and diagrams have been lifted, which suggests that you have seriously infringed the copyright http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/terms.html Did you obtain permission from Wolfram, Inc publicly to redistribute their material on wikipedia? The only originality in your editing seems to be your systematic misuse of the indefinite and definite articles in english.

MathWorld: A generalization of Andrica's conjecture considers the equation p_(n+1)^x-p_n^x=1 and solves for x. The smallest such x is  x approx 0.567148 (Sloane's A038458), known as the Smarandache constant, which occurs for p_n=113 and p_(n+1)=127 (Perez). ?  User: Danko Georgiev MD:  Generalization of Andrica's conjecture considers the equation $$p_{n+1}^x-p_n^x=1$$ where $$p_n$$ is the nth prime number and solves for x. The smallest such x is $$x \approx 0.567148$$ (sequence A038458 in OEIS), known as the Smarandache constant, which occurs for $$p_n = 113$$ and $$p_{n + 1} = 127$$.


 * The MathWorld article does not correctly state Smarandache's generalisation of Andrica's conjecture which appears here http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/conjprim.txt on Smarandache's web site at UNM-Gallup. Thus if $$x$$ is the Smarandache constant defined as the solution of $$127^x - 113^x=1$$, the conjecture states that $$p_{n+1}^y - p_{n}^y <1$$ if $$y<x$$. If you copy and paste without any understanding of the mathematics, it is hardly surprising that you did not realise that you were copying an error. Go and check the originals. Please also correct your addition to the wikipedia entry on Andrica's conjecture. Otherwise it should be removed because at present no generalisation of the conjecture is stated. It might also be an idea if you stopped editing wikipedia articles on mathematics if all you can do is reproduce this kind of meaningless error. --Mathsci 07:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, please reveal your identity because I suspect YOU ARE ILL-EDUCATED TEENAGER, who presents himself as mathematician. You obviously cannot understand a simple math formulation. The Smarandache constant is the smallest solution of the generalized Andrica's conjecture. Therefore the prime p_n is not fixed. For all prime couples p_n and p_n+1, the smallest power x_{p_n} so that the generalized Andrica's equation =1 is different. From all x_{p_n}, where n=1,2,3 ... there is SMALLEST. And this happens for p_n = 30 and p_n+1 = 31. ARE YOU REALLY MATHEMATICIAN IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE DEFINITION??? Danko Georgiev MD

If as I say I have marked questions in mathematical logic in a final year undergraduate exam at a leading university in the UK, how can I be a teenager? Regarding definitions and correct statements of conjectures, it seems clear that you have not bothered to check the reference I gave on Smarandache's home page. [By the way in the english language we would normally write "Are you really a pure mathematican ..." and "I suspect that you are an ill-educated teenager ...". This might be of help to you in future wikipedia edits.] --Mathsci 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thanks, missed definite or indefinite articles do not change the meaning of my sentences! The conclusion I make is that you are a native English speaker, but you are clearly light years away from mathematics. Reveal your identity, if you are not ashamed of your nonsense posts here. Everyone can cowardly and anonymously spit over the others. Danko Georgiev MD 05:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct original reference for Smarandache's conjecture is on page 105 of the 3rd volume of his collected works http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/CP3.pdf I just reproduced the generalisation (B2) of Andrica's conjecture as it appears there. In reply to your other statements: I was invited to speak at an ICM in the last century and some of my work has appeared in Annals of Mathematics and Inventiones Mathematicae. Both these activities do not seem "light years away from mathematics", although I suppose people like you are entitled to their opinions. But why do you want to know these personal details? Do you have some project in mind beyond the wikipedia encylopedia? --Mathsci 07:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On your misunderstanding of Andrica's conjecture
User:Mathsci: Thus if $$x$$ is the Smarandache constant defined as the solution of $$127^x - 113^x=1$$, the conjecture states that $$p_{n+1}^y - p_{n}^y <1$$ if $$y<x$$. Ha-ha. I GUESS this is text produced of professional mathematician??? Hi-hi. This is the most funny thing I have read. The Smarandache constant is defined as the smalles possible x amongst all solutions $$x_1, x_2, ...,$$ of all countable but infinite list of equations, generated when you substitute n=1,2,3 ... in
 * $$ p _ {n+1} ^ x - p_ n ^ x = 1 $$

So, you have the infinite list
 * $$ p_{2} ^ x - p_1 ^ x = 1 $$ -- solution $$x_1$$
 * $$ p_3 ^ x - p_2 ^ x = 1 $$ -- solution $$x_2$$
 * $$ p_4 ^ x - p_3 ^ x = 1 $$ -- solution $$x_3$$

...

So in this notation of all $$x_i$$ the solution $$ x_{30}$$ is the smallest, and it appears for the 30th prime $$p_{30} = 113$$. I hope after you have revealed enough your math incompetence you will stop bother me. I now fully recognize that you ARE NOT PRO MATHEMATICIAN, but self-proclaimed layman. Danko Georgiev MD 13:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PLEASE REPLY HERE!


 * It is claimed in your own contribution that this minimum is attained for the pair of primes (113,127), so I don't quite understand what you are going on about. No reference is cited for the proof of this fact in either your own contribution nor the text from MathWorld that you plagiarized. It seems that you still seem unable to comprehend that you did not state Smarandache's generalisation of Andrica's conjecture correctly. I have simply reproduced the conjecture from the paper on Smarandache's web site. If this conjecture shocks you, why not express your unease directly to Smarandache? Please try to reply calmly and politely in future. Your illogical statements above suggest that either you are ill or on on medication. Is this the case? --Mathsci 22:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Read carefully Andrica's conjecture and you will see reference to Perez paper, that clearly states the maximum value of x for n=1, and minimum value of x for n=30. I already will inform the administration for your offensive behavior, and your unprofessional remarks. Danko Georgiev MD 00:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * .. and please stop changing the topic! I have shown you that the written by be definition is correct, and the presented by you is complete misunderstanding, and now you shift the discussion to whether the material is "sourced" or "not" with reference. Check the original article, and you will see that when I have replied to you yesterday, I also have inserted reference to Perez. Danko Georgiev MD 01:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP spamming my talk page
Danko Georgiev MD 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have NOT violated copyright of MathWorld, nor I have lifted figures. THIS IS A LIE, SO PLEASE STOP THIS FARCE!!! You have several times lied in Wikipedia, and never appologized even when I show clear evidence for the opposite. All images are PROGRAMMED and COMPUTED on my PC. The plotted graphs are MY OWN intellectual property, and non of the software producers, is copyright holder of the products that users of the software have created!!!
 * I see you are overexcited in this personal war against me. Please stop it, you show your incompetence in maths.
 * I will not discuss with anonymous vandal, you clearly overstepped the boundaries of good behavior. If you want my future replies, please appologize for the numerous lies posted in Wikipedia, and also reveal your idendity. I have no time for identity games.
 * Please don't use capital letters - it makes you look as if you're ranting. I will probably alert MathWorld about the extraordinary similarity between the 2 articles which can only be interpreted as plagiarism. You can deal with the consequences. I pointed out 3 randomly chosen meaningless sentences by you in your article in Progress in Physics as well as the plagiarized article by you in which you failed to understand Smarandache's generalisation of Andrica's conjecture. If you cannot understand the meaning of simple and elementary mathematical statements, as now sadly appears to be the case, you should stop editing mathematical wikipedia articles beyond your expertise. It is precisely because there are people like you on wikipedia that editors like me prefer to maintain our anonymity. Elsewhere I see that the physicist Afshar complained that you were trying to bring his name into disrepute, so you have clearly achieved a certain reputation on the web. Congratulations and good luck in your career as a pseudo-scientist. --Mathsci 23:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Inform anyone you like, but I guess soon this dispute will reach some Wikipedia administrator. I don't understans what is your problem with me, and in civilized manner request you to stop posting offenses. No plagiarism, and no copyright violations from my side, all source codes are programmed by me, all passages quoted just restate definitions and maths is in the public domain. I see no similarities with MathWorld articles, despite of the fact I have provided links in the refs, because the existence of article at MathWorld is used as criterion for notability. You are anonymous vandal, who takes a lot of my precious time to reply your attacks. Please stop, I have put some warnings on your talk page, take them seriously Danko Georgiev MD 02:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)