Essay Abstract

"SEPHIROT": EMET!!!: "Known Unknowns Versus Unknown Unknowns": It's a Jack-in-the-Box Universe: Ten-Digits; Log-Law Scale-Invariance; Utter-Simplicity: "Complexity" Versus "Complicatedness"; Zipf's-Law/ Hyperbolicity/ Inevitability (Archimedes); Bose- {Euler[(1732)] over-reals R)∑_(k=1)^∞▒〖1/k^R =∏_P▒1/((1-1/P^R ) )〗= ∏_P▒P^R/((P^R-1) ) ~ ∏_ω▒e^(ħ(ω-z)/kT)/((e^(ħ(ω-z)/kT)-1) ) }-{Riemann, "Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Groesse", Monatsberichte der Berlin Akademie,(1859)] over-complex-numbers C): ∑_(k=1)^∞▒〖1/k^( C) =∏_P▒1/((1-1/P^( C) ) )〗= ∏_P▒P^( CC)/((P^( C)-1) ) ~ ∏_ω▒e^(ħ(ω-z)/kT)/((e^(ħ(ω-z)/kT)-1) )}-{Bernoulli-Newcomb[Am. J. Math. 4, 39(1881)]-{Planck(1901)]}-{Einstein(1905)]-Poincare[(1912)]-Weyl[Goett. Nach.???(1914); Math. Ann. 77, 313(1916)]-Bose(1924)-Einstein(1925)]-VS. Fermi(1927)-Dirac(1927)-Benford[J. Am. Phil. Soc. 78, 115(1938)]-Kac["The Mathematics of Statistical-Reasoning" (1955)]-Raimi[Sci. Am.(1969) ]-Hill[Proc. Am. Math. Soc.123,3,887(1995)logarithm-function scale-invariance("MAGNIFICAT", (Bach) proof]-Jech(1995)-Siegel, Antonoff, Pi, Smith[Am. Math. Soc./Math. Assn. Am./SIAM Joint Mtg., San Diego(2002)] -Benson[last-lecture!!!: Workshop: "Cohomology and Support of Algebraic-Representation-Theory", Julia Petsova, Eric Friedlander and David Benson eds., Pacific Institute for Mathematical Studies, University of Washington(2012)]-Chern[????]-Hirezbruch, Riemann, Roch Theorem!!! Finding and proof of a digits on-average[CAUSING] logarithmic-law 〈P〉=〖log〗_10 (1+1/d), by mathematicians mistakenly excluding physics-crucial d = 0 singularity/pole, as log-law 〈P〉=〖log〗_10 (1+1/(d∈[1,...,9] )), but in actuality purposely including the all-important physics-crucial d = 0 singularity/pole: 〈P〉=〖log〗_10 (1+1/(d∈[0‼!; 1,...,9] )) permits "EMET"/TRUTH, purposely sans any "specificity-of-(so miscalled)"complexity" tactics: NO: models("standard" nor any other), mechanisms, processes, parameters(proliferation: ad infinitum; ad nauseum!!!), "Digits"' classic (but not classical!) Newcombe(1881)-Poincare(1912)-Weyl(1914; 1916)-Benford(1938) "NeWBe-Law" P(d) = log10 (+1+1/d) [integer d * [0,9]] * Z ; versus, non-integer 0 < P < 1] (on average) statistical-correlations, with recent Browne-Hill-Mathews-Greespan popularizations, based upon recent Hill-Jech-Pietroniero ostensibly-"rigorous" proofs domination by [(logarithm-base - invariance) = (units-invariance) = (SCALE-invariance)], and Nigrini-Hill-Burton widespread forensic applications to fraud-detection, with indictments, prosecutions and convictions, has gotten Wall Street's attention, after Peters proof of SCALE-invariance dominance of economics' capital-markets so-called "complexity", as nothing else! (Anderson-Mandell-Pascual-Leone identically in nerves/brain/mind); FDA.applications: drug testing verification/qualification;... Digits['1,...,9] =(upon Benford-law algrbraic-inversion)= Bosons with d = 0 BEC(!!!), and denominator-EXPONENTIAL Taylor/power-series expansion to Zipf-law Hyperbolicity (Archimedes)INEVITABILITY!!!

Author Bio

BS-Physics/Mineralogy-Colorado School of Mines/CCNY(1965) Attended: Harvard/MIT, University of Pennsylvania MS-Mathematical-Physics, Courant Institute/NYU(1967) PhD-Radiation/Nuclear-Physics, U.C.Berkely(1968) MS-Nuclear-Physics- University of Michigan(1969) PhD-"Metallurgy"/Solid-State Theory/Condensed-Matter Theory/Magnetism, MSU(1970) Industry: AMRAC, Ford, GM, Westinghouse, PSEG, IAEA, ABB,... Teaching: QMUL/Uiversity of London, CUNY, ITB(Bandung, Java,Indonesia), Brazil(CNPq), ICTP/SISSA First Prover of: Fermat's Last-Theorem(FLT) [@ CCNY IN 15-MINUTES(1964), 3-decades

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

This was unintelligible to me. The goal of the contest was to write an essay that was relevant and interesting. I am open to any argument but this seems like word salad. Why didn't you put more effort into making it readable?

25 days later

Dear Herr Professor Fraude,

Fantastic biography, abstract and essay (literally).I was overwhelmed by the quasi prodigious profundity of your essay. I think you require an antidote more than anyone else in this contest.I don't have one handy but this serious article may help in the meantime. Searching For New Mathematics by Ivars Peterson

The condition, so well illustrated by your extortionately erudite presentation, (though hopefully not contagious),is dangerous to science.NEGATIVE LUCIDITY INVERSION THERAPY (NLIT) might be required. If a certain level of decorum was not expected on this forum I would call it balderdash but as it is- well done. Regards Georgina : )

    • [deleted]

    • Post #4

    Upon reflection balderdash might not be the most appropriate adjective. I don't have sufficient background knowledge of physics to enable me, for example, to easily decipher whether there is subtle humour in the choices of reference material.There may be some additional cleverness in it that I could not, without further study, appreciate.This work appears to me as a caricature of pseudo sophistication / intellectualism. Though its intention maybe only humorous I think the jester's words do also have the potential to convey a serious matter.

    Nonsense can be obvious and intentional and potentially humorous. Nonsense can masquerade as serious work, this includes some creative pseudo scientific material and work of those with semantic aphasia, both using the words but without their associated meanings. There is work that is not nonsense but overly complicated relative to the level of complexity upon which it is based or attempts to describe. It maybe utterly impenetrable except by a very small number of individual who have familiarity with the ideas or merely prevent rather than enable easy comprehension. Some genuine work may be all superficial "complicatedness" but is hollow as beneath the highly complicated description there is no realistic substance. Consideration of what one is dealing with is important.

    When something becomes maximally complex it returns to simplicity, like paint colour stirred together. Beyond a certain level of complexity communication value and meaning for the reader begins to decrease rather than increasing. I am becoming interested in the value of visual data compaction to overcome the problem of information overload. Diagrammatic representation can simplify and make accessible what would be overly complex or overly lengthy verbal descriptions that are tedious to assimilate. I think it will become increasingly important in an information overloaded world and has great potential to enhance education. Having attempted to read very many of the essay entries I wonder whether FQXi shouldn't have an illustration contest, in which competitors must compact their answer to the question into a one page illustration perhaps with an additional page for notes and references.

    So Herr Professor Fraude I apologise for the impulsive response to your work, it is using your terminology approaching UTTER SIMPLICITY but not yet maximally complicated in my humble opinion. You wrote, and I think this may be the raison d'etre- Quote:"Here we take on such with, as opposed to doing (addictively with computers, at best poor experiments!) purposely simple thinking,a.k.a. science, a.k.a. PARSIMONY! [a.k.a. "K.I.S,S!" "keep it simple, stupids!"]."

    Hello Edward (Herr Doctor Fraude),

    This is certainly a wonderful parody of a scientific paper, with all the bells and whistles - whoo hoo! Not to be missed as the perfect baseline - a minimal standard of 'excellence' by which all the other essays can be judged. We should all be proud, being in such esteemed company, or by comparison - whichever is simpler. You have certainly convinced me.

    Congratulations!

    Jonathan

    If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

    Sergey Fedosin

    9 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #7

    Dear'Edward Siegel',

    it would be interesting to know why you entered this particular essay. It doesn't look, or sound, suitable for a Scientific American article. Is it a parody which it amused you to create, or did you intend to also send a serious message? It looks as if a lot of effort may have gone into creating it. Is that the case, or did you use some kind of program to help put all of the various bits and pieces pieces together?

    Write a Reply...