[math-fun] zeta irrationality baloney, arxiv suckitude
Message: 7 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:41:46 +0200 From: Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] zeta(5) -- and all zeta(odd) -- irrational??? Message-ID: <20131022144146.GB19908@jjj.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: http://oeis.org/A013663 In a widely distributed May 2011 email, Wadim Zudilin gave a rebuttal to v1 of Kim's 2011 preprint: "The mistake (unfixable) is on p. 6, line after eq. (3.3). 'Without loss of generality' can be shown to work only for a finite set of n_k's; as the n_k are sufficiently large (and N is fixed), the inequality for epsilon is false." In a May 2013 email, Zudilin extended his rebuttal to cover v2, concluding that Kim's argument "implies that at least one of zeta(2), zeta(3), zeta(4) and zeta(5) is irrational, which is trivial." - Jonathan Sondow, May 06 2013 --yeah, I thought it had to be bullshit. But the thing is, no retraction has been posted even 2 years later, and not only that, if the ArXiv had a commenting facility, this could have been commented by somebody besides the uncooperative author, but no. In short: THE ARXIV SUCKS. I have complained to them for 10-20 years they needed to add commenting and rating, and they always to me to go chew a log. They have the capability to make this have far better refereeing than any journal has ever had, but instead chose intentionally to make it have no refereeing. It is absurd. I think this is an intentional conspiracy to support obsolete ultra-expensive journals, supported by big money and big egos -- what is actually useful for humanity be damned. They have lost 20 years for all of humanity by their idiocy.
It's wonderful to be able to download papers for free from Arxiv. It's the expensive refereed journals that lock their papers behind a paywall that suck. -- Gene
________________________________ From: Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:52 AM Subject: [math-fun] zeta irrationality baloney, arxiv suckitude
Message: 7 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:41:46 +0200 From: Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] zeta(5) -- and all zeta(odd) -- irrational??? Message-ID: <20131022144146.GB19908@jjj.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: http://oeis.org/A013663
In a widely distributed May 2011 email, Wadim Zudilin gave a rebuttal to v1 of Kim's 2011 preprint: "The mistake (unfixable) is on p. 6, line after eq. (3.3). 'Without loss of generality' can be shown to work only for a finite set of n_k's; as the n_k are sufficiently large (and N is fixed), the inequality for epsilon is false." In a May 2013 email, Zudilin extended his rebuttal to cover v2, concluding that Kim's argument "implies that at least one of zeta(2), zeta(3), zeta(4) and zeta(5) is irrational, which is trivial." - Jonathan Sondow, May 06 2013
--yeah, I thought it had to be bullshit. But the thing is, no retraction has been posted even 2 years later, and not only that, if the ArXiv had a commenting facility, this could have been commented by somebody besides the uncooperative author, but no.
In short: THE ARXIV SUCKS.
I have complained to them for 10-20 years they needed to add commenting and rating, and they always to me to go chew a log. They have the capability to make this have far better refereeing than any journal has ever had, but instead chose intentionally to make it have no refereeing. It is absurd. I think this is an intentional conspiracy to support obsolete ultra-expensive journals, supported by big money and big egos -- what is actually useful for humanity be damned. They have lost 20 years for all of humanity by their idiocy.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
There are several meta-arxiv projects that collect commnets and reviews about articles on the arxiv. One that I like is called selectedpapers.net; at the moment it only scans Google+, but Twitter's in the works and I can't imagine Facebook won't be far behind. Any post that's marked #spnetwork followed by the arxiv reference (something like arXiv:math/1304.6910) will be picked up and displayed on the corresponding article page, which looks exactly like the arxiv page plus comments. For example, here are some comments about a paper on Graham's number: https://selectedpapers.net/arxiv/1304.6910 Here's the documentation for the project: http://docs.selectedpapers.net/intro.html http://about.eptcs.org/ is an open-access journal that is implemented entirely as an arxiv overlay. Terrence Tao and Timothy Gowers (Fields medalists) are working with http://episciences.org/ to set up a platform that makes it easy to start arxiv overlays. On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> wrote:
Message: 7 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:41:46 +0200 From: Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] zeta(5) -- and all zeta(odd) -- irrational??? Message-ID: <20131022144146.GB19908@jjj.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: http://oeis.org/A013663
In a widely distributed May 2011 email, Wadim Zudilin gave a rebuttal to v1 of Kim's 2011 preprint: "The mistake (unfixable) is on p. 6, line after eq. (3.3). 'Without loss of generality' can be shown to work only for a finite set of n_k's; as the n_k are sufficiently large (and N is fixed), the inequality for epsilon is false." In a May 2013 email, Zudilin extended his rebuttal to cover v2, concluding that Kim's argument "implies that at least one of zeta(2), zeta(3), zeta(4) and zeta(5) is irrational, which is trivial." - Jonathan Sondow, May 06 2013
--yeah, I thought it had to be bullshit. But the thing is, no retraction has been posted even 2 years later, and not only that, if the ArXiv had a commenting facility, this could have been commented by somebody besides the uncooperative author, but no.
In short: THE ARXIV SUCKS.
I have complained to them for 10-20 years they needed to add commenting and rating, and they always to me to go chew a log. They have the capability to make this have far better refereeing than any journal has ever had, but instead chose intentionally to make it have no refereeing. It is absurd. I think this is an intentional conspiracy to support obsolete ultra-expensive journals, supported by big money and big egos -- what is actually useful for humanity be damned. They have lost 20 years for all of humanity by their idiocy.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
I don't agree. The arXiv is what it is -- basically an alternative to the role that sending out preprints by postal mail played some years ago: You are staking your claim to your results, at the risk of making a fool of yourself -- a long-honored tradition in scientific papers. It can and in fact will be improved when various commenting systems are put in place. --Dan On 2013-10-22, at 7:52 AM, Warren D Smith wrote:
In short: THE ARXIV SUCKS.
I agree with mr. Asimov, the arxiv is 1 alternative to @#$@#@!#$! springer and co. they charge 35 euros or 50 dollars US for 1 article. they are not the only ones, google is part of it as well for well known works, : take 1 example : Les misérables of Victor Hugo , as far as I know this document is public domain, you can find it in many languages for free. But if you go to 'google play' you have to pay 8 dollars up to 11 dollars for it. .... this is now new : a certain Andrew Odlyzko wrote (in 1995), a couple of articles about this situation of the academic publishing system and came to the conclusion that it would eventualy collapse. At the least, arxiv is almost presque sérieux, almost rigorous, there are others which I agree are questionable. I think they are copies of the archive system they have and that's all there is. One other example : /Titchmarsh/, E. C, wrote one book in the 30's about the zeta function, considered to be : public domain, you can find a copy at Archive.org for FREE (or on my own web site at http://www.plouffe.fr/simon/math/) nevertheless, it is 8.00 dollars at books google and 98 EUROS at amazon.com , and in UK : 87 pounds, this is 150 dollars US ?... http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198533696.do#.Uma7mBD6RRc I am sorry but this SUCKS, this is my opinion, the whole system of copyrights is SNAFU, even FUBAR, Simon Plouffe
* Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> [Oct 22. 2013 20:03]:
[...]
In short: THE ARXIV SUCKS.
Pretty please: NO. (see follow-up messages posted)
I have complained to them for 10-20 years they needed to add commenting and rating, and they always to me to go chew a log. They have the capability to make this have far better refereeing than any journal has ever had, but instead chose intentionally to make it have no refereeing. It is absurd. I think this is an intentional conspiracy to support obsolete ultra-expensive journals, supported by big money and big egos -- what is actually useful for humanity be damned. They have lost 20 years for all of humanity by their idiocy.
I am myself on the receiving end on overly seeing the bad side of things... you seem to do worse than me, now _that_ is one serious accomplishment! Speculation on why they didn't do what you suggested: can of worms, lack of resources, [here be your ad]. Best, jj
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
I am also a great fan of the arXiv. It is the best thing around for getting papers. Everyone should put their papers on the arXiv as well as publishing in a journal or conference proceedings. Who can argue with that? If the paper is on the arXiv, anyone can read it. If it is published by Springer, say, no one can read it. I use Google Scholar a lot: when you search there for a paper, they will sometimes tell you where you can find a pdf file. Google Books is also really annoying. They have scanned in many old books - but they won't let you see them in full, only selected pages. That is something that definitely needs changing. On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> wrote:
* Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> [Oct 22. 2013 20:03]:
[...]
In short: THE ARXIV SUCKS.
Pretty please: NO. (see follow-up messages posted)
I have complained to them for 10-20 years they needed to add commenting and rating, and they always to me to go chew a log. They have the capability to make this have far better refereeing than any journal has ever had, but instead chose intentionally to make it have no refereeing. It is absurd. I think this is an intentional conspiracy to support obsolete ultra-expensive journals, supported by big money and big egos -- what is actually useful for humanity be damned. They have lost 20 years for all of humanity by their idiocy.
I am myself on the receiving end on overly seeing the bad side of things... you seem to do worse than me, now _that_ is one serious accomplishment!
Speculation on why they didn't do what you suggested: can of worms, lack of resources, [here be your ad].
Best, jj
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Dear Friends, I have now retired from AT&T. New coordinates: Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation 11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA. Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com Email: njasloane@gmail.com
The fact that Google Books exists at all is a miracle. They've put a LOT of money into developing efficient book scanning and even more into defending themselves against lawsuits over the results. Journals make so much money from university libraries and their exploitative bundling schemes that they don't care whether Google indexes them or not. Therefore, Google has no leverage over them to get them to open up electronic access. Therefore Google Scholar is only useful when you have access to papers through a university. On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Neil Sloane <njasloane@gmail.com> wrote:
I am also a great fan of the arXiv. It is the best thing around for getting papers. Everyone should put their papers on the arXiv as well as publishing in a journal or conference proceedings.
Who can argue with that? If the paper is on the arXiv, anyone can read it. If it is published by Springer, say, no one can read it.
I use Google Scholar a lot: when you search there for a paper, they will sometimes tell you where you can find a pdf file.
Google Books is also really annoying. They have scanned in many old books - but they won't let you see them in full, only selected pages. That is something that definitely needs changing.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> wrote:
* Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> [Oct 22. 2013 20:03]:
[...]
In short: THE ARXIV SUCKS.
Pretty please: NO. (see follow-up messages posted)
I have complained to them for 10-20 years they needed to add commenting and rating, and they always to me to go chew a log. They have the capability to make this have far better refereeing than any journal has ever had, but instead chose intentionally to make it have no refereeing. It is absurd. I think this is an intentional conspiracy to support obsolete ultra-expensive journals, supported by big money and big egos -- what is actually useful for humanity be damned. They have lost 20 years for all of humanity by their idiocy.
I am myself on the receiving end on overly seeing the bad side of things... you seem to do worse than me, now _that_ is one serious accomplishment!
Speculation on why they didn't do what you suggested: can of worms, lack of resources, [here be your ad].
Best, jj
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Dear Friends, I have now retired from AT&T. New coordinates:
Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation 11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA. Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com Email: njasloane@gmail.com _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
When you find a paper available in a journal (and not in the arXiv), it's often also available for free at the author's professional website. --Dan On 2013-10-22, at 11:56 AM, Mike Stay wrote:
Journals make so much money from university libraries and their exploitative bundling schemes that they don't care whether Google indexes them or not. Therefore, Google has no leverage over them to get them to open up electronic access. Therefore Google Scholar is only useful when you have access to papers through a university.
participants (7)
-
Dan Asimov -
Eugene Salamin -
Joerg Arndt -
Mike Stay -
Neil Sloane -
Simon Plouffe -
Warren D Smith