Talk:Florentin Smarandache

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 14, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Florentin Smarandache article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.


Archive
Archives
  1. Antiquity – Jun 2005

Contents


[edit] CIA will morally and physically kill this guy in a set-up accident

CIA does not like people having independent ideas.

172.197.20.68 (talk · contribs) (the ipt.aol.com anon; this machine may be geolocated near Rowland Heights, CA)

Delete this page... too much confusion!!!
83.237.51.89 (talk · contribs) (the mtu-net.ru anon; geolocated near Moscow)
Not likely!! we're too busy working on killing more important muppets.
MIB II
(We got Henson - Smarandache is a minor muppet, so he's safe for now...)
202.74.220.250 (talk · contribs) (the woosh.co.nz anon; geolocated near Auckland)

Not to belittle whoever wrote the comment, but I don't think anyone's works not turning up at a university library is any indication of whether or not they are well known or accepted. For example, I just did a quick check at our university, and it doesn't have Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, and I wonder how many people truly would not have heard of that work.

Oh, and I just thought of something as well. Not directly relevant, but it was just something that came to mind, perhaps fear of comments like those expressed on this talk page was one of the reasons why Fermat believed that anything he wrote of any interest to anyone else should have been torn up.

Also, I would like the point out the irony in

Okay. But the text you were editing was still part of my message, and was described therein as the text I'd removed. If you changed it, it would no longer have been the text I'd removed, and so my message would have become false. You see my logic, yes? :) -- Oliver P. 10:18 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

as we are talking about an individual (FS) who supposed worked in the field of fuzzy logic.

And lastly, as lots of people seem to read this page. I would like to plug Galois. Who has not nearly enough written about him.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.22 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Mergers

I have just merged a number of stubs with this article, by pasting them into new sections. Cleanup and neutralization is still needed. See User:Smarandache fan for long-standing problems involving self-promotion by Smarandache at WP. ---CH 06:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The guy who merged this article with stubs might be a suck-puppet or I am wrong?
Let's vote for delletion.I vote yes.
Yosuf
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.251.90 (talk • contribs) (PT. TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA in Jakarta)

222.124.251.90, I am the "guy" who carried out the merger, as you can see from the signed comment above and also from the history page. AFAIK, no-one else has ever suggested that I am a sockpuppet of Smarandache or anyone else, and I probably shouldn't dignify this with a response, but just for the record: no, I am not a sockpuppet for any user.

As for the proposal to delete the article, there is a definite process for proposing deletion. Speaking as an experienced Wikipedian, I actually would not support that, even though I don't think Smarandache's "achievements" make him notable. The reason is that someone (apparently FS himself) has spammed stuff about Smarandache into many places in the WP, and we would need to remove all of that. Otherwise removing this article would leave WP readers wondering if FS stuff they encounter elsewhere in WP (or elsewhere on the web) is legitimate with no recourse but doing their own research.---CH 18:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Smarandache hypothesis"?

WHere did this "Smarandache hypothesis" come from? Among other things, it directly contradicts the no-communication theorem.--CSTAR 07:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Smarandache seems to enjoy "spoofing" both art and science/math. I think we have here an American (Balkan?) counterpart of the Bogdanov affair---CH 02:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't think Smarandache matches the panache of the Bogdanovs. I located the reference for Smarandache hypothesis. Pretty uninspiring. --CSTAR 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Why all this mess ?"

Smarandache seems to be a crank with a PhD. Why is there so many noise about him ? How did he got famous ? Has he any important, contributions to mathematics (it seems that loops are attributed to him) ? It appears to me that he mostly defined new terms without taking time to [b]prove[/b] anything of interest ! (And this is crankish mathematics unfortunately)

--Maks

213.76.103.102 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (the cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl anon near Warsaw)

"How did he get famous?" He's not famous. If you mean: "how did he get a WP bio?" that most likely answer is that he wrote it himself. Welcome to Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit :-/
---CH 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
But seriously, a few years ago, Smarandache seems to have gone on a self-promotion rampage, in which he apparently created many articles here about his own alleged achievements (many of his claims are quite bizzare), and he also spammed various other publically editable forums. The goal seems to have been to perpetrate some kind of massive hoax as a kind of performance art. Not the kind of thing one would expect from a university professor, but given how many university professors there are in the world, it's not surprising that some of them behave pretty oddly at times. ---CH 08:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. This entry on Wikipedia is in many foreign languages. Are you claiming that he has been self-promoting in all of these languages? --- Logicker (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of them, perhaps. It seems he speaks (or at least, as written papers in) a number of languages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICM Berkeley 1986

The head of mathematics at Increst in 1986 was Ceaucescu's daughter Zoia and only one official representative, now living in the USA, was allowed to attend the ICM in Berkeley. At that time there was a general veto on foreign trips for all Roumanian mathematicians. It seems quite unlikely that Smarandache, a mathematical non-entity, would have ever been seriously considered for a visa. --Mathsci 11:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunately undocumented and very biased

It happened that I read this site wich is unfortunately abondant in undocumented and biased ideas; (1) allexperts.com has nothing to do with Smarandache, please ckeck it; (2) neither addall.com, there is unfortunately much exageration; (3) American Res. Press is neither a vanity press, I published myself a book and did not paid anything neither is it related to smarandache, this is just a specualtion; (4) International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics is a printed journal, not online and reviewed by important indexing journals; (5) Progress is Physics is not a crank journal since many university professors and researchers from famous institutions contributed to it, yet it accepts alternative physics; (5) I see no justification of citing S. Crothers's letter herein since it is out of subject; (6) a negative citation was included in the page to a book review but none from hundreds of positive book reviews, hence unfortunately it is biased; (7) what's wrong if some people wrote about or contributed with FS? why they can or may write about others but are prohibited to write about some; (8) I saw so many other biographies of people I never heard and I did not see any accomplishment and I wondered how they got in wikipedia. I hope you don't delete this comment because it reveals some incorect information, don't say i am smarandache or any fun since i dared to tell the truth. Sure you're free to write anything, but the truth should not be supressed. Charlie

I removed undocumented info according with the above remarks.
I observed that all positive info about Smarandache is deleted, for example my previous comments.
The website of Americ. Research Press in broken, so I deleted the last link.
It is false that Smarandache published only in one publishing house, he did in about 30, so I mentioned them in the page in order to eliminate any confusion and for the sake of the truth as it is sad above.
The big confusion was that American Press was his DISTRIBUTOR not publisher in US, please see his Romanian books, all of them were published of course in Romania not in America.
I added the fact that many of Smarandache's 75 book have been positively reviewed, I read good reviews in Romanian journals. Sure, I understand you don't speak Romanian. I did that since somebody added a negative quatation only, but no positive one according to NPOV.
FYI Progress in Physics is a printed journal and EBSCO, Mumbai Nuclear Center, CERN subscribe and receive it according to the editor in Chief. It is also peer-reveiewed. I deleted the passage on Mr. Crothers since it is not the case. If somebody hates him as well, that person may start another hatred page now about Mr. C., but I hope not.
I left negative things: about leaving his country, about blacklistings - but here also it was a mistake in the previous version since many of Smarandache's papers and books have been reveiewed by Mathematical reviews, if you do a search you see that, but not all of them have been reviewed, so I fixed that add "not all of them" have been reviewed.
I left Smarandache functions although it is not his most important creation, it is a marginal one. In science it happens that more people independtly discover the same thing. For example, Stefan Odobleja invented cybernetics before Norbert Wiener, so please write that in Wiener's page too.
I agree with you that he is an incomod person that argues with everybody even with his friends, but we have to evaluate his imense oeuvre.
Since it is too much hatred and defamation in this page it is very hard to fix everything.

Marian from Craiova


I checked all the articles listed by Mathematical Reviews and verified the statement I made. Only joint articles on mathematical economics and statistics seem to have been reviewed (as opposed to just listed) Progress in Physics has published a number of papers by authors blacklisted by the Cornell Archive, for example Carlos Castro and Mr. Crothers. These authors have themselves placed testimonies on the web concerning their blacklisting. I do not understand the term "alternative physics" that you have used. Why have you used this term and how does "alternative physics" differ from physics? --Mathsci 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGAINST BLACKLISTING

I am a contributor to the Progress in Physics journal and I read about this journal in this page but I completely disagree with people who undocumentedly try to blame it. It is listed and reviewed by DOAJ at Lund University, Sweden, http://www.doaj.org/ as well. Its editor in chief wrote a letter about the freedom of science. This journal was started because many scientists, including a Nobel laureate! Brian Josephson (1973), were blacklisted by arXiv, AMS, “Mathematical Reviews,” etc. Their articles and books were deleted from arXiv, not reviewed if published, not even listed, etc.

I answer for 'alternative physics' which means to allow criticism to the main stream physics ideas and to also allow ideas, theories different from the main stream ones and to allow new interpretations, etc. to be exposed, which I find normal for the seek of the science freedom. Sure, everything has to be justified, proven, motivated.

As you know many theories in theoretical physics are not proven, even main stream’s theories, even string’s theory is not proven. But some people got high positions in government, in scientific grants (NSF, Sloan foundation, etc.), administration, etc. and they suppress ideas different from theirs. If you criticize string theory or relativity theory you’re blacklisted and anything you produce is prohibited, blamed, not reviewed, rejected by publications, your job applications rejected, etc. Is that correct? I say no. Sure, now the censorship is more refined, complex, using other pretexts to defaming someone, to stigmatize some one as crank because of thinking differently or because people being jealous on his/her work, etc. Phrase as “it is probably” used by somebody before herein shows SPECULATION, this should not occur.

Blacklisting should NOT occur in a so called democratic country as America, specially against scientists because they have different ideas.

Florentine has 79 articles and books in arXiv http://xxx.lanl.gov/multi?group=math&%2Ffind=Search but not allowed to the write subject classification except those of Artificial Intelligence.

There are articles/books of his reviewed by AMS, but, of course, not all of them. AMS in my opinion is biased Being reviewed or not by some journal does not mean much, since many journals or databases are biased or have sympathies or antipathies for some people or directions of research.

He has 86 articles/books cited and many reviewed in Zentralblatt fur Mathematics in Germany: http://zb.msri.org/ZMATH/ and 250 articles/books about his work (do a search for Title: Smarandache). Do the same search in AMS database: 362 articles/books, thus many people were interested in his work. Sure some people may like, others may not like, and the third category would not care (actually this is just his neutrosophic logic based on three components). But is it somebody liked by anyone? I dough it.

Also reviewed by Referativnyi Zhurnal (Russia), Indian Science Abstracts, etc.

Look at this page, an unknown Romanian writer, but she is okay in wikipedia because she maybe has some wikipedian friends or she put this entry herself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Liliana_Popescu while against this man there is a lot of insults, false accusations, biased ideas, positive things on him are deleted, unrepresentative work mentioned, mystified truth; some of his enemies herein were really MASTERS OF DECEPTION. His most representative work is in algebraic structures, non-euclidean geometry, multiple-valued logic, and specially information fusion (Marian mentioned that FS was invited and sponsored to lecture at the University of Berkeley, NASA and NATO, but this was deleted; I did a search on NASA Smarandache and then NATO Smarandache; plz don’t say those sites were written by Florentine himself as his enemies say about anything positive on him since he has no access to NASA or NATO sites).

As I read before that positive contributions are deleted plz be fear and keep my contribution too, since you can verify it by going to those sites. But if this is an encyclopedia of slandering as I heard in the news about somebody being falsely accused in wikipedia of having assassinated Kennedy, then sure you can write that Snarandache asassinated whoever you want. An open encyclopedia is good, everybody can contribute, but the side effect is that enemies of a person can easily slander that person too. Hence accusations should be proven. Allan-29 September 2006

I think it is intellectually lazy to write that Mathematical Reviews of the AMS is biased. The reviewers are mathematicians from all over the world who give their services without being paid. Mathematical Reviews is an extremely useful resource, particularly now that it is available to subscribers on the web as mathscinet. The impression given by mathscinet is that Florentin Smarandache's mathematical contributions are minor and marginal. From private enquiries, he does not seem to be known to top Roumanian mathematicians formerly in INCREST. Thus it seems that what is in doubt are the "facts" presented in the wikipedia article rather than the credibility of Mathematical Reviews. If we are to believe the wikipedia article, Smarandache is one of the most creative mathematicians in the world: why then is he at a Community College in New Mexico? As for the journal "Progress in Physics", despite the fact that a printed version is available, many major universities do not subscribe to this journal. With editors or authors like Stephen J Crothers and Carlos Castro, who from their own websites seem to be black-listed fringe physicists, this is not entirely surprising. --81.101.143.112 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
wow! And who are you 81.101.143.112? Everyone being anonymous may speak about how great are the top rated journals, but I am interested if you will be bold enough to reveal your true name?! I may as well log anonymously and speak everything, basicly anonymous posts are of no profit for anybody. If you are not "lazy" then do open an account before you post. Danko Georgiev MD 06:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact I posted from this IP. From your user page it does not seem clear what qualifies you to make remarks about articles in mathematical journals. Is it perhaps because you have had articles published in "Progress in Physics"? --Mathsci 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western boycott against Third Word countries and Muslim mathematicians

Reading this page I acknowledge that Mathematical Reviews, AMS, ISI are the most discriminatory and biased "scientific" organizations in the world.

What User 81.101.143.112 misses is that many articles and books ARE SIMPLY NOT SENT by Mathematical Reviews to be reviewed to the mathematicians all over the world. Not only Smarandace is blacklisted but many others who do not follow American or Western research directions or dare to critize these research directions are also blacklisted and boycotted and slandered, or people belonging to countries not liked by Westerners (Muslim countries, Third World countries which are depreaciated by developed countries, etc.). Look at the constant insult done against Muslim prophet Mohammad by Westerners under so called "freedom of speach," but this actually "freedom of insult"! So, no surprize that Smarandace is insulted and falsy accused.

The anonymous comments above are unsupported and I believe quite untrue. A wikipedia biography cannot be based on wild conspiracy theories. It must be based on verifiable sources within the public domain. Besides, in this case most of Smarandache's contributions in pure mathematics are listed in Mathematical Reviews without comment, so there is no suggestion of censorship. I think the mathematical establishment is careful to avoid bias on the basis of race or religion. For example the next International Congress of Mathematicians will be held in 2010 in India, which is often described as a developing country. 81.101.143.112 07:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This article is unassessed

The links to Mr. Smarandache's "artistic work" point only to obscure web-sites generally hosting weak artistic attempts. I think that this does not suffice for one to be called "philosopher" or "poet" (I invite the Romanian language speakers here to read his sparkling volume of poetry). Some of my former high school peers have published more mature texts (in real books, that is), and they didn't transform into bragsters creating their own Wikipedia page.

I suggest to Mr. Smarandache to stop with this non-sense and better focus on the area that he is best suited for. Azotlichid 12:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A poet is one who writes poems. Smarandache is a published poet. WP:OR requires that we don't give our own opinions on the quality of poetry, but instead reference published reviews.--Prosfilaes 11:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-publishing IS PERSONAL ATTACK

I am not sure what happen in the years back in time - it seems to me Smarandache has been accused in many things in Wikipedia, however INFORMATION in Wikipedia should be reliable. It is non-sense one to put links where I have to pay money to check for the correctness of the information. I have removed information that is not verifiable. IT IS NONSENSE to pay in order to check for bibliographic data. One can simply use Google, and check the published books by Smarandache - most books are available for free online, and the fact that they can be purchased by print on demand service as paper copy is not relevant to accuse one for self-publishing. As far as I can see all books have publisher and ISBN number. Not everybody publishes in Elsevier, Blackwell or Springer, but not everyone wants to make MONEY from his books. Danko Georgiev MD 03:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia source material is not required to be free of charge. Otherwise, one could not cite textbooks. Phiwum 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Phiwum, I did NOT mean academic journals and textbooks should be free. I meant that INTERNET COMMERCIAL SITE for supplying bibliographic information is not reliable. One may browse the Amazon, and other book sellers for free! So internet commercial site for bibliographic info is bad source to be quoted. Also, all internet sites say they are No.1 in the provided by them service. Do you know any web commercial site to say he is No.2??? Therefore the authority of such commercial sites and their importance is highly dubious. Danko Georgiev MD 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DELETION

Hi! My name is Florentin Smarandache and I read this page. It is very biased against me and no positive thing is allowed. International conferences, NASA sponsoring, U. Berkeley, etc. cited in the site by colleagues were all deleted from the site.

There are many exaggerations about me and many of my enemies slander me by any mean under cover of anonymity, so they can use any fabricated insults.

Looking through the history of this page: I saw that I was named “killer” (of having killed Ceausescu!), accused of having published in a few nonimportant journals (I then counted them: about 150 journals, and I am even editor-in-chief and associate editor for some international journals), in a few publishing houses (I published in more than 30 publ. hse.), that the books were self-published (how come to self-publish in other people’s publ. hse.?), other said that Moldova State University is fake (does not exist!), someone called me “suicide bomber”, etc. Maybe it is not a serious page… Surely, some people can lie anything, but the truth will finally prevail.

If any of my students defended me or other researchers did, they were immediately labeled as sock-puppets, smarandache funs, etc. or saying that it is myself doing “self-promotion”! I wouldn’t mind being myself and having written hundreds of books and thousands of articles all by myself, but that would be impossible.
This is a totalitarian procedure to discourage anybody who dares to say a good idea on me.
People who did not read my books accuse them of being junk or false, etc. Then, how come many online books of mine get each of them thousands of hits per month, every month, according to the site statistics?
Sure, I don’t deserve to be in your wikipedia.

So yes, I support the DELETION of this page. Thank you for your attention.

Kindly, Florentin Smarandache —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsmarandache (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A nonsense

It is a nonsense to consider that I self-published hundreds of books in many countries and in various languages from a simple salary, besides paying the normal life expenses, supporting my children in universities, sending money back home to relatives in Romania, etc.

I came in America as a poor emigrant after waiting two years in a refugee camp in Turkey. So, where could I have that much money to self-publish hundreds of books (see them in various site)? Some people are blinded by hatred.
I hope my foes would be happy after deleting this site.
Florentin Smarandache Fsmarandache (talk)
Dear prof. Smarandache, I do believe that a page on your personality should be kept in Wikipedia, because there are some other entries in Number theory that bear your name, see Smarandache function and also Smarandache constant in generalized Andrica's conjecture. I believe deletion is not the best way, better your page be updated with relevant info. Danko Georgiev MD 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The confusion of people who did not read any of Smarandache's books is that they know from his oeuvre only his elementary number theory: functions, sequences, numbers, problems, that he did when he was in elementary and high school. But they know nothing about his research in Algebraic Structures, Non-Euclidean Geometry, neutrosophic logic/set, information fusion used in cybernetics, etc. I believe that the generalization of fuzzy set idea and the works in Information Fusion should be even covered in separate entries. Well, Wikipedia is an open effort and everybody contributes according to his own skills. I use mainly Mathematica so if I am able to compute some relevant plots I will be glad to release them with GFDL, I already have released the Andrica function Danko Georgiev MD 05:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. I have seen that the cherished Wolfram's MathWorld by some of the mathematicians wikipedians, is not flawless after all - there is an error discovered by me when typesetting the s11 constant - it seemed to me that after one proves s10, then s11 will be self-evident! Of course, after checking the correct source, I have seen that MathWorld contains error and s11 is defined in different way. So this is example why Wikipedia has the chance to be better than alternative encyclopedias, everyone can contrubute even for noticing small errors. Danko Georgiev MD 05:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrosophy

For a moment please forget about Smarandache as a person and just look at wether neutrosophy could be useful or not. However controversial Smarandache may be in a world populated with mostly well aligned (boring) people, let's have a look at this ad rem rather than ad hominem.

There is a good introduction into various practical applications of FCMs (Fuzzy Cognitive Maps): W. B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Florentin Smarandache: Fuzzy Cognitive Maps and Neutrosophic Cognitive Maps, 2003, ISBN: 1931233764. The book unfortunately is not well written, and I don't find NCMs used in real world applications. Nevertheless, FCMs and NCMs make sense:

  • In FCMs the relations between nodes can be {strenghthening,neutral,weakening}.
  • In NCMs the relations between nodes can be {strenghthening,neutral,weakening,indetermined}

This really isn't revolutionary: Far before Smarandache called neutrosophy "neutrosophy", people were asked in questionaires to grade statements between "strongly disagree", "zero" and "strongly agree". If those statements describe causal relations between some nodes, then you can process these questionaires with FCMs. Other questionaires offered grading between "strongly disagree", "zero" and "strongly agree" as well as alternatively checking "I don't know". Here you can use NCMs, wether you call it "Neutrosophy" or whatsoever.

Fuzzy relations existed long before fuzzy logic offered tools to deal with them and neutrosophic relations existed long before neutrosophic logic offered tools to deal with them. People in court juries processed fuzzy data neutrosophically without knowing and admitting what they did already since many centuries. Consciously applied neutrosophic logic (and fuzzy logic as a subsystem of neutrosophic logic (and dialectics as a subsystem of fuzzy logic)) makes the aggregation of fuzzy inputs into crisp outputs more transparent.

Allowing fuzzy statements seems to make people uneasy who need the safety of a crisp world. However, too often "not-knowing-something" is misused to give safety to people, who are too weak to make crisp decisions. And on the other hand: The Bush administration needed confusion and not clearly knowing about Irak having no weapons of mass destruction to make the crisp decision to invade Irak. Evaluating all elements of this fatal project is impossible if you want to build your analysis on crisp facts only. However, once you have tools which generate crisp evaluations from fuzzy observations, it gets more difficult for politicians to hide behind confusion (William R. Taylor: Lethal American Confusion - How Bush and the Pacifists Each Failed in the War on Terrorism, 2006, ISBN 0595406556 (FCM application in chapter 14)). FCMs and NCMs allow to keep the facts fuzzy and still to come to conclusions. These tools parametrize confusion and thus allow us to deal with it. With these tools we leave limits of dialectics behind us.

If you don't like neutrosophy, just bash neutrosophy. Bashing Smarandache is too cheap. 84.150.98.51 00:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about Smarandache, not neutrosophy. Besides, you seem to be arguing that neutrosophy might be very useful, but this is not a judgment relevant for WP. We don't need to guess which bits of research may become important in the future. We may wait for signs of widespread adoption, publications, etc.
So let us leave original applications of NSF to Bush out of the discussion and wait patiently for published research on this field. Phiwum 13:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear All, I feel exhausted to argue with PSEUDO-encyclopaedic editors. All such destructors say "this is not suitable for Wikipedia". This is nothing but destructive attitude in disguise -- if you cannot contribute, at least do not delete information. I personally release a lot of stuff for free in Wikipedia, on everything I am in touch with. Encyclopedia is called such mainly because you can search and find what you need. So it is better is there is entry on neutrosophy saying "this is xxxx" compared to lack of any entry. Let us look on things in constructive way. I support creation of entries concerning Smarandache's work. Indeed if one is interested in AI, he will see that some of the AI theses escape Godelian arguments by embracing inconsistencies. So studying of inconsistent or paraconsistent logic is itself something that deserves to be in Wikipedia. Danko Georgiev MD 06:55, 4 June 2007(UTC)
I did not advocate removing any sourced information on this topic. I merely pointed out that WP should cite sources that show neutrosophy is useful, rather than providing original arguments for its utility. For what it's worth, I have some passing familiarity with fuzzy logic and I have never come across neutrosophy. But that is slim evidence that the field is inconsequential. Phiwum 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. I don't see why then created entries on Smarandache constant, Smarandache function and Florentin Smarandache should be merged. Indeed Smarandache article has enough BANNERS so far, the other entries are written by me, and present rather well-writen math sketch of the math objects. Well, I have just inserted the fact that Sm function is "rediscovered" by Smarandache in 1980's, and that indeed some work on it appeared as early as 1883-1918. Concerning Dezert-Smarandache theory in information fusion and neutrosophy as generalization of fuzzy sets I think they fully deserve their own entries. Currently they redirect to Florentin Smarandache, where almost NOTHING is said on these topics!!! What use of such encyclopedic entry? Unfortunatelly prof. Smarandache was blocked from editting in Wikipedia, as I see from the general attidtude in the talk page. Also many times, I was suspected as Sm sockpuppet. Currently I work on quantum logic which is variation of infinite valued non-Aristotelian logic, i.e. fuzzy logic, and maybe in the future I can input some text on neutrosophy, which seems to be generalization of fuzzy logic. Before I do that I have to open entry on Smarandache n-structure, basic concept that should be understood and seems to be connected with most Smarandache's work. I will appreaciate collaboration in this activity of mine. Danko Georgiev MD 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The Smarandache constant does not seem particularly notable to me. This is why I voted for merge. As far as Neutrosophy, I can find very little evidence that there is much work on this outside of American Research Press, Erhus University Press and UNM affiliated publications. Consequently, this does not look particularly notable to me. In comparison, Dana Scott is a very notable logician who has spent considerable time on equilogical spaces. This concept is published reasonably widely in well-regarded journals, but there is no page on equilogical spaces—and rightly so. Why should every odd mathematical conjecture or definition demand a wikipedia entry? Phiwum 03:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Because this is for benefit of humanity, and everybody should contribute according to his own skills. Before I search anywhere else, I check Wikipedia for topics where I have little or no knowledge. Currently I am in Japan so I contribute on various topics about Japanese culture and traditions. For mathematicians should be the same, they should input what they are in touch with. ALSO if some math concept is already defined and has author, if it is in Wikipedia at least noone will name the same concept after him. I GUESS IF THERE WERE WIKIPEDIA SINCE 1883, the Smarandache function would have been called Lucas function (now is too late). I still believe that "notability" criterion is just "destructive mood in disguise". See my user page for comment on "notability" and "vandalism". Danko Georgiev MD 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It was never the aim of Wikipedia to include an article for every concept that has been named. The fact is that if someone searches WP for neutrosophy, they get a short description on the Smarandache page. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Phiwum 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that if one does GOOGLE search will surely find much more on neutrosophy, than the SEVERELY CENSORED two-line sentence on neutrosophy in Wikipedia. BTW, I have tried to add some notes on Smarandache's philosophy, and paradoxism but MathSci reverted twice my edits, with label "do not post non-biographical info". SO WHAT? First we merge work of Smarandache with his biography article, then DELETE the work, because it is "non-biographical"??? This is nonsense. I suggest editors that have personal anti-Smarandachean attitude to cease reverting what others have inputted. I will repeat for nth time: enough destructions, please be more constructive. Danko Georgiev MD 12:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand Mathsci's edits. I have reverted them and perhaps we can discuss his reasoning here. Phiwum 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MathSci's recent edits

Recently, Mathsci reverted some of Danko's contributions regarding Smarandache's research. Certainly, the contributions need citations, but aside from that I don't understand his reasoning. He said that it should be removed because it is non-biographical, but we have recently merged Smarandache constant into this article as the most appropriate place to discuss such non-biographical material. What gives? Phiwum 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I have inserted two relevant references, in the book by F. Vasiliu one may find the history of Smarandache's dissident in 1983, with publishing of 3 books with poems, eventually he had to leave Romania. I still remember the bloody events in Romania in 1989 that ended with the fall of Nicolae Ceauşescu and communist regime. All this is history, and one should not think of Smarandache only as mathematician. He is also philosopher and his stand against Ceauşescu regime seems to be notable enough fact. Danko Georgiev MD 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
On this archived page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florentin_Smarandache&oldid=136278679 Georgiev inserted an irrelevant graph-poem without references. My objection is that Georgiev has been gradually adding spurious non-biographical material to an already flimsy biographical stub. Smarandache deserves a biographical stub because he is a notable eccentric, rather than because of any special distinction as an academic or political dissident. Web biographies or self-published books and electronic journals do not alter these facts. Presumably his position in Gallup properly reflects his achievements. The University of New Mexico-Gallup is a branch campus of the University of New Mexico and operates as a community college. It serves the residents of the region, a large proportion of whom are Native Americans, and is located in the middle of the New Mexico Desert. Community teaching is the main priority there: http://www.gallup.unm.edu/aboutus/snapshot --Mathsci 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I also thought the graph poem is possibly spoiling the article, and I think the article looks better without it. However if the graph-poem was the problem you could delete it, and NOT BLANKING EVERYTHING I HAVE EDITTED. p.s. there was reference for the graph-poem, you should check the ref list "Nonpoems" by F. Smarandache. So again your reasoning for deletion is ridiculous, there was ref, so the paragraph was well sourced. I agree that the graph-poem looks ugly, but I did not agree with your lies. Danko Georgiev MD 01:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you write the graph-poem? --Mathsci 06:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it was example of poem from page 19 of NonPoems, however now I think the graph-poem is not suitable example - it is shocking, but one must look at the book, and read the original book in order to understand what the aim of the author is. And it is stated in the intro "Better a book of blank pages, instead of a book that says nothing" (possibly paraphrased by me) Danko Georgiev MD 07:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Banners

Please discuss the removal of banners here before making claims that the article does not require further clean up, is well-sourced and objective. It is not appropriate for Smarandache supporters like Georgiev, with vested interests in promoting Smarandache, to remove banners concerning the neutrality, accuracy and reliability of the article. As long as flimsy claims like those concerning the Berkeley ICM remain all three banners will apply. No evidence has been provided that Smarandache had any recognition as a mathematician in Roumania prior to his defection; indeed my mathematical colleagues, previously in the mathematics institute INCREST headed by Zoia Ceaucescu, have not confirmed Smarandache's claims. --Mathsci 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathsci, you already have shown that your are biased and to charge me in bias is extremely stupid. First, I don't play identity games like you. Second, I am not coward and I am not afraid to stand behind my posts. Third, you introduce wrong content in Wikipedia, see for comparison
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/SmarandacheConstant.html
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/GeneralizedAndricaConjecture.html
the above are entries, which are under peer-reviewing of the PlanetMath community, where over 90% of the filed corrections are immediately taken seriously by me, and entries updated accordingly. Here in Wikipedia it seems you like to vandalise, revert and spit over those who are not cowards and openly stand behind theor posts. So please discuss which one of all the banners you like? And what portion of Fl. Sm. article you dislike? Or possibly the whole Wikipedia should be according your personal taste?? And don't you ever thought that people other than you might want to have access to some more constructive information on various topics? You are "clean-up" vadal and I think there is nothing constructive that I can discuss with you. Danko Georgiev MD 06:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s ... and don't forget that when you start with "revert" if the opposite side is trying to hit you in the back, then you will in every case lose the game called "the 3 revert rule" - IF you are pro mathematician (?!) you must be able to calculate this after some sustained brain effort :-)))) Danko Georgiev MD 06:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Danko Georgiev, please stop attacking, insulting and threatening other users ("extremely stupid", "brain effort :-))))", "you like to vandalise" etc.). As for "cowards", "identity games" etc.: Anonymous and pseudonymous editing has been an established and accepted practice on Wikipedia since its founding more than six years ago. If you want to change that, you will have to start elsewhere.
I can't see the basis for your accusation that User:Mathsci has a bias against Smarandache. Quite the other way around: You seem to have published several papers in Smarandache's journal Progress in Physics, so one has to assume that your career is not entirely independent of Smarandache's reputation and that you have a vital personal interest in presenting Smarandache in a positive light in this article. Please consider following the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_avoid_COI_edits (1.). Thank you.
Regards, High on a tree 08:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is normal to use original articles as primary sources, which is exactly what I did. I question PlanetMath as a source. According to User: Danko Georgiev MD, their articles are peer-reviewed and reliable: but the PlanetMath article on Smarandache accuses Smarandache of inventing sock puppets. This is not the issue here however. A question mark still remains over Smarandache's claims about the International Congress of Mathematicians held in Berkeley in 1986 (which I in fact attended). Mathsci 19:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear High on a tree, exactly because MathSci started insulting me with questions "am I ill, or in medication" I have used some of the words quoted by you, but NOT agaisnt Mathsci, I was talking about ME - "I am not idiot" .. etc, etc. Also it seems that user Mathsci himself has complained and continues to SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION!!! The speculation about Smarandache is ridiculuous - I do PhD in molecular pharmacology, and you can check that publishing or not in physical journal has nothing to do with my career, nor is vital for me. Also the fact I work in physics in my free time, all this is for fun, and I participate in heated discussions with various PhDs in physics, but this is NOT vital neither for me, nor for my research. I am tired to be accused by vandals in false things, and one of their huge curiosity is "why I am editing in physics"?? Obviously they think that I must have PhD in physics in order to edit such topics. My reply is - I edit whatever I like, and for example when I enrich the entries on Japanese culture with info and photos nobody asks me if I have PhD to do that. Mathsci reverts my edits on entry Smarandache, and he is the guy who has problems. I think it is not acceptable for spitting over the others in the main articles, and this is what the anonymous Mathsci does. If he had exposed his name, he wouldn't be so brave to spit over Smarandache. I do NOT question the practise for anonymous editing on all topics EXCEPT BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PEOPLE!!!!!!! One cannot spit anonymously over the biography of living person. If you can suggest where i have to post my proposal for changing the Wikipedia rules, I will appreciate that. My thesis is very concrete -- biographies of living people should be immunized for malicious editing from anonymous users. Kind regards, Danko Georgiev MD 10:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not having replied earlier. I still think that publications in fields other than one's own PhD can also be relevant for one's career, so I don't follow your argument that the WP:COI concerns are "ridiculous" here.
I don't know a centralized page on the English Wikipedia specifically for discussing proposals to abolish anonymous editing and require real names from editors (on the German Wikipedia there used to be one here). Perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump is appropriate. However I think the current policy is unlikely to be changed, for example because many editors (including me) feel that is just too large an invasion of privacy if a complete protocol of activities with precise timestamps is made accessible to the whole world for decades or centuries under one's real name. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutral point of view demand that facts and opinions in articles are attributed to (non-anonymous) people or institutions, so it is not possible to "spit anonymously over the biography of living person" if these principles are respected.
Still, you might feel more at home on Citizendium [1], an alternative project to Wikipedia which requires disclosure of editor's real names and also adresses another concern which you voiced elsewhere, by aiming to give editors with demonstrated academic credentials higher priority in editing conflicts.
These remarks are a bit off-topic on this page, I would have replied on your user talk page, however I can't edit it because it has been locked after your recent indefinite ban from Wikipedia.
Regards, High on a tree 21:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question to User:Mathsci

User:Mathsci has said "The Smarandache constant x is the positive solution ..". I will appreciate if User:Mathsci can provide at least one negative solution. :-) I will give him a hint - Generalized Andrica Conjecture at PlanetMath written by me. Danko Georgiev MD 02:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question seems ill-judged and unintelligent for several reasons. Firstly there could be complex solutions. (The existence of a unique real solution between 0 and 1 is assured by the intermediate value theorem.) Secondly in the primary source (page 105 of volume 3 of Smarandache's collected papers) Smarandache himself writes
 "The equation p_{n+1}^x -p_n^x =1, where pn is the n-th prime, has a unique solution situated in between 0.5 and 1."
If you have a problem with my use of the word positive, you would also presumably have a problem with this statement by Smarandache himself; why not email him privately at Gallup to put your mind at rest? Thirdly unreliable secondary sources such as PlanetMath (often plagiarized from MathWorld) should not be used in preparing the content of a WP biography; they are fine as additional references. --Mathsci 09:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I also suspect that Danko Georgiev MD is trolling. Could he please stop wasting people's time? --Mathsci 09:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. The generalized Andrica conjecture is discussed in the PlanetMath article cited and written by User:Danko Georgiev MD. It is not a report on Smarandache's work and has not been peer-reviewed. Because of new definitions and images provided by Georgiev, it counts as original research. It is irrelevant for discussions of Smarandache's biography. Inventing or modifying secondary sources in this way seems pointless. --Mathsci 16:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgiev's definition of the Smarandache constant

Danko Georgiev MD (aka dankomed) published the following article on the Smarandache constant on PlanetMath on June 22nd 2007:

The Smarandache constant is the minimal solution xmin of the generalized Andrica equation:  p_{n+1}^{x}-p_{n}^{x}=1 where  
pn is the nth prime number. The exact value of the Smarandache constant is currently unknown, however according to the generalized Andrica conjecture 
proposed by Florentin Smarandache the value of the Smarandache constant is  x_{\min}\approx0.5671481302 ... The Smarandache constant should not be  
confused with a list of sixteen Smarandache constants  s1- s16 defined as limits of different convergent series involving the  
Smarandache function.

This article is mathematically incorrect and factually inaccurate. According to the definition of minimum in mathematics and on WP, Georgiev's xmin need not exist. Has he heard of the notion of infimum? Georgiev fails to mention that Smarandache conjectured that the infimum was attained for the prime pair (113,127), which is how the constant was calculated. The above article falls far below the standards of WP. --Mathsci 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Mathsci don't you think it is time to stop posting your personal attacks against D. Georgiev (me :-)) on Smarandache's talk page? Why don't you ask your ill-competent questions at PlanetMath?? If you read carefully, my article on PlanetMath IS EXTREMELY PRECISE!!! I have defined the function AG for x \in \mathbb{R}, because the requirement for existence of complex solutions is not necessary at first place. Simple generalized Andrica conjecture is CONJECTURE ON THE REAL SOLUTIONS, and so negative real solutions do not exist.

Also for your own information, to fill in some of the gaps of your misunderstandings, two citations from Wikipedia directly!!

The set of real numbers ordered by the usual less than (<) or greater than (>) relations is totally ordered

and

In a totally ordered set, or chain, all elements are mutually comparable, so such a set can have at most one minimal element and at most one maximal element. Then, due to mutual comparability, the minimal element will also be the least element and the maximal element will also be the greatest element. Thus in a totally ordered set we can simply use the terms minimum and maximum.

PLEASE READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN FIRST BEFORE YOU COMMENT. You already owe me a number of apologies for your previous malicious behavior. Not to mention your recent rumbling on infimum, not paying attention that I have defined x \in \mathbb{R}. And be sure in PlanetMath there are much more competent mathematicians that in Wikipedia, which Smarandache for good or bad has called "a junk". I am not sure that prof Smarandache does not have a good point in writing this. At least Wikipedia is under severe attack of anonymous vandals :-), which is not the case of PlanetMath Danko Georgiev MD 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathsci wrote: "Has he heard of the notion of infimum?" It appears from your answer that you didn't follow the link and don't know what it means. Mathsci quoted you for this definition:
The Smarandache constant is the minimal solution xmin of the generalized Andrica equation: p_{n+1}^{x}-p_{n}^{x}=1
There are infinitely many primes, so it defines the Smarandache constant as the minimal element in an infinite set of positive real numbers. But such a set does not necessarily have a minimal element, as you can read more about in infimum. Whether or not there is a minimal element in the set in the definition is unknown (as far as I know). Regarding some of the other disagreements between you and Mathsci: I have seen 3 or 4 (depending on interpretation) different definitions of the Smarandache constant at external sites. It's possible but unproven that all of them give the same value (the solution to 127^x-113^x = 1). And it's possible 1 or 2 of them is ill-defined (because they rely on an unproven assumption). It's unclear to me whether any of them is established enough to be considered the "right" definition. PrimeHunter 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear PrimeHunter, thank you very much for your post. I personally like the direct "on-topic" posting, something that User:Mathsci never does. [1] I have never said that I have provided the "correct" definition of Smarandache constant! see detailed PlanetMath discussion here] [2] I have exactly as you said that one may define Smarandache constant in many -- yet possibly inequivalent definitions IF the generalized Andrica conjecture is disproved! [3] Your comment on INFIMUM is not relevant for my definition of Smarandache constant, I have defined it clearly and concisely!!! If one proves that amongst all x, solving the generalized Andrica equation there is NO minimal x, then he will prove that Smarandache constant defined by me is NOT existent!! I see no problem at all. This is itself quite interesting math proposition, and the defined by me Smarandache constant remains "interesting". I have used the definition at PlanetMath for a single purpose -- to ensure that Smarandache constant will be interesting math object even if one disproves generalized Andrica conjecture. Example: in case with no minimal solution, Sm const will be non-existent but still interesting -- exactly like Russel's set of all sets. Even if it is mathematically non-existing object, it is of interest. Alternatively, I see nothing notable in defining the constant in the way done in Wikipedia. Yes, by definition it is existent, and it is ensured real value of it, and also it will be always "constant". But I see no merit of such definition in case if generalized Andrica conjecture (GAC) is disproved. p.s. if GAC is unprovable it is even more interesting to have my definition -- simply one can construct two different arithmetics -- one with Sm const existent by axiom, and one in which Sm const is not existent by axiom. I think I am far from layman, in which User:Mathsci has accused me numerous times. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to define something as a thing which may not exist (and not even mention that possibility). Instead you might say something like: "If a minimal solution exists then we define the Smarandache constant to be that solution". Wikipedia content including mathematical definitions should be based on reliable sources and not on what editors find most interesting. Personally, I find it more interesting to define the Smarandache constant as the infimum of the solutions (which always exists). That doesn't prevent a discussion about whether the constant is a solution. PrimeHunter 14:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear PrimeHunter, it is a matter of taste how you will define something. Definitions are just conventions, and it is futile task for one to argue on definitions. Karl Popper himself rejected to do philosophy by polemics on definitions, etc. For me, of greater interest is to know basics of mathematics, and boundaries of mathematics! You can know these boundaries ONLY by knowing math objects that can be defined, and then mathematically shown that they don't exist i.e. belong to the empty set :-) In my research I have been deeply involved in strictly defining the boundaries of science, and that is why from my own perspective "non-existent objects" are interesting. All previous comment is not to convince you to like something you don't like now, but to show you that scientists must be always ready to look the same things through someone else's perspective. So I also like you infimum definition, and the guarantee that it is always existent, but this does not have any further merit to criticize my PlanetMath entry. YES -- definitions are completely independent on any argumentation, and YES -- my definition is complete, and needs no further clarification. You say I have to point out that Sm constant might not exist! WHY?? Should I also explain all that must be known on fundamentals of mathematics. Should I also point out that if the GAC is unprovable then one can bifurcate the axiomatic systems in the way that there is one arithmetic with Sm constant, and one arithmetic without Sm constant. This is NOT NECESSARY! Any PRO mathematician should be competent of all these things, and MUST be competent to derive all these consequences by himself. IF GAC is not provable in the current axiomatizations of arithmetic, one may have bifurcations, analogously to set theories with axiom of choice like ZFC, and theories without axiom of choice by its alternative. I see the merit of my definition in the possibility that existence or non-existence of Sm constant as defined by me MIGHT BE unprovable, so it is of potentially high interest for bifurcation of axiomatics of arithmetic. I like the fact that you understand the difference between the minimal and the infimum definition, that made this discussion possible. The paper by Perez can be understood ANY way one likes, because Perez said as conjecture that both (1) Sm constant is minimal solution and (2) is solution of gen Andrica equation for n=30. Moreover no proper definition of Sm const was given. One might choose either to define the Sm const as the minimal solution, or to define as solution for n=30. But in any way this is NOT originality. Original proposal will be exactly the infimum proposal, as this is NOT ever published by Smarandache, Perez, or other person. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the other editors (other than Danko Georgiev, that is). Writing, for the purpose of simplicity, xn as the positive (or real, if you prefer) solution x of p_{n+1}^x - p_n^x = 1, then either the Smarandache constant is x30, or the constant is \inf_n {x_n} = \min \left \{x > 0 \mid \forall n . p_{n+1}^x - p_n^x \geq 1\right\} (where the latter equality is obvious, and the minimum is attained as the intersection of closed sets is closed), with the generalized Andrica conjecture being that they are the same. He hasn't made it clear which is the constant. \min_n x_n\, is just wrong, even if Smarandache wrote it that way. We don't need to repeat PlanetMath's errors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I have a very concrete question, because you used the expression *is just wrong*. Please answer the formulated question by me. First, yes, I prefer to speak of xn being real solutions, it is then easy for one to prove that 0 < xn < 1, for n>1. Therefore existence of solution xn is ensured for each n, and also it is sure that the solutions are confined. Even if there is no minimal solution, but say, as n \rightarrow \infty the x_n \rightarrow k, where k is not solution for any n and k \in [0, x_{30}) I also see no problem in the definition of Smarandache constant as minimal solution, then simply there will be no such! And did you read my notes what if generalized Andrica conjecture turns out to be unprovable/independent statement from the current axiomatization of Peano arithmetic, or let us take the stronger ZFC set theory. Then one might create bifurcation of two different arithmetics one with Sm constant, and one without Sm constant. Where do you see the problem with my thesis if GAC is undecidable proposition. And what is *just wrong*, please clarify your thesis? regards, Danko Georgiev MD 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean a subsequence of the xn? Please look up the wikipedia definition of infimum. You might also find it helpful to consult one of the many elementary freshman textbooks on calculus. --Mathsci 08:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Here for the record is a transcription of the original text of Smarandache:

 CONJECTURES WHICH GENERALIZE
 ANDRICA'S CONJECTURE
 Five conjectures on paires [sic] of consecutive primes are listed below
 with examples in each case.
 1) The equation p_{n+1}^x -p_n^x =1,            (1)
 where pn is the n-th prime, has a unique solution situated in between 0.5
 and 1. Checking the first 168 primes numbers (less than 1000), one gets
 that:
 - the maximum occurs of course for n = 1, i.e.
 3x − 2x = 1 when x = 1.
 - the minimum [sic] occurs for n = 31 [sic], i.e.
 127x − 113x = 1 when x = 0.567148... = a0.     (2)
 Thus, Andrica's Conjecture
 A_n = p_{n+1}^{1/2}-p_n^{1/2} <1 
 is generalized to
 2)  B_n= p_{n+1}^a -p_n^a <1, where a < a0.    (3)

Mathsci 08:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mathsci: I shall not discuss maths with people who don't understand anything in maths :-) Danko Georgiev MD 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
On your own admission have no formal training in mathematics. Your weakness in mathematics is apparent in your web contributions, here and elsewhere. My own advice is that, if you have the kind of difficulties you seem to have with elementary concepts in freshman calculus, you should think twice about contributing to wikipedia articles on mathematics. Mathsci 05:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's possible that Dr. Georgiev is unaware that working with "constants" that may not exist can lead to paradoxes. Hence, no modern work in mathematical logic uses constants in a context where they may not exist. (In other words, min in the definition is mathematically wrong.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I am fully aware that non-existent math objects can lead to paradoxes, but ONLY if the person is NOT aware that the object might not be existent. And this is NOT only in maths, typical example in physics is Einstein's constant (being zero) that was supposed to keep the Universe from expanding. So one can start a long philosophical discussion on "non-existent" entities, and whether they are "zero"s or NOT even zeros, because zero is mathematically consistent, while some objects are inconsistent mathematically i.e. contained in the empty set! I am not here to get involved into such discussions with people who think of themselves unbeatable in maths, or who even don't confess when they have misunderstood something, or when they made error (including overlook on nonmathematical topic). Below I post a completely messed text from the main article:

Smarandache conjectured that x is in fact the the smallest solution xn of p_{n+1}^{x_n} - p_n^{x_n} =1 as n varies, where pn is the nth prime,

The quoted text is nonsense and is inserted by User:Mathsci at this edit, because xn cannot be both xmin and be used also as general notation for varying n. Strictly speaking it is possible (to be defined this way), but then xn is not function of n, i.e. for all n the solution is the same, hence minimal and vacuously true, which can be easily checked to be mathematically false for different n. So this mess should be repaired. If you want to define the Sm constant as infimum, then you cannot anymore claim it to be solution of the generalized Andrica equation, because Sm constant can be limit, but itself may not be solution, and you have to prove Generalized Andrica Conjecture first. So wish you good luck with editting the text -- as it seems you already took the position that the definition as "minimal solution" should NOT be taken seriously just because "you are experts with PhDs", and therefore by default you are right. Nevertheless I shall point out that definition is a priori statement and hence cannot be non-sense!!! Even if I say by definition that "Santa Claus is good red nosed person living on the moon" this does not mean that I have written nonsense. It just follows that Santa Claus is "non-existent" but does NOT make the definition "obviously wrong" (Rubin's words). If one follows your extreme POV then all tail stories are "nonsense" and "wrong", and so is Russell "obviously wrong" for proposing his nonsense Russell set. p.s. And also the xmin definition is NOT Georgiev's, but one used in Perez paper, and I just defend the viewpoint that it is completely valid definition, "full of sense". Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 05:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) i

I agree with Arthur Rubin and other wikipedia editors (apart from Doctor Georgiev). Doctor Georgiev is tying himself in knots. On the wikipedia and in mainstream mathematics, there is only one definition of minimum. Smarandache simply did not write the quoted passage very carefully. (BTW Perez is only listed as an editor of one version of the article, which is not the primary source.) --Mathsci 08:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The secondary version referred to by Doctor Georgiev can be found here. It differs from the primary source in Smarandache's collected works in that it does not mention the computer calculations and does not number the equations; otherwise it is almost identical to the above quote from the primary source. As there, it does not introduce Doctor Georgiev's novel notation x min, contrary to his assertions. That is one of Doctor Georgiev's original contributions to number theory. It is exactly what WP is not about. --Mathsci 09:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Mathsci, it is correct that I am doctor, but unfortunately I have no slight idea who and what you are? Should I paste 100 times more the obviously WRONG passage of yours

Smarandache conjectured that x is in fact the the smallest solution xn of p_{n+1}^{x_n} - p_n^{x_n} =1 as n varies, where pn is the nth prime,

This is text modified and written by you, and I guess you have BIG PROBLEM with properly indexing in math equations. I think a PRO mathematician will NEVER use "smallest solution xn" and then use "as n varies, where pn is the nth prime". This outright ignorance of usage of math idex, and questions that you have anything to do with mathematics, except for the high school classes. Any other mathematician will see that as written the sentence of YOURS is completely messed up when it comes to the index n. And because I am KIND doctor, I will cure your ignorance - if n "varies", then xn forms a set, and therefore it is abuse of notation to call the smallest x \in x_n with the name "xn". My regards, :-))) Danko Georgiev MD 10:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In mathematics there are two possible ways of presenting ideas: through unreadable logical texts, such as the Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead, a style quite inappropriate for a wikipedia biography; or through sentences such as mine. Other wikipedia editors and administrators have already discussed and approved my way of presenting Smarandache's short report. Even you yourself described the article as "polished" on the article's history page after I had included this sentence, which all of a sudden you object to (one of your mood swings, perhaps?). So at the moment you are in a minority of one. On the other hand what you have written on PlanetMath is still just wrong, to quote Arthur Rubin. --Mathsci 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
PS I have already discussed elsewhere your persistent requests to know my real life identity. An administrator has already warned you on my fourth talk archive not to repeat these requests. I will therefore report your continued questioning on his talk page. If you want confirmation of my professional status, you will see that another user CH already verified this through a private email exchange on my first talk archive. Although you may seek some confirmation of my status, you are not entitled to know my real life identity, as you have already been told by the administrator. --Mathsci 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There is also another serious logical flaw in your objection. You have chosen one isolated sentence, taken out of context. However, this sentence has to be viewed in the light of the previous two sentences. Quoting isolated sentences like this means that you are guilty yet again of deliberate misrepresentation. Here for your benefit are all three sentences, which I suggest you copy out ONE HUNDRED TIMES before your bedtime:
The Smarandache constant x is the positive solution of 127x − 113x = 1. Its value is x \approx 0.56714813020 \ldots 
(sequence A038458 in OEIS). Smarandache conjectured that x is in fact the smallest solution xn of p_{n+1}^{x_n} - p_n^{x_n} =1 as 
n varies, where pn is the nth prime, and interpreted this as a generalisation of Andrica's conjecture.
--Mathsci 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:DoNotFeedTroll.svg --Mathsci 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mathsci, vonneumann at PlanetMath, or Mr. Rusty in forums like "ft-sucks.com" you continue posting in Wikipedia your math nonsense because there are NOT enough mathematicians here who can check your erroneous usage of index n as clearly explained above by me. I guess even Arthur Rubin will laugh at such non-sense usage of idex. Note: something can be senseful but wrong, and something can be "non-sense" because it does not follow the accepted rules of using math symbols. Your indexing with n is exactly "nonsense" because reveals you cannot manipulate with indices. Whether you work in Bekerley in the Math Department will be found soon by me, and when I understand your real name, I will not hesitate to provide your name publicly as an example of academic vandal. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 04:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dezert-Smarandache Theory (DSmT) and information fusion

I havent read all the stuff above, anyhow most of it seems to be focussed on things that are not my field, and i cannot comment it. What bothers me is the fact that the page dealing with DSmT has been merged into this one, and now nothing can be found on this theory. Well, I am actually just starting a PhD research which might use it, but from what I read so far it is an extension of the Dempster-Shafer Theory and seems to be used by various people in the information fusion community. Of course, this information comes from Smarandache's page, but he gives the references, so I tend to trust this (of course I will check all that when I get time). I think Smarandache might have a strange or excentric personality, or original theories on many things, but that doesnt mean all his works are just nonsense. And on this one he is not alone (Jean Dézert has been employed at ONERA for some time now, and I doubt they would let him do this research if they thought it was meaningless).

So, to put it in a nutshell my question is: what speaks against a DSmT-specific page? Aurelein (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the page on DSmT before it was merged. It did not appear to contain much mathematics. Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Well, actually I would have expected it to be a little more precise ;-). Anyway I have to admit there wasnt much ground to keep it, because reading it isnt much useful. Moreover, the last sentence seems to be on the verge of controversy without providing any references. I guess I'll go on with my research, and when (if) I get enough information to write something I'll come back and make a proposal!! Aurelein (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{refimprove}}

This article is too far along in sourcing for such a general tag. Please remove it and place {tl|fact}} tags on information that needs references.--BirgitteSB 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. many of the biographical details are completely unverifiable. For example the claimed invitation to the Berkeley ICM in 1986. Do you have more information than other people on this? Otherwise it might be a good idea, if you are unable to provide independent sources, to leave the tags in place. Are you familiar with WP:FRINGE? Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you not understand how {{Fact}} tags work? They are used when there are specific assertions that are unverifiable. At the end of the statement that you are concerned about you put {{fact}}. Then you wait a month an if no-one has added a reference you remove the statement. {{refimprove}} is for when there are so few references or citations that you don't know where to begin questioning things. This article is past that stage and should be on the stage where {{fact}} tags are used instead of a general banner. Removing {{refimprove}} does not mean everything is perfectly referenced, it means the referencing problems are over specific issues rather than the topic in general.--BirgitteSB 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree: most of the sources are not reliable by our definition: many are self-published by Smarandache. Some of those not self-published, are like this:
"Vasiliu F (1994). Paradoxism's Main Roots. Xiquanva."
Xiquanva is the name of the alleged publisher. Zero non-wiki google hits.
There was also a reference from a geocities site, but I removed that outright. bogdan (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
{{refimprove}} is more about additional sources than about objecting to the current sources. It reads "This article needs additional citations for verification.". Maybe {{rs}} would be more accurate for your concerns, but it is better to remove clearly unreliable stuff rather than leaving it with any tag. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard are good places to go for extra opinions if their is a dispute about what is reliable or fringe.--BirgitteSB 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Florentin Smarandache is a known problem and this BLP has been discussed quite a bit. If you think he needs to be rediscussed, do you have any extra new information? Mathsci (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Birgitte did you have a look at the article's discussion archive? There's a long history behind this article, and the fact that it's decorated with lots of caution banners is a fair and useful warning to any reader that happens onto this page.--CSTAR (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)