gill1109 wrote:
It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.
I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of
Communications in Algebra, Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of
Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe
me about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_P ... athematics.
***