I updated the the online draft of “Funcoids and Reloids” article. This is almost ready preprint (which I will be able to submit after I will have “Filters on Posets and Generalizations” published).
The most notable change in this edition is corrected an error in the proof of the theorem which characterizes monovaluedness of funcoids.
There are other little changes and corrections of small errors.
Also in this version the references to theorem numbers in “Filters on Posets and Generalizations” may be wrong.
7 thoughts on “Funcoids and Reloids updated”
I can see that you are such a very colorful character. You hate your poverty and you are desperate to get the Abel Prize — which is quite too ambitious considering that not many mathematicians have really recognized your work. If it is indeed groundbreaking, then in no time your discoveries will be appreciated. Hence, you do not really need to solicit nominations. Your End of Gospel Book. You are well-versed with the Bible than the average Christian. Good luck to your endeavors. If you get the Abel Prize, I will be your number one fan (though I am reading your works now to see what sort of groundbreaking stuff is on it.) God bless.
I have read the PDF files in your website and I can see that you MAY have some new results in there, although there IS a very big possibility that somebody has already published similar results. I said MAY because the presentation is so chaotic that nothing is comprehensible on first reading. Your weakest point is the presentation of the proofs — the way the logic flows — but the same goes with the presentation of the whole material. Have you attended graduate school? If you haven’t I suggest that you would so you can have a better grasp of preliminary material before declaring to the world that you have something groundbreaking. In addition, it will give you a clearer and broader view of maths. And please do work on your grammar. For instance, at some paper you wrote, “Considered convergence and limit for funcoids (a generalization of proximity spaces).” This isn’t even a complete sentence. There are too much symbols on your papers — please do explain the salient points in your paper using ENGLISH. At this points, I think everything you wrote are just non-sense random blabbering of someone who has some background in maths.
I was studying in a university (I have not finished it going to a programming job). Considering my bad English I was attempting to shorten sentences, what you point wrong. I don’t understand what in my PDFs is chaotic. For myself it is looking like a well written presentation. I would be grateful if you’d point what exactly is chaotic. I believe I must explain most in symbols not in English, it is just not explainable in English.
1. You need to exert some effort in providing some preliminary topics on your paper. In addition, you need to establish a concrete motivation for your “new” results. I can see that you just jumped to your results. In more mature papers, a considerable space is devoted to the paper’s motivation.
2. It is good to shorten sentences IF it improves the exposition. However, there’s no excuse in making sentence fragments.
3. I stand by my comment that you need to use the advantage of the English language. (I think I’ve read this from Terry Tao.)
… and yeah, heed the advise of your reviewer to consult more literature. How are you so far on this task?
I’m studying category theory. Afterward I’m going to study the book “Stone Spaces”. I’ve also ordered a book about ultrafilters.
But I yet so far I’m far from knowing category theory well.